Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019/10/02 - Agenda Packet
AGENDA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD -HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY - SUCCESSOR AGENCY - PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY - CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, October 2, 2019 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 REGULAR MEETINGS: 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 P.M. ORDER OF BUSINESS: CLOSED SESSION TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 4:30 P.M. REGULAR MEETINGS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS: MAYOR L. Dennis Michael CITY MANAGER John R. Gillison MAYOR PRO TEM Lynne B. Kennedy COUNCIL MEMBERS Ryan A. Hutchison Kristine D. Scott Sam Spagnolo CITY ATTORNEY James L. Markman CITY CLERK Janice C. Reynolds CITY TREASURER James C. Frost Rancho Cucamonga City Council Mission Statement • Make decisions, and be perceived as making decisions, for the general welfare of the community. • Always work to improve existing services and develop policies to meet the expected as well as anticipated needs of the community. • Work together cooperatively to respect all persons and their ideas in order to develop and maintain the trust of the community. • Reflect the community's desires and priorities by assuring that decisions accurately reflect the community's interests by fairly translating public feedback into public policy. • Enhance the quality of life of all Rancho Cucamonga residents through the continued pursuit of excellence and commitment to the City's core values and goals. • Set the vision for the community for the future. • Have a professional, objective and respectful relationship with each other in order to more effectively address the challenges of the future. Page 1 6 Aft A_ . INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC iff gA'HO &CAMONGA TO ADDRESS THE FIRE BOARD, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL The Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council encourage free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the Agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public FinanceAuthority and City Council by filling out a speaker card and submitting it to the City Clerk. The speaker cards are located on the wall at the back of the Chambers, at the front desk behind the staff table and at the City Clerk's desk. Any handouts for the Fire Board, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority or City Council should be given to the City Clerk for distribution. During "Public Communications," your name will be called to speak on any item listed or not listed on the agenda in the order in which it was received. The "Public Communications" period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other "Public Communications" which have not concluded during this one-hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. If you are present to speak on an "Advertised Public Hearing" or on an "Administrative Hearing" Item(s), your name will be alled when that item is being discussed, in the order in which it was received. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. AGENDA BACK-UP MATERIALS Staff reports and back-up materials for agenda items are available for review at the City Clerk's counter, the City's Public Libraries and on the City's website. A complete copy of the agenda is also available at the desk located behind the staff table during the Council meeting. LIVE BROADCAST Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council meetings are broadcast live on Channel 3 for those with cable television access. Meetings are rebroadcast on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. Streaming Video on Demand is available on the City's website at www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/council/videos.asp. The Fire Board, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council meet regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and Public Finance Authority. Copies of the agendas and minutes can be found @ www.cityofrc.us If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Please silence all cell phones and devices while the meeting is in session. Page 2 OCTOBER 2, 2019 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CLOSED SESSION - 4:30 P.M. Roll Call: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott, Spagnolo A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION - Tapia Conference Room D.1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 0229- 012-97-0000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND JACOB LEBLANC, PANATTONI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC.; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS - CITY D.2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION, INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (1 CASE). D.3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND JERSEY BOULEVARD IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0209- 131-01; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE PROPERTY OWNER; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. — CITY DA. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(1); NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. DR LANDMARK, INC.; POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 5 INCLUSIVE, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVDS 1904713 - CITY D.5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8783 ETIWANDA AVENUE/12949 WHITTRAM AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229-162-14; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND KULAR TRUCK LINE, INC., OWNER; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. — CITY D.6. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8810 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER Page 3 IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229- 131-07; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND WILLIAM A. JONES AND JOAN F. JONES, TRUSTEES OF THE JONES FAMILY TRUST OF 2010, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 2/3 INTEREST AND BONNIE CATHRYN STRACK & WILLIAM R. RUSHING, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE STRACK FAMILY TRUST, DATED MARCH 13, 2014, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST, OWNERS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS — CITY D.7. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8821 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229- 162-15; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND WILLIAM A. JONES AND JOAN F. JONES, TRUSTEES OF THE JONES FAMILY TRUST OF 2010, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST, JAMES ROY GARNESS AND RHONDA ANN GARNESS, TRUSTEES OF THE GARNESS FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 28, 2012, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST, AND JOHN S. CLEMONS AND PATRICIA R. CLEMONS, TRUSTEES OF THE CLEMONS REVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 4, 2014, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST, OWNERS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS — CITY D.8. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8768 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 0229- 131-15, 16 & 26; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND DP ETIWANDA, LLC, OWNER; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS - CITY E. RECESS CLOSED SESSION TO RECESS TO THE REGULAR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY, AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY, AND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE CALLED TO ORDER. IT IS THE INTENT TO CONCLUDE THE MEETINGS BY 10:00 P.M., UNLESS EXTENDED BY CONCURRENCE OF THE FIRE BOARD, AGENCIES, AUTHORITY BOARD AND COUNCIL. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Hutchison, Scott and Spagnolo A. ANNOUNCEMENT/ PRESENTATIONS A.1. Presentation of a Proclamation to Cucamonga Valley Water District Declaring the Week of October 5th through October 13th 2019, as "Water Professionals Week". A.2. Recognition of Chaffey College student, Ainaz Sharabyani, for her Internship with West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District and her Accepted Sponsorship to Participate in This Year's Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California (MVCAC) Meeting. A.3. Presentation of a Proclamation to the "Making Strides Against Breast Cancer Inland Empire" Group, Declaring the Month of October 2019 as "Breast Cancer Awareness Month". A.4. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Month of October 2019 as "National Community Planning Month". A.5. Announcement of Rancho Cucamonga Fire District's Open House Event on October 12, 2019. Page 4 B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority Board, and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority Board, and City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. CONSENT CALENDARS: The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Fire Board/Housing Successor Agency/Successor Agency/Authority Board/Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Fire Board/Housing Successor Agency/Successor Agency/Authority Board/Council Member for discussion. C. CONSENT CALENDAR - FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT C.1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular and Special Meetings of September 18, 2019. C.2. Consideration to Approve Bi -Weekly Payroll in the Amount of $664,903.06 and Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Amount of $615,502.12 Dated September 10, 2019 Through September 23, 2019 and Electronic Debit Register for the Month of August in the Amount of $691,875.81. C.3. Consideration to Accept the Bid Submitted by Leighton Consulting, Inc., of Rancho Cucamonga, California, and Award and Authorize the Execution of a Professional Services Agreement, in the Amount of $283,400, for Third Party Inspection Services for the Public Safety Facility Construction Project. CA. Consideration to Award a Contract to Autolift Services, Inc. for the Maintenance of the Fire District's Fleet Shop Equipment in an Amount Not to Exceed $7,500 in Fiscal Year 2019/2020. D. CONSENT CALENDAR - HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY D.1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of September 18, 2019. E. CONSENT CALENDAR - SUCCESSOR AGENCY E.1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of September 18, 2019. F. CONSENT CALENDAR - PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY F.1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of September 18, 2019. G. CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL G.1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular and Special Meetings of September 18, 2019. G.2. Consideration to Approve Bi -Weekly Payroll in the Amount of $1,177,324.14 and Weekly Check Registers (No Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Amount of Page 5 $2,150,569.00 Dated September 10, 2019 Through September 23, 2019 and Electronic Debit Register for the Month of August in the Amount of $5,473,296.93. G.3. Consideration to Accept as Complete, File the Notice of Completion and Authorize Release of Retention and Bonds, and Authorize an Appropriation in the Amount of $39,300 from the Beautification (Fund 110) for the Archibald Avenue Community Trail Extension and Street Widening Project. GA. Approval of a Lease Amendment Between Los Angeles SMSA Limited Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless) and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the Existing Wireless Communication Facility located at Red Hill Park, 7484 Vineyard Avenue. G.S. Consideration to Accept as Complete, File the Notice of Completion and Authorize Release of Retention and Bonds for the Fiscal Year 2018/19 Local Overlay Pavement Rehabilitation Project. G.6. Consideration to Approve the Multi -Use Community Trail Common Use Agreement Amendment No. 4 for the City's Use of a Portion of the San Bernardino County Flood Control (District) Deer Creek Channel and Cucamonga Creek Channel related to the Construction of the Southwest Cucamonga Class I Bike Trail Project. G.7. Consideration to Approve the Final Map of Tract No. 20240 (Case No. SUBTT20240), Located South of 6th Street Between Haven Avenue and Milliken Avenue, Submitted by Tri -Pointe Homes Inc. G.B. Consideration to Approve an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security for Street Improvements, and to Order Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Light Maintenance Districts No's. 1 and 6 Related to the Development of a Storage Facility at 10013 8th Street on the South Side of 8th Street Between Hermosa Avenue and Archibald Avenue (Case No. DRC2017-00448) Submitted by Biane Family Properties, LLC. RESOLUTION NO. 19-079 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL) FOR PROJECT CASE NO. DRC2017-00448 RESOLUTION NO. 19-080 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) FOR PROJECT CASE NO. DRC2017-00448 RESOLUTION NO. 19-081 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL) FOR PROJECT CASE NO. DRC2017-00448 G.9. Consideration to Approve Parcel Map 19851, and Order the Annexation into Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Light Maintenance Districts No's. 1 and 6, Related to Subdivision of an Existing Office Building for Condominium Purposes Located at 8300 Utica Avenue Between Civic Center Drive and Aspen Avenue (Case No. SUBTPM19851). RESOLUTION NO. 19-087 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL) FOR SUBTPM 19851 RESOLUTION NO. 19-088 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) FOR SUBTPM 19851 RESOLUTION NO. 19-089 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL) FOR SUBTPM 19851 G.10. Consideration to Award the Purchase of Fertilizer and Pesticides Supplies on an As Needed Basis from Agri -Turf Distributing, Target Specialty Products, and SiteOne Landscape Supply, in Page 6 an Amount Not to Exceed $140,000 for Fiscal Year 2019/2020. G.11. Consideration to Award the Purchase of Irrigation Parts and Supplies on an As Needed Basis from Imperial Sprinkler Supply, SiteOne Landscape Supply, and Smith Pipe & Supply Inc., in Accordance with Request for Bids (RFB) #19/20-105 in an Amount Not to Exceed $120,000 for Fiscal Year 2019/2020. G.12. Consideration to Award a Contract to Autolift Services, Inc. for the Maintenance of the City's Fleet Shop Equipment in an Amount Not to Exceed $12,000 for Fiscal Year 2019/2020. G.13. Consideration to Approve a Month to Month Extension of Contract CO 08-162 with United Pacific Services for Citywide Tree Maintenance Services in an Amount Not to Exceed $325,000. G.14. Consideration of Resolution 19-086 Approving the Application for Specified Grant Funds for the Development of a Dog Park at Central Park. RESOLUTION NO.19-086 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIFIED GRANT FUNDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DOG PARK AT CENTRAL PARK H. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have been introduced for first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non -controversial. The City Council will act upon them at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion by a Council Member. I. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM 1.1. Consideration of Resolution No. 19-085 Certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Central Park Amphitheater Project. RESOLUTION NO. 19-085 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CENTRAL PARK AMPHITHEATER PROJECT AND MAKING THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA J. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - CITY COUNCIL/FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT J.1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00749, ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752, ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00751, ANNEXATION DRC2015-00732, AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459. The project will consider the following: A proposal to amend the 2010 General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga by deleting, adding, and/or revising text, graphics, and exhibits and changing land use designations of certain parcels in order to integrate the proposed Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan's (EHNCP) Specific Plan (hereafter the "Specific Plan") into the General Plan. This includes, among other things, changing the land use designations of multiple parcels within the City that have a combined area of approximately 305 acres and multiple parcels within the City's Sphere of Influence that have a combined area of 4,393 acres in a project area extending from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (hereafter the "Project Area"), and which are proposed to be annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to land use designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses. A proposal to amend the Etiwanda North Specific Plan by deleting, adding, and/or revising text, graphics, and exhibits within the specific plan in order to remove those parcels proposed to be included in the proposed EHNCP Specific Plan and make other conforming amendments. A proposal to adopt the proposed EHNCP Specific Plan that will apply to multiple parcels within the Project Area to allow conservation, residential, commercial, and civic uses for a project area extending from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly Page 7 City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI), in conjunction with the proposed Specific Plan. A proposal to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Rancho Cucamonga by deleting, adding, and/or revising text and graphics within the Zoning Map, and change the zoning/land use designations in the Project Area to zoning/land use designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the Specific Plan (prezoning the Project Area within the SOI). A proposal to annex multiple parcels within the City's Sphere of Influence that have a combined area of 4,088 acres for a project area extending from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence, in conjunction with the proposed Specific Plan. A proposal to amend the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to add a description of the proposed Specific Plan and the Allowed Use table for the Specific Plan. This proposal will apply to the Project Area in order to permit zoning/land use designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the proposed Specific Plan. The Project Area extends from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence - APN's: 0201-033-32, -35 through -40, -43, and -44, 0201-191-27 and -28, 0201- 272-14 through -18, 0201-281-02, -04 through -10, -13, -14, -16 through -22, 0225-091-03, 05, and -06, 225-092-01, 0225-101-32, 0225-152-06 through -11, and -17, 0225-161-42, 0226-061- 03, -07, -16, -20, -26, -27, -28, -33, -47, -56, -57, -61 through -71, -73 through -78, 0226-082-08, -19, -20, -21, and -30, 1074-351-01, -04, -05, and -06, 1087-051-02 through -14, -16 through -27, 1087-061-01 through -21, and 1087-071-01 through -14, and -16 through -21. ORDINANCE NO. 957 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, DRC2015-00751, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM RESOLUTION NO. 19-083 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00749 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF ORDINANCE NO. 958 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF ORDINANCE NO. 959 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND PREZONING DRC2015-00752 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF Page 8 ORDINANCE NO. 960 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015- 00750 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, DRC2015-00751, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF RESOLUTION NO. 19-084 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY WITHIN UNINCORPORATED SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND DETACH SAID TERRITORY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN K. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS L. COUNCIL BUSINESS L.1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) L.2. INTER -AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) M. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING N. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least Seventy -Two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website. Page 9 Page 10 DATE: TO: FROM: INITIATED BY: SUBJECT: October 2, 2019 Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager Linda A. Troyan, City Clerk Services Director CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2019. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Meeting Minutes of Regular and Special Meetings of September 4, 2019. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - September 18, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment 2 - September 18, 2019 Special Meeting Minutes Attachment 3 - September 18, 2019 Special Meeting Minutes Page 11 September 18, 2019 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CLOSED SESSION, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, September 18, 2019 in the Tapia Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Sam Spagnolo, and Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James L. Markman, City Attorney; Elisa Cox, Deputy City Manager/Cultural & Civic Services; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services; Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development. No public communications were made. No discussion or actions were taken. D.1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION, INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (3 CASES). D.2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND JERSEY BOULEVARD IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0209- 131-01; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC., THE PROPERTY OWNER; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS OF PAYMENT. — CITY D.3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(1); NAME OF CASE: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. DR LANDMARK, INC.; POWER MEDIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; HOFER PROPERTIES, LLC; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 5 INCLUSIVE, SBSC CASE NO.: CIVDS 1904713 - CITY D.4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8783 ETIWANDA AVENUE/12949 WHITTRAM AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229-162-14; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND KULAR TRUCK LINE, INC., OWNER; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. — CITY D.S. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8810 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229-131-07; September 18, 20191 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 6 Page 12 NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND WILLIAM A. JONES AND JOAN F. JONES, TRUSTEESOFTHE JONES FAMILY TRUST OF 2010, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 2/3 INTEREST AND BONNIE CATHRYN STRACK&WILLIAM R. RUSHING, AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE STRACK FAMILY TRUST, DATED MARCH 13, 2014, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST, OWNERS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS — CITY D.6.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8821 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 0229-162-15; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND WILLIAM A. JONES AND JOAN F. JONES, TRUSTEES OF THE JONES FAMILY TRUST OF 2010, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST, JAMES ROY GARNESS AND RHONDA ANN GARNESS, TRUSTEES OF THE GARNESS FAMILY TRUST DATED JUNE 28, 2012, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST, AND JOHN S. CLEMONS AND PATRICIA R. CLEMONS, TRUSTEES OF THE CLEMONS REVOCABLE TRUST DATED DECEMBER 4, 2014, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 1/3 INTEREST, OWNERS; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS —CITY D.7.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8768 ETIWANDA AVENUE, FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 0229- 131-15, 16 & 26; NEGOTIATING PARTIES, JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND DP ETIWANDA, LLC, OWNER; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS -CITY The closed session recessed at 6:25 p.m. The regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were held on September 18, 2019 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Ryan Hutchison, Kristine Scott, Sam Spagnolo, and Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James L. Markman, City Attorney, and Linda A. Troyan, City Clerk Services Director. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy led the Pledge of Allegiance. A.1. Presentation on RC Sports Center First Year of Operations. Jenny Hanlon, Community Services Supervisor and Ashley Wysocki, Community Services Superintendent, provided a PowerPoint Presentation highlighting the success of the First Year of Operations for the RC Sports Center and shared a marketing video for the RC Sports Center. A.2. Wallet Hub 2019: Best Place to Raise aFamily. Ashley Wysocki, Community Services Superintendent and Nicole Dalton, Community Affairs Coordinator provided a presentation on survey results from Wallet Hub 2019: Best Place to Raise a Family, noting that the City of Rancho Cucamonga ranked number 41 out of 182 U.S. Cities and number 9 in the State of California. September 18, 20191 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 2 of 6 Page 13 David Palmer, shared his experience with the educational system and challenges he encountered with the Central Elementary School District due to his daughter's disability and asked for the City's help in working with the School District's to perform at a higher standard. Rita Loof, County Board of Education Board Member, spoke on the importance of the City's partnership with the School Districts, expressed concern with the behavior from School Districts and lawyers towards families with children with disabilities and gave examples of various lawsuits, and asked for the City's partnership in addressing the issues presented. Janet Walton, shared a prayer. Frank Atry, spoke about religion, comments he made at the previous Council Meeting regarding the repair of a water leak; and the Sheriff's Department hours of operation. Jim Frost, spoke on the North Etiwanda Conservation Plan and the General Plan; and submitted correspondence requesting the City to address various items of concern. Jessica Martinez, spoke about a lawsuit her children with special needs have with the Alta Loma School District, a Public Records Request she submitted to the City requesting a copy of the business license for the school district's law firm; and sought assistance from the City. Barbara Ortiz, shared her experience and the challenges she has encountered in working with the Alta Loma School District and her children with special needs. Mayor Michael shared that the City Manager meets regularly with School District Superintendents and will report concerns expressed by residents at tonight's meeting. C.1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meetings of September 4, 2019. C2. Consideration to Approve Bi -Weekly Payroll in the Amount of $640,988.36 and Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Amount of $86,355.63 Dated August 27, 2019 Through September 09, 2019 and Electronic Debit Register forthe Month of July 2019 in the Amount of $2,962,659.41. C.3. Consideration to Approve Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Amount of $485.62 Dated August 27, 2019 Through September 09, 2019. C.4. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedule as of August 31, 2019. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Spagnolo, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, to approve Consent Calendar Items C1 through C4. Motion carried, 5-0, with Council Member Scott abstaining from item C3, due to her employment with Southern California Gas Company. D.1. Consideration of Regular Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2019. September 18, 20191 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 3 of 6 Page 14 MOTION: Moved by Vice -Chair Kennedy, seconded by Agency Member Scott, to approve Consent Calendar Item D1. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E.1. Consideration of Regular Meeting Minutes of September 4,2019. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Scott, seconded by Agency Member Hutchison, to approve Consent Calendar Item E1. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F.1. Consideration of Regular Meeting Minutes of September 4, 2019. MOTION: Moved by Agency Member Spagnolo, seconded by Agency Member Hutchison, to approve Consent Calendar Item F1. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. G.1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meetings of September 4, 2019. G.2. Consideration to Approve Bi -Weekly Payroll in the Amount of $1,219,684.28 and Weekly Check Registers (Excluding Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company) in the Amount of $5,578,892.25 Dated August 27, 2019 Through September 09, 2019 and Electronic Debit Register for the Month of July 2019 in the Amount of $3,916,203.20. G.3. Consideration to Approve Weekly Check Registers for Checks Issued to Southern California Gas Company in the Amount of $5,915.37 Dated August 27, 2019 Through September 09, 2019. GA. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedule as of August 31, 2019. G.S. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Measure "I" Five Year Capital Project Needs Analysis Covering Fiscal Years 2020/2025. RESOLUTION NO. 19-077 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MEASURE "I" FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROJECT NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2020/2021 THROUGH 2024/2025 G.6. Consideration of the Attestation of Veracity for the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility 2018 Power Source Disclosure Annual Report and Power ContentLabel. RESOLUTION NO. 19-078 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE ATTESTATION OF VERACITY FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL UTILITY 2018 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT AND POWER CONTENT LABEL G.7. Consideration to Accept as Complete, File the Notice of Completion and Authorize Release of Retention and Bonds for the Amethyst Avenue Street Improvements Project. G.B. Consideration to Award the Purchase of Asphalt Materials on an As Needed Basis from Vulcan Materials Company in Accordance with Request for Bids (RFB) #19/20-102 in an Amount Not to Exceed $200,000 for Fiscal Year 2019/2020. G.9. Consideration to Award the Purchase of Electrical Parts and Materials on an As Needed Basis from Consolidated Electrical Distributors in Accordance with Request for Bids (RFB) #19/20-106 in an Amount Not to Exceed $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2019/2020. September 18, 20191 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 4 of 6 Page 15 MOTION: Moved by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, seconded by Council Member Spagnolo, to approve Consent Calendar Items G1 through G9. Motion carried, 5-0, with Council Member Scott abstaining from item G3, due to her employment with Southern California Gas Company. None. None. Mayor Michael announced Items J1 and J2 will be heard concurrently since they are related. J.1. Public Hearing for the Approval of the Draft Citizen Participation Plan in Connection with the City's Federal CDBG Program. J.2. Draft Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for the 2018-2019 Program Year. City Manager Gillison introduced Hannah MacKenzie, Management Aide, who gave the staff report for item J1 and J2. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing. There were no public communications made. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Spagnolo, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy, to approve staff's recommendation, to approve the Draft Citizen Participation Plan and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. September 18, 20191 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 5 of 6 Page 16 None. L.1. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS None. L.2. INTER -AGENCY UPDATES None. None. Mayor Michael adjourned the meeting at 7:51 p.m. Approved: Respectfully submitted, Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director September 18, 20191 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Finance Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 6 of 6 Page 17 September 18, 2019 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a special meeting on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, in the Tri -Communities Conference Room located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. Present were Council Members Ryan Hutchison, Sam Spagnolo, Kristine Scott, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager and Linda A. Troyan, City Clerk Services Director. Council Member Hutchison led the Pledge of Allegiance. No public communications were made. C1. Interview and Selection of Candidates to Fill Two Upcoming Vacancies on the Historic Preservation and Planning Commission. City Manager Gillison recapped the Mayor nominates the appointment with the approval of the City Council. He also announced late last week Planning Commissioner Lou Munoz submitted his letter of resignation from the Commission effective October 31, 2019. Council may also wish to appoint a Commissioner to fill the unscheduled vacancy created with the resignation of Commissioner Munoz or direct applications be solicited and interviews conducted. Commissioner Munoz's term expires 12/31/2021. Council confirmed interview questions, and the following candidates were provided 20 minutes to respond to questions. Bonnie Thompson David Powers Mark Eitapence Council took a 10 -minute break. Interviews continued. Adrianna Bluhm Anthony Morales Council recessed at 11:30 pm for lunch. The meeting reconvened at 12:30 pm. All Members of the City Council and Mayor Michael were present. September 18, 2019 1 City Council Special Meeting Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 2 Page 18 Natalie Navarrette Tarek Ahmed - Phone Interview Thomas Reed Council took a 10 -minute break. Interviews continued. Ryan Lee Diane Williams Bryan Dopp After the conclusion of the interviews, City Council discussion ensued. Mayor Michael nominated Bryan Dopp and Diane Williams to fill the two 4 -year terms on the Planning Commission. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Spagnolo, seconded by Council Member Scott, to appoint Diane Williams and reappoint Bryan Dopp to the Planning Commission for 4 -year terms (term ending December 31, 2023). Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Mayor Michael nominated Tony Morales to fill the unscheduled vacancy (2 years) due to resignation of Commissioner Lou Munoz. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Spagnolo, seconded by Council Member Ryan, to appoint Tony Morales to the Planning Commission to fill the unscheduled vacancy (2 year term) term ending 12/31/2021. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Manager Gillison and Assistant City Attorney to discuss with Tony Morales any potential conflicts of interests in being a Planning Commissioner. Commissioners are required by the State of California to file the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Form 700, Conflict of Interest Statement. Mayor Michael proposed Adrianna Bluhm and Natalie Navarrette be placed on a Planning Commissioner eligibility list in said order. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Hutchison, seconded by Council Member Spagnolo, to place Adrianna Bluhm and Natalie Navarrette on a Planning Commissioner eligibility list in said order. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. Mayor Michael adjourned the meeting at 3:27 p.m. Approved: Respectfully submitted, Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director September 18, 2019 1 City Council Special Meeting Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 2 of 2 Page 19 September 18, 2019 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL AND FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council/Fire Board held a special meeting on Wednesday, September 18, 2019, in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor L. Dennis Michael called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Present were Council Members/Board Members Ryan Hutchison, Sam Spagnolo, Kristine Scott, Mayor Pro Tem/Vice-President Lynne Kennedy and Mayor/President L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; Jim Markman, City Attorney; and Linda A. Troyan, City Clerk Services Director. Council Member Spagnolo led the Pledge of Allegiance. No public communications were made. C.1. Recognition of Little League and RC Ace Softball All-Star Teams. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council along with Rick Fontana, Little League District 71 Representative, and Jenny Hanlon, Community Services Supervisor, recognized and presented Certificates of Recognition to Alta Loma Little League 9/10 Baseball All Star — District 71 Champions; Citrus Little League 10/11 Baseball All Stars — Section 8 Champions; Deer Canyon Little League Junior Baseball All Stars; and West Region Home Run Derby Champion Brady Ebel. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council along with Gilbert Palacios, Rancho Cucamonga Ace Softball Representative, recognized and presented Certificates of Recognition to Rancho Cucamonga ACE Softball — Division: 8U. Mayor Michael thanked the coaches, parents and volunteers for their commitment and support. Mayor Michael adjourned the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Approved: Respectfully submitted, Linda A. Troyan, MMC City Clerk Services Director September 18, 2019 1 City Council Fire Protection District Special Meeting Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 1 Page 20 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Tamara Layne, Finance Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE BI -WEEKLY PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $664,903.06 AND WEEKLY CHECK REGISTERS (NO CHECKS ISSUED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY) IN THE AMOUNT OF $615,502.12 DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 AND ELECTRONIC DEBIT REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST IN THE AMOUNT OF $691,875.81. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Fire Board approve payment of demands as presented. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 Check Register Attachment 1 Electronic Check Register Page 21 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00009473 09/11/2019 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 929.44 0.00 929.44 AP 00009474 09/11/2019 CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMONGA 14,555.00 0.00 14,555.00 AP 00009475 09/11/2019 EDF TRADING NORTH AMERICA LLC 73,150.00 0.00 73,150.00 AP 00009476 09/11/2019 EXELON GENERATION CO LLC 330,117.55 0.00 330,117.55 AP 00009477 09/11/2019 HD PRODUCTIONS INC 18,750.00 0.00 18,750.00 AP 00009478 09/11/2019 MOFFATT & NICHOL 189,290.36 0.00 189,290.36 AP 00009479 09/11/2019 RCCEA 1,758.50 0.00 1,758.50 AP 00009480 09/11/2019 RCPFA 11,627.45 0.00 11,627.45 AP 00009481 09/11/2019 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 6,909.00 0.00 6,909.00 AP 00009482 09/11/2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 232.00 0.00 232.00 AP 00009483 09/11/2019 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 2,701.25 0.00 2,701.25 AP 00009484 09/11/2019 U S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 9,065.25 0.00 9,065.25 AP 00009485 09/11/2019 WESTERN RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION INFO 107.30 0.00 107.30 AP 00009486 09/12/2019 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 236.25 0.00 236.25 AP 00009487 09/12/2019 EMCOR SERVICES 5,965.00 3,020.00 8,985.00 *** AP 00009488 09/12/2019 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 1,017.42 0.00 1,017.42 AP 00009489 09/12/2019 GRANICUS INC 1,702.62 0.00 1,702.62 AP 00009490 09/12/2019 HOSE MAN INC 58.60 0.00 58.60 AP 00009491 09/12/2019 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2,891.94 0.00 2,891.94 AP 00009492 09/12/2019 LN CURTIS AND SONS 0.00 1,537.05 1,537.05 AP 00009493 09/12/2019 MINUTEMAN PRESS 172.40 0.00 172.40 AP 00009494 09/12/2019 OFFICE DEPOT 2,635.83 0.00 2,635.83 AP 00009495 09/12/2019 PIONEER MANUFACTURING 4,031.88 0.00 4,031.88 AP 00009496 09/12/2019 PSA PRINT GROUP 49.57 0.00 49.57 AP 00009497 09/12/2019 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 2,066.01 0.00 2,066.01 AP 00009498 09/12/2019 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 5,270.49 0.00 5,270.49 AP 00009499 09/12/2019 VISTA PAINT 557.74 0.00 557.74 AP 00009500 09/18/2019 INDERWEISCHE, MATT 891.00 0.00 891.00 AP 00009501 09/18/2019 RE ASTORIA 2 LLC 124,529.49 0.00 124,529.49 AP 00009502 09/18/2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 42.00 0.00 42.00 AP 00009503 09/19/2019 ABC LOCKSMITHS 114.64 0.00 114.64 AP 00009504 09/19/2019 AIRGAS USA LLC 0.00 1,205.67 1,205.67 AP 00009505 09/19/2019 BIBLIOTHECA LLC 9,996.33 0.00 9,996.33 AP 00009506 09/19/2019 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 617.29 0.00 617.29 AP 00009507 09/19/2019 CARROT -TOP INDUSTRIES 853.59 0.00 853.59 AP 00009508 09/19/2019 CRAFCOINC 306.93 0.00 306.93 AP 00009509 09/19/2019 DUMBELL MAN FITNESS EQUIPMENT, THE 231.59 0.00 231.59 AP 00009510 09/19/2019 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 993.67 0.00 993.67 AP 00009511 09/19/2019 KME FIRE APPARATUS 0.00 1,744.67 1,744.67 AP 00009512 09/19/2019 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 0.00 534.33 534.33 AP 00009513 09/19/2019 LN CURTIS AND SONS 0.00 473.38 473.38 AP 00009514 09/19/2019 MCFADDEN DALE HARDWARE 6.84 0.00 6.84 AP 00009515 09/19/2019 MINUTEMAN PRESS 0.00 60.65 60.65 AP 00009516 09/19/2019 OFFICE DEPOT 1,604.26 25.20 1,629.46 *** AP 00009517 09/19/2019 PSA PRINT GROUP 88.36 0.00 88.36 AP 00009518 09/19/2019 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 5,349.00 0.00 5,349.00 AP 00009519 09/19/2019 VISTA PAINT 1,542.18 0.00 1,542.18 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 1 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 22 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00009520 09/23/2019 AHUMADA, ALEXANDER R 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009521 09/23/2019 ALMAND, LLOYD 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009522 09/23/2019 BANTAU, VICTORIA 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009523 09/23/2019 BAZAL, SUSAN 0.00 677.47 677.47 AP 00009524 09/23/2019 BELL, MICHAEL L. 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009525 09/23/2019 BERRY, DAVID 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009526 09/23/2019 BROCK, ROBIN 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009527 09/23/2019 CAMPBELL, GERALD 0.00 806.38 806.38 AP 00009528 09/23/2019 CAMPBELL, STEVEN 0.00 1,608.88 1,608.88 AP 00009529 09/23/2019 CARNES, KENNETH 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009530 09/23/2019 CLABBY, RICHARD 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009531 09/23/2019 CLOUGHESY, DONALD R 0.00 2,057.83 2,057.83 AP 00009532 09/23/2019 CORCORAN, ROBERT ANTHONY 0.00 707.78 707.78 AP 00009533 09/23/2019 COSTELLO, DENNIS M 0.00 2,057.83 2,057.83 AP 00009534 09/23/2019 COX, KARL 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009535 09/23/2019 CRANE, RALPH 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009536 09/23/2019 CROSSLAND, WILBUR 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009537 09/23/2019 DAGUE, JAMES 0.00 1,072.30 1,072.30 AP 00009538 09/23/2019 DE ANTONIO, SUSAN 0.00 707.78 707.78 AP 00009539 09/23/2019 DEANS, JACKIE 0.00 258.83 258.83 AP 00009540 09/23/2019 DOMINICK, SAMUEL A. 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009541 09/23/2019 EAGLESON, MICHAEL 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009542 09/23/2019 EGGERS, BOB 0.00 2,057.83 2,057.83 AP 00009543 09/23/2019 FRITCHEY, JOHN D. 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009544 09/23/2019 HEYDE, DONALD 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009545 09/23/2019 INTERLICCHIA, ROSALYN 0.00 258.83 258.83 AP 00009546 09/23/2019 JERKINS, PATRICK 0.00 2,944.92 2,944.92 AP 00009547 09/23/2019 KILMER, STEPHEN 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009548 09/23/2019 LANE, WILLIAM 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009549 09/23/2019 LARKIN, DAVID W 0.00 1,472.46 1,472.46 AP 00009550 09/23/2019 LEE, ALLAN J. 0.00 1,306.22 1,306.22 AP 00009551 09/23/2019 LENZE, PAUL E 0.00 1,203.50 1,203.50 AP 00009552 09/23/2019 LONCAR, PHILIP 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009553 09/23/2019 LONGO, JOE 0.00 187.74 187.74 AP 00009554 09/23/2019 LUTTRULL, DARRELL 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009555 09/23/2019 MACKALL, BEVERLY 0.00 187.74 187.74 AP 00009556 09/23/2019 MAYFIELD, RON 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009557 09/23/2019 MCKEE, JOHN 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009558 09/23/2019 MCNEIL, KENNETH 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009559 09/23/2019 MICHAEL, L. DENNIS 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009560 09/23/2019 MORGAN, BYRON 0.00 1,731.23 1,731.23 AP 00009561 09/23/2019 MYSKOW, DENNIS 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009562 09/23/2019 NAUMAN, MICHAEL 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009563 09/23/2019 NEE, RON 0.00 677.47 677.47 AP 00009564 09/23/2019 NELSON, MARY JANE 0.00 187.74 187.74 AP 00009565 09/23/2019 O'BRIEN, TOM 0.00 1,221.18 1,221.18 AP 00009566 09/23/2019 PLOUNG, MICHAEL J 0.00 584.82 584.82 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 2 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 23 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00009567 09/23/2019 POST, MICHAEL R 0.00 1,503.07 1,503.07 AP 00009568 09/23/2019 PROULX, PATRICK 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009569 09/23/2019 REDMOND, MIKE 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009570 09/23/2019 ROEDER, JEFF 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009571 09/23/2019 SALISBURY, THOMAS 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009572 09/23/2019 SMITH, RONALD 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009573 09/23/2019 SORENSEN, SCOTT D 0.00 1,979.02 1,979.02 AP 00009574 09/23/2019 SPAGNOLO, SAM 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009575 09/23/2019 SPAIN, WILLIAM 0.00 806.38 806.38 AP 00009576 09/23/2019 SULLIVAN, JAMES 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009577 09/23/2019 TAYLOR, STEVE 0.00 1,605.35 1,605.35 AP 00009578 09/23/2019 TULEY, TERRY 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009579 09/23/2019 VANDERKALLEN, FRANCIS 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009580 09/23/2019 VARNEY, ANTHONY 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009581 09/23/2019 WALTON, KEVIN 0.00 1,472.46 1,472.46 AP 00009582 09/23/2019 YOWELL, TIMOTHY A 0.00 1,072.30 1,072.30 AP 00403967 09/11/2019 ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,097.10 0.00 1,097.10 AP 00403968 09/11/2019 ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL INC 3,183.08 0.00 3,183.08 AP 00403969 09/11/2019 ACEY DECY EQUIPMENT INC. 4,719.71 0.00 4,719.71 AP 00403970 09/11/2019 ACTION AWARDS INC 3,000.13 0.00 3,000.13 AP 00403971 09/11/2019 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 24.58 0.00 24.58 AP 00403972 09/11/2019 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 4,630.64 0.00 4,630.64 AP 00403973 09/11/2019 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 4,630.64 0.00 4,630.64 AP 00403974 09/11/2019 AGUAYO, LILIANA 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00403975 09/11/2019 ALL WELDING 65.00 0.00 65.00 AP 00403976 09/11/2019 ALPHAGRAPHICS 48.48 0.00 48.48 AP 00403977 09/11/2019 ALTA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK 397.59 0.00 397.59 AP 00403978 09/11/2019 AQUABIO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1,450.00 0.00 1,450.00 AP 00403979 09/11/2019 ARCHIBALD PET HOSPITAL 125.00 0.00 125.00 AP 00403980 09/11/2019 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 9,218.00 0.00 9,218.00 AP 00403981 09/11/2019 AT&T MOBILITY 0.00 86.46 86.46 AP 00403982 09/11/2019 BABA, YUJI 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00403983 09/11/2019 BAKER & TAYLOR LLC 273.25 0.00 273.25 AP 00403984 09/11/2019 BAUER COMPRESSORS 0.00 4,385.00 4,385.00 AP 00403985 09/11/2019 BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC 0.00 354.91 354.91 AP 00403986 09/11/2019 BIRD, NICHOLAS 210.00 0.00 210.00 AP 00403987 09/11/2019 BOB'S MUFFLER SHOP 723.25 0.00 723.25 AP 00403988 09/11/2019 BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE P.C. 301.80 0.00 301.80 AP 00403989 09/11/2019 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC. 4,848.33 0.00 4,848.33 AP 00403990 09/11/2019 BURGESON'S HEATING AND AIR 209.60 0.00 209.60 AP 00403991 09/11/2019 C V W D 690.75 386.70 1,077.45 *** AP 00403992 09/11/2019 C V W D 1,060.22 0.00 1,060.22 AP 00403997 09/11/2019 C V W D 112,516.15 530.23 113,046.38 *** AP 00403998 09/11/2019 CA LLC - DBA ALTA LAGUNA MHP 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00403999 09/11/2019 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE PROGRAM 152.48 0.00 152.48 AP 00404000 09/11/2019 CAL -OSHA REPORTER 427.00 0.00 427.00 AP 00404001 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS 3,315.00 0.00 3,315.00 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 3 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 24 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Citv Fire Amount AP 00404002 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC 0.00 400.00 400.00 AP 00404003 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 314.11 0.00 314.11 AP 00404004 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 8.44 0.00 8.44 AP 00404005 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 7.22 0.00 7.22 AP 00404006 09/11/2019 CASA VOLANTE MOBILE HOME PARK 700.00 0.00 700.00 AP 00404007 09/11/2019 CASTANEDA, ABEL GUSTAVO 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404008 09/11/2019 CASTILLO, JESSIE 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404009 09/11/2019 CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC 0.00 1,603.90 1,603.90 AP 00404010 09/11/2019 CHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 AP 00404011 09/11/2019 CHAPARRAL HEIGHTS MOBILE HOME PARK 474.35 0.00 474.35 AP 00404012 09/11/2019 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 3,152.49 472.89 3,625.38 *** AP 00404013 09/11/2019 CONCEPT POWDER COATING 190.00 0.00 190.00 AP 00404014 09/11/2019 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS LLC 257.50 0.00 257.50 AP 00404015 09/11/2019 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN LLC 540.00 0.00 540.00 AP 00404016 09/11/2019 D & K CONCRETE COMPANY 1,902.02 1,185.25 3,087.27 *** AP 00404017 09/11/2019 DAISY 496.15 0.00 496.15 AP 00404018 09/11/2019 DIRECTV 298.99 0.00 298.99 AP 00404019 09/11/2019 DIRECTV 66.99 0.00 66.99 AP 00404020 09/11/2019 E -Z -GO 459.18 0.00 459.18 AP 00404021 09/11/2019 EDWARD PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS 150.00 0.00 150.00 AP 00404022 09/11/2019 EIGHTH AVENUE ENTERPRISE LLC 488.32 0.00 488.32 AP 00404023 09/11/2019 ELITE DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC 1,122.46 0.00 1,122.46 AP 00404024 09/11/2019 EP CONTAINER CORPORATION 3,083.70 0.00 3,083.70 AP 00404025 09/11/2019 EXPERIAN 52.00 0.00 52.00 AP 00404026 09/11/2019 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 0.00 2,266.55 2,266.55 AP 00404027 09/11/2019 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 41.92 0.00 41.92 AP 00404028 09/11/2019 FIVE STAR CATERING SERVICE 4,949.12 0.00 4,949.12 AP 00404029 09/11/2019 FORD OF UPLAND INC 2,694.88 0.00 2,694.88 AP 00404030 09/11/2019 FRONTIER COMM 854.37 83.61 937.98 *** AP 00404031 09/11/2019 G AND M BUSINESS INTERIORS 8,565.09 0.00 8,565.09 AP 00404032 09/11/2019 GABRIEL, DEBRA 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404033 09/11/2019 GEMME, COREY 1,800.00 0.00 1,800.00 AP 00404034 09/11/2019 GEOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INC 8,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 AP 00404035 09/11/2019 GEOGRAPHICS 76.25 0.00 76.25 AP 00404036 09/11/2019 GLOBALSTAR USA 174.50 0.00 174.50 AP 00404037 09/11/2019 GOLDEN STATE RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 96,371.00 1,381.00 97,752.00 *** AP 00404038 09/11/2019 GRAINGER 847.06 26.91 873.97 *** AP 00404039 09/11/2019 GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC. 258.60 0.00 258.60 AP 00404040 09/11/2019 GROVES ON FOOTHILL, THE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404041 09/11/2019 HANGTIME SPORTS 264.00 0.00 264.00 AP 00404042 09/11/2019 HERITAGE EDUCATION GROUP 552.00 0.00 552.00 AP 00404043 09/11/2019 HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC 1,078.21 0.00 1,078.21 AP 00404044 09/11/2019 HOMETOWN AMERICA RAMONA VILLA 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404045 09/11/2019 HOUSE OF RUTH 162.27 0.00 162.27 AP 00404046 09/11/2019 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 0.00 39.88 39.88 AP 00404047 09/11/2019 ILAND INTERNET SOLUTIONS 25.75 0.00 25.75 AP 00404048 09/11/2019 IMAGEMPORIUM, THE 2,037.55 0.00 2,037.55 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 4 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 25 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00404049 09/11/2019 INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY 0.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 AP 00404050 09/11/2019 INLAND EMPIRE BRUINS 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404051 09/11/2019 INLAND EMPIRE COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS 192.00 0.00 192.00 AP 00404052 09/11/2019 INLAND TOPSOIL MIXES 646.50 0.00 646.50 AP 00404053 09/11/2019 INTERNATIONAL FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATION 40.00 0.00 40.00 AP 00404054 09/11/2019 JOHNNY ALLEN TENNIS ACADEMY 1,794.60 0.00 1,794.60 AP 00404055 09/11/2019 KELKER PHARMA INC 210.70 0.00 210.70 AP 00404056 09/11/2019 LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC 7,030.23 0.00 7,030.23 AP 00404057 09/11/2019 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 3,811.00 0.00 3,811.00 AP 00404058 09/11/2019 LINCUS INC 6,000.00 0.00 6,000.00 AP 00404059 09/11/2019 LIPOCK'S ACCOUNTING SERVICES INC 1,925.00 0.00 1,925.00 AP 00404060 09/11/2019 LITTLE, MARC 540.00 0.00 540.00 AP 00404061 09/11/2019 LIU, SITONG 21.14 0.00 21.14 AP 00404064 09/11/2019 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 5,828.52 3,138.64 8,967.16 *** AP 00404065 09/11/2019 MAGELLAN ADVISORS LLC 15,750.00 0.00 15,750.00 AP 00404066 09/11/2019 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 12,952.47 0.00 12,952.47 AP 00404067 09/11/2019 MARLINK SA INC 0.00 162.00 162.00 AP 00404068 09/11/2019 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 65.36 0.00 65.36 AP 00404069 09/11/2019 MESSINA AND ASSOCIATES INC 0.00 712.50 712.50 AP 00404070 09/11/2019 MG PETROLEUM INC 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404071 09/11/2019 MIDWEST TAPE 1,069.60 0.00 1,069.60 AP 00404072 09/11/2019 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 108.00 0.00 108.00 AP 00404073 09/11/2019 MILLER, RICHARD ELBERT 3,066.00 0.00 3,066.00 AP 00404074 09/11/2019 MISSION REPROGRAPHICS 5.39 0.00 5.39 AP 00404075 09/11/2019 MONOPRICE INC 135.56 0.00 135.56 AP 00404076 09/11/2019 MORAN, GUS 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404077 09/11/2019 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 68.86 0.00 68.86 AP 00404078 09/11/2019 MUFG UNION BANK N.A. 9,955.00 0.00 9,955.00 AP 00404079 09/11/2019 MUTUAL PROPANE 0.00 424.80 424.80 AP 00404080 09/11/2019 NAHREP SOCAL INLAND EMPIRE 1,098.80 0.00 1,098.80 AP 00404081 09/11/2019 NAMOWICZ, CALEB 47.46 0.00 47.46 AP 00404082 09/11/2019 NAPA AUTO PARTS 0.00 161.26 161.26 AP 00404083 09/11/2019 NEW COLOR SCREEN PRINTING & EMBROIDERY 140.08 0.00 140.08 AP 00404084 09/11/2019 NINYO & MOORE 32,553.00 0.00 32,553.00 AP 00404085 09/11/2019 NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. 732.79 0.00 732.79 AP 00404086 09/11/2019 ONTARIO SPAY AND NEUTER INC 375.00 0.00 375.00 AP 00404087 09/11/2019 ONTRAC 54.15 0.00 54.15 AP 00404088 09/11/2019 ORKIN PEST CONTROL 697.88 663.69 1,361.57 *** AP 00404089 09/11/2019 PARMA 640.00 0.00 640.00 AP 00404090 09/11/2019 PASHA MANAGEMENT 51.79 0.00 51.79 AP 00404091 09/11/2019 PATTERSON, SARAH 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404092 09/11/2019 PEP BOYS 516.62 0.00 516.62 AP 00404093 09/11/2019 PETROVICH, VICTORIA 866.00 0.00 866.00 AP 00404094 09/11/2019 PINES MOBILE HOME PARK, THE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404095 09/11/2019 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 60.17 0.00 60.17 AP 00404096 09/11/2019 QUINN COMPANY 3,283.02 0.00 3,283.02 AP 00404097 09/11/2019 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 799.12 0.00 799.12 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 5 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 26 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire AP 00404098 09/11/2019 RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS 558.44 0.00 AP 00404099 09/11/2019 RAUL'S AUTO TRIM INC 0.00 246.94 AP 00404100 09/11/2019 RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC 2,500.00 0.00 AP 00404101 09/11/2019 ROTO ROOTER 334.99 0.00 AP 00404102 09/11/2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 520.00 0.00 AP 00404103 09/11/2019 SBPEA 2,617.98 0.00 AP 00404104 09/11/2019 SC FUELS 71,351.73 0.00 AP 00404105 09/11/2019 SCL 0.00 1,281.04 AP 00404106 09/11/2019 SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION 401.60 176.90 AP 00404107 09/11/2019 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 100.00 0.00 AP 00404108 09/11/2019 SIGN SHOP, THE 85.45 14.01 AP 00404109 09/11/2019 SIMPLYWELL 129.90 0.00 AP 00404110 09/11/2019 SOUTH COAST AQMD 1,956.88 0.00 AP 00404114 09/11/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18,604.81 3,125.96 AP 00404115 09/11/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 183.40 0.00 AP 00404116 09/11/2019 SPRINGTHORPE BROTHERS CORP, THE 5,000.00 0.00 AP 00404117 09/11/2019 SPRINGTHORPE BROTHERS CORP, THE 28,000.00 0.00 AP 00404118 09/11/2019 STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 849.30 0.00 AP 00404119 09/11/2019 STOTZ EQUIPMENT 1,652.42 0.00 AP 00404120 09/11/2019 STREET TREE SEMINAR INC 100.00 0.00 AP 00404121 09/11/2019 SUDDUTH CONSTRUCTION INC 364.80 0.00 AP 00404122 09/11/2019 SYCAMORE VILLA MOBILE HOME PARK 400.00 0.00 AP 00404123 09/11/2019 T & G ROOFING COMPANY INC 262.00 0.00 AP 00404124 09/11/2019 TIREHUB LLC 1,289.13 0.00 AP 00404125 09/11/2019 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 281.34 0.00 AP 00404126 09/11/2019 UNITED WAY 60.00 0.00 AP 00404127 09/11/2019 UPS 50.74 0.00 AP 00404128 09/11/2019 UTILIQUEST 1,863.09 0.00 AP 00404129 09/11/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 102.50 0.00 AP 00404130 09/11/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 4,249.04 0.00 AP 00404131 09/11/2019 VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 10,922.20 0.00 AP 00404132 09/11/2019 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 244.15 0.00 AP 00404133 09/11/2019 WASHINGTON -MILLER, TAMICA 833.00 0.00 AP 00404134 09/11/2019 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 7,560.31 128.59 AP 00404135 09/11/2019 WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF VET MEDICINE 715.00 0.00 AP 00404136 09/11/2019 WIRZ AND COMPANY 560.30 0.00 AP 00404137 09/11/2019 WLPX DAY CREEK LLC 3,010.00 0.00 AP 00404138 09/11/2019 WOODBRIDGE HOSPITALITY INC 6,500.00 0.00 AP 00404139 09/11/2019 YAMADA ENTERPRISES 35,904.07 0.00 AP 00404140 09/11/2019 ZALEWSKI, JOHN 866.00 0.00 AP 00404141 09/11/2019 ZBINDEN, JONATHAN 0.00 200.00 AP 00404142 09/11/2019 ZEP SALES AND SERVICE 3,191.30 0.00 AP 00404143 09/11/2019 ZERO DOLLARS AND ZERO SENSE PRODUCTION 3,000.00 0.00 AP 00404144 09/18/2019 24 HOUR FITNESS 2,000.00 0.00 AP 00404145 09/18/2019 3SI SECURITY SYSTEMS 1,080.00 0.00 AP 00404146 09/18/2019 ALPHAGRAPHICS 24.24 0.00 AP 00404147 09/18/2019 AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION 1,218.04 0.00 Amount 558.44 246.94 2,500.00 334.99 520.00 2,617.98 71,351.73 1,281.04 578.50 100.00 99.46 129.90 1,956.88 21,730.77 183.40 5,000.00 28,000.00 849.30 1,652.42 100.00 364.80 400.00 262.00 1,289.13 281.34 60.00 50.74 1,863.09 102.50 4,249.04 10,922.20 244.15 *** *** 833.00 7,688.90 *** 715.00 560.30 3,010.00 6,500.00 35,904.07 866.00 200.00 3,191.30 3,000.00 2,000.00 1,080.00 24.24 1,218.04 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 6 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 27 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00404148 09/18/2019 ART OF LIVING FOUNDATION 90.00 0.00 90.00 AP 00404149 09/18/2019 ASSEFA, EMNET 127.62 0.00 127.62 AP 00404150 09/18/2019 AVALOS, GINGER 275.00 0.00 275.00 AP 00404151 09/18/2019 AVENDANO, KATRENA 130.00 0.00 130.00 AP 00404152 09/18/2019 BURKE, DANIEL 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404155 09/18/2019 C V W D 28,520.95 835.48 29,356.43 *** AP 00404156 09/18/2019 CABLE INC 3,444.63 0.00 3,444.63 AP 00404157 09/18/2019 CAMPOS-MEJIA, TADONISHA 41.88 0.00 41.88 AP 00404158 09/18/2019 CARROLL, HILLARY 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404159 09/18/2019 CASTILLO, JESSIE 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00404160 09/18/2019 CASTILLO, JESSIE 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00404161 09/18/2019 CHAPARRO, CHRYSTAL 70.50 0.00 70.50 AP 00404162 09/18/2019 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 0.00 200.75 200.75 AP 00404163 09/18/2019 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC 166.96 0.00 166.96 AP 00404164 09/18/2019 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 3,382.00 0.00 3,382.00 AP 00404165 09/18/2019 DODSON, JALEH 425.00 0.00 425.00 AP 00404166 09/18/2019 DOLE, MAGGIE 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404167 09/18/2019 ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC 349,759.69 0.00 349,759.69 AP 00404168 09/18/2019 ERICKSON HALL CONSTRUCTION 0.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 AP 00404169 09/18/2019 EXECUTIVE AUTO DETAIL 0.00 300.00 300.00 AP 00404170 09/18/2019 FLANAGAN, BOSCO 1,732.00 0.00 1,732.00 AP 00404171 09/18/2019 FORD OF UPLAND INC 4,659.56 0.00 4,659.56 AP 00404172 09/18/2019 FORTUNE FENCING 900.00 0.00 900.00 AP 00404173 09/18/2019 FOURTH & UTICA 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 AP 00404174 09/18/2019 FRONTIER COMM 457.47 279.61 737.08 *** AP 00404175 09/18/2019 GASB 278.00 0.00 278.00 AP 00404176 09/18/2019 GOLDBERG, JESSICA 16.00 0.00 16.00 AP 00404177 09/18/2019 GORKA, CRISTINA 198.84 0.00 198.84 AP 00404178 09/18/2019 GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC. 41.48 0.00 41.48 AP 00404179 09/18/2019 GRIFFITHS, VICTORIA MICHELLE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404180 09/18/2019 GUZMAN, MORGAN 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404181 09/18/2019 HALO BRANDED SOLUTIONS 739.73 0.00 739.73 AP 00404182 09/18/2019 HANGTIME SPORTS 1,584.00 0.00 1,584.00 AP 00404183 09/18/2019 HARGIS, ILANY G. 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404184 09/18/2019 HERITAGE EDUCATION GROUP 78.00 0.00 78.00 AP 00404185 09/18/2019 HERNANDEZ, JESUS 159.00 0.00 159.00 AP 00404186 09/18/2019 HERNANDEZ, MARIBEL 48.48 0.00 48.48 AP 00404187 09/18/2019 HERNANDEZ, VINCENT 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00404188 09/18/2019 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2,099.22 0.00 2,099.22 AP 00404189 09/18/2019 ICC FOOTHILL CHAPTER 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404190 09/18/2019 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY 20.00 0.00 20.00 AP 00404191 09/18/2019 ITERIS INC 5,181.00 0.00 5,181.00 AP 00404192 09/18/2019 KALBAN INC 32,398.13 0.00 32,398.13 AP 00404193 09/18/2019 KINGDOM CREATIONS 5,017.92 0.00 5,017.92 AP 00404194 09/18/2019 KIWAN HONG 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404195 09/18/2019 LANE, JUSTIN 66.81 0.00 66.81 AP 00404196 09/18/2019 LAYNE, TAMARA 91.47 0.00 91.47 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 7 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 28 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00404197 09/18/2019 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC 5,432.69 0.00 5,432.69 AP 00404198 09/18/2019 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 2,894.50 3,700.00 6,594.50 *** AP 00404199 09/18/2019 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 2,370.00 0.00 2,370.00 AP 00404200 09/18/2019 LUGO, AIDA N 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404201 09/18/2019 MAGELLAN ADVISORS LLC 13,492.50 0.00 13,492.50 AP 00404202 09/18/2019 MARTINEZ, ALEC 1,459.36 0.00 1,459.36 AP 00404203 09/18/2019 MARTINEZ, DONNA 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404204 09/18/2019 MASCORRO, ELIA 107.12 0.00 107.12 AP 00404205 09/18/2019 MCELVENEY, JOHN 1,350.00 0.00 1,350.00 AP 00404206 09/18/2019 MG PETROLEUM INC 1,496.00 0.00 1,496.00 AP 00404207 09/18/2019 MONTALBANO, JILL 115.00 0.00 115.00 AP 00404208 09/18/2019 NAPA AUTO PARTS 0.00 377.89 377.89 AP 00404209 09/18/2019 NICHOLAS E ROSE MEDICAL CONSULTING INC 1,900.00 0.00 1,900.00 AP 00404210 09/18/2019 NORMAN, JANESSA 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404211 09/18/2019 ONTRAC 14.09 0.00 14.09 AP 00404212 09/18/2019 ONWARD ENGINEERING 1,450.00 0.00 1,450.00 AP 00404213 09/18/2019 PACIFIC UTILITY INSTALLATION INC 6,944.00 0.00 6,944.00 AP 00404214 09/18/2019 PANNU, GAGAN 279.00 0.00 279.00 AP 00404215 09/18/2019 PARKER, ANDREW 0.00 270.00 270.00 AP 00404216 09/18/2019 PEDREGON, ASHLEY 25.00 0.00 25.00 AP 00404217 09/18/2019 PEP BOYS 42.00 0.00 42.00 AP 00404218 09/18/2019 PORAC 216.80 0.00 216.80 AP 00404219 09/18/2019 PORAC LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 270.00 0.00 270.00 AP 00404221 09/18/2019 POSTAL PERFECT 660.00 0.00 660.00 AP 00404222 09/18/2019 POWERWERX INC 0.00 785.96 785.96 AP 00404223 09/18/2019 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 503.55 0.00 503.55 AP 00404224 09/18/2019 RAMOS ETAL, JOAQUIN 2,505.00 0.00 2,505.00 AP 00404225 09/18/2019 RAMOS, VERONICA 48.47 0.00 48.47 AP 00404226 09/18/2019 ROBB, ROBERT 70.00 0.00 70.00 AP 00404227 09/18/2019 SAMS CLUB/SYNCHRONY BANK 45.00 0.00 45.00 AP 00404228 09/18/2019 SCHLOSSER FORGE COMPANY 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 AP 00404229 09/18/2019 SCOTT, MICHAEL 1,587.24 0.00 1,587.24 AP 00404230 09/18/2019 SIGN SHOP, THE 0.00 43.10 43.10 AP 00404231 09/18/2019 SILVER & WRIGHT LLP 49,188.96 0.00 49,188.96 AP 00404236 09/18/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34,176.83 1,778.50 35,955.33 *** AP 00404237 09/18/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,394.60 0.00 2,394.60 AP 00404238 09/18/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 355.92 0.00 355.92 AP 00404239 09/18/2019 SPIKES, BRIANNA 2,080.00 0.00 2,080.00 AP 00404240 09/18/2019 SPRINT 0.00 121.95 121.95 AP 00404241 09/18/2019 STANLEY R HOFFMAN ASSOCIATES INC 3,720.00 0.00 3,720.00 AP 00404242 09/18/2019 STANTON, KRISTA 29.87 0.00 29.87 AP 00404243 09/18/2019 TERRA VISTA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 25.00 0.00 25.00 AP 00404244 09/18/2019 TETRA TECH INC 44,549.46 0.00 44,549.46 AP 00404245 09/18/2019 TIREHUB LLC 1,680.50 0.00 1,680.50 AP 00404246 09/18/2019 UPS 29.00 0.00 29.00 AP 00404247 09/18/2019 US POSTMASTER 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404248 09/18/2019 VERIZON 31.97 0.00 31.97 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 8 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 29 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00404249 09/18/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.12 0.00 60.12 AP 00404250 09/18/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 80.87 0.00 80.87 AP 00404251 09/18/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 332.16 0.00 332.16 AP 00404256 09/18/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 5,870.49 0.00 5,870.49 AP 00404257 09/18/2019 WELLS, JUDITH 64.96 0.00 64.96 AP 00404258 09/18/2019 WINGSON, KYLE 18.98 0.00 18.98 AP 00404259 09/18/2019 WORLD ELITE GYMNASTICS 120.40 0.00 120.40 AP 00404260 09/18/2019 ZERO DOLLARS AND ZERO SENSE PRODUCTION 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 AP 00404261 09/18/2019 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 0.00 480,239.19 480,239.19 AP 00404262 09/23/2019 CURATALO, JAMES 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00404263 09/23/2019 KIRKPATRICK, WILLIAM 0.00 1,525.78 1,525.78 AP 00404264 09/23/2019 TOWNSEND, JAMES 0.00 2,057.83 2,057.83 AP 00404265 09/23/2019 WALKER, KENNETH 0.00 258.83 258.83 Total City: $2,150,569.00 Total Fire: $615,502.12 Grand Total: $2,766,UT M. Note: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 9 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 30 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Electronic Debit Register August 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019 DATE DESCRIPTION CITY FIRE AMOUNT 8/1 U.S. BANK - Corporate Card Payment 85,864.15 17,737.62 103,601.77 8/1 U.S. BANK - Costco Card Payment 1,563.68 904.62 2,468.30 8/1 U.S. BANK- Purchasing Card Payment 62,290.23 7,830.41 70,120.64 8/1 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 6,152.53 6,152.53 8/1 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 19,223.68 19,223.68 8/2 Bank Fee 70.40 70.40 8/2 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 434.27 434.27 8/2 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 403.67 403.67 8/5 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 13,781.08 13,781.08 8/5 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 726.98 726.98 8/5 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,259.31 1,259.31 8/6 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 2,802.93 2,802.93 8/6 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 5,815.55 5,815.55 8/6 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 56,324.00 56,324.00 8/6 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 106,251.00 106,251.00 8/6 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 157.48 157.48 8/6 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 12.00 12.00 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 2,501.26 2,501.26 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 3,784.78 3,784.78 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 4,097.05 4,097.05 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 8,873.99 8,873.99 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 12,315.83 12,315.83 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 112,014.60 112,014.60 8/7 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 447.55 447.55 8/7 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 7,497.15 7,497.15 8/8 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 27.14 27.14 8/8 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 718.22 718.22 8/9 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 435.40 435.40 8/9 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,160.00 1,160.00 8/12 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 109,722.31 109,722.31 8/12 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,960.00 1,960.00 8/13 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 3,795.24 3,795.24 8/13 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 12,379.52 12,379.52 8/13 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 2,779.65 2,779.65 8/13 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 6,205.84 6,205.84 8/14 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 5,186.04 5,186.04 8/14 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 1,841.00 1,841.00 8/14 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 11,516.69 11,516.69 8/14 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 4,682.62 4,682.62 8/15 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 57,026.00 57,026.00 8/15 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 112,290.00 112,290.00 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 47,342.93 47,342.93 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 47,797.97 47,797.97 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 117,676.78 117,676.78 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 190,850.81 190,850.81 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 430,683.21 430,683.21 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 489,868.42 489,868.42 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 3,256,361.70 3,256,361.70 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 3,698.51 3,698.51 8/15 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 778.27 778.27 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 2,575.48 2,575.48 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 3,858.22 3,858.22 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 4,135.87 4,135.87 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 8,873.99 8,873.99 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 12,538.62 12,538.62 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 112,355.04 112,355.04 8/16 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 781.68 781.68 8/16 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,281.74 1,281.74 8/19 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 225.73 225.73 8/19 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 46.37 46.37 8/20 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 5,018.22 5,018.22 8/20 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 8,907.72 8,907.72 8/20 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 24,141.72 24,141.72 1 Page 31 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Electronic Debit Register August 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019 DATE DESCRIPTION CITY FIRE AMOUNT 8/21 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,082.44 1,082.44 8/21 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 330.57 330.57 8/22 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 135,123.95 135,123.95 8/22 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,331.90 1,331.90 8/22 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 178.45 178.45 8/23 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,691.04 1,691.04 8/23 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,497.89 1,497.89 8/26 CALIPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 2,559.85 2,559.85 8/26 CALIPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 5,905.30 5,905.30 8/26 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 2,907.59 2,907.59 8/26 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,560.28 1,560.28 8/27 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 17,029.48 17,029.48 8/27 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,823.26 1,823.26 8/27 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 674.85 674.85 8/28 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 15.62 15.62 8/28 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 48.00 48.00 8/29 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 5,209.84 5,209.84 8/29 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 3,807.72 3,807.72 8/29 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 12,522.26 12,522.26 8/30 CALIPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 59,124.50 59,124.50 8/30 CALIPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 119,420.51 119,420.51 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 2,575.50 2,575.50 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 3,905.73 3,905.73 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 4,074.06 4,074.06 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 9,099.15 9,099.15 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 12,788.81 12,788.81 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 115,398.98 115,398.98 8/30 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 150.99 150.99 8/30 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 671.75 671.75 TOTAL CITY 5,473,296.93 TOTAL FIRE 691,875.81 GRAND TOTAL 6,165,172.74 2 Page 32 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Ivan Rojer, Fire Chief Mike McCliman, Deputy Fire Chief Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager Pamela J. Nibert, Management Analyst III SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT THE BID SUBMITTED BY LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC., OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AND AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $283,400, FOR THIRD PARTY INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Fire Board approve the award and execution of Professional Services Agreement (PSA) CO #FD 19-016 and Amendment No. 001 with Leighton Consulting, Inc., of Rancho Cucamonga, California, in the amount of $283,400 for Third Party Inspection Services for the Public Safety Facility Construction Project. BACKGROUND: The Public Safety Facility construction project requires Third Party Inspection Services to include professional materials testing and inspection services in accordance with the requirements of Title 24 and agency guidelines. These services would include: grading observation; compaction testing of subgrade and utility trench backfill; structural concrete and concrete pavement testing and inspection; high strength bolt testing; masonry inspection and testing; anchor bolt inspection and testing and welding inspection. Also included are all laboratory testing services as required by the project specifications and applicable codes. ANALYSIS: The District provided specifications for Third Party Inspection Services for the Public Safety Facility Construction Project to the Procurement Division for review and determination of the best method of procurement. The Procurement Division prepared and posted a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) #18/19-028 to the City's automated procurement system. A total of two hundred fifty-five (255) vendors were notified, and forty-two (42) prospective bidders downloaded or reviewed the solicitation documents. Twelve (12) proposals were received. Leighton Consulting, Inc. was determined to be the most responsive. All documentation for the proposal is on file in the Procurement Division. An initial PSA (CO #FD 19-016) was executed, based on the procurement process, for $19,000 to get Page 33 the vendor started on the project. With this award, Amendment No. 001 will be executed to increase the PSA from $19,000 to the full award of $283,400. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are allocated in the FY 2019/20 Adopted Budget in the Fire Protection Capital Fund/Fire Administration/FD: Public Safety Facility Account No. 3288501-5650/1733288-6314. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the Fire Board/Council Goal of public safety. The relocation and rebuilding of the San Bernardino Road Fire Station (172) has been a strategic Fire Board goal since 2005. Further, the City Council has continuously sought to provide a high level of Sheriff patrol and enforcement throughout the city. The addition of this facility now provides a community based station within the eastern, central, and western areas of the city. This will support the goal for timely, efficient and effective response and enhanced public safety for the community. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - CO #FD 19-016 Attachment 2 - CO #FD 19-016 Amendment No. 001 Page 34 ATTACHMENT 1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 5th day of September, 2019, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District ("RCFPD") and Leighton Consulting, Inc., a Corporation ("Contractor"). RECITALS A. City and RCFPD has heretofore issued its request for proposals to perform the following services: 3rd Party Inspection Servcies for the Public Safety Facility Construction Project, RFP #18/19-028 ("the Project"). B. Contractor has submitted a proposal to perform the services described in Recital "A", above, necessary to complete the Project. C. City and RCFPD desires to engage Contractor to complete the Project in the manner set forth and more fully described herein. D. Contractor represents that it is fully qualified and licensed under the laws of the State of California to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Contractor's Services. 1.1 Scope and Level of Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, City and RCFPD hereby engages Contractor to perform all services described in Recitals "A" and "B" above, including, but not limited to 3rd Party Inspection Services as outlined in RFP #18/19-028, all as more fully set forth in the Contractor's proposal, dated June 7, 2019, and entitled "Scope of Work", attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated by reference herein. The nature, scope, and level of the services required to be performed by Contractor are set forth in the Scope of Work and are referred to herein as "the Services." In the event of any inconsistencies between the Scope of Work and this Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall control. 1.2 Revisions to Scope of Work. Upon request of the City and RCFPD, the Contractor will promptly meet with City and RCFPD staff to discuss any revisions to the Project desired by the City and RCFPD. Contractor agrees that the Scope of Work may be amended based upon said meetings, and, by amendment to this Agreement, the parties may agree on a revision or revisions to Contractor's compensation Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page I Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 35 based thereon. A revision pursuant to this Section that does not increase the total cost payable to Contractor by more than ten percent (10%) of the total compensation specified in Section 3, may be approved in writing by City's Manager without amendment. 1.3 Time for Performance. Contractor shall perform all services under this Agreement in a timely, regular basis consistent with industry standards for professional skill and care, and in accordance with any schedule of performance set forth in the Scope of Work, or as set forth in a "Schedule of Perforinance", if such Schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit "N/A". 1.4 Standard of Care. As a material inducement to City and RCFPD to enter into this Agreement, Contractor hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Contractor hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing the Services. 1.5 Familiarity with Services. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that, to the extent required by the standard of practice, Contractor (a) has investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (b) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (c) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. Contractor represents that Contractor, to the extent required by the standard of practice, has investigated any areas of work, as applicable, and is reasonably acquainted with the conditions therein. Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of services, Contractor shall immediately inform City and RCFPD of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor's risk until written instructions are received from the City and RCFPD Representative. 2. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be 16 months total construction project duration (strike year(s)) year(s) and shall become effective as of the date of the mutual execution by way of both parties signature (the "Effective Date"). No work shall be conducted; service or goods will not be provided until this Agreement has been executed and requirements have been fulfilled. Parties to this Agreement shall have the option to renew in 0 year(s) increments to a total of 16 months (strike year(s)) years, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 14 herein. Options to renew are contingent upon the City Manager's approval, subject to pricing review, and in accordance to all Terms and Conditions stated herein unless otherwise provided in writing by the City and RCFPD. 3. Compensation. 3.1 Compensation. City and RCFPD shall compensate Contractor as set forth in Exhibit A, provided, however, that full, total and complete amount payable to Contractor shall not exceed $19,000.00 (Nineteen Thousand Dollars), including all out of pocket expenses, unless additional compensation is approved by the City Manager or v enuor inneues PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 2 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 36 City Council. City and RCFPD shall not withhold any federal, state or other taxes, or other deductions. However, City and RCFPD shall withhold not more than ten percent (10%) of any invoice amount pending receipt of any deliverables reflected in such invoice. Under no circumstance shall Contractor be entitled to compensation for services not yet satisfactorily performed. The parties further agree that compensation may be adjusted in accordance with Section 1.2 to reflect subsequent changes to the Scope of Services. City and RCFPD shall compensate Contractor for any authorized extra services as set forth in Exhibit A. 4. Method of Payment. 4.1 Invoices. Contractor shall submit to City and RCFPD monthly invoices for the Services performed pursuant to this Agreement. The invoices shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period and shall separately describe any authorized extra services. Any invoice claiming compensation for extra services shall include appropriate documentation of prior authorization of such services. All invoices shall be remitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 4.2 City and RCFPD shall review such invoices and notify Contractor in writing within ten (10) business days of any disputed amounts. 4.3 City and RCFPD shall pay all undisputed portions of the invoice within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the invoice up to the not -to -exceed amounts set forth in Section 3. 4.4 All records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Contractor relating to services hereunder shall be available for review and audit by the City and RCFPD. 5. Representatives. 5.1 City and RCFPD Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, the contract administrator and City and RCFPD's representative shall be Deputy Fire Chief Mike McCliman, or such other person as designated in writing by the City and RCFPD ("City and RCFPD Representative"). It shall be Contractor's responsibility to assure that the City and RCFPD Representative is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services, and Contractor shall refer any decisions that must be made by City and RCFPD to the City and RCFPD Representative. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City and RCFPD required hereunder shall mean the approval of the City and RCFPD Representative. 5.2 Contractor Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, Tom Benson, President and CEO/Principal-in-Charge, is hereby designated as the principal and representative of Contractor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith ("Contractor's Representative"). It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the Contractor's Representative were a Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 3 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 37 substantial inducement for City and RCFPD to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the Contractor's Representative shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. Contractor may not change the Responsible Principal without the prior written approval of City and RCFPD. 6. Contractor's Personnel. 6.1 All Services shall be performed by Contractor or under Contractor's direct supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by State and local law to perform such Services, including, without limitation, a City and RCFPD business license as required by the City's Municipal Code. 6.2 Contractor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the standard of care set forth in Section 1.4. 6.3 Contractor shall be responsible for payment of all employees' and subcontractors' wages and benefits, and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer's liability, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. By its execution of this Agreement, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 6.4 Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and RCFPD and its elected officials, officers and employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Contractor's violations of personnel practices and/or any violation of the California Labor Code. City and RCFPD shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to City and RCFPD from Contractor as a result of Contractor's failure to promptly pay to City and RCFPD any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6. 7. Ownership of Work Product. 7.1 Ownership. All documents, ideas, concepts, electronic files, drawings, photographs and any and all other writings, including drafts thereof, prepared, created or provided by Contractor in the course of performing the Services, including any and all intellectual and proprietary rights arising from the creation of the same (collectively, "Work Product"), are considered to be "works made for hire" for the benefit of the City and RCFPD. Upon payment being made, and provided Contractor is not in breach of this Agreement, all Work Product shall be and remain the property of City and RCFPD without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City and RCFPD. Basic survey notes, sketches, charts, computations and similar data vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 4 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 38 prepared or obtained by Contractor under this Agreement shall, upon request, be made available to City and RCFPD. None of the Work Product shall be the subject of any common law or statutory copyright or copyright application by Contractor. In the event of the return of any of the Work Product to Contractor or its representative, Contractor shall be responsible for its safe return to City and RCFPD. Under no circumstances shall Contractor fail to deliver any draft or final designs, plans, drawings, reports or specifications to City and RCFPD upon written demand by City and RCFPD for their delivery, notwithstanding any disputes between Contractor and City and RCFPD concerning payment, performance of the contract, or otherwise. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. City and RCFPD's reuse of the Work Product for any purpose other than the Project, shall be at City and RCFPD's sole risk. 7.2. Assignment of Intellectual Property Interests: Upon execution of this Agreement and to the extent not otherwise conveyed to City and RCFPD by Section 7. 1, above, the Contractor shall be deemed to grant and assign to City and RCFPD, and shall require all of its subcontractors to assign to City and RCFPD, all ownership rights, and all common law and statutory copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual and proprietary property rights relating to the Work Product and the Project itself, and Contractor shall disclaim and retain no rights whatsoever as to any of the Work Product, to the maximum extent permitted by law. City and RCFPD shall be entitled to utilize the Work Product for any and all purposes, including but not limited to constructing, using, maintaining, altering, adding to, restoring, rebuilding and publicizing the Project or any aspect of the Project. 7.3 Title to Intellectual Property. Contractor warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of the Work Product and/or materials produced under this Agreement, and that City and RCFPD has full legal title to and the right to reproduce any of the Work Product. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City and RCFPD, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City and RCFPD's use is violating federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Contractor shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, software, equipment, devices or processes used or incorporated in the Services and materials produced under this Agreement. In the event City and RCFPD's use of any of the Work Product is held to constitute an infringement and any use thereof is enjoined, Contractor, at its expense, shall: (a) secure for City and RCFPD the right to continue using the Work Product by suspension of any injunction or by procuring a license or licenses for City and RCFPD; or (b) modify the Work Product so that it becomes non -infringing. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page S Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 39 8. Status as Independent Contractor. Contractor is, and shall at all times remain as to City and RCFPD, a wholly independent contractor. Contractor shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City and RCFPD or otherwise act as an agent of City and RCFPD. Neither City and RCFPD nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its officers, agents or employees are in any manner employees of City and RCFPD. Contractor shall pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Contractor under this Agreement, and to defend, indemnify and hold City and RCFPD harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City and RCFPD by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Contractor shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding Contractor and Contractor's employees 9. Confidentiality. Contractor may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City and RCFPD employees. Contractor covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Contractor or provided for performance of this Agreement are confidential and shall not be disclosed by Contractor without prior written authorization by City and RCFPD. City and RCFPD shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. All City and RCFPD data shall be returned to City and RCFPD upon the termination of this Agreement. Contractor's covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. This provision shall not apply to information in whatever form that is in the public domain, nor shall it restrict the Contractor from giving notices required by law or complying with an order to provide information or data when such an order is issued by a court, administrative agency or other legitimate authority, or if disclosure is otherwise permitted by law and reasonably necessary for the Contractor to defend itself from any legal action or claim. 10. Conflict of Interest. 10.1 Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code §§1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City and RCFPD on any matter in connection with which Contractor has been retained. 10.2 Contractor further represents that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Contractor has not paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of venaor inutats PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 6 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 40 this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City and RCFPD shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 10.3 Contractor has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City and RCFPD has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City and RCFPD, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in subsection 10.1. 11. Indemnification. 11.1 To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City and RCFPD, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and RCFPD, (collectively, "Indemnitees"),free and harmless with respect to any and all damages, liabilities, losses, reasonable defense costs or expenses (collectively, "Claims"), including but not limited to Claims relating to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts, omissions, activities or operations of Contractor or any of its officers, employees, subcontractors, Contractors, or agents in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall defend Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any such Claims with counsel of City and RCFPD's choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including actual attorney's fees and experts' costs incurred in connection with such defense. The indemnification obligation herein shall not in any way be limited by the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement provided, however, that the Contractor shall have no obligation to indemnify for Claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of any of the Indemnitees. 11.2 Nonwaiver of Rights. Indemnitees do not, and shall not, waive any rights that they may possess against Contractor because of the acceptance by City and RCFPD, or the deposit with City and RCFPD, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. 11.3 Waiver of Right of Subrogation. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, Contractor, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights of subrogation against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor. 11.4 Survival. The provisions of this Section 11 shall survive the termination of the Agreement and are in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law. Payment is not required as a condition precedent to an Indemnitee's right to recover under this indemnity provision, and an entry of judgment Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 7 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 41 against Contractor shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee's right to recover under this indemnity provision. 12. Insurance. 12.1 Liability Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the services hereunder by Contractor, and/or its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. 12.2 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Unless otherwise approved by City and RCFPD, coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). (2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, and Employer's Liability Insurance. 12.3 Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) Commercial General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement or the general limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease and Workers' Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law. (4) The Insurance obligations under this Agreement shall be the greater of (i) the Insurance coverages and limits carried by the Contractor; or (ii) the minimum Insurance coverages and limits shown in this Agreement. Any insurance proceeds in excess of the specified limits and coverage required which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to the City and RCFPD. No representation is made that the minimum Insurance requirements of this PSR withoutprofessional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10/02/13 venaor inrnais Page 8 Page 42 Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of the Contractor under this agreement. 12.4 Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City and RCFPD and shall not reduce the limits of coverage. City and RCFPD reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any required insurance policy and endorsements. 12.5 Other Insurance Provisions. (1) The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain the following provisions on a separate additionally insured endorsement naming the City , RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials, as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Contractor; products and completed operations of Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by Contractor; and/or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor. The coverage shall contain no limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials which are not also limitations applicable to the named insured. (2) For any claims related to this Agreement, Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City , RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials shall be in excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (4) Contractor shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self insured retention is increased. In the PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10/02/13 Vendor Initials Page 9 Page 43 event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, Contractor shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance. Should Contractor fail to immediately procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any canceled policy, the City and RCFPD may procure such insurance at Contractor's sole cost and expense. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall expressly waive the insurer's right of subrogation against City and RCFPD, its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials. (6) Each policy shall be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City and RCFPD, which is admitted and licensed to do business in the State of California and which is rated AXII or better according to the most recent A.M. Best Co. Rating Guide. (7) Each policy shall specify that any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the required policy, including breaches of warranty, shall not affect the coverage required to be provided. (8) Each policy shall specify that any and all costs of adjusting and/or defending any claim against any insured, including court costs and attorneys' fees, shall be paid in addition to and shall not deplete any policy limits. (9) Contractor shall provide any and all other insurance, endorsements, or exclusions as required by the City and RCFPD in any request for proposals applicable to this Agreement. 12.6 Evidence of coverage. Prior to commencing performance under this Agreement, the Contractor shall furnish the City and RCFPD with certificates and original endorsements, or copies of each required policy, effecting and evidencing the insurance coverage required by this Agreement including (1) Additional Insured Endorsement(s), (2) Worker's Compensation waiver of subrogation endorsement, and (3) General liability declarations or endorsement page listing all policy endorsements. The endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by the insurer(s) to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements or policies shall be received and approved by the City and RCFPD before Contractor commences performance. If performance of this Agreement shall extend beyond one year, Contractor shall provide City and RCFPD with the required policies or endorsements evidencing renewal of the required policies of insurance prior to the expiration of any required policies of insurance. Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 10 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 44 12.7 Contractor agrees to include in all contracts with all subcontractors performing work pursuant to this Agreement, the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement including the indemnity and insurance requirements to the extent they apply to the scope of any such subcontractor's work. Contractor shall require its subcontractors to be bound to Contractor and City and RCFPD in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to City and RCFPD pursuant to this Agreement, and to require each of its subcontractors to include these same provisions in its contract with any sub -subcontractor. 13. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City and RCFPD relating to Contractor's performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation that City and RCFPD might require. City and RCFPD shall compensate Contractor for any litigation support services in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. 14. Termination. City and RCFPD shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for any or no reason on not less than ten (10) days prior written notice to Contractor. In the event City and RCFPD exercises its right to terminate this Agreement, City and RCFPD shall pay Contractor for any services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of the termination, provided Contractor is not then in breach of this Agreement. Contractor shall have no other claim against City and RCFPD by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation. City and RCFPD may terminate for cause following a default remaining uncured more than five (5) business days after service of a notice to cure on the breaching party. Contractor may terminate this Agreement for cause upon giving the City and RCFPD ten (10) business days prior written notice for any of the following: (1) uncured breach by the City and RCFPD of any material term of this Agreement, including but not limited to Payment Terms; (2) material changes in the conditions under which this Agreement was entered into, coupled with the failure of the parties to reach accord on the fees and charges for any Additional Services required because of such changes. 15. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Contractor's and City and RCFPD's regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses set forth in this Section, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this Section. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to City and RCFPD: Deputy Fire Chief Mike McCliman 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10/02/13 Vendor Initials Page 11 Page 45 909-477-2770, Ext 3002 If to Contractor: Tom Benson, President and CEO 10532 Acacia St, Suite B-6 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 16. Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. 17. Assignment and Subcontracting. Contractor shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement or subcontract the performance of any of Contractor's obligations hereunder without City and RCFPD's prior written consent. Except as provided herein, any attempt by Contractor to so assign, transfer, or subcontract any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be null, void and of no effect. 18. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time Contractor performs the Services. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and compliance with other requirements on "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The applicable prevailing wage rate determinations can be found at hiip://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWaizeDetermination.htm Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services, available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Contractor's principal place of business and at the Project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City and RCFPD, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 19. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a venaor rninais PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 12 Last Revised 10/02/13 Page 46 waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City and RCFPD of any payment to Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by City and RCFPD of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Contractor, and the making of any such payment by City and RCFPD shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City and RCFPD with regard to such breach or default. 20. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of experts. 21. Exhibits; Precedence. All documents referenced as exhibits in this Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Agreement. In the event of any material discrepancy between the express provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of any document incorporated herein by reference, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. 22. Applicable Law and Venue. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action relating to this Agreement shall be in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. 23. Construction. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the parry who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Agreement or who drafted that portion of the Agreement. 24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement consists of this document, and any other documents, attachments and/or exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto, each of which is incorporated herein by such reference, and the same represents the entire and integrated agreement between Contractor and City and RCFPD. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. Contractor Name: Leighton Consulting, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga LIMA Name Date Title PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10102113 C Name Date Title v enuor murals Page 13 Page 47 LO City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District By: Name Date Name Date Title Title (two signatures required if corporation) PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10102113 Vendor Initials Page 14 Page 48 ATTACHMENT 2 AMENDMENT NO. 001 to Professional Services Agreement (CO #FD 19-016) between Leighton Consulting, Inc. (hereinafter Contractor) and City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter "City") and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (hereinafter the "RCFPD") This Amendment No. 001 will serve to amend the Professional Services Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), CO# FD 19-016 to incorporate the following: Increase compensation amount under 3.1 Compensation. Amount shall be increased from $19,000 to a total of $283,400 (Two Hundred Eighty-three Thousand and Four Hundred Dollars) (increase of $264,400). All other Terms and Conditions of the original Agreement CO# FD 19-016, will remain in full effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Amendment by way of signature by both parties and on the date indicated below. Please return two (2) original signed copies to the City and District no later than September 25, 2019. The City and RCFPD will process both copies for signature and provide Leighton Consulting, Inc. with one (1) fully executed copy of the Amendment. Leighton Consulting, Inc. By: Name Date Title By: Name Date Title (two signatures required if corporation) Last Revised: 09/28/2012 City of Rancho Cucamonga By: Name Title Date Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District By: Name Title Date Page I of I Page 49 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: President and Members of the Board of Directors FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Ivan Rojer, Fire Chief Mike McCliman, Deputy Fire Chief Michael Courtney, Maintenance Supervisor Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager Pamela Nibert, Management Analyst III Michelle Cowles, Management Analyst I I SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO AUTOLIFT SERVICES, INC. FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE FIRE DISTRICT'S FLEET SHOP EQUIPMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,500 IN FISCAL YEAR 2019/2020. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Directors award and authorize the execution of a contract with Autolift Services, Inc., for the maintenance of the Fire District's fleet shop equipment, effective as of the date of mutual execution through June 30, 2020, with an option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years, in an amount not to exceed $7,500 for FY 2019/2020, and an estimated total contract amount of $59,330 over seven years; and, authorize the Fire Chief or his designee to renew the contract annually. 14 "T144:CC3:TO L I Ili The Fire District's fleet shop equipment located at the Fire Maintenance Facility consists of four (4) Rotary inground lifts, one (1) Rotary surface mount lift, two (2) Champion vertical compressors, one (1) Stahl overhead crane and eight (8) ARI Hetra lifts. The scope of work is to provide safety inspections, annual certifications, routine maintenance, troubleshooting, repairs, and 7-day/24-hour emergency service for the various fleet shop equipment at the Fire Maintenance Facility. ANALYSIS: Public Works Services staff provided the detailed specifications for fleet shop equipment maintenance to the Procurement Division. Procurement staff prepared and posted formal RFP #19/20-005 to the City's automated procurement system. There were one hundred eighty-eight (188) notified vendors, sixteen (16) prospective bidders downloaded or viewed the bid package, and four (4) responsive proposals were received. An Evaluation Committee consisting of staff from various departments conducted a thorough analysis of the RFP responses and scored and ranked the responsive proposals. Autolift Services, Inc. of Los Alamitos, California was determined to be the most responsive contractor providing the best value while meeting the scope of services and specifications required. Therefore, staff recommends the Board of Directors award a contract to Autolift Services, Inc., effective from the date of the mutual execution through June 30, 2020, with an option to renew for one (1) year increments up to a total of six Page 50 (6) additional years, in an amount not to exceed $12,000 for FY 2019-2020. In anticipation of a possible request by the contractor for a rate adjustment in future years due to cost increases, Staff has prepared the chart below to show the estimated annual funding breakdown. Please note this is only an estimate and the amounts listed below could vary. Prior Year Fiscal Year Costs Est. Annual Increase (4%) Total Costs 2019/2020 $ 7,500 2020/2021 $ 7,500 $ 300 $ 7,800 2021/2022 $ 7,800 $ 320 $ 8,120 2022/2023 $ 8,120 $ 330 $ 8,450 2023/2024 $ 8,450 $ 340 $ 8,790 2024/2025 $ 8,790 $ 360 $ 9,150 2025/2026 $ 9,150 $ 370 $ 9,520 Grand Total $ 59,330 An additional $94,810 over seven years is being considered separately by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract price is within the contract services budget line items in the approved budget for FY 2019/2020. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the Fire Board's goal of Public Safety by ensuring Fire District facilities are properly maintained. ATTACHMENTS: Description Contract Page 51 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Attachment I - Contract CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FLEET SHOP EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AWARD DATE: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Page 52 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 2nd day of October 2019, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District ("RCFPD") and Autolift Services, Inc., an equipment maintenance contractor ("Contractor"). RECITALS A. City and RCFPD has heretofore issued its request for proposals to perform the following services: Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance ("the Project"). B. Contractor has submitted a proposal to perform the services described in Recital "A", above, necessary to complete the Project. C. City and RCFPD desires to engage Contractor to complete the Project in the manner set forth and more fully described herein. D. Contractor represents that it is fully qualified and licensed under the laws of the State of California to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Contractor's Services. 1.1 Scope and Level of Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, City and RCFPD hereby engages Contractor to perform all services described in Recitals "A" and `B" above, including, but not limited to the maintenance, testing, certification and repairs of fleet shop equipment, all as more fully set forth in RFP #19/20-005, attached hereto as Exhibit A, Contractor's proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and Schedule of Lump Sum and Unit Costs, attached hereto as Exhibit C, hereinafter entitled "Scope of Work", and incorporated by reference herein. The nature, scope, and level of the services required to be performed by Contractor are set forth in the Scope of Work and are referred to herein as "the Services." In the event of any inconsistencies between the Scope of Work and this Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall control. 1.2 Revisions to Scope of Work. Upon request of the City and RCFPD, the Contractor will promptly meet with City and RCFPD staff to discuss any revisions to the Project desired by the City and RCFPD. Contractor agrees that the Scope of Work may be amended based upon said meetings, and, by amendment to this Agreement, the parties may agree on a revision or revisions to Contractor's compensation based thereon. A revision pursuant to this Section that Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page I Last Revised: 10102113 Page 53 does not increase the total cost payable to Contractor by more than ten percent (10%) of the total compensation specified in Section 3, may be approved in writing by City's Manager without amendment. 1.3 Time for Performance. Contractor shall perform all services under this Agreement in a timely, regular basis consistent with industry standards for professional skill and care, and in accordance with any schedule of performance set forth in the Scope of Work, or as set forth in a "Schedule of Performance", if such Schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit "N/A". 1.4 Standard of Care. As a material inducement to City and RCFPD to enter into this Agreement, Contractor hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Contractor hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing the Services. 1.5 Familiarity with Services. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that, to the extent required by the standard of practice, Contractor (a) has investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (b) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (c) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. Contractor represents that Contractor, to the extent required by the standard of practice, has investigated any areas of work, as applicable, and is reasonably acquainted with the conditions therein. Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of services, Contractor shall immediately inform City and RCFPD of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor's risk until written instructions are received from the City and RCFPD Representative. 2. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall become effective as of the date of the mutual execution by way of both party's signature (the "Effective Date") through June 30, 2020. No work shall be conducted; service or goods will not be provided until this Agreement has been executed and requirements have been fulfilled. Parties to this Agreement shall have the option to renew in 1 -year increments to a total of six (6) additional years, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 14 herein. Options to renew are contingent upon the City Manager's approval, subject to pricing review, and in accordance to all Terms and Conditions stated herein unless otherwise provided in writing by the City and RCFPD. 3. Compensation. 3.1 Compensation. City and RCFPD shall compensate shall compensate Contractor as set forth in Exhibit C, provided, however, that full, total and complete amount payable to Contractor shall not exceed $12,000 (Twelve Thousand Dollars) for City facilities and shall not exceed $7,500 (Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) for RCFPD facilities for services performed during the City and Fire District's fiscal year ending June 30, 2020, including all out of pocket expenses, unless additional compensation is approved by the City Manager or City Council. City and RCFPD shall not withhold any federal, state or other taxes, or other deductions. However, City and RCFPD shall withhold not more than ten percent (10%) of any invoice amount pending receipt of any deliverables reflected in such invoice. Under no circumstance shall Contractor be Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 2 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 54 entitled to compensation for services not yet satisfactorily performed. The parties further agree that compensation may be adjusted in accordance with Section 1.2 to reflect subsequent changes to the Scope of Services. City and RCFPD shall compensate Contractor for any authorized extra services as set forth in Exhibit A. 4. Method of Payment. 4.1 Invoices. Contractor shall submit to City and RCFPD monthly invoices for the Services performed pursuant to this Agreement. The invoices shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period and shall separately describe any authorized extra services. Any invoice claiming compensation for extra services shall include appropriate documentation of prior authorization of such services. All invoices shall be remitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 4.2 City and RCFPD shall review such invoices and notify Contractor in writing within ten (10) business days of any disputed amounts. 4.3 City and RCFPD shall pay all undisputed portions of the invoice within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the invoice up to the not -to -exceed amounts set forth in Section 3. 4.4 All records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Contractor relating to services hereunder shall be available for review and audit by the City and RCFPD. 5. Representatives. 5.1 City and RCFPD Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, the contract administrator and City and RCFPD's representative shall be William Wittkopf, or such other person as designated in writing by the City and RCFPD ("City and RCFPD Representative"). It shall be Contractor's responsibility to assure that the City and RCFPD Representative is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services, and Contractor shall refer any decisions that must be made by City and RCFPD to the City and RCFPD Representative. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City and RCFPD required hereunder shall mean the approval of the City and RCFPD Representative. 5.2 Contractor Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, Chris Woodson is hereby designated as the principal and representative of Contractor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith ("Contractor's Representative"). It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the Contractor's Representative were a substantial inducement for City and RCFPD to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the Contractor's Representative shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. Contractor may not change the Responsible Principal without the prior written approval of City and RCFPD. Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 3 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 55 6. Contractor's Personnel. 6.1 All Services shall be performed by Contractor or under Contractor's direct supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by State and local law to perform such Services, including, without limitation, a City and RCFPD business license as required by the City's Municipal Code. 6.2 Contractor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the standard of care set forth in Section 1.4. 6.3 Contractor shall be responsible for payment of all employees' and subcontractors' wages and benefits and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer's liability, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. By its execution of this Agreement, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 6.4 Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and RCFPD and its elected officials, officers and employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Contractor's violations of personnel practices and/or any violation of the California Labor Code. City and RCFPD shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to City and RCFPD from Contractor as a result of Contractor's failure to promptly pay to City and RCFPD any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6. 7. Ownership of Work Product. 7.1 Ownership. All documents, ideas, concepts, electronic files, drawings, photographs and any and all other writings, including drafts thereof, prepared, created or provided by Contractor in the course of performing the Services, including any and all intellectual and proprietary rights arising from the creation of the same (collectively, "Work Product"), are considered to be "works made for hire" for the benefit of the City and RCFPD. Upon payment being made, and provided Contractor is not in breach of this Agreement, all Work Product shall be and remain the property of City and RCFPD without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City and RCFPD. Basic survey notes, sketches, charts, computations and similar data prepared or obtained by Contractor under this Agreement shall, upon request, be made available to City and RCFPD. None of the Work Product shall be the subject of any common law or statutory copyright or copyright application by Contractor. In the event of the return of any of the Work Product to Contractor or its representative, Contractor shall be responsible for its safe return to City and RCFPD. Under no circumstances shall Contractor fail to deliver any draft or final designs, plans, drawings, reports or specifications to City and RCFPD upon written demand by City and RCFPD for their delivery, notwithstanding any disputes between Contractor and City and RCFPD concerning payment, performance of the contract, or otherwise. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. City and RCFPD's reuse of the Work Product for any purpose Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 4 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 56 other than the Project, shall be at City and RCFPD's sole risk. 7.2. Assignment of Intellectual Property Interests: Upon execution of this Agreement and to the extent not otherwise conveyed to City and RCFPD by Section 7. 1, above, the Contractor shall be deemed to grant and assign to City and RCFPD, and shall require all of its subcontractors to assign to City and RCFPD, all ownership rights, and all common law and statutory copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual and proprietary property rights relating to the Work Product and the Project itself, and Contractor shall disclaim and retain no rights whatsoever as to any of the Work Product, to the maximum extent permitted by law. City and RCFPD shall be entitled to utilize the Work Product for any and all purposes, including but not limited to constructing, using, maintaining, altering, adding to, restoring, rebuilding and publicizing the Project or any aspect of the Project. 7.3 Title to Intellectual Property. Contractor warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of the Work Product and/or materials produced under this Agreement, and that City and RCFPD has full legal title to and the right to reproduce any of the Work Product. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City and RCFPD, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City and RCFPD's use is violating federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Contractor shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, software, equipment, devices or processes used or incorporated in the Services and materials produced under this Agreement. In the event City and RCFPD's use of any of the Work Product is held to constitute an infringement and any use thereof is enjoined, Contractor, at its expense, shall: (a) secure for City and RCFPD the right to continue using the Work Product by suspension of any injunction or by procuring a license or licenses for City and RCFPD; or (b) modify the Work Product so that it becomes non -infringing. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8. Status as Independent Contractor. Contractor is, and shall at all times remain as to City and RCFPD, a wholly independent contractor. Contractor shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City and RCFPD or otherwise act as an agent of City and RCFPD. Neither City and RCFPD nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its officers, agents or employees are in any manner employees of City and RCFPD. Contractor shall pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Contractor under this Agreement, and to defend, indemnify and hold City and RCFPD harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City and RCFPD by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Contractor shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding Contractor and Contractor's employees 9. Confidentiality. Contractor may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City and RCFPD employees. Contractor covenants that all data, Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page S Last Revised: 10102113 Page 57 documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Contractor or provided for performance of this Agreement are confidential and shall not be disclosed by Contractor without prior written authorization by City and RCFPD. City and RCFPD shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. All City and RCFPD data shall be returned to City and RCFPD upon the termination of this Agreement. Contractor's covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. This provision shall not apply to information in whatever form that is in the public domain, nor shall it restrict the Contractor from giving notices required by law or complying with an order to provide information or data when such an order is issued by a court, administrative agency or other legitimate authority, or if disclosure is otherwise permitted by law and reasonably necessary for the Contractor to defend itself from any legal action or claim. 10. Conflict of Interest. 10.1 Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code §§1090 and 87 100) in any decision made by City and RCFPD on any matter in connection with which Contractor has beenretained. 10.2 Contractor further represents that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Contractor has not paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City and RCFPD shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 10.3 Contractor has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City and RCFPD has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City and RCFPD, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in subsection 10.1. 11. Indemnification. 11.1 To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City and RCFPD, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and RCFPD, (collectively, "Indemnitees"),free and harmless with respect to any and all damages, liabilities, losses, reasonable defense costs or expenses (collectively, "Claims"), including but not limited to Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 6 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 58 Claims relating to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts, omissions, activities or operations of Contractor or any of its officers, employees, subcontractors, Contractors, or agents in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall defend Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any such Claims with counsel of City and RCFPD's choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including actual attorney's fees and experts' costs incurred in connection with such defense. The indemnification obligation herein shall not in any way be limited by the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement provided, however, that the Contractor shall have no obligation to indemnify for Claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of any of the Indemnitees. 11.2 Nonwaiver of Rights. Indemnitees do not, and shall not, waive any rights that they may possess against Contractor because of the acceptance by City and RCFPD, or the deposit with City and RCFPD, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. 11.3 Waiver of Right of Subro ag tion. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, Contractor, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights of subrogation against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor. 11.4 Survival. The provisions of this Section 11 shall survive the termination of the Agreement and are in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law. Payment is not required as a condition precedent to an Indemnitee's right to recover under this indemnity provision, and an entry of judgment against Contractor shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee's right to recover under this indemnity provision. 12. Insurance. 12.1 Liability Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the services hereunder by Contractor, and/or its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. 12.2 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Unless otherwise approved by City and RCFPD, coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). (2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, and Employer's Liability Insurance. 12.3 Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10102113 Vendor Initials Page 7 Page 59 (1) Commercial General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement or the general limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease and Workers' Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law. (4) The Insurance obligations under this Agreement shall be the greater of (i) the Insurance coverages and limits carried by the Contractor; or (ii) the minimum Insurance coverages and limits shown in this Agreement. Any insurance proceeds in excess of the specified limits and coverage required which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to the City and RCFPD. No representation is made that the minimum Insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of the Contractor under this agreement. 12.4 Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City and RCFPD and shall not reduce the limits of coverage. City and RCFPD reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any required insurance policy and endorsements. 12.5 Other Insurance Provisions. (1) The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain the following provisions on a separate additionally insured endorsement naming the City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials, as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Contractor; products and completed operations of Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by Contractor; and/or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor. The coverage shall contain no limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials which are not also limitations PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10102113 Vendor Initials Page 8 Page 60 applicable to the named insured. (2) For any claims related to this Agreement, Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials shall be in excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (4) Contractor shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, Contractor shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance. Should Contractor fail to immediately procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any canceled policy, the City and RCFPD may procure such insurance at Contractor's sole cost and expense. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall expressly waive the insurer's right of subrogation against City and RCFPD, its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials. (6) Each policy shall be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City and RCFPD, which is admitted and licensed to do business in the State of California and which is rated ANII or better according to the most recent A.M. Best Co. Rating Guide. () Each policy shall specify that any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the required policy, including breaches of warranty, shall not affect the coverage required to be provided. (8) Each policy shall specify that any and all costs of adjusting and/or defending any claim against any insured, including court costs and attorneys' fees, shall be paid in addition to and shall PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10102113 Vendor Initials Page 9 Page 61 not deplete any policy limits. (9) Contractor shall provide any and all other insurance, endorsements, or exclusions as required by the City and RCFPD in any request for proposals applicable to this Agreement. 12.6 Evidence of coverage. Prior to commencing performance under this Agreement, the Contractor shall furnish the City and RCFPD with certificates and original endorsements, or copies of each required policy, effecting and evidencing the insurance coverage required by this Agreement including (1) Additional Insured Endorsement(s), (2) Worker's Compensation waiver of subrogation endorsement, and (3) General liability declarations or endorsement page listing all policy endorsements. The endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by the insurer(s) to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements or policies shall be received and approved by the City and RCFPD before Contractor commences performance. If performance of this Agreement shall extend beyond one year, Contractor shall provide City and RCFPD with the required policies or endorsements evidencing renewal of the required policies of insurance prior to the expiration of any required policies of insurance. 12.7 Contractor agrees to include in all contracts with all subcontractors performing work pursuant to this Agreement, the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement including the indemnity and insurance requirements to the extent they apply to the scope of any such subcontractor's work. Contractor shall require its subcontractors to be bound to Contractor and City and RCFPD in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to City and RCFPD pursuant to this Agreement, and to require each of its subcontractors to include these same provisions in its contract with any sub -subcontractor. 13. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City and RCFPD relating to Contractor's performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation that City and RCFPD might require. City and RCFPD shall compensate Contractor for any litigation support services in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. 14. Termination. City and RCFPD shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for any or no reason on not less than ten (10) days prior written notice to Contractor. In the event City and RCFPD exercises its right to terminate this Agreement, City and RCFPD shall pay Contractor for any services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of the termination, provided Contractor is not then in breach of this Agreement. Contractor shall have no other claim against City and RCFPD by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation. City and RCFPD may terminate for cause following a default remaining uncured more than five (5) business days after service of a notice to cure on the breaching party. Contractor may terminate this Agreement for cause upon giving the City and RCFPD ten (10) business days prior written notice for any of the following: (1) uncured breach by the City and RCFPD of any material term of this Agreement, including but not limited to Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 10 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 62 Payment Terms; (2) material changes in the conditions under which this Agreement was entered into, coupled with the failure of the parties to reach accord on the fees and charges for any Additional Services required because of such changes. 15. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Contractor's and City and RCFPD's regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses set forth in this Section, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this Section. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to City and RCFPD: William Wittkopf, Public Works Director City of Rancho Cucamonga 8794 Lion Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 If to Contractor: Chris Woodson, President Autolift Services, Inc. 10764 Los Vaqueros Circle Los Alamitos, CA 90720 16. Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. 17. Assignment and Subcontracting. Contractor shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement or subcontract the performance of any of Contractor's obligations hereunder without City and RCFPD's prior written consent. Except as provided herein, any attempt by Contractor to so assign, transfer, or subcontract any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be null, void and of no effect. 18. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time Contractor performs the Services. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and compliance with other requirements on "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 11 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 63 is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The applicable prevailing wage rate determinations can be found at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services, available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Contractor's principal place of business and at the Project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City and RCFPD, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 19. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City and RCFPD of any payment to Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by City and RCFPD of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Contractor, and the making of any such payment by City and RCFPD shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City and RCFPD with regard to such breach or default. 20. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of experts. 21. Exhibits; Precedence. All documents referenced as exhibits in this Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Agreement. In the event of any material discrepancy between the express provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of any document incorporated herein by reference, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. 22. Applicable Law and Venue. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action relating to this Agreement shall be in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. 23. Construction. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Agreement or who drafted that portion of the Agreement. 24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement consists of this document, and any other documents, attachments and/or exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto, each of which is incorporated herein by such reference, and the same represents the entire and integrated agreement between Contractor and City and RCFPD. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 12 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 64 writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. Contractor Name: Autolift Services City of Rancho Cucamonga By: By: Name Date Name Date Title Title City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District By: By: Name Date Name Date Title Title Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 13 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 65 Exhibit A RANCHO CUCAMONGA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") #RFP 19/20-005 FOR FLEET SHOP EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE City of Rancho Cucamonga Procurement Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Deadline for Submissions: June 27, 2019 at 9:00 am Page 66 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Table of Contents 1. OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................................5 1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 PROPOSAL DELIVERY AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS.......................................................................................... S 1.3 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS................................................................................................................ 6 1.4 CONTINGENCIES................................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS............................................................................................................. 6 1.6 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ................................................ 6 1.7 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................. 7 1.8 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS........................................................................................................................ 7 1.9 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT......................................................................................................... 8 2. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................................8 2.4 BUSINESS LICENSE................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 PREVAILING WAGES.............................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 REPRESENTATIVES.................................................................................................................................9 2.4 EMPLOYEE CONDUCT........................................................................................................................... 10 3. RFP RESPONSE FORMAT AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS........................................................ 10 3.4 COVER LETTER / INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 10 3.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 EXPERIENCE....................................................................................................................................... 11 3.5 THIRD -PARTY SUBCONTRACTORS......................................................................................................... 11 3.6 STAFF BIOGRAPHIES............................................................................................................................ 11 3.7 PROPOSAL RESPONSE.......................................................................................................................... 12 3.8 NON -DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST................................................................................................ 12 3.9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT...................................................................................................... 12 3.40 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INSURANCE....................................................................................................... 12 3.11 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................................... 13 3.42 VENDOR CERTIFICATION....................................................................................................................... 13 3.43 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE........................................................................................................................ 13 Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 2 of 29 Page 67 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 3.14 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY................................................................................................................... 13 3.15 COMPANY REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 13 3.16 LINE ITEM PRICING.............................................................................................................................. 14 4. SCOPE OF SERVICES..................................................................................................................................14 4.1 LOCATION OF WORK........................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Working Hours............................................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Response Time............................................................................................................................... 14 4.4 Equipment..................................................................................................................................... 15 4.5 Supervision.................................................................................................................................... 15 4.6 Work Attire.................................................................................................................................... 15 4.7 EQUIPMENT.......................................................................................................................................15 4.8 SERVICES...........................................................................................................................................16 4.9 SITE MAINTENANCE............................................................................................................................ 16 4.10 RECORD KEEPING................................................................................................................................ 16 4.11 PRICING............................................................................................................................................17 4.12 CHANGES IN WORK............................................................................................................................. 17 4.13 LABOR..............................................................................................................................................17 4.14 MATERIALS....................................................................................................................................... 18 S. EVALUATION AND VENDOR SELECTION PROCESS....................................................................................18 5.1 INITIAL SCREENING.............................................................................................................................. 18 5.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................................... 18 5.3 COST EVALUATION.............................................................................................................................. 19 5.4 REFERENCE CHECKS............................................................................................................................. 19 5.5 DEMONSTRATIONS/ INTERVIEWS........................................................................................................... 19 5.6 FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION................................................................................................................ 19 5.7 BEST AND FINAL OFFER........................................................................................................................ 20 5.8 VENDOR SELECTION............................................................................................................................ 20 5.9 LETTER OF INTENT TO AWARD............................................................................................................... 20 "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RCFPD CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.................................................................................................................................................... 21 "EXHIBIT B" PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS SUMMARY ................................................ 22 Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 3 of 29 Page 68 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT C" ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION OF ABILITY TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN COVERAGES SPECIFIED.......................................................................................... 23 „EXHIBIT D" ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................24 "EXHIBIT E" VENDORS CERTIFICATION FORM.................................................................................................25 „EXHIBIT F" PARTICIPATION CLAUSE...............................................................................................................26 „EXHIBIT G" SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY........................................................................................................ 27 „EXHIBIT H" REFERENCES WORKSHEET...........................................................................................................28 Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 4 of 29 Page 69 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND The City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter "City") and Rancho Cucamonga fire Protection District (hereinafter" RCFPD") is inviting qualified Vendors to submit a proposal response for Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance in accordance with the minimum Scope of Services indicated herein. Vendors wishing to participate in the RFP solicitation must be registered as a Vendor on the City Vendor List. Vendor registration can be accomplished by visiting the City website at www.Cityofrc.us. Only those responses received from registered Vendors will be accepted. Responses must be submitted by the named Vendor that has downloaded the RFP; this information is indicated in the bid system and provides the ability to tabulate the responses in accordance to the named Vendors. Submitting a response under a Vendor name that does not appear to be on the Prospective Bidders list will be deemed as non-responsive and disqualify said response from further consideration. 1.2 PROPOSAL DELIVERY AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Complete RFP responses must be received electronically via Planet Bids prior to the due date and time specified in the below Schedule of Events. Please note, there will be no paper responses accepted. The City and RCFPD shall not be responsible for any delays by transmission errors. Schedule of Events: Event Description Date & Time Post RFP May 15, 2019 Questions Due June 4, 2019 at 9:00 am Addendum Issued June 11, 2019 RFP Response Due Date June 27, 2019 at 9:00 am Vendor Interviews / Presentation (If deemed necessary). TBD Letter of Intent to Award TBD (The City and RCFPD reserves the right to change schedule of events without prior notice or responsibility to Vendor.) Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 5 of 29 Page 70 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 1.3 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS Vendors finding discrepancies or omissions in the RFP or having any doubts as to the meaning or intent of any part thereof shall submit such questions or concerns in writing electronically via Planet Bids. No responsibility will be accepted for oral instructions. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFP shall be considered a part of this RFP and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFP. 1.4 CONTINGENCIES This RFP should not be considered as a Contract to purchase goods or services but is a Request for Proposal in accordance with the Terms and Conditions herein and will not necessarily give rise to a Contract. However, RFP responses should be as detailed and complete as possible to facilitate the formation of a Contract based on the RFP response(s) that are pursued should the City and RCFPD decide to do so. Completion of this RFP form and its associated appendices are a requirement. Failure to do so may disqualify your RFP response submittal. Vendors must submit signed RFP responses by the due date and time as specified herein. Vendors will be considered non-responsive if the above requirements are not submitted as requested. If only one RFP response is received, the City RCFPD reserves the right to reject the response and re -bid the RFP. Any Scope of Services, Contingencies, Special Instruction and/or Terms and Conditions applicable to this RFP and any Purchase Order derived thereafter shall be effective as of the issue date of Purchase Order (the "Effective Date"), and shall remain in full force and effect until sixty (60) days after the City and RCFPD has accepted the work in writing and has made final payment, unless sooner terminated by written agreement signed by both parties. 1.5 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS All questions or clarification requests must be submitted directly through the City and RCFPD's bid system on or before June 4, 2019, by 9:00 am. Answers and/or clarifications will be provided in the form of an Addendum and will be posted for download from the City's bid system in accordance with the above "Schedule of Events". From the issuance date of this RFP until a Vendor is awarded, Vendors are not permitted to communicate with any City and RCFPD staff or officials regarding this procurement, other than during interviews, demonstrations, and/or site visits, except at the direction of Ruth Cain, CPPB, Procurement Manager, the designated representative of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD. 1.6 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION All materials submitted in response to the RFP solicitation will become the property of the City and RCFPD and will be returned only at the City and RCFPD's option and at the expense of the Vendor submitting the RFP response. A copy of the RFP response will be retained for official files and become a public record. Any material that a Vendor considers as confidential but does not meet the disclosure exemption requirements of the Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 6 of 29 Page 71 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance California Public Records Act should not be included in the Vendor's RFP response as it may be made available to the public. If a Vendor's RFP response contains material noted or marked as confidential and/or proprietary that, in the City and RCFPD's sole opinion, meets the disclosure exemption requirements, then that information will not be disclosed pursuant to a written request for public documents. If the City and RCFPD does not consider such material to be exempt from disclosure, the material may be made available to the public, regardless of the notation or markings. If a Vendor is unsure if its confidential and/or proprietary material meets disclosure exemption requirements, then it should not include such information in its RFP response because such information may be disclosed to the public. 1.7 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS The Vendor shall carefully review all documents referenced and made a part of the solicitation document to ensure that all information required to properly respond has been submitted or made available and all requirements are priced in the RFP response. Failure to examine any documents, drawings, specifications, or instructions will be at the Vendor's sole risk. Vendors shall be responsible for knowledge of all items and conditions contained in their RFP responses and in this RFP, including any City and RCFPD issued clarifications, modifications, amendments, or addenda. The City and RCFPD will provide notice of any changes and clarifications to perspective Vendors by way of addenda to the City and RCFPD website; however, it is the Vendor's responsibility to ascertain that the RFP response includes all addenda issued prior to the RFP due date. 1.8 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS The issuance of this RFP does not constitute an agreement by the City and RCFPD that any contract will be entered by the City and RCFPD. The City and RCFPD expressly reserves the right at any time to: • Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, RFP, or RFP procedure. • Reject any or all RFPs. • Reissue a Request for RFPs. • Prior to submission deadline for RFPs, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFP, or the requirements for contents or format of the RFPs. • The City and RCFPD recognizes that price is only one of several criteria to be used in judging a product or service, and the City and RCFPD is not legally bound to accept the lowest RFP response. • The City and RCFPD reserves the right to conduct pre -award discussions and/or pre -Contract negotiations with any or all responsive and responsible Vendors who submit RFP responses. • Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFP by any other means. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 7 of 29 Page 72 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance • Determine that no project will be pursued. • The City and RCFPD reserves the right to inspect the Vendor's place of business prior to award or at any time during the contract term or any extension thereof, to determine the Vendor's capabilities and qualifications. 1.9 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT The City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD complies with the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6253. (a) Public records are open to inspection always during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. Neither an RFP in its entirety, nor proposed prices shall be considered confidential and proprietary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, companies are hereby notified that all materials submitted in response to this RFP are subject to California's Public Records Act. The City and RCFPD receipt, review, evaluation or any other act or omission concerning any such information shall not create an acceptance by the City and RCFPD or any obligation or duty to prevent the disclosure of any such information except as required by Government Code Section 6253. Companies who submit information they believe should be exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act shall clearly mark each document as confidential, proprietary or exempt, and state the legal basis for the exemption with supporting citations to the California Code. Pursuant to California Law, if the information is requested under the Public Records Act, the City and RCFPD shall make a final determination if any exemption exists for the City and RCFPD to deny the request and prevent disclosure. The City and RCFPD will withhold such information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act only if the City and RCFPD determines, in its sole discretion, that there is a legal basis to do so. 2. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 2.4 BUSINESS LICENSE The selected Vendor awarded a Contract shall be required to obtain a Rancho Cucamonga Business License no later than five (5) business days from notification of award prior to being issued a Purchase Order. Awarded Vendor must possess and maintain all appropriate licenses/certifications necessary in the performance of duties required under this RFP and will provide copies of licenses/certifications immediately upon request throughout the term of the Contract. 2.2 PREVAILING WAGES Where labor is required for public work as a part of any requirement covered by this RFP, pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, Vendor(s) shall pay no less than those minimum wages. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 8 of 29 Page 73 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 2.3 REPRESENTATIVES Should the awarded Vendor require the services of a third -party to complete the Scope of Services indicated in this RFP, the awarded Vendor will not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract or its right, title or interest in or to the same, or any part thereof. Any attempt by the awarded Vendor to so assign, transfer, or subcontract any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be null, void and of no effect. The awarded Vendor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services including Vendors subcontractor. All Services shall be performed by the awarded Vendor or under the awarded Vendor's direct supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by state and local law to perform such services. The awarded Vendor shall be responsible for payment of all employees' and subcontractors' wages and benefits and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer's liability, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. By its execution of this Agreement, Vendor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the services. In case of default by the Vendor, the City and RCFPD may take the following actions which shall include but not be limited to; cancellation of any purchase order, procurement of the articles or service from other sources and may deduct from unpaid balance due to the Vendor, or may bill for excess costs so paid, and the prices paid by the City and RCFPD shall be considered the prevailing market prices paid at the time such purchase is made, withholding of payment until final resolution. Cost of transportation, handling, and/or inspection on deliveries, or Vendors for delivery, which do not meet specifications, will be for the account of the Vendor. City and RCFPD Representative: For the purposes of this Agreement, the contract administrator and City and RCFPD representative shall be , or such other person as designated in writing by City and RCFPD ("City and RCFPD's Representative"). It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to assure that City and RCFPD Representative is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services, and the Vendor shall refer any decisions that must be made by City and RCFPD to City and RCFPD Representative. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City and RCFPD required hereunder shall mean the approval of the City and RCFPD Representative. Vendor Reoresentative: For the purposes of this Agreement, is hereby designated as the representative of the successful Vendor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith ("Vendor's Representative"). It is expressly understood Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 9 of 29 Page 74 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the Vendor's Representative were a substantial inducement for City and RCFPD to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the Vendor's Representative shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Vendor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. The successful Vendor may not change the Vendor's Representative without the prior written approval of City and RCFPD Representative. 2.4 EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All Vendor personnel must observe all City and RCFPD regulations in effect at the location where the Services are being conducted. While on City and RCFPD property, the Vendor's personnel shall be subject to oversight by City and RCFPD staff. Under no circumstances shall the Vendor's or Vendor's sub -contractor personnel be deemed as employees of the City and RCFPD. Vendor or Vendor's subcontractor personnel shall not represent themselves to be employees of the City and RCFPD. Vendor's personnel will always make their best efforts to be responsive, polite, and cooperative when interacting with representatives of the City and RCFPD, or any other City and RCFPD employees. The Vendor's personnel shall be required to work in a pleasant and professional manner with City and RCFPD employees, outside Vendors and the public. Nothing contained in this RFP shall be construed as granting the Vendor the sole right to supply personal or contractual services required by the City and RCFPD or without the proper City and RCFPD approval and the issuance of a Purchase Order. 3. RFP RESPONSE FORMAT AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Completion of this RFP form and its associated Exhibits are a requirement. To be considered responsive and evaluate RFP responses fairly and completely Vendors must comply with the format and submission requirements set out in this RFP, and provide all information requested. Failure to comply with this instruction will deem said RFP response as non-responsive and will not receive further consideration in the evaluation process. If only one RFP response is received, the City reserves the right to discard the response, re -bid or proceed with an RFP review and negotiations. RFP submittals are due on the due date and time indicated in the above schedule of events. Submittals shall be submitted electronically via Planet Bids; no paper RFPs will be accepted. RFP responses must include the following information and in the exact order and format as shown. 3.4 COVER LETTER/ INTRODUCTION RFP responses must include the complete name and address of Vendor and the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the contact person regarding the RFP response. A signature by an authorized Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 10 of 29 Page 75 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance representative must be included on each RFP response. Said signature will be considered confirmation of the Vendors ability and willingness to comply with all provisions stated herein. 3.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Table of Contents must be a comprehensive listing of the contents included in your RFP response. This section must include a clear definition of the material, exhibits and supplemental information identified by sequential page numbers and by section reference numbers. Each section of the RFP response will be separated by a title page at the beginning of each section. 3.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary shall condense and highlight the contents of the Vendor's RFP response to provide the Evaluation Committee with a broad understanding of the Vendor's approach, Proposal, experience and staffing. 3.4 EXPERIENCE The Vendor shall provide a concise statement demonstrating the Vendor's Proposal, experience, expertise and capability to perform the requirements of this RFP. Provide a brief history of your company, including; • The number of years in business, • The firms service commitment to customers, • If the firm is involved in any pending litigation that may affect its ability to provide its proposed solution or ongoing maintenance or support of its products and services. • State whether your firm is an individual proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or private nonprofit firm, and the date your company was formed or incorporated. 3.5 THIRD -PARTY/ SUBCONTRACTORS If the Vendor intends to subcontract, a detailed list of any sub -contractors, partners, or third -party Vendors who will be involved in the implementation of the proposed services including but not limited to: • Description of the Vendor's experience with each of the proposed subcontractors, • Three (3) customer references for each subcontractor to include references names, addresses, and telephone numbers, for products and services like those described in this RFP, • Describe the specific role of each. 3.6 STAFF BIOGRAPHIES Submit the resumes of the individuals who will be performing the services for the City and RCFPD. Resumes shall be formatted in the following order: • Position with the Company, Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 11 of 29 Page 76 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance • Length of time with the Company, • Licenses, registrations and certifications as required by law to perform the Scope of Work described herein, • Educational background, • Role in the Project, • Experience with the minimum requirements stated herein, • Work history on similar or like projects with the other municipalities. 3.7 PROPOSAL RESPONSE Under this section Vendors shall provide a full, detailed response to the City and RCFPD Scope of Services listed herein. Vendors should be as thorough as possible in their response as it may be the only opportunity to convey information regarding your business, ability and qualifications to complete the services needed. 3.8 NON -DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST Specify any possible conflicts of interest with your current clients or staff members and the City and RCFPD. A signed "Exhibit A, Conflict of Interest and Non -Disclosure Agreement" included herein must be submitted under this section. 3.9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT In addition to the acceptance of the City and RCFPD Terms and Conditions, the successful Vendor will be required to enter into a Professional Services Agreement ("PSA") with the City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD, a "Sample" of which is attached in the City and RCFPD bid system for review. All requirements of said PSA must be completed by the successful Vendor and signed by both applicable parties prior to any services being rendered. This RFP sets forth some of the general provisions which may be included in the final PSA. In submitting a response to this RFP, Vendor will be deemed to have agreed to each clause unless otherwise indicated in "Exhibit B, Professional Services Agreement Exceptions Summary" and the City and RCFPD agrees to either accept the objection or deviation or change the PSA language in writing. Failure to raise any objections at the time of this RFP response submittal will result in a waiver of objection to any of the contractual language in the PSA at any other time. The signed Exception Summary shall be included under this section of the RFP response. 3.40 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INSURANCE Vendors must meet all insurance requirements as outlined in the Professional Services Agreement. Ability to comply with said requirements must be indicated with signature of "Exhibit C, Acknowledgement of Insurance Requirements and Certification of Ability to Provide and Maintain Coverages Specified", which must be submitted with the Bid under the Insurance tab. The awarded Vendor will be responsible for providing the Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 12 of 29 Page 77 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance required Certificates of Insurance and must be the Named Insured on the Certificates. Certificates of Insurance from any other entity other than the awarded Vendor, will not be accepted. 3.11 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendor shall hereby acknowledge they have received all posted Addendums, if any. It is the Vendor's responsibility to log into the Bid System to identify and download the number of addenda that have been posted. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFP shall be considered a part of this RFP and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFP. Vendors must indicate their acknowledgement of any Addendums by way of signature on "Exhibit D, Addendum Acknowledgement" and must be included under this section of the RFP response. 3.42 VENDOR CERTIFICATION Vendors must verify by way of signature to "Exhibit E, Vendor Certification Form" that Vendor nor any of its proposed subcontractors are currently under suspension or debarment by any state or federal government agency, and that neither Vendor not any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. The signed exhibit must be included under this section of the RFP response. 3.43 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE Vendors shall provide a completed "Exhibit F, Participation Clause", must be included with the Vendors RFP response. This will indicate a Vendors agreement to or not to allow other entities to utilize the RFP response and awarded contract as a piggyback option. 3.44 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY "Exhibit G", Signature of Authority must be included with the Vendor RFP response. Unsigned RFP responses will not be accepted. The Signature of Authority declares that the Vendor has carefully examined the instruction indicated herein including all terms and condition and specifications, and hereby proposes and agrees, if the Vendors RFP response is accepted, Vendor agrees to furnish all material in accordance with the instruction and specifications in the time and manner prescribed for the unit cost amounts set forth in the Vendors RFP response. 3.45 COMPANY REFERENCES Provide a minimum of four (4) references, preferably with other municipalities in which similar services are being performed. References must be for work performed or completed within the past three (3) years. "Exhibit H, Reference Worksheet", must be complete and uploaded into the Planet Bid system under the "Response Type" section identified as "Exhibit H". While the Reference Worksheet accompanies your RFP response it is not to be discussed in any other area of the RFP response other than the "Response Type" section in Planet Bids. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 13 of 29 Page 78 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 3.16 LINE ITEM PRICING Line item pricing for this RFP must be provided directly in the Planet Bids system under the "Line Items" tab. This pricing is not an estimate and is firm fixed price for each item listed. Vendors pricing quotes outside of the pricing listed in Planet Bids under the "Line Items" tab will not be accepted or considered for award. Any additional cost required should be noted in the additional cost line item and a summary of the cost provided in the notes section of the line item. While Line item pricing accompanies your RFP response it is not to be discussed in any other area of the RFP response other than the "Line Item" tab in Planet Bids. The City and RCFPD will not be obligated to any estimated pricing or pricing not identified in the "Line Item" tab in Planet Bids. Failure to provide the required Line Item pricing in the required format will cause Vendors RFP response to be considered as non-responsive and be eliminated from proceeding any further in the process. Any questions or clarifications regarding how to correctly submit Lint Item pricing should be submitted by the "Questions Due" date and time indicated in the schedule of events. 4. SCOPE OF SERVICES 4.1 LOCATION OF WORK Facilities owned, operated or maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District including, but not limited to, the Fleet Services Shop at 9153 9th Street, the Epicenter Public Works Maintenance Shop at 8800 Rochester Avenue and the Fire Shop at 11271 Jersey Blvd. 4.2 Working Hours Regular working hours are 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. After Hours are times other than regular working hours, excluding City holidays. Holiday hours are recognized City holidays only. The Contractor shall be capable of dispatching work crews 24 hours/7 days a week including weekends and holidays. All work shall be scheduled at the convenience of the City and Fire District as to not interfere with normal operations. 4.3 Response Time Respond to service requests in person, by phone or email within 30 minutes of initial call. Contractor shall be on site with all necessary labor, material, tools and equipment necessary to provide emergency services within two (2) hours of notification by the City or Fire District. These services shall not be subcontracted out. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 14 of 29 Page 79 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Contractor shall be on site with all necessary labor, material, tools and equipment necessary to provide non- emergency services within three (3) working days of notification by the City or Fire District. These services shall not be subcontracted out. 4.4 Equipment Contractor shall have available and readily accessible all required tools, equipment, apparatus, skilled labor services, materials, etc. to perform all work necessary at the locations defined in this Scope of Work. All work performed, or equipment, parts, or materials supplied shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 4.5 Supervision The Contractor shall assign a supervisor to be available each working day, during normal working hours and after-hours, for the duration of this contract. The supervisor shall have the expertise in fleet shop equipment maintenance and repair. The supervisor shall be fluent in the English language. The supervisor shall have a cell phone provided by the Contractor and be on-call 24 hours per day. 4.6 Work Attire All Contractor employees shall wear the appropriate work attire pants and shirts with Company Logo. Employees shall wear personal protective equipment (PPE) i.e. shirts, pants, safety glasses, ear plugs, work gloves, and any related PPE required by Cal -OSHA requirements for worker safety. 4.7 EQUIPMENT Inspection, certification, routine maintenance, troubleshooting and repair of various fleet shop equipment, including but not limited to the following: • one (1) Saylor Beall compressor model 707 • one (1) Saylor Beall compressor model T-737-120 • one (1) Rotary Lift 4 -post model SM 18NO01 • two (2) Rotary Lift model SP 98 • one (1) Rotary Lift model TL 07 • one (1) Trion Pro -M Lift • one (1) Rotary Lift model 75/48 -S -CF • one (1) Rotary Lift model SL29 • one (1) Rotary Lift model numberR703Q-120 • two (2) Rotary Lift model RU70Q Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 15 of 29 Page 80 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance • one (1) Stahl Crane model 7.5 tons • one (1) Mustang Chassis Dynamometer model MC -EC -CD • Harvey Exhaust Blower ModelOH-10-DST-30 • CUDA Model H2O -2836 serial 1004081 4.8 SERVICES The services to be provided include, but are not limited to the following: Annual service and safety inspections on all hoists and hydraulic hoist pumps according to manufacturer's recommendations and ANSI/ALI "Standards for Automotive Lifts -Safety Requirements for Operation, Inspection and Maintenance". Ensure the integrity of all aboveground hydraulic lift lines and reservoirs (pressure tests if applicable). Annual Service, Preventive Maintenance and Inspection of lube pumps, overhead reels, and associated lines. Semi-annual Service, Preventive Maintenance, repair, and Inspection on air compressors. Provide 7 day/24-hour emergency service. 4.9 SITE MAINTENANCE The Contractor shall maintain the work site in a safe, neat, and orderly condition free of any hazardous conditions, trash, debris, surplus materials, and objectionable matter of any kind, all to the satisfaction of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. During maintenance and/or repair, the Contractor shall protect all existing improvements, including underground, which are to remain in place within and adjacent to the work site from damage resulting from his/her operation. 4.10 RECORD KEEPING The Contractor shall keep a current, permanent operational record of all work performed and a copy at centralized location approved by the City. The records shall be on a form approved by the City. The form shall include, at a minimum, the date, description of equipment including all model, parts, and/or serial numbers, narrative of deficiencies encountered, and a detail of all corrective action(s) taken. Entries shall be made legible in indelible ink. The record shall have the technicians first / last name and be initialed by the technician making the entry. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 16 of 29 Page 81 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 4.11 PRICING All inspection, certification, routine maintenance, troubleshooting and repair, including emergency repairs, will be performed on a time and materials basis in accordance with the cost proposal. Pricing shall be effective from date of execution of professional services agreement through June 30, 2020. The Contractor shall provide written "Not to Exceed" estimates for non -emergency services based on the rates proposed. This estimate shall include the estimated number of man hours, fixed hourly rate, estimated material and equipment cost and completion date. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to ensure they have all information needed to prepare accurate estimates. Contractor is responsible for all costs associated with integrating new equipment and replacement parts into existing systems and obtaining the required performance from the system into which these items are placed. Price shall include all labor, supervision, materials, equipment and overhead based on proposed rates. Non -emergency work shall only be performed with written authorization from the City or Fire District. Upon authorization actual work shall not exceed the Contractors estimate. Unreasonable estimates shall be deemed cause to terminate this contract. Emergency work may be performed with verbal authorization from the City or Fire District. 4.12 CHANGES IN WORK Should any changes in the specifications be required, the Contractor shall submit to the City, in writing, a formal request for a change in the scope of work. Work shall not proceed until approved by the Public Works Services Director or his/her designee. In event of disagreement on the necessity of such changes, the City's decision shall be final. 4.13 LABOR The fixed hourly rate shall be all-inclusive of all related costs that the Contractor will incur to provide Equipment Maintenance and Repair Services on an as needed basis, including, but not limited to: employee wages and benefits; clerical support; overhead; profit; licensing; insurance; bonding; materials; supplies; tools; equipment; telecommunications; document copying; etc. Man-hours paid under this contract shall be only for productive hours at the job site. Time spent for transportation of workers, material acquisition, handling and delivery, or for movement of Contractor owned or rental equipment is not chargeable directly but is overhead and the cost shall be included in the hourly rate. The City shall accept no proposal with a minimum charge stipulated. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 17 of 29 Page 82 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Contractor must have prior verbal and/or written approval to work outside normal business hours. The regular hourly rate for labor shall be paid for all hours worked during the City's regular working hours from 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The after-hours labor rate shall be paid for work completed at times other than regular working hours, excluding City holidays. The holiday rate shall be paid for work completed on City recognized holidays only. 4.14 MATERIALS Contractor shall provide all necessary replacement parts and materials required to successfully complete each individual work order. Material specifications shall be approved by the Public Works Services Director or designated representative before being incorporated into the work. All replacement parts, equipment and materials supplied by the Contractor shall be new, undamaged, clean and in good condition. Replacement parts, equipment and materials shall be the same make and model of existing unless substitution has been approved in writing by the Public Works Services Director or designated representative. The markup for all parts, equipment and materials shall be fifteen (15) percent. Copies of all supplier invoices for parts, equipment and materials incorporated into the work shall be submitted with each request for payment. 5. EVALUATION AND VENDOR SELECTION PROCESS 5.1 INITIAL SCREENING All RFP responses will undergo an initial review to determine responsiveness to the instructions herein. Those RFP responses initially determined to be compliant by meeting the RFP requirement as indicated herein will proceed to the next phase of the evaluation process. 5.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES Compliant RFP responses proceeding to the next phase of the evaluation process are then evaluated by an Evaluation Committee. The RFP submittals are scored and assigned a ranking of one (1) through ten (10), ten being the highest possible score. The following criteria have been assigned percentages that the criteria will be scored against, based upon but not limited to the following evaluation criteria factors: Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 18 of 29 Page 83 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Evaluation Criteria Description Percentage Cost 25 Vendor Experience 25% Quality of proposed services or goods 25% Extent to which the Vendors services or goods meet the City's needs 25% 5.3 COST EVALUATION Cost Proposals are evaluated and scored based on the following calculations; Score = Lowest Proposal Cost / Cost of Proposal being scored X Maximum Points Available (10) The score is then added to the spreadsheet criteria scores. 5.4 REFERENCE CHECKS If determined to be required reference checks are conducted by the Procurement Division and the requesting department may or may not be present during the process. The reference checks may be conducted by phone with the information being scribed or conducted by a written form, submitted to the Vendor's reference contact. Reference contacts will be asked several predetermined questions for response and to provide a score from one (1) to ten (10), ten being the highest. Scores are then tabulated and added to the spreadsheet with the criteria scores. It is imperative that Vendors provide up to date and accurate information regarding contact information for reference checks. All scores are then tabulated into the final Vendor ranking. Evaluators do not see the Vendor References or pricing line items. The proposed pricing is evaluated by the Procurement Division during the initial review of the RFP response, only to ensure that the proposed cost is not over the City's budgeted amount or Not -to -Exceed amount for the project. 5.5 DEMONSTRATIONS/ INTERVIEWS Upon completion of the RFP evaluations and data analysis, and only if necessary, selected top ranked Vendors will be provided an opportunity to interview and conduct a demonstration or presentation to further expand on their RFP response. Vendor interviews/demonstrations are scored and assigned a ranking of one (1) through ten (10), ten being the highest possible score, based upon but not limited to the evaluation criteria factors as stated within the RFP. 5.6 FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION Vendors that proceed to the short-list may be required to submit financial documentation as proof of its firm's financial stability and strength. A financial review will be conducted by the City Finance Department. Should a Vendor wish for its financial documentation to be treated as proprietary or be returned upon completion of the review, the documentation must clearly be marked as such. The following documentation will be required of each Vendor on the short-list: Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 19 of 29 Page 84 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance • A copy of the Vendor's most recent annual report. • Audited (by a third party), balance sheets and income statements for the past three (3) years. • If audited data is not available, Vendor shall submit copies of complete tax returns for the past three (3) years. • Describe any regulatory censure and past or pending litigation related to services provided by the Vendor. • Indicate all applicable information regarding Vendor ownership changes in the last three (3) years. 5.7 BEST AND FINAL OFFER Upon completion of Vendor presentations, the City and RCFPD reserves the right to conduct pre -award discussions and/or pre -contract negotiations with all or only top ranked Vendors. At which time the City and RCFPD may request a Best and Final Offer to be submitted from one or all finalists. 5.8 VENDOR SELECTION The final Vendor selection is based on which Vendor is the most responsive, meeting the City and RCFPD's requirements, offering the best value at the most competitive price. The City is not obligated to award to the lowest price proposal. The City may conduct negotiations with several Vendors simultaneously. The City may also negotiate contract terms with the selected Vendors prior to award. The City, at its sole discretion, reserves the right, unless otherwise stated, to accept or reject all or any RFP responses, or any part thereof, either separately or to waive any informality and to split or make the award in any manner determined to be in the best interest of the City. 5.9 LETTER OF INTENT TO AWARD After a final Vendor selection is determined, a Letter of Intent to Award (LOI) will be posted for review by all participating, responsive Vendors. Negotiations shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure to competing Vendors unless an agreement is reached. If contract negotiations cannot be concluded successfully, City may negotiate a contract with the next highest scoring Vendor or withdraw the RFP entirely. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 20 of 29 Page 85 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RCFPD CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT It is the policy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD to prevent personal or organizational conflict of interest, or the appearance of such conflict of interest, in the award and administration of City and RCFPD Contracts, including, but not limited to Contracts for Professional Services Agreements ("PSA") with potential Vendors. I do not have specific knowledge of confidential information regarding RFP responses received in response to the Request for Proposal "RFP" #19/20-005 for Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance. I agree not to disclose or otherwise divulge any information pertaining to the contents, status, or ranking of any RFP response to anyone. I understand the terms and "disclose or otherwise divulge" to include, but are not limited to, verbal conversations, written correspondence, reproduction of any part or any portion of any RFP response, or removal of same from designated areas. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following statements are true and correct and that I understand and agree to be bound by commitments contained herein. (Print Name) (Relationship to the City and RCFPD) (Relationship to the Vendors) (Signature) (Date) Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 21 of 29 Page 86 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT B" PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS SUMMARY Mark the appropriate choice, below: MW Vendors accepts the PSA without exception. Vendors proposes exceptions to the PSA. Summarize all exceptions on a separate document. Enclose a written summary of each change and title as "Exception Summary", which shall include the Vendor's rationale for proposing each such exception. Each exception must be labeled with the Section number in the PSA. Failure to properly reference exceptions in the submitted summary may deem the response as non-responsive. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 22 of 29 Page 87 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT C" ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION OF ABILITY TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN COVERAGES SPECIFIED I, the (President, Secretary, Manager, Owner or Representative) of , certify that the (Name of Company, Corporation or Owner) Specifications and General Provisions regarding insurance requirements as stated within the Professional Services Agreement (PSA), for the Purchase Contract designated Request for Proposal ("RFP") for #19/20-005 for Flee Shop Equipment Maintenance have been read and understood and that our Vendors is able to provide and maintain the coverage as specified in the PSA. Failure to provide said coverage, upon request to finalize the PSA prior to award shall be sufficient cause for immediate disqualification of award. Failure to maintain said coverage shall result in termination of the contract. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 23 of 29 MER-0; City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT D" ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendors hereby acknowledges the following Addenda Number(s) to this RFP have been received, if any. Vendors understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the RFP response to be considered non-responsive. It is the Vendor's responsibility to log into the Bid System to identify and download the number of addenda that have been posted. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 24 of 29 Page 89 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT E" VENDORS CERTIFICATION FORM I certify that neither (Vendors) nor any of its proposed subcontractors are currently under suspension or debarment by any state or federal government agency, and that neither Vendors nor any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. I acknowledge that if Vendors or any of its subcontractors subsequently are placed under suspension or debarment by a local, state or federal government entity, or if Vendors or any of its subcontractors subsequently become delinquent in California taxes, our Proposal may be disqualified. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 25 of 29 Page 90 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT F" PARTICIPATION CLAUSE It is hereby understood that other government entities, such as cities, counties, and special/school districts may utilize this RFP response at their option for equipment or services at the RFP response price for a period of days. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation. Any such piggy -back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not an agent, partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts that may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy -back procurement. Each public agency shall accept sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments of the Vendors. Successful Vendors will extend prices as proposed herein to other governmental agencies, please specify. YES NO Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 26 of 29 Page 91 City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 for Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT G" SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY The undersigned firm declares that he has carefully examined the specifications and read the above terms and conditions, and hereby proposes and agrees, if this RFP response is accepted, to furnish all material in accordance with the specifications and instructions, in the time and manner therein prescribed for the unit cost amounts set forth in the following RFP response. THE VENDORS IN SUBMITTING THIS RFP RESPONSE MUST FILL IN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY DEEM YOUR RFP RESPONSE AS NON-RESPONSIVE. Company Name: Address: (Street, Su. # City, State, Zip) Telephone #: Fax #: E-mail address: Web Address: Authorized Representative: (print) Title: Signature: Date: Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 27 of 29 Page 92 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT H" REFERENCES WORKSHEET The following References Worksheet must be complete, please do not mark "See Attached". This Exhibit must be complete and uploaded into the Planet Bid system under the applicable "Response Type" section. Provide a minimum of four (4) clients that are similar in size to the City of Rancho Cucamonga that your company has conducted comparable or like services. Preferred references should be government agencies and be a current customer within the past three (3) years. Please verify accuracy of contact information. To be submitted as an attachment in the Planet Bid system under the "Response Type" section identified as "Exhibit W. Reference 1 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Reference 2 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Des ircDes p iotiot n of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 28 of 29 Page 93 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Reference 3 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Reference 4 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 29 of 29 Page 94 Exhibit 6 IOLII=T Se 6111 111111 10764 Los Vaqueros Circle Los Alamitos, CA. 90720 (714) 816-9890 • (714) 816-9899 FAX 1(800) CAR — LIFT State Contractor License No. A-826743 DIR No. 1000011699 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposal ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Chris Woodson President Autoliftservicesksbcglobal.net v (714)366-5362 Cell Kyle Woodson Sales Director kyle@autoliftservices.com (714)860-9405 Cell Cody Woodson Project Superintendent codykautoliftservices.com (714)366-6621 Cell Page 95 AUIOLIIZT Table of Contents ➢ Executive Summary ➢ Experience ➢ Third Party/ Subcontractors ➢ Key Staff Biographies ➢ Proposal Response MI WMG Pg. 11 2 Page 96 Executive Summary We feel our company is able to meet the necessary experience, and will comply with all terms and conditions of this Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance. Our references of quality and professional experience from previous and present maintenance agreements of similar scope of work will enable us to deliver continued professional services to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Due to our central location, we can respond within a matter of hours to any service or emergency. Our 14,000 square foot facility contains fully staffed offices, warehouse with parts inventory, fully operational repair and tool shop and gated yard for equipment and vehicle storage. We specialize in all vehicle maintenance facility equipment including all equipment stated in this RFP as well as most all other vehicle service equipment and tools. The Woodson family is the driving force that prides themselves on the tradition of providing quality automotive installation and service for over 75 years. We will work diligently at the side of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to coordinate periodic and as needed services throughout the duration of the PSA. As a whole, Autolift Services has the experience and capability to perform the necessary services to meet your facility's specific needs, and as set forth by this RFP. We currently have ten full-time employees that include journeyman level millwrights and apprentices. Our key personnel have a combined experience of over 100 years in the vehicle lift industry. They bring their years of experience and professionalism to every project. Our employee technical training program consists of hands on job training, technical seminars, manufacturer's certification training, safety seminars, and in house sessions all under the close supervision of our full time lead journeymen millwrights. 3 Page 97 Experience Autolift Services, Inc. is one of the true pioneers of the automotive equipment industry being one of the first companies founded upon the installation of the original in -ground hydraulic hoists and related automotive shop equipment beginning in 1939. We specialize in consulting, sales, installation, service and periodic maintenance of automotive shop equipment including but not limited to: heavy duty vehicle lifts, light duty vehicle lifts, air compressor and supply systems, lubrication pumps and supply systems, tire service equipment, break lathes, waste oil/coolant drains and systems, bulk storage tanks, vehicle wash systems, vehicle exhaust systems, overhead cranes, parts washers, dyno-meters, etc. Now with the support of his two sons, Kyle and Cody, they have solidified themselves as one of California's premier vehicle lift equipment installation and service companies carrying on the legacy of Autolift Services, Inc. into the future. With 3 generations of professional field knowledge and experience, Chris, Kyle and Cody are able to provide every customer with a product and/or service that fits their needs, application, and facility. These are the cornerstones that have landed Autolift Services over 75 years of continued business with its sole source of marketing as customer word of mouth. Furthermore, we believe that no two customers have the same needs, and all of our work is custom tailored to fit the individual needs and desires of every design, installation, or service we provide. At Autolift Services we pride ourselves on our long standing commitment to service. We stand behind our work providing a minimum 1 year guarantee on anything as small as a simple service to a large installation. Many of our continued customers have utilized our services for over 30 plus years and going. Please feel free to request a list of customers to reference or commitment to quality service. Autolift Services, Inc. is not currently involved in any pending litigation that may affect its ability to provide its proposed solution, ongoing maintenance, construction, and/or support of its products and services. Autolift Services, Inc. is a Corporation of the State of California. State Corporation No. 2375438 Incorporated on 01/23/2002. General Engineering Contractor License No. 826743 A, D-21 w/ Hazardous Materials Endorsement. The company is a corporation, woman -owned, and certified as a small business with LA Metro and the State of California. 4 Page 98 —MMI Third Party/Subcontractors Autolift Services utilizes a close nit of reliable subcontractors that are able to perform any craft necessary to complete a project, and that furthermore meets the expectations set forth by our own quality standards. All of our subcontractors are licensed, bonded and insured accordingly to their craft. Any request of this documentation is available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga at any time. Each of these subcontractors has been working with us for at least five years and has a proven track record of quality workmanship with our company. For this project we do not foresee utilizing any of our subcontractors at this time. All services listed under the scope of services are cable of being completed by Autolift Services staff. If there is a need for special services that fall outside the capabilities of our company we will submit necessary documentation to be approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to subcontracting any work. Page 99 sin Key Staff Biographies CHRIS WOODSON ➢ Owner/President/CEO, 1982 to present o Son of original owner who started the business in 1939. o For this project, Chris will be providing Lead Design and Service Consultation. o Chris grew up working under his father's tutelage as a young boy and gained hands on skills, ability and an in depth knowledge to install, diagnose, fabricate and repair automotive service equipment. o Chris holds a Bachelor's Degree in Industrial Psychology and Business Management. o Chris also holds the "A" General Engineering License along with a specialty C61/D21 license and Hazardous Materials Endorsement. o Chris has completed numerous manufacturer safety training seminars and is considered an expert in the field of automotive lifts. o His work experience includes 50+ years of installation, maintenance and repairs of hydraulic lifts and related automotive shop equipment. o ALI Certified Vehicle Lift Inspector ➢ Previous Heavy Duty Vehicle Lift Project Experience includes: o City of Long Beach: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Capistrano USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Ventura County Fire: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Chino Valley USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o City of Ventura: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative KYLE WOODSON o Sales and Service Director, 2005 to present o For this project, Kyle will be Lead Administrative and Co -Design Consultant, as well as special onsite services representative. ➢ All Administrative Communication: Questions, Requests, Periodic Project Updates, Change Orders, Comments and/or Concerns will be available 24 hours/day via email kyle@autoliftservices.com or cell phone (714) 860-9405 E Page 100 o Kyle has a Bachelor's Degree in Business Management with an emphasis in the field of Event Management. o Being the eldest son of Chris, Kyle has 15+ years of experience, guidance, and mentoring under Chris on Government/ Fleet Design/Consultation and Management of Construction Projects which has now evolved into coordinating and managing all subcontractors, products, and communications during new installations. o Training includes Various Vehicle Lift Manufacturer, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Electrical Diagnostics, Framing, Welding as well as Experienced Heavy Machinery Operator. o ALI Certified Vehicle Lift Inspector o Work Experience/ Relevant Skills includes: o City of Long Beach: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Capistrano USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Ventura County Fire: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Chino Valley USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o City of Ventura: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative ➢ Lead Site Safety Representative o OSHA 30 Hour Construction Site Safety Certified o First Aid/CPR/AED Certified o BCSP Certified Construction Health and Safety Technician CODY WOODSON ➢ Gov't/ Fleet Project Superintendent, 2007 to present o For this project, Cody will be the main point of contact for scheduling periodic services and as needed services o Cody has a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Engineering and I.T. Systems. He also has 10+ years of guidance and mentoring under Chris on Gov't/ Fleet Construction Project Management. o Training includes Various Vehicle Lift Manufacturer, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Electrical Diagnostics, Framing, Welding as well as Experienced Heavy Machinery Operator. 7 Page 101 mmm A ➢ All Onsite Construction Communication: Questions, Requests, Comments and/or Concerns will be available 24 hours/day via email cody@autoliftservices.com or cell phone (714) 366-6621 ➢ Work Experience/ Relevant Skills includes Lead Foreman on recent completed projects for: o City of Long Beach: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact o Capistrano USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact o Ventura County Fire: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact o Chino Valley USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact o City of Ventura: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact ➢ Lead Site Safety Representative o OSHA 30 Hour Construction Site Safety Certified o First Aid/CPR/AED Certified o BCSP Certified Construction Health and Safety Technician ROBIN WOODSON ➢ CFO and Secretary, 1984 to present o For this project, Robin will be controlling all of Autolift's finances, providing all necessary documentation and is the AP/AC Director. o She has a Bachelors Degree in Home Economics and Marketing and has over 30 years of financial management experience with our company. o Robin is responsible for daily office management, AP/AR, human resources and customer satisfaction. o She is the Lead Administrator/Contact on all necessary documentation, bid bonds, insurances and financial responsibilities. ANDY MARSAC ➢ Lead Millwright, 1985 to present o For this contract, Andy will be the Lead Technician/ Licensed Millwright. o Andy has 30+ years of experience and dedication to our company. o His specialties include Mechanical Engineering, Certified Welder, Metal Fabrication, Plumbing, Hydraulics, Pneumatics, Lubrication Equipment, etc. Page 102 o Work Experience/ Relevant Skills include: ➢ Quality Assurance and Final Testing on all finished projects prior to release to customer for end use ➢ Multiple Municipality, School District and Military onsite service technician ➢ Warranty/ Technical Support RICHARD VILLAFANA ➢ Lead Mechanical Technician, 2012 to present o For this project, Richard will be a lead onsite technician and key point of contact for day to day operations during all onsite repairs o Currently working on obtaining Bachelor's Degree o Training includes Onsite Vehicle Lift Manufacturers, Lubrication Equipment, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Framing, and Experienced as a Heavy Machinery Operator. ➢ Work Experience/Relevant Skills Include o Multiple Municipality, School District and Military onsite service technician ADAM CARDWELL ➢ Lead Mechanical Technician, 2010 to present o For this project, Richard will be a lead onsite technician and key point of contact for day to day operations during all onsite repairs o Bachelor's in Communication Studies o Training includes Onsite Vehicle Lift Manufacturers, Lubrication Equipment, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Framing, and Experienced as a Heavy Machinery Operator. ➢ Work Experience/ Relevant Skills include: o Multiple Municipality, School District and Military onsite service technician NIC NORIEGA ➢ Lead Electrical Technician, 2014 to present o For this project, Nic will provide lead electrical diagnostics and repairs for day to day operations during all onsite repairs. o Nic has a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering o With 10+ years of experience trouble -shooting and servicing Air Compressors and Vacuum Systems. He is also a certified pump Page 103 o technician and has 5+ years of experience installing new lifts and air compressors. o Training includes Vehicle Lift Manufacturers, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Framing, Experienced as a Heavy Machinery Operator, Air Compressor assembly/trouble-shooting, and pneumatic experience. ➢ Work Experience/ Relevant Skills include: o Multiple Municipality, School District and Military onsite service technician Page 104 t{ [4 ■ i\ r 6/26/2019 Ruth Cain, CPPB Procurement Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Proposal Response Autolift Services, Inc., located at 10764 Los Vaqueros Circle, Los Alamitos, CA 90720, has read, understands and will comply with all terms and conditions set forth by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in regards to this Request for Proposals (RFP) #18/19-025 for Fleet Shop Equpment Maintenance for the City's Fleet Shop located at 9153 91h Street, the Epicenter Public Works Maintenance Shop at 8800 Rochester Avenue and the Fire Shop at 11271 Jersey Blvd. In addition to the equipment and services listed in this RFP, Autolift Services is capable of servicing all A/C Machines, Fluid Exchange Systems, Tire Service Equipment, Vacuum Pump Systems, Machine Shop Equipment, Oil Filter Crushers, Portable Floor Jacks, Air Filtration Systems, Brake Lathes, Lubrication Reels, Pumps and Delivery Systems, and more! The primary contact for the RFP will be: Kyle Woodson Sales Director (714)816-9890 Office (714)860-9405 Cell k ly Qautoliftservices.com The secondary contacts for the RFP will be: Cody Woodson Project Superintendent (714)816-9890 Office (714)366-6621 Cell codyAautoliftservices.com Chris Woodson President (714)816-9890 Office (714)366-5362 Cell autoliftservices(asbcglobal.net Sincerely, Chris Woodson President Page 105 Exhibit C Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Schedule of lump Sum and Unit Costs Description Hourly Rates maintenance services performed Monday through Friday (excluding recognized City holidays) between the hours of After hours rate for scheduled or emergency equipment maintenance services performed at times other than regular working hours, excluding recognized City holidays. Hourly rate for scheduled or emergency equipment maintenance services performed on Holidays - all hours. (Recognized City holidays only) Material Mark-Up 9/10/2019, 4:37 PM Page 106 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Tamara Layne, Finance Director SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE BI -WEEKLY PAYROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,177,324.14 AND WEEKLY CHECK REGISTERS (NO CHECKS ISSUED TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY) IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,150,569.00 DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 AND ELECTRONIC DEBIT REGISTER FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,473,296.93. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve payment of demands as presented. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALYSIS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 Check Register Attachment 1 Electronic Check Register Page 107 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00009473 09/11/2019 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 929.44 0.00 929.44 AP 00009474 09/11/2019 CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMONGA 14,555.00 0.00 14,555.00 AP 00009475 09/11/2019 EDF TRADING NORTH AMERICA LLC 73,150.00 0.00 73,150.00 AP 00009476 09/11/2019 EXELON GENERATION CO LLC 330,117.55 0.00 330,117.55 AP 00009477 09/11/2019 HD PRODUCTIONS INC 18,750.00 0.00 18,750.00 AP 00009478 09/11/2019 MOFFATT & NICHOL 189,290.36 0.00 189,290.36 AP 00009479 09/11/2019 RCCEA 1,758.50 0.00 1,758.50 AP 00009480 09/11/2019 RCPFA 11,627.45 0.00 11,627.45 AP 00009481 09/11/2019 RIVERSIDE, CITY OF 6,909.00 0.00 6,909.00 AP 00009482 09/11/2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 232.00 0.00 232.00 AP 00009483 09/11/2019 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 2,701.25 0.00 2,701.25 AP 00009484 09/11/2019 U S DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 9,065.25 0.00 9,065.25 AP 00009485 09/11/2019 WESTERN RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION INFO 107.30 0.00 107.30 AP 00009486 09/12/2019 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 236.25 0.00 236.25 AP 00009487 09/12/2019 EMCOR SERVICES 5,965.00 3,020.00 8,985.00 *** AP 00009488 09/12/2019 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 1,017.42 0.00 1,017.42 AP 00009489 09/12/2019 GRANICUS INC 1,702.62 0.00 1,702.62 AP 00009490 09/12/2019 HOSE MAN INC 58.60 0.00 58.60 AP 00009491 09/12/2019 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 2,891.94 0.00 2,891.94 AP 00009492 09/12/2019 LN CURTIS AND SONS 0.00 1,537.05 1,537.05 AP 00009493 09/12/2019 MINUTEMAN PRESS 172.40 0.00 172.40 AP 00009494 09/12/2019 OFFICE DEPOT 2,635.83 0.00 2,635.83 AP 00009495 09/12/2019 PIONEER MANUFACTURING 4,031.88 0.00 4,031.88 AP 00009496 09/12/2019 PSA PRINT GROUP 49.57 0.00 49.57 AP 00009497 09/12/2019 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 2,066.01 0.00 2,066.01 AP 00009498 09/12/2019 SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC 5,270.49 0.00 5,270.49 AP 00009499 09/12/2019 VISTA PAINT 557.74 0.00 557.74 AP 00009500 09/18/2019 INDERWEISCHE, MATT 891.00 0.00 891.00 AP 00009501 09/18/2019 RE ASTORIA 2 LLC 124,529.49 0.00 124,529.49 AP 00009502 09/18/2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 42.00 0.00 42.00 AP 00009503 09/19/2019 ABC LOCKSMITHS 114.64 0.00 114.64 AP 00009504 09/19/2019 AIRGAS USA LLC 0.00 1,205.67 1,205.67 AP 00009505 09/19/2019 BIBLIOTHECA LLC 9,996.33 0.00 9,996.33 AP 00009506 09/19/2019 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 617.29 0.00 617.29 AP 00009507 09/19/2019 CARROT -TOP INDUSTRIES 853.59 0.00 853.59 AP 00009508 09/19/2019 CRAFCOINC 306.93 0.00 306.93 AP 00009509 09/19/2019 DUMBELL MAN FITNESS EQUIPMENT, THE 231.59 0.00 231.59 AP 00009510 09/19/2019 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 993.67 0.00 993.67 AP 00009511 09/19/2019 KME FIRE APPARATUS 0.00 1,744.67 1,744.67 AP 00009512 09/19/2019 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 0.00 534.33 534.33 AP 00009513 09/19/2019 LN CURTIS AND SONS 0.00 473.38 473.38 AP 00009514 09/19/2019 MCFADDEN DALE HARDWARE 6.84 0.00 6.84 AP 00009515 09/19/2019 MINUTEMAN PRESS 0.00 60.65 60.65 AP 00009516 09/19/2019 OFFICE DEPOT 1,604.26 25.20 1,629.46 *** AP 00009517 09/19/2019 PSA PRINT GROUP 88.36 0.00 88.36 AP 00009518 09/19/2019 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC 5,349.00 0.00 5,349.00 AP 00009519 09/19/2019 VISTA PAINT 1,542.18 0.00 1,542.18 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 1 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 108 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00009520 09/23/2019 AHUMADA, ALEXANDER R 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009521 09/23/2019 ALMAND, LLOYD 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009522 09/23/2019 BANTAU, VICTORIA 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009523 09/23/2019 BAZAL, SUSAN 0.00 677.47 677.47 AP 00009524 09/23/2019 BELL, MICHAEL L. 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009525 09/23/2019 BERRY, DAVID 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009526 09/23/2019 BROCK, ROBIN 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009527 09/23/2019 CAMPBELL, GERALD 0.00 806.38 806.38 AP 00009528 09/23/2019 CAMPBELL, STEVEN 0.00 1,608.88 1,608.88 AP 00009529 09/23/2019 CARNES, KENNETH 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009530 09/23/2019 CLABBY, RICHARD 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009531 09/23/2019 CLOUGHESY, DONALD R 0.00 2,057.83 2,057.83 AP 00009532 09/23/2019 CORCORAN, ROBERT ANTHONY 0.00 707.78 707.78 AP 00009533 09/23/2019 COSTELLO, DENNIS M 0.00 2,057.83 2,057.83 AP 00009534 09/23/2019 COX, KARL 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009535 09/23/2019 CRANE, RALPH 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009536 09/23/2019 CROSSLAND, WILBUR 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009537 09/23/2019 DAGUE, JAMES 0.00 1,072.30 1,072.30 AP 00009538 09/23/2019 DE ANTONIO, SUSAN 0.00 707.78 707.78 AP 00009539 09/23/2019 DEANS, JACKIE 0.00 258.83 258.83 AP 00009540 09/23/2019 DOMINICK, SAMUEL A. 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009541 09/23/2019 EAGLESON, MICHAEL 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009542 09/23/2019 EGGERS, BOB 0.00 2,057.83 2,057.83 AP 00009543 09/23/2019 FRITCHEY, JOHN D. 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009544 09/23/2019 HEYDE, DONALD 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009545 09/23/2019 INTERLICCHIA, ROSALYN 0.00 258.83 258.83 AP 00009546 09/23/2019 JERKINS, PATRICK 0.00 2,944.92 2,944.92 AP 00009547 09/23/2019 KILMER, STEPHEN 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009548 09/23/2019 LANE, WILLIAM 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009549 09/23/2019 LARKIN, DAVID W 0.00 1,472.46 1,472.46 AP 00009550 09/23/2019 LEE, ALLAN J. 0.00 1,306.22 1,306.22 AP 00009551 09/23/2019 LENZE, PAUL E 0.00 1,203.50 1,203.50 AP 00009552 09/23/2019 LONCAR, PHILIP 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009553 09/23/2019 LONGO, JOE 0.00 187.74 187.74 AP 00009554 09/23/2019 LUTTRULL, DARRELL 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009555 09/23/2019 MACKALL, BEVERLY 0.00 187.74 187.74 AP 00009556 09/23/2019 MAYFIELD, RON 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009557 09/23/2019 MCKEE, JOHN 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009558 09/23/2019 MCNEIL, KENNETH 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009559 09/23/2019 MICHAEL, L. DENNIS 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009560 09/23/2019 MORGAN, BYRON 0.00 1,731.23 1,731.23 AP 00009561 09/23/2019 MYSKOW, DENNIS 0.00 1,101.28 1,101.28 AP 00009562 09/23/2019 NAUMAN, MICHAEL 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009563 09/23/2019 NEE, RON 0.00 677.47 677.47 AP 00009564 09/23/2019 NELSON, MARY JANE 0.00 187.74 187.74 AP 00009565 09/23/2019 O'BRIEN, TOM 0.00 1,221.18 1,221.18 AP 00009566 09/23/2019 PLOUNG, MICHAEL J 0.00 584.82 584.82 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 2 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 109 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00009567 09/23/2019 POST, MICHAEL R 0.00 1,503.07 1,503.07 AP 00009568 09/23/2019 PROULX, PATRICK 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009569 09/23/2019 REDMOND, MIKE 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009570 09/23/2019 ROEDER, JEFF 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009571 09/23/2019 SALISBURY, THOMAS 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009572 09/23/2019 SMITH, RONALD 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009573 09/23/2019 SORENSEN, SCOTT D 0.00 1,979.02 1,979.02 AP 00009574 09/23/2019 SPAGNOLO, SAM 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009575 09/23/2019 SPAIN, WILLIAM 0.00 806.38 806.38 AP 00009576 09/23/2019 SULLIVAN, JAMES 0.00 511.48 511.48 AP 00009577 09/23/2019 TAYLOR, STEVE 0.00 1,605.35 1,605.35 AP 00009578 09/23/2019 TULEY, TERRY 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00009579 09/23/2019 VANDERKALLEN, FRANCIS 0.00 653.66 653.66 AP 00009580 09/23/2019 VARNEY, ANTHONY 0.00 1,102.61 1,102.61 AP 00009581 09/23/2019 WALTON, KEVIN 0.00 1,472.46 1,472.46 AP 00009582 09/23/2019 YOWELL, TIMOTHY A 0.00 1,072.30 1,072.30 AP 00403967 09/11/2019 ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,097.10 0.00 1,097.10 AP 00403968 09/11/2019 ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERNATIONAL INC 3,183.08 0.00 3,183.08 AP 00403969 09/11/2019 ACEY DECY EQUIPMENT INC. 4,719.71 0.00 4,719.71 AP 00403970 09/11/2019 ACTION AWARDS INC 3,000.13 0.00 3,000.13 AP 00403971 09/11/2019 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 24.58 0.00 24.58 AP 00403972 09/11/2019 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 4,630.64 0.00 4,630.64 AP 00403973 09/11/2019 AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE 4,630.64 0.00 4,630.64 AP 00403974 09/11/2019 AGUAYO, LILIANA 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00403975 09/11/2019 ALL WELDING 65.00 0.00 65.00 AP 00403976 09/11/2019 ALPHAGRAPHICS 48.48 0.00 48.48 AP 00403977 09/11/2019 ALTA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK 397.59 0.00 397.59 AP 00403978 09/11/2019 AQUABIO ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. 1,450.00 0.00 1,450.00 AP 00403979 09/11/2019 ARCHIBALD PET HOSPITAL 125.00 0.00 125.00 AP 00403980 09/11/2019 ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP 9,218.00 0.00 9,218.00 AP 00403981 09/11/2019 AT&T MOBILITY 0.00 86.46 86.46 AP 00403982 09/11/2019 BABA, YUJI 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00403983 09/11/2019 BAKER & TAYLOR LLC 273.25 0.00 273.25 AP 00403984 09/11/2019 BAUER COMPRESSORS 0.00 4,385.00 4,385.00 AP 00403985 09/11/2019 BERNELL HYDRAULICS INC 0.00 354.91 354.91 AP 00403986 09/11/2019 BIRD, NICHOLAS 210.00 0.00 210.00 AP 00403987 09/11/2019 BOB'S MUFFLER SHOP 723.25 0.00 723.25 AP 00403988 09/11/2019 BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE P.C. 301.80 0.00 301.80 AP 00403989 09/11/2019 BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC. 4,848.33 0.00 4,848.33 AP 00403990 09/11/2019 BURGESON'S HEATING AND AIR 209.60 0.00 209.60 AP 00403991 09/11/2019 C V W D 690.75 386.70 1,077.45 *** AP 00403992 09/11/2019 C V W D 1,060.22 0.00 1,060.22 AP 00403997 09/11/2019 C V W D 112,516.15 530.23 113,046.38 *** AP 00403998 09/11/2019 CA LLC - DBA ALTA LAGUNA MHP 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00403999 09/11/2019 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE PROGRAM 152.48 0.00 152.48 AP 00404000 09/11/2019 CAL -OSHA REPORTER 427.00 0.00 427.00 AP 00404001 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS 3,315.00 0.00 3,315.00 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 3 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 110 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Citv Fire Amount AP 00404002 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC 0.00 400.00 400.00 AP 00404003 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 314.11 0.00 314.11 AP 00404004 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 8.44 0.00 8.44 AP 00404005 09/11/2019 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 7.22 0.00 7.22 AP 00404006 09/11/2019 CASA VOLANTE MOBILE HOME PARK 700.00 0.00 700.00 AP 00404007 09/11/2019 CASTANEDA, ABEL GUSTAVO 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404008 09/11/2019 CASTILLO, JESSIE 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404009 09/11/2019 CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC 0.00 1,603.90 1,603.90 AP 00404010 09/11/2019 CHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE 1,500.00 0.00 1,500.00 AP 00404011 09/11/2019 CHAPARRAL HEIGHTS MOBILE HOME PARK 474.35 0.00 474.35 AP 00404012 09/11/2019 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 3,152.49 472.89 3,625.38 *** AP 00404013 09/11/2019 CONCEPT POWDER COATING 190.00 0.00 190.00 AP 00404014 09/11/2019 CORELOGIC SOLUTIONS LLC 257.50 0.00 257.50 AP 00404015 09/11/2019 CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN LLC 540.00 0.00 540.00 AP 00404016 09/11/2019 D & K CONCRETE COMPANY 1,902.02 1,185.25 3,087.27 *** AP 00404017 09/11/2019 DAISY 496.15 0.00 496.15 AP 00404018 09/11/2019 DIRECTV 298.99 0.00 298.99 AP 00404019 09/11/2019 DIRECTV 66.99 0.00 66.99 AP 00404020 09/11/2019 E -Z -GO 459.18 0.00 459.18 AP 00404021 09/11/2019 EDWARD PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS 150.00 0.00 150.00 AP 00404022 09/11/2019 EIGHTH AVENUE ENTERPRISE LLC 488.32 0.00 488.32 AP 00404023 09/11/2019 ELITE DEVELOPMENT GROUP INC 1,122.46 0.00 1,122.46 AP 00404024 09/11/2019 EP CONTAINER CORPORATION 3,083.70 0.00 3,083.70 AP 00404025 09/11/2019 EXPERIAN 52.00 0.00 52.00 AP 00404026 09/11/2019 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS 0.00 2,266.55 2,266.55 AP 00404027 09/11/2019 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 41.92 0.00 41.92 AP 00404028 09/11/2019 FIVE STAR CATERING SERVICE 4,949.12 0.00 4,949.12 AP 00404029 09/11/2019 FORD OF UPLAND INC 2,694.88 0.00 2,694.88 AP 00404030 09/11/2019 FRONTIER COMM 854.37 83.61 937.98 *** AP 00404031 09/11/2019 G AND M BUSINESS INTERIORS 8,565.09 0.00 8,565.09 AP 00404032 09/11/2019 GABRIEL, DEBRA 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404033 09/11/2019 GEMME, COREY 1,800.00 0.00 1,800.00 AP 00404034 09/11/2019 GEOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGIES GROUP INC 8,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 AP 00404035 09/11/2019 GEOGRAPHICS 76.25 0.00 76.25 AP 00404036 09/11/2019 GLOBALSTAR USA 174.50 0.00 174.50 AP 00404037 09/11/2019 GOLDEN STATE RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY 96,371.00 1,381.00 97,752.00 *** AP 00404038 09/11/2019 GRAINGER 847.06 26.91 873.97 *** AP 00404039 09/11/2019 GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC. 258.60 0.00 258.60 AP 00404040 09/11/2019 GROVES ON FOOTHILL, THE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404041 09/11/2019 HANGTIME SPORTS 264.00 0.00 264.00 AP 00404042 09/11/2019 HERITAGE EDUCATION GROUP 552.00 0.00 552.00 AP 00404043 09/11/2019 HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC 1,078.21 0.00 1,078.21 AP 00404044 09/11/2019 HOMETOWN AMERICA RAMONA VILLA 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404045 09/11/2019 HOUSE OF RUTH 162.27 0.00 162.27 AP 00404046 09/11/2019 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 0.00 39.88 39.88 AP 00404047 09/11/2019 ILAND INTERNET SOLUTIONS 25.75 0.00 25.75 AP 00404048 09/11/2019 IMAGEMPORIUM, THE 2,037.55 0.00 2,037.55 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 4 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 111 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00404049 09/11/2019 INLAND COUNTIES EMERGENCY MEDICAL AGENCY 0.00 8,000.00 8,000.00 AP 00404050 09/11/2019 INLAND EMPIRE BRUINS 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404051 09/11/2019 INLAND EMPIRE COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS 192.00 0.00 192.00 AP 00404052 09/11/2019 INLAND TOPSOIL MIXES 646.50 0.00 646.50 AP 00404053 09/11/2019 INTERNATIONAL FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATION 40.00 0.00 40.00 AP 00404054 09/11/2019 JOHNNY ALLEN TENNIS ACADEMY 1,794.60 0.00 1,794.60 AP 00404055 09/11/2019 KELKER PHARMA INC 210.70 0.00 210.70 AP 00404056 09/11/2019 LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC 7,030.23 0.00 7,030.23 AP 00404057 09/11/2019 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 3,811.00 0.00 3,811.00 AP 00404058 09/11/2019 LINCUS INC 6,000.00 0.00 6,000.00 AP 00404059 09/11/2019 LIPOCK'S ACCOUNTING SERVICES INC 1,925.00 0.00 1,925.00 AP 00404060 09/11/2019 LITTLE, MARC 540.00 0.00 540.00 AP 00404061 09/11/2019 LIU, SITONG 21.14 0.00 21.14 AP 00404064 09/11/2019 LOWES COMPANIES INC. 5,828.52 3,138.64 8,967.16 *** AP 00404065 09/11/2019 MAGELLAN ADVISORS LLC 15,750.00 0.00 15,750.00 AP 00404066 09/11/2019 MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC 12,952.47 0.00 12,952.47 AP 00404067 09/11/2019 MARLINK SA INC 0.00 162.00 162.00 AP 00404068 09/11/2019 MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 65.36 0.00 65.36 AP 00404069 09/11/2019 MESSINA AND ASSOCIATES INC 0.00 712.50 712.50 AP 00404070 09/11/2019 MG PETROLEUM INC 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404071 09/11/2019 MIDWEST TAPE 1,069.60 0.00 1,069.60 AP 00404072 09/11/2019 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY 108.00 0.00 108.00 AP 00404073 09/11/2019 MILLER, RICHARD ELBERT 3,066.00 0.00 3,066.00 AP 00404074 09/11/2019 MISSION REPROGRAPHICS 5.39 0.00 5.39 AP 00404075 09/11/2019 MONOPRICE INC 135.56 0.00 135.56 AP 00404076 09/11/2019 MORAN, GUS 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404077 09/11/2019 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 68.86 0.00 68.86 AP 00404078 09/11/2019 MUFG UNION BANK N.A. 9,955.00 0.00 9,955.00 AP 00404079 09/11/2019 MUTUAL PROPANE 0.00 424.80 424.80 AP 00404080 09/11/2019 NAHREP SOCAL INLAND EMPIRE 1,098.80 0.00 1,098.80 AP 00404081 09/11/2019 NAMOWICZ, CALEB 47.46 0.00 47.46 AP 00404082 09/11/2019 NAPA AUTO PARTS 0.00 161.26 161.26 AP 00404083 09/11/2019 NEW COLOR SCREEN PRINTING & EMBROIDERY 140.08 0.00 140.08 AP 00404084 09/11/2019 NINYO & MOORE 32,553.00 0.00 32,553.00 AP 00404085 09/11/2019 NORTHTOWN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CORP. 732.79 0.00 732.79 AP 00404086 09/11/2019 ONTARIO SPAY AND NEUTER INC 375.00 0.00 375.00 AP 00404087 09/11/2019 ONTRAC 54.15 0.00 54.15 AP 00404088 09/11/2019 ORKIN PEST CONTROL 697.88 663.69 1,361.57 *** AP 00404089 09/11/2019 PARMA 640.00 0.00 640.00 AP 00404090 09/11/2019 PASHA MANAGEMENT 51.79 0.00 51.79 AP 00404091 09/11/2019 PATTERSON, SARAH 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404092 09/11/2019 PEP BOYS 516.62 0.00 516.62 AP 00404093 09/11/2019 PETROVICH, VICTORIA 866.00 0.00 866.00 AP 00404094 09/11/2019 PINES MOBILE HOME PARK, THE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404095 09/11/2019 PRE -PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 60.17 0.00 60.17 AP 00404096 09/11/2019 QUINN COMPANY 3,283.02 0.00 3,283.02 AP 00404097 09/11/2019 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 799.12 0.00 799.12 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 5 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 112 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire AP 00404098 09/11/2019 RADIUS GLOBAL SOLUTIONS 558.44 0.00 AP 00404099 09/11/2019 RAUL'S AUTO TRIM INC 0.00 246.94 AP 00404100 09/11/2019 RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC 2,500.00 0.00 AP 00404101 09/11/2019 ROTO ROOTER 334.99 0.00 AP 00404102 09/11/2019 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 520.00 0.00 AP 00404103 09/11/2019 SBPEA 2,617.98 0.00 AP 00404104 09/11/2019 SC FUELS 71,351.73 0.00 AP 00404105 09/11/2019 SCL 0.00 1,281.04 AP 00404106 09/11/2019 SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION 401.60 176.90 AP 00404107 09/11/2019 SHERIFFS COURT SERVICES 100.00 0.00 AP 00404108 09/11/2019 SIGN SHOP, THE 85.45 14.01 AP 00404109 09/11/2019 SIMPLYWELL 129.90 0.00 AP 00404110 09/11/2019 SOUTH COAST AQMD 1,956.88 0.00 AP 00404114 09/11/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18,604.81 3,125.96 AP 00404115 09/11/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 183.40 0.00 AP 00404116 09/11/2019 SPRINGTHORPE BROTHERS CORP, THE 5,000.00 0.00 AP 00404117 09/11/2019 SPRINGTHORPE BROTHERS CORP, THE 28,000.00 0.00 AP 00404118 09/11/2019 STERLING COFFEE SERVICE 849.30 0.00 AP 00404119 09/11/2019 STOTZ EQUIPMENT 1,652.42 0.00 AP 00404120 09/11/2019 STREET TREE SEMINAR INC 100.00 0.00 AP 00404121 09/11/2019 SUDDUTH CONSTRUCTION INC 364.80 0.00 AP 00404122 09/11/2019 SYCAMORE VILLA MOBILE HOME PARK 400.00 0.00 AP 00404123 09/11/2019 T & G ROOFING COMPANY INC 262.00 0.00 AP 00404124 09/11/2019 TIREHUB LLC 1,289.13 0.00 AP 00404125 09/11/2019 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC 281.34 0.00 AP 00404126 09/11/2019 UNITED WAY 60.00 0.00 AP 00404127 09/11/2019 UPS 50.74 0.00 AP 00404128 09/11/2019 UTILIQUEST 1,863.09 0.00 AP 00404129 09/11/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 102.50 0.00 AP 00404130 09/11/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 4,249.04 0.00 AP 00404131 09/11/2019 VISION SERVICE PLAN CA 10,922.20 0.00 AP 00404132 09/11/2019 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 244.15 0.00 AP 00404133 09/11/2019 WASHINGTON -MILLER, TAMICA 833.00 0.00 AP 00404134 09/11/2019 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 7,560.31 128.59 AP 00404135 09/11/2019 WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF VET MEDICINE 715.00 0.00 AP 00404136 09/11/2019 WIRZ AND COMPANY 560.30 0.00 AP 00404137 09/11/2019 WLPX DAY CREEK LLC 3,010.00 0.00 AP 00404138 09/11/2019 WOODBRIDGE HOSPITALITY INC 6,500.00 0.00 AP 00404139 09/11/2019 YAMADA ENTERPRISES 35,904.07 0.00 AP 00404140 09/11/2019 ZALEWSKI, JOHN 866.00 0.00 AP 00404141 09/11/2019 ZBINDEN, JONATHAN 0.00 200.00 AP 00404142 09/11/2019 ZEP SALES AND SERVICE 3,191.30 0.00 AP 00404143 09/11/2019 ZERO DOLLARS AND ZERO SENSE PRODUCTION 3,000.00 0.00 AP 00404144 09/18/2019 24 HOUR FITNESS 2,000.00 0.00 AP 00404145 09/18/2019 3SI SECURITY SYSTEMS 1,080.00 0.00 AP 00404146 09/18/2019 ALPHAGRAPHICS 24.24 0.00 AP 00404147 09/18/2019 AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION 1,218.04 0.00 Amount 558.44 246.94 2,500.00 334.99 520.00 2,617.98 71,351.73 1,281.04 578.50 100.00 99.46 129.90 1,956.88 21,730.77 183.40 5,000.00 28,000.00 849.30 1,652.42 100.00 364.80 400.00 262.00 1,289.13 281.34 60.00 50.74 1,863.09 102.50 4,249.04 10,922.20 244.15 *** *** 833.00 7,688.90 *** 715.00 560.30 3,010.00 6,500.00 35,904.07 866.00 200.00 3,191.30 3,000.00 2,000.00 1,080.00 24.24 1,218.04 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 6 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 113 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00404148 09/18/2019 ART OF LIVING FOUNDATION 90.00 0.00 90.00 AP 00404149 09/18/2019 ASSEFA, EMNET 127.62 0.00 127.62 AP 00404150 09/18/2019 AVALOS, GINGER 275.00 0.00 275.00 AP 00404151 09/18/2019 AVENDANO, KATRENA 130.00 0.00 130.00 AP 00404152 09/18/2019 BURKE, DANIEL 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404155 09/18/2019 C V W D 28,520.95 835.48 29,356.43 *** AP 00404156 09/18/2019 CABLE INC 3,444.63 0.00 3,444.63 AP 00404157 09/18/2019 CAMPOS-MEJIA, TADONISHA 41.88 0.00 41.88 AP 00404158 09/18/2019 CARROLL, HILLARY 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404159 09/18/2019 CASTILLO, JESSIE 300.00 0.00 300.00 AP 00404160 09/18/2019 CASTILLO, JESSIE 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00404161 09/18/2019 CHAPARRO, CHRYSTAL 70.50 0.00 70.50 AP 00404162 09/18/2019 CINTAS CORPORATION #150 0.00 200.75 200.75 AP 00404163 09/18/2019 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC 166.96 0.00 166.96 AP 00404164 09/18/2019 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 3,382.00 0.00 3,382.00 AP 00404165 09/18/2019 DODSON, JALEH 425.00 0.00 425.00 AP 00404166 09/18/2019 DOLE, MAGGIE 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404167 09/18/2019 ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC 349,759.69 0.00 349,759.69 AP 00404168 09/18/2019 ERICKSON HALL CONSTRUCTION 0.00 17,500.00 17,500.00 AP 00404169 09/18/2019 EXECUTIVE AUTO DETAIL 0.00 300.00 300.00 AP 00404170 09/18/2019 FLANAGAN, BOSCO 1,732.00 0.00 1,732.00 AP 00404171 09/18/2019 FORD OF UPLAND INC 4,659.56 0.00 4,659.56 AP 00404172 09/18/2019 FORTUNE FENCING 900.00 0.00 900.00 AP 00404173 09/18/2019 FOURTH & UTICA 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 AP 00404174 09/18/2019 FRONTIER COMM 457.47 279.61 737.08 *** AP 00404175 09/18/2019 GASB 278.00 0.00 278.00 AP 00404176 09/18/2019 GOLDBERG, JESSICA 16.00 0.00 16.00 AP 00404177 09/18/2019 GORKA, CRISTINA 198.84 0.00 198.84 AP 00404178 09/18/2019 GRAPHICS FACTORY PRINTING INC. 41.48 0.00 41.48 AP 00404179 09/18/2019 GRIFFITHS, VICTORIA MICHELLE 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404180 09/18/2019 GUZMAN, MORGAN 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404181 09/18/2019 HALO BRANDED SOLUTIONS 739.73 0.00 739.73 AP 00404182 09/18/2019 HANGTIME SPORTS 1,584.00 0.00 1,584.00 AP 00404183 09/18/2019 HARGIS, ILANY G. 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404184 09/18/2019 HERITAGE EDUCATION GROUP 78.00 0.00 78.00 AP 00404185 09/18/2019 HERNANDEZ, JESUS 159.00 0.00 159.00 AP 00404186 09/18/2019 HERNANDEZ, MARIBEL 48.48 0.00 48.48 AP 00404187 09/18/2019 HERNANDEZ, VINCENT 250.00 0.00 250.00 AP 00404188 09/18/2019 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 2,099.22 0.00 2,099.22 AP 00404189 09/18/2019 ICC FOOTHILL CHAPTER 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404190 09/18/2019 INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY 20.00 0.00 20.00 AP 00404191 09/18/2019 ITERIS INC 5,181.00 0.00 5,181.00 AP 00404192 09/18/2019 KALBAN INC 32,398.13 0.00 32,398.13 AP 00404193 09/18/2019 KINGDOM CREATIONS 5,017.92 0.00 5,017.92 AP 00404194 09/18/2019 KIWAN HONG 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404195 09/18/2019 LANE, JUSTIN 66.81 0.00 66.81 AP 00404196 09/18/2019 LAYNE, TAMARA 91.47 0.00 91.47 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 7 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 114 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00404197 09/18/2019 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS LLC 5,432.69 0.00 5,432.69 AP 00404198 09/18/2019 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 2,894.50 3,700.00 6,594.50 *** AP 00404199 09/18/2019 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 2,370.00 0.00 2,370.00 AP 00404200 09/18/2019 LUGO, AIDA N 200.00 0.00 200.00 AP 00404201 09/18/2019 MAGELLAN ADVISORS LLC 13,492.50 0.00 13,492.50 AP 00404202 09/18/2019 MARTINEZ, ALEC 1,459.36 0.00 1,459.36 AP 00404203 09/18/2019 MARTINEZ, DONNA 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404204 09/18/2019 MASCORRO, ELIA 107.12 0.00 107.12 AP 00404205 09/18/2019 MCELVENEY, JOHN 1,350.00 0.00 1,350.00 AP 00404206 09/18/2019 MG PETROLEUM INC 1,496.00 0.00 1,496.00 AP 00404207 09/18/2019 MONTALBANO, JILL 115.00 0.00 115.00 AP 00404208 09/18/2019 NAPA AUTO PARTS 0.00 377.89 377.89 AP 00404209 09/18/2019 NICHOLAS E ROSE MEDICAL CONSULTING INC 1,900.00 0.00 1,900.00 AP 00404210 09/18/2019 NORMAN, JANESSA 50.00 0.00 50.00 AP 00404211 09/18/2019 ONTRAC 14.09 0.00 14.09 AP 00404212 09/18/2019 ONWARD ENGINEERING 1,450.00 0.00 1,450.00 AP 00404213 09/18/2019 PACIFIC UTILITY INSTALLATION INC 6,944.00 0.00 6,944.00 AP 00404214 09/18/2019 PANNU, GAGAN 279.00 0.00 279.00 AP 00404215 09/18/2019 PARKER, ANDREW 0.00 270.00 270.00 AP 00404216 09/18/2019 PEDREGON, ASHLEY 25.00 0.00 25.00 AP 00404217 09/18/2019 PEP BOYS 42.00 0.00 42.00 AP 00404218 09/18/2019 PORAC 216.80 0.00 216.80 AP 00404219 09/18/2019 PORAC LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 270.00 0.00 270.00 AP 00404221 09/18/2019 POSTAL PERFECT 660.00 0.00 660.00 AP 00404222 09/18/2019 POWERWERX INC 0.00 785.96 785.96 AP 00404223 09/18/2019 R AND R AUTOMOTIVE 503.55 0.00 503.55 AP 00404224 09/18/2019 RAMOS ETAL, JOAQUIN 2,505.00 0.00 2,505.00 AP 00404225 09/18/2019 RAMOS, VERONICA 48.47 0.00 48.47 AP 00404226 09/18/2019 ROBB, ROBERT 70.00 0.00 70.00 AP 00404227 09/18/2019 SAMS CLUB/SYNCHRONY BANK 45.00 0.00 45.00 AP 00404228 09/18/2019 SCHLOSSER FORGE COMPANY 15,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 AP 00404229 09/18/2019 SCOTT, MICHAEL 1,587.24 0.00 1,587.24 AP 00404230 09/18/2019 SIGN SHOP, THE 0.00 43.10 43.10 AP 00404231 09/18/2019 SILVER & WRIGHT LLP 49,188.96 0.00 49,188.96 AP 00404236 09/18/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34,176.83 1,778.50 35,955.33 *** AP 00404237 09/18/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,394.60 0.00 2,394.60 AP 00404238 09/18/2019 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 355.92 0.00 355.92 AP 00404239 09/18/2019 SPIKES, BRIANNA 2,080.00 0.00 2,080.00 AP 00404240 09/18/2019 SPRINT 0.00 121.95 121.95 AP 00404241 09/18/2019 STANLEY R HOFFMAN ASSOCIATES INC 3,720.00 0.00 3,720.00 AP 00404242 09/18/2019 STANTON, KRISTA 29.87 0.00 29.87 AP 00404243 09/18/2019 TERRA VISTA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 25.00 0.00 25.00 AP 00404244 09/18/2019 TETRA TECH INC 44,549.46 0.00 44,549.46 AP 00404245 09/18/2019 TIREHUB LLC 1,680.50 0.00 1,680.50 AP 00404246 09/18/2019 UPS 29.00 0.00 29.00 AP 00404247 09/18/2019 US POSTMASTER 500.00 0.00 500.00 AP 00404248 09/18/2019 VERIZON 31.97 0.00 31.97 User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 8 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 115 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Excluding So Calif Gas Company. Agenda Check Register 9/10/2019 through 9/23/2019 Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Ca Fire Amount AP 00404249 09/18/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 60.12 0.00 60.12 AP 00404250 09/18/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 80.87 0.00 80.87 AP 00404251 09/18/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 332.16 0.00 332.16 AP 00404256 09/18/2019 VERIZON WIRELESS - LA 5,870.49 0.00 5,870.49 AP 00404257 09/18/2019 WELLS, JUDITH 64.96 0.00 64.96 AP 00404258 09/18/2019 WINGSON, KYLE 18.98 0.00 18.98 AP 00404259 09/18/2019 WORLD ELITE GYMNASTICS 120.40 0.00 120.40 AP 00404260 09/18/2019 ZERO DOLLARS AND ZERO SENSE PRODUCTION 12,000.00 0.00 12,000.00 AP 00404261 09/18/2019 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION 0.00 480,239.19 480,239.19 AP 00404262 09/23/2019 CURATALO, JAMES 0.00 1,551.56 1,551.56 AP 00404263 09/23/2019 KIRKPATRICK, WILLIAM 0.00 1,525.78 1,525.78 AP 00404264 09/23/2019 TOWNSEND, JAMES 0.00 2,057.83 2,057.83 AP 00404265 09/23/2019 WALKER, KENNETH 0.00 258.83 258.83 Total City: $2,150,569.00 Total Fire: $615,502.12 Grand Total: $2,766,UT M. Note: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures User: VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page: 9 Current Date: 09/24/2019 Report: CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 07:31:58 Page 116 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Electronic Debit Register August 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019 DATE DESCRIPTION CITY FIRE AMOUNT 8/1 U.S. BANK - Corporate Card Payment 85,864.15 17,737.62 103,601.77 8/1 U.S. BANK - Costco Card Payment 1,563.68 904.62 2,468.30 8/1 U.S. BANK- Purchasing Card Payment 62,290.23 7,830.41 70,120.64 8/1 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 6,152.53 6,152.53 8/1 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 19,223.68 19,223.68 8/2 Bank Fee 70.40 70.40 8/2 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 434.27 434.27 8/2 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 403.67 403.67 8/5 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 13,781.08 13,781.08 8/5 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 726.98 726.98 8/5 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,259.31 1,259.31 8/6 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 2,802.93 2,802.93 8/6 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 5,815.55 5,815.55 8/6 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 56,324.00 56,324.00 8/6 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 106,251.00 106,251.00 8/6 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 157.48 157.48 8/6 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 12.00 12.00 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 2,501.26 2,501.26 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 3,784.78 3,784.78 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 4,097.05 4,097.05 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 8,873.99 8,873.99 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 12,315.83 12,315.83 8/7 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 112,014.60 112,014.60 8/7 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 447.55 447.55 8/7 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 7,497.15 7,497.15 8/8 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 27.14 27.14 8/8 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 718.22 718.22 8/9 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 435.40 435.40 8/9 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,160.00 1,160.00 8/12 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 109,722.31 109,722.31 8/12 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,960.00 1,960.00 8/13 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 3,795.24 3,795.24 8/13 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 12,379.52 12,379.52 8/13 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 2,779.65 2,779.65 8/13 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 6,205.84 6,205.84 8/14 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 5,186.04 5,186.04 8/14 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 1,841.00 1,841.00 8/14 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 11,516.69 11,516.69 8/14 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 4,682.62 4,682.62 8/15 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 57,026.00 57,026.00 8/15 CALPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 112,290.00 112,290.00 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 47,342.93 47,342.93 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 47,797.97 47,797.97 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 117,676.78 117,676.78 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 190,850.81 190,850.81 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 430,683.21 430,683.21 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 489,868.42 489,868.42 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - CFD DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS 3,256,361.70 3,256,361.70 8/15 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 3,698.51 3,698.51 8/15 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 778.27 778.27 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 2,575.48 2,575.48 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 3,858.22 3,858.22 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 4,135.87 4,135.87 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 8,873.99 8,873.99 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 12,538.62 12,538.62 8/16 CALPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 112,355.04 112,355.04 8/16 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 781.68 781.68 8/16 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,281.74 1,281.74 8/19 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 225.73 225.73 8/19 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 46.37 46.37 8/20 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 5,018.22 5,018.22 8/20 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 8,907.72 8,907.72 8/20 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 24,141.72 24,141.72 1 Page 117 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Electronic Debit Register August 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019 DATE DESCRIPTION CITY FIRE AMOUNT 8/21 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,082.44 1,082.44 8/21 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 330.57 330.57 8/22 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 135,123.95 135,123.95 8/22 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,331.90 1,331.90 8/22 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 178.45 178.45 8/23 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,691.04 1,691.04 8/23 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,497.89 1,497.89 8/26 CALIPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 2,559.85 2,559.85 8/26 CALIPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 5,905.30 5,905.30 8/26 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 2,907.59 2,907.59 8/26 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 1,560.28 1,560.28 8/27 WIRE PAYMENT - RCMU CAISO 17,029.48 17,029.48 8/27 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 1,823.26 1,823.26 8/27 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 674.85 674.85 8/28 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 15.62 15.62 8/28 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 48.00 48.00 8/29 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT - Child Support Payments 5,209.84 5,209.84 8/29 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 3,807.72 3,807.72 8/29 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 12,522.26 12,522.26 8/30 CALIPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 59,124.50 59,124.50 8/30 CALIPERS - City - Retirement Account Deposit 119,420.51 119,420.51 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 2,575.50 2,575.50 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 3,905.73 3,905.73 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 4,074.06 4,074.06 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 9,099.15 9,099.15 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 12,788.81 12,788.81 8/30 CALIPERS - Fire - Retirement Account Deposit 115,398.98 115,398.98 8/30 Workers Comp - City Account Transfer 150.99 150.99 8/30 Workers Comp - Fire Account Transfer 671.75 671.75 TOTAL CITY 5,473,296.93 TOTAL FIRE 691,875.81 GRAND TOTAL 6,165,172.74 2 Page 118 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Gianfranco Laurie, Senior Civil Engineer Romeo M. David, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT AS COMPLETE, FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF RETENTION AND BONDS, AND AUTHORIZE AN APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,300 FROM THE BEAUTIFICATION (FUND 110) FOR THE ARCHIBALD AVENUE COMMUNITY TRAIL EXTENSION AND STREET WIDENING PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Authorize an appropriation in the amount of $39,300 from the Beautification (Fund 110) fund balance to cover final project costs; 2. Accept the Archibald Avenue Community Trail Extension and Street Widening Project, Contract No. 19-056 (Project), as complete; 3. Approve the final contract amount of $451,389; 4. Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond 35 days after recordation of Notice of Completion and accept a Maintenance Guarantee Bond; 5. Authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $283,738, six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received; 6. Authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and release of the project retention, 35 days after recordation of Notice of Completion; and 7. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship. BACKGROUND: On May 15, 2019, the City Council awarded a construction contract with TSR Construction and Inspection (TSR) in the amount of $283,738 for constructing the Archibald Avenue Community Trail Extension and Street Widening Project. Additionally, the City Council authorized a 10% contingency in the amount of $28,374 to address unforeseen construction related incidentals. Page 119 On June 27, 2019, the City Council approved a revised design to construct an interlocking wall footing and authorized an increase in construction contingency of $100,000 from the Beautification Fund (110). During construction, TSR noticed that the existing rock wall did not have a consistent wall height to construct the footing per the approved design. Field adjustment was necessary to accommodate the inconsistent wall height and as a result the footing had to be constructed higher than anticipated. The top of the footing varies between 1.5 to 2.5 feet higher that the finished trail surface. To match the footing surface with the existing wall, TSR integrated natural cobble rock to the face of the footing so that the existing rock wall would preserve its aesthetics. This additional work exceeded the increase in the construction contingency by $39,274. Staff proceeded with the work to avoid additional project delay and costs. The scope of work included minor roadway widening, excavation, asphalt concrete pavement, grind and overlay, curb and gutter, driveway approaches, driveway stamped concrete, cobble rocks retaining wall, wood fence, utility adjustments, tree removal and relocation, trail fence and decompose granite, signing and striping, and other related items of work per plans. A Vicinity Map is included as Attachment 1. ANALYSIS: The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The net increase in the total cost of the project is a result of eight (8) Contract Change Orders, including the final balancing statement which are summarized below: Change Order No.01: Performed work on a Time and Materials basis to construct an interlocking wall footing to the existing rock wall. The change in contract cost due to this change order is an increase of $40,569. Change Order No.02: Relocated the existing wrought iron sliding gate an additional 5 feet into the property to increase the depth of the driveway and improve visibility. The change in contract cost due to this change order is an increase of $27,700. Change Order No.03: Constructed additional retaining curb to accommodate grade elevations between the planter and the new driveway. The additional retaining curb was faced with slate rocks to match existing. The change in contract cost due to this change order is an increase of $9,400. Change Order No.04: Constructed 150 linear feet of mow curb to protect the existing grade elevation between the asphalt driveway and the new planted trees. The change in contract cost due to this change order is an increase of $7,000. Change Order No.05: Performed work on a Time and Materials basis to construct interlocking wall footing for three existing pilasters. Installation of new electrical conduit including wiring to power the existing lights was included. The change in contract cost due to this change order is an increase of $11,329. Change Order No.06: Installation of new natural cobble rocks to cover the exposed interlocking wall footing along the existing rock wall, pilasters and retaining curb. The change in contract cost due to this change order is an increase of $47,400. Change Order No.07: Additional slate rocks purchased to cover the two pilasters. The change in contract cost due to this change order is an increase of $1,000. Change Order No.08: The balancing statement for the project. The balancing statement conforms the final contract quantities to the actual quantities placed or constructed during the contract. The notable change is an increase in the amount of $23,253 resulting from extra quantity needed to extend the asphalt concrete grind and overlay limits to the travel lane to provide for a better transition to the existing Page 120 lanes. Additionally, extra earthwork was performed due to the construction of the interlocking wall footing. At the end of the one-year maintenance period, if the improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship, the City Clerk is authorized to release the Maintenance Bond upon approval by the City Engineer. FISCAL IMPACT: A cumulative total of $449,490 has been budgeted in Fiscal Year 2018/19 from the Beautification (Fund 110), all of which is identified under Capital Improvement Project Account No. and in the amount listed below. Account I Funding Source Description Amount 11103035 50/1945110-0 1 Beautification Fund (110) 1 Archibald Widening 1 $449,490 The final project cost is $488,764 as shown below: Expenditure Amount Temporary Construction Easement $7,375 Final Construction Cost $451,389 Construction Inspection $30,000 Total Project Cost $488,764 A shortfall of $39,274 remains outstanding thus an appropriation of $39,300 from the Beautification (Fund 110) fund balance into the following project account number is required to finalize the contract and accept project closeout. Account I Funding Source Description I Amount 11103035 50/1945110-0 1 Beautification Fund (110) Archibald Widening $39,300 COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council goal of Enhancing Premier Community Status by extending the community trail and providing public safety by widening the road. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Page 121 ATTACHMENT 1 PROJECT# 800-2019-13 Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE 9f19 5877 w 9745 9729 C 5$Ci9 � Project Site 5896 5907 9752 59 171 5929 5931 5947 5979 6025 6039 6455 C r 9714 1 9726 1 9746 sun{I ower 5[ 97 m l9v Page 122 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Theresa M. Gates, Management Aide SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A LEASE AMENDMENT BETWEEN LOS ANGELES SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS (VERIZON WIRELESS) AND THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOR THE EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY LOCATED AT RED HILL PARK, 7484 VINEYARD AVENUE. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the Lease Amendment between Verizon Wireless and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the existing wireless communications facility located at Red Hill Park, 7484 Vineyard Avenue and authorize the Mayor to execute the Lease Amendment. BACKGROUND: Verizon Wireless currently operates an existing wireless communications facility within Red Hill Park. The current lease agreement, (CO#00-070), with the City of Rancho Cucamonga was originally executed on October 4, 2000, which included an original 10 year term with an option of three (3) additional 5 -year extensions. This original agreement also included an annual 3% escalator and is due to expire October 4, 2025. ANALYSIS: In order to keep the existing wireless communication in place, Verizon Wireless has requested to amend the terms of the current agreement to include an extension of the current agreement by four (4) additional 5 -year terms, giving a final lease expiration date of October 4, 2045. The amendment also provides the City a one-time payment of $2,500 with all other current contract elements remaining in place, including the 3% annual escalator. The revenues collected from this lease will continue to be added to the PD85 Fund to be utilized for the maintenance and operations of the two major parks within the City: Heritage and Red Hill Parks. This may include, but is not limited to, grading, planting, irrigation, onsite roads, sidewalks, parking lots, lighting, restrooms, equestrian facilities, playground equipment, picnic facilities, walking, jogging and equestrian trails and sanitary sewer connections and onsite dragline inlets for the Red Hill Community Park. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this lease amendment will include receiving a one-time payment of $2,500, the continuation of the monthly amount of $1,883.53, as well as a 3% annual escalator to be placed in the PD85 Fund Revenue Account to be utilized for the maintenance and operations within Heritage and Red Hill Parks. Page 123 COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Approval of the Lease Amendment with Verizon Wireless is included in the mid to long-range council goals by the continuation of revenue support in PD85 for the operations and maintenance of Heritage and Red Hill Parks. Page 124 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Gianfranco Laurie, Senior Civil Engineer Romeo M. David, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO ACCEPT AS COMPLETE, FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AUTHORIZE RELEASE OF RETENTION AND BONDS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 LOCAL OVERLAY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council: 1. Accept the Fiscal Year 2018/19 Local Overlay Pavement Rehabilitation, Contract No. 19-050 (Project), as complete; 2. Approve the final contract amount of $977,627; 3. Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Bond 35 days after recordation of Notice of Completion and accept a Maintenance Guarantee Bond; 4. Authorize the release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $985,000, six months after the recordation of said notice if no claims have been received; 5. Authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and release of the project retention, 35 days after recordation of Notice of Completion; and 6. Authorize the City Engineer to approve the release of the Maintenance Bond one year following the filing of the Notice of Completion if the improvements remain free from defects in material and workmanship. BACKGROUND: On May 1, 2019, the City Council awarded a construction contract with Onyx Paving Company, in the amount $985,000 for the construction of the Fiscal Year 2018/19 Local Overlay Pavement Rehabilitation Project. Additionally, the City Council authorized a 5% contingency in the amount of $49,250 to address unforeseen construction related incidentals. The scope of work consisted of cold milling, routing and crack sealing, asphalt concrete overlay, adjusting existing manholes, clean -outs, water meters, and valves to new grade, installation of pavement markers and striping and related items of work per plans. A vicinity map is included as Attachment 1. Page 125 I_1 Z I_1 A'&�13 The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The net decrease in the total cost of the project is a result of one (1) Change Order, the final balancing statement, which is summarized below: Change Order No.01: The balancing statement for the project. The balancing statement conforms the final contract quantities to the actual quantities placed or constructed during the contract. The change is a deduct in the amount ($7,373) resulting from a deduction in the final number of utility adjustments. At the end of the one-year maintenance period, if the improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship, the City Clerk is authorized to release the Maintenance Bond upon approval by the City Engineer. FISCAL IMPACT: A total of $1,149,619 was budgeted in Fiscal Year 2018/19 from Measure I (Fund 177) and the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Act (RMRA) (Fund 179) Funds, all of which are identified under Capital Improvement Project Account No's. and in the amount listed below. Account No. Funding Source Description Amount 11773035650/1022177-0 Measure I Fund (177) Local Street Rehab $549,619 11793035650/1022179-0 RMRA Fund (179) Local Street Rehab $600,000 Total Project Funding = $1,149,619 The final project cost is $1,092,991 as shown below: Expenditure Amount Final Construction Contract $977,627 Construction Inspection Services $61,440 Construction Materials Testing $17,924 Construction Survey Monuments $36,000 Total Project Cost = $1,092,991 A total of $56,628 is remaining in the budget for this project and will be returned to the Measure I (Fund 177) and RMRA (Fund 179) fund balances respectively to be used for future capital improvement projects. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council goal of Enhancing Premier Community Status by rehabilitating the existing roadway surface and extending the pavement life, use, and rideability. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Vicinity map Page 126 ATTACHMENT 1 PROJECT# 800-2019-11 Vicinity Map NOT TO SCALE jfS] r l { W+ e fr r�I IL ►1 plmo-nd 5t peer Creek I CHorrrrel � i ' � � Q Hillside Rd Hlllslde Rd 4 I ' Creyy� } ,N;t5on Av , WlPson Ave Thero-eg}�pred `' a Chaftey •, � ,� ,��[tA College Schaol Banyan St Banyan St 13anyvj5t ' M Careh Leman Ave Lemon Ave I�nta9t 4". V Basin r �Or > Alta Loma DFa t' ■ — C 7 b ' — Alla LomaLA � e Grapeiand ; n us Victoria Srs m m Etiwdn¢a' 4� m D 4 N C Upland Hills •�� ° w m Country CVub f3 ne Rd n a a a 1E n a " r C 14 U§1 C Gth St U§ y , A I t _ tJ re f tt�� 15 y Rancho Q ; a Cucamonga .� row Hwy y { Arrow Rte Arrow Rte 1 { a M I ro „ 2 m 9th St10 m North jersey Blvd Whittratn Ave u Kaiser E 8th SF 8th St Cucamonga I �t �F►gda5t E 7th St y a i z ❑ 16 E 6th St ° 1 < 6th St I ID ° ° mIV r E � � v � E dth�5t rn ■ . . . + yt . .. d*Ot Fw11" 9t• 4 San Bernardino Ave Project Site A Page 127 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Gianfranco Laurie, Senior Civil Engineer Sandra Salazar, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE MULTI -USE COMMUNITY TRAIL COMMON USE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 4 FOR THE CITY'S USE OF A PORTION OF THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL (DISTRICT) DEER CREEK CHANNEL AND CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHWEST CUCAMONGA CLASS I BIKE TRAIL PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Common Use Agreement, Amendment No. 4, for the City's use of a portion of the District's Deer Creek Channel and Cucamonga Creek Channel related to the construction of the Southwest Cucamonga Class 1 Bike Trail Project, and authorize the Mayor to sign all necessary documents. BACKGROUND: In 1993, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City) and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (District) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Contract No. 93-20, in which the parties agreed to cooperate in the development of a multi -use trail system within portions of the District's right- of-way in the City. That MOU stipulated that "individual portions of the approved conceptual plan shall be accomplished under separate agreement". In 2010, the City and District executed a Common Use Agreement, Contract No. 10-53, for a recreational multi -use community trail along portions of Day Creek, Cucamonga Creek and Deer Creek Channels. The agencies have since approved Amendment No's. 1, 2, and 3 to that agreement which added segments of recreational multi -use trail systems on maintenance roads to the City's trail network. ANALYSIS: The City now wishes to add segments of the multi -use trail along the District's Deer Creek Channel from Church Street to 4th Street, and along the District's Cucamonga Creek Channel from Foothill Boulevard to 4th Street. A vicinity map is included as Attachment 1. A copy of the District's MOU Amendment No. 4 is included as Attachment 2. Each of these segments will be constructed as part of the Southwest Cucamonga Class 1 Bike Trail Project. These multi -use trail additions will provide access for pedestrian, joggers and bicycles usage. The proposed project conforms with the General Plan for Class I Bike Paths and the Circulation Master Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians. Page 128 The scope of work consists of clearing and grubbing, crack seal existing asphalt pavement, slurry seal, new asphalt pavement, installation of bollards/gates, mow curb, signage and striping. The result of this project will improve public safety and active transportation options by providing a new north -south Class I Bike Path in the City. Once Amendment No.4 is approved by the City, the District will execute the agreement and release a construction permit for the project. At this time, final design plans are underway and construction is anticipated to begin early 2020. ENVIRONMENTAL: The City has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Article 19. Categorical Exemptions. In accordance with Section 15301 "Existing Facilities" subsection (c), Class 1 projects consists of minor alteration of existing public facilities, therefore, the Southwest Cucamonga Class I Bike Trail Project is considered categorically exempt from CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT: This project will add approximately 4.3 miles of a multi -use trail into the City's trails network requiring routine maintenance for striping and signs. The City was awarded a Clean Transportation Funding Grant from the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee (MSRC), Contract Number ML16052, for up to fifty percent of the project estimate. The City anticipates a reimbursement of up to $315,576. A remaining budget of $560,370 exists in Fiscal Year 2019/20 from the AB 2766 Air Quality Improvement (Fund 105) to construct the project, all of which is identified under Capital Improvement Project Account No. and in the amount listed below. Account Funding Source Description Amount 11052085650/1953105-0 AB 2766 Air Quality Impry Fund (105) Cucamonga/Deer Crk Cls 1 $560,370 COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council goal of Enhancing Premier Community Status by expanding the City's multi -use trail network. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Common Use Agreement Amendment No. 4 Page 129 ATTACHMENT 1 SOUTHWEST CUCAMONGA CLASS I BIKE TRAIL PROJECT VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 6 E Olive O O Tryon st n San Bernardlna Rd :r Y 9 a t v ID rt a D S Akrraw 4 Feran $Ivd 8th St 7th St n � t chi t ro O m � d� "Ia m Cu canna nga� Guar ti Recianall Park Project Terra Ylsta fawn Center Jer list Er C A G 3 ro d K m E ath S, A Page 130 THE INFORMATION IN THIS BOX IS NOT A PART OF THE CONTRACT AND IS FOR COUNTY USE ONLY San Bernardino County Flood Control District Department Contract Representative Telephone Number Contractor Contractor Representative Telephone Number Contract Term Original Contract Amount Amendment Amount Total Contract Amount Cost Center Contract Number SAP Number Melissa Walker (909) 387-7995 City of Rancho Cucamonga (909) 477-2740 IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (Use space below and additional bond sheets. Set forth service to be rendered, amount to be paid, manner of payment, time for performance or completion, determination of satisfactory performance and cause for termination, other terms and conditions, and attach plans, specifications, and addenda, if any.) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MULTI -USE TRAIL - COMMON USE AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT NO. 4 WHEREAS, on January 11, 1993, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (DISTRICT) and the City of Rancho Cucamonga (CITY) executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Contract No. 93- 20, under which the parties agreed to cooperate in the development of a multi -use trail system within portions of DISTRICT right-of-way in the CITY, and WHEREAS, the MOU stipulates that "individual portions of the approved conceptual plan shall be accomplished under a separate agreement," and WHEREAS, DISTRICT and CITY on January 26, 2010, executed a Common Use Agreement (AGREEMENT), Contract No. 10-53, for a recreational multi -use community trail along portions of Day Creek and Deer Creek Channels, and Standard Contract Page 1 of 3 Page 131 WHEREAS, DISTRICT and CITY subsequently entered into the following amendments to the AGREEMENT: • Amendment No. 1 to the AGREEMENT, on June 28, 2011, to add a segment of a recreational multi -use community trail system along DISTRICT's Cucamonga Channel, from the previous alignment of the Southern Pacific Railroad to Red Hill Country Club Drive (Area of Common Use No. 2), and • Amendment No. 2 to the AGREEMENT, on May 21, 2013, to add a segment of a recreational multi -use community trail system along DISTRICT's Cucamonga Channel, From Foothill Blvd. to Baseline Road (Area of Common Use No. 3), and • Amendment No. 3 to the AGREEMENT, on November 04, 2014, to add a segment of a recreational multi -use community trail system along DISTRICT's Deer Creek Channel, from Church Street to Baseline Road (Area of Common Use No. 4), and WHEREAS, DISTRICT is currently processing construction permit No.P-12019019 to CITY to add a segment of the multi -use trail along A) DISTRICT's Deer Creek Channel from Church Street to 4t" Street, and B) along DISTRICT's Cucamonga Creek Channel from Foothill Boulevard and 4t" Street, and WHEREAS, DISTRICT, and CITY desire to amend the existing AGREEMENT, to add the additional stretch of multi -use trail. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: DISTRICT and CITY hereby amend the AGREEMENT to add a segment of the multi -use trail along DISTRICT's Deer Creek Channel from Church Street to 4t" Street, "CITY IMPROVEMENTS NO. 5", the location of which is shown as AREA OF COMMON USE NO. 5 on the attached map marked as "Exhibit I" and which improvements are also shown on attached plans, marked "Exhibit X. The AGREEMENT is hereby amended to attach Exhibit I and Exhibit J as if originally set forth therein. 2. DISTRICT and CITY hereby amend the AGREEMENT to add a segment of the multi -use trail along DISTRICT's Cucamonga Creek Channel from Foothill Boulevard and 4t" Street, hereinafter called "CITY IMPROVEMENTS NO. 6", the location of which is shown as AREA OF COMMON USE NO. 6 on the attached map marked as "Exhibit K" and which improvements are also shown on attached plans, marked "Exhibit L." The AGREEMENT is hereby amended to attach Exhibit K and Exhibit L as if originally set forth therein. 3. DISTRICT and CITY agree that all terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT shall also apply to CITY IMPROVEMENTS NO. 5 and NO. 6 located in AREAS OF COMMON USE NO. 5 and NO. 6. 4. The definitions of CITY IMPROVEMENTS and AREA OF COMMON USE set forth in the AGREEMENT are hereby amended to include CITY IMPROVEMENTS NO. 5 and NO. 6 and AREAS OF COMMON USE NO. 5 and NO. 6, defined herein. 5. Unless amended as set forth herein, all terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT, as previously amended, shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 6. This Amendment No. 4 shall take effect on the date it is signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused the respective names to be hereunto subscribed and their respective seals to be hereunto affixed by their respective proper officers thereunto duly authorized. Revised 7/15/19 Page 2 of 3 Page 132 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT L Curt Hagman, Board Chairman Dated: SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD Lynna Monell, Clerk of the Board By Deputy FOR COUNTY USE ONLY Approved as to Legal Form No - Sophie A. Akins, County Counsel Date Revised 7/15/19 (Print or type name of corporation, company, contractor, etc.) By Name Title Dated: Address Reviewed for Contract Compliance ► Mohammad Ali, P.E. Date (Authorized signature - sign in blue ink) (Print or type name of person signing contract) (Print or Type Reviewed/Approved by Department ► Kevin Blakeslee, Chief Flood Control Engineer Date Page 3 of 3 Page 133 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 20240 (CASE NO. SUBTT20240), LOCATED SOUTH OF 6TH STREET BETWEEN HAVEN AVENUE AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY TRI -POINTE HOMES INC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Final Map of Tract No. 20240, and cause said map to record. BACKGROUND: On April 10, 2019, the Planning Commission Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 20240 for the division of 4.75 acres of land into two numbered lots and three lettered lots located within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan, Planning Area 1, located north of 4th Street, south of 6th Street, west of Milliken Avenue, and east of Utica/Cleveland Avenues. ANALYSIS: Tentative Tract Map No. 20240 was approved subject to a condition that certain public improvements be constructed upon the first development within the Empire Lakes (The Resort) Specific Plan Area. All improvements required by these conditions have previously been secured and/or constructed. No additional security is required prior to approval of the final map. Staff has reviewed the final map submitted by the Tri -Pointe Homes Inc. and determined that it is technically correct and in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map and the Subdivision Map Act. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's Goal of Enhancing Premier Community Status by allowing for high quality development within the Empire Lakes Specific Plan Area. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Page 134 a VICINITY MAP S U BTT20240 NOT TO SCALE mo Mal Site ©mbmmm©m -. —._ ATTACHMENT 1 lif ORM MOR onm @Rm Qm HOW Page 135 ygl, � m Qm HOW Page 135 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS, AND TO ORDER ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NO'S. 1 AND 6 RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STORAGE FACILITY AT 10013 8TH STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET BETWEEN HERMOSA AVENUE AND ARCHIBALD AVENUE (CASE NO. DRC2017-00448) SUBMITTED BY BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve: 1. An improvement agreement for public improvements related to Project Case No. DRC2017- 00448, 2. Accept Improvement Security submitted by the applicant, 3. Adopt the attached resolutions ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, and 4. Authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND: On January 10, 2019, the Planning Commission approved Case No. DRC2017-00448 for the construction of a new storage facility on 3.81 acres of land in the General Industrial (GI) district on the south side of 8th Street, west of Hermosa Avenue, located at 10013 8th Street. DRC2017-00448 was approved subject to a condition that certain public improvements be constructed including street lights and sidewalk improvements. ANALYSIS: The developer, Biane Family Properties, LLC, has submitted an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the remaining public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $5,900 Labor and Materials Bond $5,900 Copies of the agreement are available in the City Clerk's office. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the developer are also on file in the City Clerk's office. Page 136 FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed annexations would satisfy the conditions of approval for the development and supply additional annual revenue into the lighting and landscape maintenance districts in the following amounts: Landscape Maintenance District No. 313: $1075.33 Street Lighting District No. 1: $135.41 Street Lighting District No. 6: $195.83 Further, the development would construct two street lights that will be maintained by the City. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This project Enhances Premier Community status by ensuring the construction of high quality public improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Resolution LMD 3B Attachment 3 - Resolution SLD 1 Attachment 4 - Resolution SLD 6 Page 137 Vicinity Map Case No. DRC2017-00448 NOT TO SCALE 8775' 9876 9887 5290 8786 9533 9877 988 9893 991' 395: 374 9892 99939896 881 E 99;E 9943 9344 Fero, elvrl 9967 9969 9971 9973 9%3 9975 9°83 9977 9961 9979 9959 9981 ■ 3 7979198839395 I 9945 9947 9999 9954 9953 9955 9957 9983 9985 9997 .AT and SF Faklroad - Rrh 5t ATTACHMENT 1 9793 876c 012' 8797 �ero� elvd M3 012 10112 10071 70fOB 1GM6 # 8818 IAth S[ :k 8836 237 191 f5 1-12 Old 10033Park 8&48 � RIa1n 5( .y 8863 - • - 9077 7P08510091 Y 4 AT antl SF Rai(roatl' 8(h 5r 1ll17I n12 - 8999 3 a A Page 138 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. XX - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL) FOR PROJECT CASE NO. DRC2017-00448 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act", said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial Industrial) (the "District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIII D") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and Resolution No. XXX -XXX — Page 1 of 5 Page 139 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that: (1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment. WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2019. Resolution No. XXX -XXX — Page 2 of 5 Page 140 Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC The legal description of the Property is: PARCEL MAP 7864 PARCEL 3 Assessor's Parcels Numbers of the Property: 209-201-20 Resolution No. XXX -XXX — Page 3 of 5 Page 141 Exhibit B Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2019/20 Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial Industrial): Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial Industrial) (the "Maintenance District") represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees and entry monuments. Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. DRC2017-00448: 0 Street Trees Resolution No. XXX -XXX — Page 4 of 5 Page 142 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2019/20 Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial Industrial): The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $282.24 for the fiscal year 2019/20. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial Industrial) for DRC2017-00488: EBU Rate per Land Use Basis Factor* EBU* Non -Residential Acre 1.00 $282.24 The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows: 3.81 Acres x 1.00 EBU Factor x $282.24 Rate per EBU = $1075.33 Annual Assessment Resolution No. XXX -XXX — Page 5 of 5 Page 143 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. XX - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) FOR PROJECT CASE NO. DRC2017-00448 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act", said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the "District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIII D") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 1 of 5 Page 144 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that: (1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment. WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. C. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2019. Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 2 of 5 Page 145 Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC The legal description of the Property is: PARCEL MAP 7864 PARCEL 3 Assessor's Parcels Numbers of the Property: 209-201-20 Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 3 of 5 Page 146 Exhibit B Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2019/20 Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the "Maintenance District") is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. These sites consist of several non-contiguous areas throughout the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. DRC2017-00448 0 Street Lights Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 4 of 5 Page 147 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2019/20 Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets): The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2019/20. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets) for DRC2017-00448: Land Use Basis EBU Factor* Rate per EBU* Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $17.77 Multi -Family Residential Parcel 1.00 17.77 Non -Residential Acre 2.00 17.77 The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows: 3.81 Acres x 2.00 EBU Factor x $17.77 Rate per EBU = $135.41 Annual Assessment Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 5 of 5 Page 148 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. XX - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL) FOR PROJECT CASE NO. DRC2017-00448 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act", said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial Industrial)(the "District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIII D") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 1 of 5 Page 149 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that: (1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment. WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2019. Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 2 of 5 Page 150 Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: BIANE FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC The legal description of the Property is: PARCEL MAP 7864 PARCEL 3 Assessor's Parcels Numbers of the Property: 209-201-20 Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 3 of 5 Page 151 Exhibit B Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2019/20 Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial Industrial): Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (the "Maintenance District") is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project Case No. DRC2017-00448: (2) 51 -WATT LED Street Lights Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 4 of 5 Page 152 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2019/20 Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial Industrial): The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $51.40 for the fiscal year 2019/20. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial Industrial) for DRC2017-00448: EBU Rate per Land Use Basis Factor* EBU* Commercial/ Industrial Acre 1.00 $51.40 The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows: 3.81 Acres x 1.00 EBU Factor x $51.40 Rate per EBU = $195.83 Annual Assessment Resolution No. XX -XXX — Page 5 of 5 Page 153 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jason C. Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE PARCEL MAP 19851, AND ORDER THE ANNEXATION INTO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NO'S. 1 AND 6, RELATED TO SUBDIVISION OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES LOCATED AT 8300 UTICA AVENUE BETWEEN CIVIC CENTER DRIVE AND ASPEN AVENUE (CASE NO. SUBTPM19851). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Parcel Map 19851, and order the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6. BACKGROUND: On February 28, 2018, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 19851 for the conversion of an existing 41,262 square foot office building on a 1.97 acre parcel into a commercial office condominium development consisting of 26 office units and shared common areas in the Industrial Park (IP) District located at 8300 Utica Avenue. ANALYSIS: Public improvements for Parcel Map 19851 have already been constructed. No bonds or agreements are required of the developer. Approval by the council would approve the Parcel Map 19851, and order the annexation into Landscape Maintenance District 313 and Street Lighting Districts 1 and 6. FISCAL IMPACT: The proposed annexations would satisfy the conditions of approval for the development and supply additional annual revenue into the lighting and landscape maintenance districts in the following amounts: Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B: $ 556.01 Street Lighting District No. 1: $ 70.01 Street Lighting District No. 6: $ 101.26 The development includes installation of no new street lights and no new street trees. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Page 154 This item addresses the City Council's goal to Enhance Premier Community Status by ensuring the maintenance of high-quality public improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Resolution LMD 3B Attachment 3 - Resolution SLD 1 Attachment 4 - Resolution SLD 6 Page 155 VICINITY MAP SUBTPM 19851 S 61 G ID a c ro Rancho Cucamonga City Hall and City... 9 Rancho Cucamonga = Police Department w 9 n serial Staffing Civic Ce 'w,0 & Associates �Bank ofthe West 2 c !eland Counties 9 O Legal Services y Associates Direct Services Project Site n,. n n MTE Consult29 Group. Inc T z m Diversified Pacific a All Star Driving School rD T Civic Center Plaza 9 Blkram Yoga a Goodwill Southern a°' P 10 C"i- reCPnrBr pr Law Library for San Barnardlno County ATTACHMENT 1 Senturion 9 9 Exact Staff - Rancho Cucamonga S J Group Christina Ferrante Attorney All Law 9 Gkvic Center lA Page 156 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 19 - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B (COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL) FOR SUBTPM 19851 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act", said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial Industrial) (the "District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIII D") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 1 of 5 Page 157 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that: (1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment. WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2019. Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 2 of 5 Page 158 Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: Laurel Professional Building, LLC, a California limited liability company, as to an undivided 50% interest and Hale Properties LLC, a California limited liability company, as to an undivided 50% interest. The legal description of the Property is: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8568, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 90, Page(s) 68 and 69 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County recorder of said County. Assessor's Parcels Numbers of the Property: 0208-353-07 Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 3 of 5 Page 159 Exhibit B Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2019/20 Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial Industrial): Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial Industrial) (the "Maintenance District") represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees and entry monuments. Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project SUBTPM 19851: None Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 4 of 5 Page 160 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2019/20 Landscape Maintenance District No. 313 (Commercial Industrial): The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $282.24 for the fiscal year 2019/20. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B (Commercial Industrial) for SUBTPM 19851: EBU Rate per Land Use Basis Factor* EBU* Non -Residential Acre 1.00 $282.24 The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows: 97 Acres x 1 EBU Factor X $282.24 Rate per EBU = $ 556.01 Annual Assessment Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 5 of 5 Page 161 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 19 - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) FOR SUBTPM 19851 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act", said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the "District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIII D") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 1 of 5 Page 162 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that: (1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment. WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. C. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 2 of 5 2019. Page 163 Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: Laurel Professional Building, LLC, a California limited liability company, as to an undivided 50% interest and Hale Properties LLC, a California limited liability company, as to an undivided 50% interest. The legal description of the Property is: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8568, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 90, Page(s) 68 and 69 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County recorder of said County. Assessor's Parcels Numbers of the Property: 0208-353-07 Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 3 of 5 Page 164 Exhibit B Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2019/20 Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets): Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) (the "Maintenance District") is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. These sites consist of several non-contiguous areas throughout the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project SUBTPM 19851: None Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 4 of 5 Page 165 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2019/20 Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets): The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2019/20. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No.1 (Arterial Streets) for SUBTPM 19851: Land Use Basis EBU Factor* Rate per EBU* Single Family Residential Parcel 1.00 $17.77 Multi -Family Residential Parcel 1.00 17.77 Non -Residential Acre 2.00 17.77 The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows: 97 Acres x 2 EBU X $17.77 Rate per EBU = $ 70.01 Annual Assessment. Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 5 of 5 Page 166 ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 19 - XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL) FOR SUBTPM 19851 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "Act", said special maintenance district known and designated as Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial Industrial)(the "District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the annexation of additional territory to the District; and WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions, and assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding that such provisions of the Act related to the annexation of territory to the District, Article XIII D of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article XIII D") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply to the levy of annual assessments for the District on the territory proposed to be annexed to such District; and WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be annexed to the District in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act to the annexation of the Territory to the District and have expressly consented to the annexation of the Territory to the District; and WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the Act and/or Article XIII D applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto; and Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 1 of 5 Page 167 WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly agreed for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns that: (1) The proportionate special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the District Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the maintenance and operation expenses of the Improvements; (2) The proposed annual assessment does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit from the Improvements conferred on each parcel in the Territory. (3) Only the special benefits derived or to be derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements have been included in the proposed annual assessment. WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the District and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that: a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the Improvements. b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the Improvements has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the maintenance of the Improvement. c. Only special benefits will be assessed on the Territory by the levy of the proposed annual assessments. SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation the Territory to the District, approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C. SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of October 2019. Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 2 of 5 Page 168 Exhibit A Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property to be Annexed The Owner of the Property is: Laurel Professional Building, LLC, a California limited liability company, as to an undivided 50% interest and Hale Properties LLC, a California limited liability company, as to an undivided 50% interest. The legal description of the Property is: Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 8568, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 90, Page(s) 68 and 69 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County recorder of said County. Assessor's Parcels Numbers of the Property: 0208-353-07 Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 3 of 5 Page 169 Exhibit B Description of the District Improvements Fiscal Year 2019/20 Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial Industrial): Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (the "Maintenance District") is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally, this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Proposed additions to the Improvements for Project SUBTPM 19851 None Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 4 of 5 Page 170 Exhibit C Proposed Annual Assessment Fiscal Year 2019/20 Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial Industrial): The rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) is $51.40 for the fiscal year 2019/20. The following table summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial Industrial) for SUBTPM19851: Land Use Basis EBU Rate per Factor* EBU* Commercial/ Industrial Acre 1.00 $51.40 The proposed annual assessment for the property described in Exhibit A is as follows: 87 Acres x 1 EBU Factor X $51.40 Rate per EBU = $ 101.26 Annual Assessment. Resolution No. 19 - XXX — Page 5 of 5 Page 171 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Dean Rodia, Parks and Landscape Maintenance Superintendent Ruth Cain, CPPB, Procurement Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO AWARD THE PURCHASE OF FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDES SUPPLIES ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS FROM AGRI-TURF DISTRIBUTING, TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, AND SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $140,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/2020. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council award the purchase of fertilizer and pesticides supplies on an as needed basis to Agri -Turf Distributing, Target Specialty Products, and SiteOne Landscape Supply, in accordance with Request for Bids (RFB) #19/20-104, in an amount not to exceed $140,000 for Fiscal Year 2019/2020. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Services Department applies fertilizer and pesticides in the parks and landscape areas throughout the City. The use of general and specialized fertilizers helps to improve plant and turf health. The properly scheduled distribution of these fertilizers will stimulate healthy root and plant structure growth. The City's urban forest also benefits from the availability of the appropriate fertilizers and pesticides that help strengthen and stimulate proper growth. Having several resources that can provide the City with approved pesticides helps reduce and/or eliminate unwanted pests and weeds that can impact the City's overall landscape health and appearance, while reducing the public's exposure to pest related injuries such as Red Fire Ants or Goathead weeds in our parks, landscape areas, and paseos. Having the capability to purchase on an "as needed basis" through a variety of vendors will help the Department's ability to respond rapidly and with the appropriate materials to achieve their application goals each day throughout the year. Having three vendors providing the fertilizer and pesticides on an "as needed basis" also helps maximize availability and accessibility to the materials used throughout the City and eliminates the liability impacts associated with the storage of these materials. ANALYSIS: The Public Works Services Department provided the Procurement Division with specifications for review and to determine the best method of procurement. The Procurement Division prepared and posted a formal Request for Bids (RFB) #19/20-104 for "Fertilizer and Pesticides Supplies on an As Needed Basis" to the City's automated procurement system. This bid was solicited as a split award to provide the greatest flexibility in staff's ability to find the supplies needed at the best price. There was a total of Twenty -Eight (28) vendors that were notified, seven (7) prospective bidders downloaded the solicitation documents, and four (4) bid responses were received. Agri -Turf Distributing, Target Page 172 Specialty Products, and SiteOne Landscape Supply were the three lowest most responsive vendors that submitted bids. All applicable bid documentation is on file in the City's electronic bidding system and can be accessed through the City's website. A copy of RFB #19/20-104 is attached for reference. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract price is within the operations and maintenance budget line items in the approved budget for FY 2019/2020. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's goal of Enhancing Public Safety and the City's Premiere Community Status in ensuring well-maintained and safe City facilities. ATTACHMENTS: Description RFB 19/20-104 Page 173 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REQUEST FOR BIDS ("RFB") # 19/20-104 FOR FERTILIZER SUPPLIES ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS City of Rancho Cucamonga Procurement Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attachment 1 - RFB 19/20-104 Page 174 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis Table of Contents 1. GENERAL INFORMATION...........................................................................................................................3 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 BID RESPONSE DELIVERY AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS..................................................................................... 3 1.3 BUSINESS LICENSE................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS................................................................................................................ 4 1.5 CONTINGENCIES................................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS............................................................................................................. 4 1.7 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ................................................ 4 1.8 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................. 5 1.9 BRAND NAMES.................................................................................................................................... 5 1.10 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS........................................................................................................................ 5 1.11 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT......................................................................................................... 6 2. RFB RESPONSE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................... 7 2.1 Exhibits A through F......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 NON -DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.............................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 SPECIFICATIONS................................................................................................................................7 2.1.3 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................ 7 2.1.4 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.5 DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION............................................................................................................ 8 2.1.6 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.7 ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION.................................................................................................... 8 "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT............ 9 „EXHIBIT B" SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET..................................................................................................... 10 „EXHIBIT C' ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................. 12 „EXHIBIT D" PARTICIPATION CLAUSE.............................................................................................................. 13 "EXHIBIT E" DEBARMENT and SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION FORM................................................................ 14 „EXHIBIT F" SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY......................................................................................................... 15 Page 2 of 15 Page 175 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis 1. GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Introduction The City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter the "City") is inviting Request for Bid ("RFB") responses to RFB # 19/20-104 for Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis in accordance with the "Specifications Worksheet, Exhibit B" attached herein. Vendors wishing to participate in the RFB solicitation must be registered as a Vendor on the City's Vendor List. Vendor registration can be accomplished by visiting the City's website at www.cityofrc.us. Only those responses received from registered Vendors will be accepted. Responses must be submitted by the named Vendor that has downloaded the RFB; this information is indicated in the bid system and provides the ability to tabulate the responses in accordance to the named Vendors. Submitting a response under a Vendor name that does not appear to be on the Prospective Bidders list will be deemed as non-responsive and disqualify said response from further consideration. 1.2 BID RESPONSE DELIVERY AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS RFB responses must be received electronically via Planet Bids prior to the due date and time specified in the below Schedule of Events. Please note, there will be no paper responses accepted. The City shall not be responsible for any delays by transmission errors. Schedule of Events Event Description Date & Time Post RFB August 15, 2019 Questions Due August 22, 2019 Addendum Issued August 26, 2019 RFB Response Due Date August 29, 2019 (The City reserves the right to change schedule of events without prior notice or responsibility to Vendor.) 1.3 BUSINESS LICENSE The selected Vendor awarded a Contract shall be required to obtain a Rancho Cucamonga Business License no later than five (5) business days from notification of award prior to being issued a Purchase Order. Awarded Vendor must possess and maintain all appropriate licenses/certifications necessary in the performance of duties required under this RFB and will provide copies of licenses/certifications immediately upon request throughout the term of the Contract. Page 3 of 15 Page 176 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis 1.4 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS Vendors finding discrepancies or omissions in the RFB or having any doubts as to the meaning or intent of any part thereof shall submit such questions or concerns in writing to the applicable Procurement contact identified herein. All questions must be in writing and no responsibility will be accepted for oral instructions. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFB shall be considered a part of this RFB and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFB. 1.5 CONTINGENCIES This RFB should not be considered as a Contract to purchase goods or services but is a Request for Bid in accordance with the Terms and Conditions herein and will not necessarily give rise to a Contract. However, RFB responses should be as detailed and complete as possible to facilitate the formation of a Contract based on the RFB response(s) that are pursued should the City decide to do so. Completion of this RFB form and its associated Appendices are a requirement. Failure to do so may disqualify your RFB response submittal. Vendors must submit signed, RFB responses by the due date and time as specified herein. Vendors will be considered non-responsive if the above requirements are not submitted as requested. If only one RFB response is received, the City reserves the right to discard the response and rebid the RFB. Any Scope of Work, Contingencies, Special Instruction and/or Terms and Conditions applicable to this RFB and any Purchase Order derived thereafter shall be effective as of the issue date of Purchase Order (the "Effective Date"), and shall remain in full force and effect until sixty (60) days after the City has accepted the work in writing and has made final payment, unless sooner terminated by written agreement signed by both parties. 1.6 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS All questions or clarification requests must be submitted directly through the bid system by the due date and time indicated in the above Schedule of Events. Answers and/or clarifications will be provided in the form of an Addendum and will be posted for download from the City's bid system in accordance with the above "Schedule of Events". From the issuance date of this Request for Bid until a Vendor is awarded, Vendors are not permitted to communicate with any City staff or officials regarding this procurement, other than during interviews, demonstrations, and/or site visits, except at the direction of Ruth Cain, CPPB, Procurement Manager, or Cheryl Combs, Procurement Technician, the designated representatives of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1.7 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Page 4 of 15 Page 177 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis All materials submitted in response to the RFB solicitation will become the property of the City and will be returned only at the City's option and at the expense of the vendor submitting the RFB response. A copy of the RFB response will be retained for official files and become a public record. Any material that a vendor considers as confidential but does not meet the disclosure exemption requirements of the California Public Records Act should not be included in the vendor's RFB response as it may be made available to the public. If a vendor's RFB response contains material noted or marked as confidential and/or proprietary that, in the City's sole opinion, meets the disclosure exemption requirements, then that information will not be disclosed pursuant to a written request for public documents. If the City does not consider such material to be exempt from disclosure, the material may be made available to the public, regardless of the notation or markings. If a vendor is unsure if its confidential and/or proprietary material meets disclosure exemption requirements, then it should not include such information in its RFB response because such information may be disclosed to the public. 1.8 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS The vendor shall carefully review all documents referenced and made a part of the solicitation document to ensure that all information required to properly respond has been submitted or made available and all requirements are priced in the RFB response. Failure to examine any documents, drawings, specifications, or instructions will be at the Vendor's sole risk. Vendors shall be responsible for knowledge of all items and conditions contained in their RFB responses and in this RFB, including any City issued clarifications, modifications, amendments, or addenda. The City will provide notice of any changes and clarifications to perspective Vendors by way of addenda to the City website; however, it is the Vendor's responsibility to ascertain that the RFB response includes all addenda issued prior to the RFB Due Date. 1.9 BRAND NAMES Any reference to brand names and/or numbers in the solicitation is intended to be descriptive, but not restrictive, unless otherwise specified. RFB responses offering equivalent items meeting the standards of quality specified may be considered, unless other specified, providing the RFB response clearly describes the article offered and how it differs from the referenced brand. Unless a Vendor specifies otherwise, it is understood that the Vendor is offering a referenced brand item as specified in the solicitation. The City reserves the right to determine whether a substitute offer is equivalent to and meets the standards of quality indicated by the brand name references, and the City may require the supply of additional descriptive material and a sample. 1.10 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Page 5 of 15 Page 178 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis The issuance of this RFB does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will be entered by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to: • Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, RFB, or RFB procedure. • Reject any or all RFBs. • Reissue a Request for Bids. • Prior to submission deadline for RFBs, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFB, or the requirements for contents or format of the RFBs. • The City recognizes that price is only one of several criteria to be used in judging a product or service, and the City is not legally bound to accept the lowest RFB response. • The City reserves the right to conduct pre -award discussions and/or pre -Contract negotiations with any or all responsive and responsible Vendors who submit RFB responses. • Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFB by any other means. • Determine that no project will be pursued. • The City reserves the right to inspect the Vendor's place of business prior to award or at any time during the contract term or any extension thereof, to determine the Vendor's capabilities and qualifications. 1.11 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT The City of Rancho Cucamonga complies with the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6253. (a) Public records are open to inspection always during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. Neither an RFB in its entirety, nor proposed prices shall be considered confidential and proprietary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, companies are hereby notified that all materials submitted in response to this RFB are subject to California's Public Records Act. The City 's receipt, review, evaluation or any other act or omission concerning any such information shall not create an acceptance by the City or any obligation or duty to prevent the disclosure of any such information except as required by Government Code Section 6253. Companies who submit information they believe should be exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act shall clearly mark each document as confidential, proprietary or exempt, and state the legal basis for the exemption with supporting citations to the California Code. Pursuant to California Law, if the information is requested under the Public Records Act, the City shall make a final determination if any exemption exists for Page 6 of 15 Page 179 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis the City to deny the request and prevent disclosure. The City will withhold such information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act only if the City determines, in its sole discretion, that there is a legal basis to do so. 2. RFB RESPONSE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS The following must be received no later than the due date and time specified in the Schedule of Events. RFB responses and associated documents must be submitted electronically through the bid system. The Vendor is solely responsible for ensuring that the full RFB response is received by the City in accordance with the solicitation requirements, prior to the date and time specified in the solicitation. 2.1 Exhibits A through F The following named Exhibits A through F are a requirement. All required exhibits must be complete and signed where required and submitted in the bid system under the Response Types, Exhibits A — F. 2.1.1 NON -DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST Specify any possible conflicts of interest with your current clients or staff members and the City. A signed "Exhibit A, Conflict of Interest and Non -Disclosure Agreement," included herein must be submitted. 2.1.2 SPECIFICATIONS Vendor shall review and complete "Exhibit B, Standard Specification Form". Vendors must indicate compliance with specifications by a check mark or initials in the "MEETS", "EXCEEDS", "NO" or "N/A". Indicating "MEETS" to a specification will mean full compliance; indicating "NO" will mean an exception is being taken. All exceptions must be fully explained on a separate page titled "EXCEPTIONS", giving reference to the page and specification where the exception is being taken. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the response being rejected. 2.1.3 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendor shall hereby acknowledge they have received all posted Addendums, if any. The Vendor understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the response to be considered non- responsive. It is the Vendor's responsibility to log into the Bid System to identify, download and review the number of addenda that have been posted. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFB shall be considered a part of this RFB and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFB. Vendors must indicate their acknowledgement of any Addendums by way of signature on "Exhibit C, Addendum Acknowledgement Form", and must be included with the Vendor RFB response. Page 7 of 15 Page 180 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis 2.1.4 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE It is hereby understood that other governmental entities, such as cities, counties, and special school districts may utilize this RFB response at their option for equipment or services at the RFB response price. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation. Any such piggy -back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City is not an agent, partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts that may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy -back procurement. Each public agency shall accept sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments to the Vendor. A signed "Exhibit D, Participation Clause", must be included with the Vendor RFB response. 2.1.5 DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION Bidding Vendors must verify by way of signature to "Exhibit E, Vendor Certification Form" that they are not listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the guidelines under 2 CFR 200 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), and that neither Vendor nor any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. The signed exhibit must be included under this section of the RFB response. 2.1.6 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY Completion of this RFB form and its associated Exhibits are a requirement. Failure to do so may disqualify your RFB response submittal. Vendors must submit responses by the due date and time as specified herein. Vendors will be considered non-responsive if the above requirements are not submitted as requested. If only one RFB response is received, the City reserves the right to return the RFB to the Vendor. An "Exhibit F, Signature of Authority", must be included with the Vendor RFB response. 2.1.7 ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION The product listed may or may not be procured during the 19/20 fiscal year. Order quantities are not guaranteed, and purchases are made on an as needed basis only Page 8 of 15 Page 181 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT It is the policy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to prevent personal or organizational conflict of interest, or the appearance of such conflict of interest, in the award and administration of City Contracts, including, but not limited to Contracts for Professional Services Agreements ("PSA") with potential Vendors. I do not have specific knowledge of confidential information regarding RFB responses received in response to the Request for Bid RFB #19/20-104 for Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis. I agree not to disclose or otherwise divulge any information pertaining to the contents, status, or ranking of any RFB response to anyone. I understand the terms and "disclose or otherwise divulge" to include, but are not limited to, verbal conversations, written correspondence, reproduction of any part or any portion of any RFB response, or removal of same from designated areas. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following statements are true and correct and that I understand and agree to be bound by commitments contained herein. (Print Name) (Relationship to the City) (Relationship to the Consultant) (Signature) (Date) Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 9 of 15 Page 182 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT B" SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET Vendors must indicate compliance with specifications by check mark or initials in the "MEETS", "EXCEEDS" or "NO". Indicating "MEETS" to a specification will mean full compliance; indicating "NO" will mean an exception is being taken. All exceptions must be fully explained on a separate page titled "EXCEPTIONS", giving reference to the page and specification where the exception is being taken. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the RFB response being rejected. The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, unless otherwise stated, to accept or reject all or any bids, or any part thereof, either separately or, to waive any informality and to split or make the award in any manner determined by the City to be in the best interest of the City. SPECIFICATIONS MEETS EXCEEDS N/A NO COMMENTS Product Availability All specified products must be readily available for pick-up or delivery at the City's discretion within ten (10) business days from placement of the order. Product must be readily available for delivery or customer pick up at any of the Vendor locations within the above-mentioned timeframe. Alternate Product Submission Alternate Products are those products that have a different formula than what is called out in item description. Those products will require the submittal of a product label and SDS with the bid response. These products also must be labeled for the City's consumer market (i.e. Turf and Ornamental and/or Right -of -Way). Finally, alternate products with a different formula from what is called out in the item description must be approved by a DPR licensed or certified City Staff member. Page 10 of 15 Page 183 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis When Delivery is required, deliver to City of Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Yard, 9153 91h St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Receiving hours are between the hours of 6:30am and 3:30pm Mon—Thu. Pricing Pricing must be firm fixed and valid through June 30, 2020. Price increases will not be accepted or considered during this period, no exceptions will be made. Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 11 of 15 Page 184 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT C ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendor hereby acknowledges the following Addenda Number(s) to this RFB have been received, if any. Vendor understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the RFB response to be considered non-responsive. It is the Vendor's responsibility to log into the Bid system to identify and download the number of addenda that have been posted. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 12 of 15 Page 185 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT D" PARTICIPATION CLAUSE It is hereby understood that other government entities, such as cities, counties, and special/school districts may utilize this RFB response at their option for equipment or services at the RFB response price for a period of days. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation. Any such piggy -back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not an agent, partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts that may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy -back procurement. Each public agency shall accept sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments of the Vendor. Successful Vendor will extend prices as proposed herein to other governmental agencies, please specify. YES NO Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 13 of 15 Page 186 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT E" DEBARMENT and SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION FORM I certify that neither (Vendor) nor any of its proposed subcontractors are not currently listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the guidelines under 2 CFR 200 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), and that neither Vendor nor any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. I acknowledge that if Vendors or any of its subcontractors subsequently are placed under suspension or debarment by a local, state or federal government entity, or if Vendors or any of its subcontractors subsequently become delinquent in California taxes, our Bid will be disqualified. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 14 of 15 Page 187 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-104 For Fertilizer Supplies On An As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT F" SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY The undersigned firm declares that he has carefully examined the specifications and read the above terms and conditions, and hereby proposes and agrees, if this RFB response is accepted, to furnish all material in accordance with the specifications and instructions, in the time and manner therein prescribed for the unit cost amounts set forth in the following RFB response. THE VENDORS IN SUBMITTING THIS RFB RESPONSE MUST FILL IN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY DEEM YOUR RFB RESPONSE AS NON-RESPONSIVE. Company Name: Address: (Street, City, State, Zip) Telephone #: Fax #: E-mail address: Web Address: Authorized Representative: (print) Title: Signature: Date: Page 15 of 15 Page 188 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Dean Rodia, Parks and Landscape Maintenance Superintendent Ruth Cain, CPPB, Procurement Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO AWARD THE PURCHASE OF IRRIGATION PARTS AND SUPPLIES ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS FROM IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY, SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY, AND SMITH PIPE & SUPPLY INC., IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUEST FOR BIDS (RFB) #19/20-105 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $120,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/2020. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council award the purchase of irrigation parts and supplies from Imperial Sprinkler Supply, SiteOne Landscape Supply, and Smith Pipe & Supply Inc., in accordance with Request for Bids (RFB) #19/20-105, in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for FY 2019/2020. BACKGROUND: Irrigation parts and supplies are a vital part of the City's landscape maintenance program and are very important to the proper operation and longevity of the irrigation network. The quick repair of broken lines, leaky valves, etc., is imperative to save water and preserve the City's extensive landscape infrastructure. ANALYSIS: The Public Works Services Department provided the Procurement Division with specifications for review and to determine the best method of procurement. The Procurement Division prepared and posted a formal Request for Bids (RFB) #19/20-105 for "Irrigation Parts and Supplies on an As Needed Basis" to the City's automated procurement system. This bid was solicited as a split award in order to provide the greatest flexibility in staff's ability to find the parts needed at the best price. There were a total of two hundred and forty-six (246) vendors that were notified and fifteen (15) prospective bidders that downloaded the solicitation documentation. Four (4) bid responses were received, with one (1) response not meeting all of the required specifications. All applicable bid documentation is on file in the City's electronic bidding system and can be accessed through the City's website. A copy of RFB #19/20-105 is attached for reference. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract price is within the operations and maintenance budget line items in the approved budget for FY 2019/2020. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: Page 189 This item addresses the City Council's goal of Enhancing Premier Community Status by the provision of well-maintained landscape. ATTACHMENTS: Description RFB 19/20-105 Page 190 RANCHO CUCAMONGA REQUEST FOR BIDS ("RFB") #19/20-105 FOR IRRIGATION PARTS ON AS NEEDED BASIS City of Rancho Cucamonga Procurement Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Attachment 1 - RFB 19/20-105 Page 191 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis Table of Contents 1. GENERAL INFORMATION...........................................................................................................................2 1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 BID RESPONSE DELIVERY AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS..................................................................................... 3 1.3 BUSINESS LICENSE................................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS................................................................................................................ 4 1.5 CONTINGENCIES................................................................................................................................... 4 1.6 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS............................................................................................................. 4 1.7 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ................................................ 5 1.8 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................. 5 1.9 BRAND NAMES.................................................................................................................................... 5 1.10 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS........................................................................................................................ 6 1.11 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT......................................................................................................... 6 2. RFB RESPONSE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................... 7 2.1 Exhibits A through F......................................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 NON -DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST.............................................................................................. 7 2.1.2 SPECIFICATIONS................................................................................................................................7 2.1.3 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................ 7 2.1.4 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE...................................................................................................................... 8 2.1.5 DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION............................................................................................................ S 2.1.6 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.7 ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION.................................................................................................... 8 "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT............ 9 „EXHIBIT B" SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET..................................................................................................... 10 „EXHIBIT C' ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................. 12 „EXHIBIT D" PARTICIPATION CLAUSE.............................................................................................................. 13 "EXHIBIT E" DEBARMENT and SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION FORM................................................................ 14 „EXHIBIT F" SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY......................................................................................................... 15 1. GENERAL INFORMATION Page 2 of 15 Page 192 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis 1.1 Introduction The City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter the "City") is inviting Request for Bid ("RFB") responses to RFB #19/20-105 for Irrigation Parts on an as Needed Basis, in accordance with the "Specifications Worksheet, Exhibit B" attached herein. Vendors wishing to participate in the RFB solicitation must be registered as a Vendor on the City's Vendor List. Vendor registration can be accomplished by visiting the City's website at www.cityofrc.us. Only those responses received from registered Vendors will be accepted. Responses must be submitted by the named Vendor that has downloaded the RFB; this information is indicated in the bid system and provides the ability to tabulate the responses in accordance to the named Vendors. Submitting a response under a Vendor name that does not appear to be on the Prospective Bidders list will be deemed as non-responsive and disqualify said response from further consideration. 1.2 BID RESPONSE DELIVERY AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS RFB responses must be received electronically via Planet Bids prior to the due date and time specified in the below Schedule of Events. Please note, there will be no paper responses accepted. The City shall not be responsible for any delays by transmission errors. Schedule of Events Event Description Date & Time Post RFB August 14, 2019 Questions Due August 21, 2019 Addendum Issued August 26, 2019 RFB Response Due Date August 29, 2019 (The City reserves the right to change schedule of events without prior notice or responsibility to Vendor.) 1.3 BUSINESS LICENSE The selected Vendor awarded a Contract shall be required to obtain a Rancho Cucamonga Business License no later than five (5) business days from notification of award prior to being issued a Purchase Order. Awarded Vendor must possess and maintain all appropriate licenses/certifications necessary in the performance of duties required under this RFB and will provide copies of licenses/certifications immediately upon request throughout the term of the Contract. Page 3 of 15 Page 193 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis 1.4 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS Vendors finding discrepancies or omissions in the RFB or having any doubts as to the meaning or intent of any part thereof shall submit such questions or concerns in writing to the applicable Procurement contact identified herein. All questions must be in writing and no responsibility will be accepted for oral instructions. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFB shall be considered a part of this RFB and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFB. 1.5 CONTINGENCIES This RFB should not be considered as a Contract to purchase goods or services but is a Request for Bid in accordance with the Terms and Conditions herein and will not necessarily give rise to a Contract. However, RFB responses should be as detailed and complete as possible to facilitate the formation of a Contract based on the RFB response(s) that are pursued should the City decide to do so. Completion of this RFB form and its associated Appendices are a requirement. Failure to do so may disqualify your RFB response submittal. Vendors must submit signed, RFB responses by the due date and time as specified herein. Vendors will be considered non-responsive if the above requirements are not submitted as requested. If only one RFB response is received, the City reserves the right to discard the response and rebid the RFB. Any Scope of Work, Contingencies, Special Instruction and/or Terms and Conditions applicable to this RFB and any Purchase Order derived thereafter shall be effective as of the issue date of Purchase Order (the "Effective Date"), and shall remain in full force and effect until sixty (60) days after the City has accepted the work in writing and has made final payment, unless sooner terminated by written agreement signed by both parties. 1.6 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS All questions or clarification requests must be submitted directly through the bid system by the due date and time indicated in the above Schedule of Events. Answers and/or clarifications will be provided in the form of an Addendum and will be posted for download from the City's bid system in accordance with the above "Schedule of Events". From the issuance date of this Request for Bid until a Vendor is awarded, Vendors are not permitted to communicate with any City staff or officials regarding this procurement, other than during interviews, demonstrations, and/or site visits, except at the direction of Ruth Cain, CPPB, Procurement Manager, or Cheryl Combs, Procurement Technician, the designated representatives of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Page 4 of 15 Page 194 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis 1.7 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION All materials submitted in response to the RFB solicitation will become the property of the City and will be returned only at the City's option and at the expense of the vendor submitting the RFB response. A copy of the RFB response will be retained for official files and become a public record. Any material that a vendor considers as confidential but does not meet the disclosure exemption requirements of the California Public Records Act should not be included in the vendor's RFB response as it may be made available to the public. If a vendor's RFB response contains material noted or marked as confidential and/or proprietary that, in the City's sole opinion, meets the disclosure exemption requirements, then that information will not be disclosed pursuant to a written request for public documents. If the City does not consider such material to be exempt from disclosure, the material may be made available to the public, regardless of the notation or markings. If a vendor is unsure if its confidential and/or proprietary material meets disclosure exemption requirements, then it should not include such information in its RFB response because such information may be disclosed to the public. 1.8 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS The vendor shall carefully review all documents referenced and made a part of the solicitation document to ensure that all information required to properly respond has been submitted or made available and all requirements are priced in the RFB response. Failure to examine any documents, drawings, specifications, or instructions will be at the Vendor's sole risk. Vendors shall be responsible for knowledge of all items and conditions contained in their RFB responses and in this RFB, including any City issued clarifications, modifications, amendments, or addenda. The City will provide notice of any changes and clarifications to perspective Vendors by way of addenda to the City website; however, it is the Vendor's responsibility to ascertain that the RFB response includes all addenda issued prior to the RFB Due Date. 1.9 BRAND NAMES Any reference to brand names and/or numbers in the solicitation is intended to be descriptive, but not restrictive, unless otherwise specified. RFB responses offering equivalent items meeting the standards of quality specified may be considered, unless other specified, providing the RFB response clearly describes the article offered and how it differs from the referenced brand. Unless a Vendor specifies otherwise, it is understood that the Vendor is offering a referenced brand item as specified in the solicitation. The City reserves the right to determine whether a substitute offer is equivalent to and meets the standards of quality indicated by the brand name references, and the City may require the supply of additional descriptive material and a sample. Page 5 of 15 Page 195 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis 1.10 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS The issuance of this RFB does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will be entered by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to: • Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, RFB, or RFB procedure. • Reject any or all RFBs. • Reissue a Request for Bids. • Prior to submission deadline for RFBs, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFB, or the requirements for contents or format of the RFBs. • The City recognizes that price is only one of several criteria to be used in judging a product or service, and the City is not legally bound to accept the lowest RFB response. • The City reserves the right to conduct pre -award discussions and/or pre -Contract negotiations with any or all responsive and responsible Vendors who submit RFB responses. • Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFB by any other means. • Determine that no project will be pursued. • The City reserves the right to inspect the Vendor's place of business prior to award or at any time during the contract term or any extension thereof, to determine the Vendor's capabilities and qualifications. 1.11 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT The City of Rancho Cucamonga complies with the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6253. (a) Public records are open to inspection always during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. Neither an RFB in its entirety, nor proposed prices shall be considered confidential and proprietary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, companies are hereby notified that all materials submitted in response to this RFB are subject to California's Public Records Act. The City 's receipt, review, evaluation or any other act or omission concerning any such information shall not create an acceptance by the City or any obligation or duty to prevent the disclosure of any such information except as required by Government Code Section 6253. Companies who submit information they believe should be exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act shall clearly mark each document as confidential, proprietary or exempt, and state the legal basis for the exemption with supporting citations to the California Code. Pursuant to California Law, if the information is requested under the Public Records Act, the City shall make a final determination if any exemption exists for Page 6 of 15 Page 196 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis the City to deny the request and prevent disclosure. The City will withhold such information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act only if the City determines, in its sole discretion, that there is a legal basis to do so. 2. RFB RESPONSE SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS The following must be received no later than the due date and time specified in the Schedule of Events. RFB responses and associated documents must be submitted electronically through the bid system. The Vendor is solely responsible for ensuring that the full RFB response is received by the City in accordance with the solicitation requirements, prior to the date and time specified in the solicitation. 2.1 Exhibits A through F The following named Exhibits A through F are a requirement. All required exhibits must be complete and signed where required and submitted in the bid system under the Response Types, Exhibits A — F. 2.1.1 NON -DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST Specify any possible conflicts of interest with your current clients or staff members and the City. A signed "Exhibit A, Conflict of Interest and Non -Disclosure Agreement," included herein must be submitted. 2.1.2 SPECIFICATIONS Vendor shall review and complete "Exhibit B, Standard Specification Form". Vendors must indicate compliance with specifications by a check mark or initials in the "MEETS", "EXCEEDS", "NO" or "N/A". Indicating "MEETS" to a specification will mean full compliance; indicating "NO" will mean an exception is being taken. All exceptions must be fully explained on a separate page titled "EXCEPTIONS", giving reference to the page and specification where the exception is being taken. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the response being rejected. 2.1.3 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendor shall hereby acknowledge they have received all posted Addendums, if any. The Vendor understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the response to be considered non- responsive. It is the Vendor's responsibility to log into the Bid System to identify, download and review the number of addenda that have been posted. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFB shall be considered a part of this RFB and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFB. Vendors must indicate their acknowledgement of any Addendums by way of signature on "Exhibit C, Addendum Acknowledgement Form", and must be included with the Vendor RFB response. Page 7 of 15 Page 197 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis 2.1.4 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE It is hereby understood that other governmental entities, such as cities, counties, and special school districts may utilize this RFB response at their option for equipment or services at the RFB response price. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation. Any such piggy -back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City is not an agent, partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts that may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy -back procurement. Each public agency shall accept sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments to the Vendor. A signed "Exhibit D, Participation Clause", must be included with the Vendor RFB response. 2.1.5 DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION Bidding Vendors must verify by way of signature to "Exhibit E, Vendor Certification Form" that they are not listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the guidelines under 2 CFR 200 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), and that neither Vendor nor any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. The signed exhibit must be included under this section of the RFB response. 2.1.6 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY Completion of this RFB form and its associated Exhibits are a requirement. Failure to do so may disqualify your RFB response submittal. Vendors must submit responses by the due date and time as specified herein. Vendors will be considered non-responsive if the above requirements are not submitted as requested. If only one RFB response is received, the City reserves the right to return the RFB to the Vendor. An "Exhibit F, Signature of Authority", must be included with the Vendor RFB response. 2.1.7 ADDITIONAL VENDOR INFORMATION The products listed may or may not be procured during the 19/20 fiscal year. Order quantities are not guaranteed, and purchases are made on as needed basis only. Page 8 of 15 Page 198 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT It is the policy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to prevent personal or organizational conflict of interest, or the appearance of such conflict of interest, in the award and administration of City Contracts, including, but not limited to Contracts for Professional Services Agreements ("PSA") with potential Vendors. I do not have specific knowledge of confidential information regarding RFB responses received in response to the Request for Bid RFB #19/20-105 Irrigation Parts On As Needed Basis. I agree not to disclose or otherwise divulge any information pertaining to the contents, status, or ranking of any RFB response to anyone. I understand the terms and "disclose or otherwise divulge" to include, but are not limited to, verbal conversations, written correspondence, reproduction of any part or any portion of any RFB response, or removal of same from designated areas. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following statements are true and correct and that I understand and agree to be bound by commitments contained herein. (Print Name) (Relationship to the City) (Relationship to the Consultant) (Signature) (Date) Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 9 of 15 Page 199 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT B" SPECIFICATIONS WORKSHEET Vendors must indicate compliance with specifications by check mark or initials in the "MEETS", "EXCEEDS" or "NO". Indicating "MEETS" to a specification will mean full compliance; indicating "NO" will mean an exception is being taken. All exceptions must be fully explained on a separate page titled "EXCEPTIONS", giving reference to the page and specification where the exception is being taken. Failure to comply with this requirement will result in the RFB response being rejected. The City reserves the right, at its sole discretion, unless otherwise stated, to accept or reject all or any bids, or any part thereof, either separately or, to waive any informality and to split or make the award in any manner determined by the City to be in the best interest of the City. SPECIFICATIONS MEETS EXCEEDS N/A NO COMMENTS Product Availability. All specified products must be readily available for pick-up or delivery at the City's discretion within three (3) business days from placement of the order. Product must be readily available for delivery or customer pick up at any of the Vendor locations within the above- mentioned timeframe. Delivery When Delivery is required, deliver to: City of Rancho Cucamonga Corporate Yard, 9153 91" St., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Receiving hours are between the hours of 6:30am and 3:30pm Mon—Thu. Additional Bid Information/Instruction All parts must be specific to the irrigation landscape industry, including PVC products. Items listed without brand names can be referenced on the City of Rancho Cucamonga "Landscape & Irrigation" Standard Drawings". Pricing Page 10 of 15 Page 200 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis Pricing must be firm fixed through June 30, 2020. Price increases will be not be accepted or considered from the inception of the Purchase Oder through June 30, 2020. Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 11 of 15 Page 201 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT C ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendor hereby acknowledges the following Addenda Number(s) to this RFB have been received, if any. Vendor understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the RFB response to be considered non-responsive. It is the Vendor's responsibility to log into the Bid system to identify and download the number of addenda that have been posted. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 12 of 15 Page 202 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT D" PARTICIPATION CLAUSE It is hereby understood that other government entities, such as cities, counties, and special/school districts may utilize this RFB response at their option for equipment or services at the RFB response price for a period of days. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation. Any such piggy -back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not an agent, partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts that may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy -back procurement. Each public agency shall accept sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments of the Vendor. Successful Vendor will extend prices as proposed herein to other governmental agencies, please specify. YES NO Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 13 of 15 Page 203 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT E" DEBARMENT and SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION FORM I certify that neither (Vendor) nor any of its proposed subcontractors are not currently listed on the governmentwide exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM), in accordance with the guidelines under 2 CFR 200 that implement Executive Orders 12549 (3 CFR part 1986 Comp., p. 189) and 12689 (3 CFR part 1989 Comp., p. 235), and that neither Vendor nor any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. I acknowledge that if Vendors or any of its subcontractors subsequently are placed under suspension or debarment by a local, state or federal government entity, or if Vendors or any of its subcontractors subsequently become delinquent in California taxes, our Bid will be disqualified. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFB submittal. Page 14 of 15 Page 204 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Bids ("RFB") # 19/20-105 For Irrigation Parts on As Needed Basis "EXHIBIT F" SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY The undersigned firm declares that he has carefully examined the specifications and read the above terms and conditions, and hereby proposes and agrees, if this RFB response is accepted, to furnish all material in accordance with the specifications and instructions, in the time and manner therein prescribed for the unit cost amounts set forth in the following RFB response. THE VENDORS IN SUBMITTING THIS RFB RESPONSE MUST FILL IN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY DEEM YOUR RFB RESPONSE AS NON-RESPONSIVE. Company Name: Address: (Street, City, State, Zip) Telephone #: Fax #: E-mail address: Web Address: Authorized Representative: (print) Title: Signature: Date: Page 15 of 15 Page 205 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Ernest Ruiz, Streets, Storm Drains and Fleet Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst I Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO AUTOLIFT SERVICES, INC. FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CITY'S FLEET SHOP EQUIPMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $12,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/2020. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council award and authorize the execution of a contract with Autolift Services, Inc., for the maintenance of the City's fleet shop equipment, effective as of the date of mutual execution through June 30, 2020, with an option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years, in an amount not to exceed $12,000 for FY 2019/2020, and an estimated total contract amount of $94,810 over seven years; and, authorize the City Manager or his designee to renew the contract annually. BACKGROUND: The City's fleet shop equipment located at the Public Works Service Center and the Adult Sports Complex Maintenance Building consists of two (2) Saylor Beall compressors, four (4) Rotary Lifts and one (1) Trion Pro -M Lift. The scope of work is to provide safety inspections, annual certifications, routine maintenance, troubleshooting, repairs, and 7-day/24-hour emergency service for the various fleet shop equipment at both facilities. ANALYSIS: Public Works Services staff provided the detailed specifications for fleet shop equipment maintenance to the Procurement Division. Procurement staff prepared and posted formal RFP #19/20-005 to the City's automated procurement system. There were one hundred eighty-eight (188) notified vendors, sixteen (16) prospective bidders downloaded or viewed the bid package, and four (4) responsive proposals were received. An Evaluation Committee consisting of staff from various departments conducted a thorough analysis of the RFP responses and scored and ranked the responsive proposals. Autolift Services, Inc. of Los Alamitos, California was determined to be the most responsive contractor providing the best value while meeting the scope of services and specifications required. Therefore, staff recommends City Council award a contract to Autolift Services, Inc., effective from the date of the mutual execution through June 30, 2020, with an option to renew for one (1) year increments up to a total of six (6) additional years, in an amount not to exceed $12,000 for FY 2019-2020. In anticipation of a possible request by the contractor for a rate adjustment in future years due to cost increases, Staff has prepared the chart below to show the estimated annual funding breakdown. Please note this is only an estimate Page 206 and the amounts listed below could vary. Prior Year Fiscal Year Costs Est. Annual Increase (4%) Total Costs 2019/2020 $ 12,000 2020/2021 $ 12,000 $ 480 $ 12,480 2021/2022 $ 12,480 $ 500 $ 12,980 2022/2023 $ 12,980 $ 520 $ 13,500 2023/2024 $ 13,500 $ 540 $ 14,040 2024/2025 $ 14,040 1$14,610 $ 570 $ 14,610 2025/2026 $ 590 $ 15,200 Grand Total $ 94,810 An additional $59,330 over seven years is being considered separately by the Fire District Board of Directors. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract price is within the contract services budget line items in the approved budget for FY 2019/2020. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council's goal of Enhancing Public Safety and the City's Premiere Community Status by the provision of well-maintained fleet shop equipment and the ability to maintain the City's vehicles and equipment in good working order. ATTACHMENTS: Description Contract Page 207 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Attachment I - Contract CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRACT FLEET SHOP EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AWARD DATE: Wednesday, October 2, 2019 Page 208 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 2nd day of October 2019, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation ("City") and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District ("RCFPD") and Autolift Services, Inc., an equipment maintenance contractor ("Contractor"). RECITALS A. City and RCFPD has heretofore issued its request for proposals to perform the following services: Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance ("the Project"). B. Contractor has submitted a proposal to perform the services described in Recital "A", above, necessary to complete the Project. C. City and RCFPD desires to engage Contractor to complete the Project in the manner set forth and more fully described herein. D. Contractor represents that it is fully qualified and licensed under the laws of the State of California to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Contractor's Services. 1.1 Scope and Level of Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, City and RCFPD hereby engages Contractor to perform all services described in Recitals "A" and `B" above, including, but not limited to the maintenance, testing, certification and repairs of fleet shop equipment, all as more fully set forth in RFP #19/20-005, attached hereto as Exhibit A, Contractor's proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit B, and Schedule of Lump Sum and Unit Costs, attached hereto as Exhibit C, hereinafter entitled "Scope of Work", and incorporated by reference herein. The nature, scope, and level of the services required to be performed by Contractor are set forth in the Scope of Work and are referred to herein as "the Services." In the event of any inconsistencies between the Scope of Work and this Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall control. 1.2 Revisions to Scope of Work. Upon request of the City and RCFPD, the Contractor will promptly meet with City and RCFPD staff to discuss any revisions to the Project desired by the City and RCFPD. Contractor agrees that the Scope of Work may be amended based upon said meetings, and, by amendment to this Agreement, the parties may agree on a revision or revisions to Contractor's compensation based thereon. A revision pursuant to this Section that Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page I Last Revised: 10102113 Page 209 does not increase the total cost payable to Contractor by more than ten percent (10%) of the total compensation specified in Section 3, may be approved in writing by City's Manager without amendment. 1.3 Time for Performance. Contractor shall perform all services under this Agreement in a timely, regular basis consistent with industry standards for professional skill and care, and in accordance with any schedule of performance set forth in the Scope of Work, or as set forth in a "Schedule of Performance", if such Schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit "N/A". 1.4 Standard of Care. As a material inducement to City and RCFPD to enter into this Agreement, Contractor hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Contractor hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing the Services. 1.5 Familiarity with Services. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that, to the extent required by the standard of practice, Contractor (a) has investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (b) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (c) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. Contractor represents that Contractor, to the extent required by the standard of practice, has investigated any areas of work, as applicable, and is reasonably acquainted with the conditions therein. Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of services, Contractor shall immediately inform City and RCFPD of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor's risk until written instructions are received from the City and RCFPD Representative. 2. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall become effective as of the date of the mutual execution by way of both party's signature (the "Effective Date") through June 30, 2020. No work shall be conducted; service or goods will not be provided until this Agreement has been executed and requirements have been fulfilled. Parties to this Agreement shall have the option to renew in 1 -year increments to a total of six (6) additional years, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 14 herein. Options to renew are contingent upon the City Manager's approval, subject to pricing review, and in accordance to all Terms and Conditions stated herein unless otherwise provided in writing by the City and RCFPD. 3. Compensation. 3.1 Compensation. City and RCFPD shall compensate shall compensate Contractor as set forth in Exhibit C, provided, however, that full, total and complete amount payable to Contractor shall not exceed $12,000 (Twelve Thousand Dollars) for City facilities and shall not exceed $7,500 (Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars) for RCFPD facilities for services performed during the City and Fire District's fiscal year ending June 30, 2020, including all out of pocket expenses, unless additional compensation is approved by the City Manager or City Council. City and RCFPD shall not withhold any federal, state or other taxes, or other deductions. However, City and RCFPD shall withhold not more than ten percent (10%) of any invoice amount pending receipt of any deliverables reflected in such invoice. Under no circumstance shall Contractor be Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 2 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 210 entitled to compensation for services not yet satisfactorily performed. The parties further agree that compensation may be adjusted in accordance with Section 1.2 to reflect subsequent changes to the Scope of Services. City and RCFPD shall compensate Contractor for any authorized extra services as set forth in Exhibit A. 4. Method of Payment. 4.1 Invoices. Contractor shall submit to City and RCFPD monthly invoices for the Services performed pursuant to this Agreement. The invoices shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period and shall separately describe any authorized extra services. Any invoice claiming compensation for extra services shall include appropriate documentation of prior authorization of such services. All invoices shall be remitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 4.2 City and RCFPD shall review such invoices and notify Contractor in writing within ten (10) business days of any disputed amounts. 4.3 City and RCFPD shall pay all undisputed portions of the invoice within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the invoice up to the not -to -exceed amounts set forth in Section 3. 4.4 All records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Contractor relating to services hereunder shall be available for review and audit by the City and RCFPD. 5. Representatives. 5.1 City and RCFPD Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, the contract administrator and City and RCFPD's representative shall be William Wittkopf, or such other person as designated in writing by the City and RCFPD ("City and RCFPD Representative"). It shall be Contractor's responsibility to assure that the City and RCFPD Representative is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services, and Contractor shall refer any decisions that must be made by City and RCFPD to the City and RCFPD Representative. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City and RCFPD required hereunder shall mean the approval of the City and RCFPD Representative. 5.2 Contractor Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, Chris Woodson is hereby designated as the principal and representative of Contractor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith ("Contractor's Representative"). It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the Contractor's Representative were a substantial inducement for City and RCFPD to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the Contractor's Representative shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. Contractor may not change the Responsible Principal without the prior written approval of City and RCFPD. Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 3 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 211 6. Contractor's Personnel. 6.1 All Services shall be performed by Contractor or under Contractor's direct supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by State and local law to perform such Services, including, without limitation, a City and RCFPD business license as required by the City's Municipal Code. 6.2 Contractor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the standard of care set forth in Section 1.4. 6.3 Contractor shall be responsible for payment of all employees' and subcontractors' wages and benefits and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer's liability, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. By its execution of this Agreement, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 6.4 Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and RCFPD and its elected officials, officers and employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Contractor's violations of personnel practices and/or any violation of the California Labor Code. City and RCFPD shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to City and RCFPD from Contractor as a result of Contractor's failure to promptly pay to City and RCFPD any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6. 7. Ownership of Work Product. 7.1 Ownership. All documents, ideas, concepts, electronic files, drawings, photographs and any and all other writings, including drafts thereof, prepared, created or provided by Contractor in the course of performing the Services, including any and all intellectual and proprietary rights arising from the creation of the same (collectively, "Work Product"), are considered to be "works made for hire" for the benefit of the City and RCFPD. Upon payment being made, and provided Contractor is not in breach of this Agreement, all Work Product shall be and remain the property of City and RCFPD without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City and RCFPD. Basic survey notes, sketches, charts, computations and similar data prepared or obtained by Contractor under this Agreement shall, upon request, be made available to City and RCFPD. None of the Work Product shall be the subject of any common law or statutory copyright or copyright application by Contractor. In the event of the return of any of the Work Product to Contractor or its representative, Contractor shall be responsible for its safe return to City and RCFPD. Under no circumstances shall Contractor fail to deliver any draft or final designs, plans, drawings, reports or specifications to City and RCFPD upon written demand by City and RCFPD for their delivery, notwithstanding any disputes between Contractor and City and RCFPD concerning payment, performance of the contract, or otherwise. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. City and RCFPD's reuse of the Work Product for any purpose Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 4 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 212 other than the Project, shall be at City and RCFPD's sole risk. 7.2. Assignment of Intellectual Property Interests: Upon execution of this Agreement and to the extent not otherwise conveyed to City and RCFPD by Section 7. 1, above, the Contractor shall be deemed to grant and assign to City and RCFPD, and shall require all of its subcontractors to assign to City and RCFPD, all ownership rights, and all common law and statutory copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual and proprietary property rights relating to the Work Product and the Project itself, and Contractor shall disclaim and retain no rights whatsoever as to any of the Work Product, to the maximum extent permitted by law. City and RCFPD shall be entitled to utilize the Work Product for any and all purposes, including but not limited to constructing, using, maintaining, altering, adding to, restoring, rebuilding and publicizing the Project or any aspect of the Project. 7.3 Title to Intellectual Property. Contractor warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of the Work Product and/or materials produced under this Agreement, and that City and RCFPD has full legal title to and the right to reproduce any of the Work Product. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City and RCFPD, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City and RCFPD's use is violating federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Contractor shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, software, equipment, devices or processes used or incorporated in the Services and materials produced under this Agreement. In the event City and RCFPD's use of any of the Work Product is held to constitute an infringement and any use thereof is enjoined, Contractor, at its expense, shall: (a) secure for City and RCFPD the right to continue using the Work Product by suspension of any injunction or by procuring a license or licenses for City and RCFPD; or (b) modify the Work Product so that it becomes non -infringing. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8. Status as Independent Contractor. Contractor is, and shall at all times remain as to City and RCFPD, a wholly independent contractor. Contractor shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City and RCFPD or otherwise act as an agent of City and RCFPD. Neither City and RCFPD nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its officers, agents or employees are in any manner employees of City and RCFPD. Contractor shall pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Contractor under this Agreement, and to defend, indemnify and hold City and RCFPD harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City and RCFPD by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Contractor shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding Contractor and Contractor's employees 9. Confidentiality. Contractor may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City and RCFPD employees. Contractor covenants that all data, Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page S Last Revised: 10102113 Page 213 documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Contractor or provided for performance of this Agreement are confidential and shall not be disclosed by Contractor without prior written authorization by City and RCFPD. City and RCFPD shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. All City and RCFPD data shall be returned to City and RCFPD upon the termination of this Agreement. Contractor's covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. This provision shall not apply to information in whatever form that is in the public domain, nor shall it restrict the Contractor from giving notices required by law or complying with an order to provide information or data when such an order is issued by a court, administrative agency or other legitimate authority, or if disclosure is otherwise permitted by law and reasonably necessary for the Contractor to defend itself from any legal action or claim. 10. Conflict of Interest. 10.1 Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor "financially interested" (as provided in California Government Code §§1090 and 87 100) in any decision made by City and RCFPD on any matter in connection with which Contractor has beenretained. 10.2 Contractor further represents that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Contractor has not paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City and RCFPD shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 10.3 Contractor has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City and RCFPD has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City and RCFPD, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited "conflict of interest" under applicable laws as described in subsection 10.1. 11. Indemnification. 11.1 To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City and RCFPD, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and RCFPD, (collectively, "Indemnitees"),free and harmless with respect to any and all damages, liabilities, losses, reasonable defense costs or expenses (collectively, "Claims"), including but not limited to Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 6 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 214 Claims relating to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts, omissions, activities or operations of Contractor or any of its officers, employees, subcontractors, Contractors, or agents in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall defend Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any such Claims with counsel of City and RCFPD's choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including actual attorney's fees and experts' costs incurred in connection with such defense. The indemnification obligation herein shall not in any way be limited by the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement provided, however, that the Contractor shall have no obligation to indemnify for Claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of any of the Indemnitees. 11.2 Nonwaiver of Rights. Indemnitees do not, and shall not, waive any rights that they may possess against Contractor because of the acceptance by City and RCFPD, or the deposit with City and RCFPD, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. 11.3 Waiver of Right of Subro ag tion. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, Contractor, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights of subrogation against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor. 11.4 Survival. The provisions of this Section 11 shall survive the termination of the Agreement and are in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law. Payment is not required as a condition precedent to an Indemnitee's right to recover under this indemnity provision, and an entry of judgment against Contractor shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee's right to recover under this indemnity provision. 12. Insurance. 12.1 Liability Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the services hereunder by Contractor, and/or its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. 12.2 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Unless otherwise approved by City and RCFPD, coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). (2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). (3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, and Employer's Liability Insurance. 12.3 Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10102113 Vendor Initials Page 7 Page 215 (1) Commercial General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement or the general limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease and Workers' Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law. (4) The Insurance obligations under this Agreement shall be the greater of (i) the Insurance coverages and limits carried by the Contractor; or (ii) the minimum Insurance coverages and limits shown in this Agreement. Any insurance proceeds in excess of the specified limits and coverage required which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to the City and RCFPD. No representation is made that the minimum Insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of the Contractor under this agreement. 12.4 Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City and RCFPD and shall not reduce the limits of coverage. City and RCFPD reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any required insurance policy and endorsements. 12.5 Other Insurance Provisions. (1) The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain the following provisions on a separate additionally insured endorsement naming the City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials, as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Contractor; products and completed operations of Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by Contractor; and/or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor. The coverage shall contain no limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials which are not also limitations PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10102113 Vendor Initials Page 8 Page 216 applicable to the named insured. (2) For any claims related to this Agreement, Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, RCFPD, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials shall be in excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (4) Contractor shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, Contractor shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance. Should Contractor fail to immediately procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any canceled policy, the City and RCFPD may procure such insurance at Contractor's sole cost and expense. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall expressly waive the insurer's right of subrogation against City and RCFPD, its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City and RCFPD officials. (6) Each policy shall be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City and RCFPD, which is admitted and licensed to do business in the State of California and which is rated ANII or better according to the most recent A.M. Best Co. Rating Guide. () Each policy shall specify that any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the required policy, including breaches of warranty, shall not affect the coverage required to be provided. (8) Each policy shall specify that any and all costs of adjusting and/or defending any claim against any insured, including court costs and attorneys' fees, shall be paid in addition to and shall PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 10102113 Vendor Initials Page 9 Page 217 not deplete any policy limits. (9) Contractor shall provide any and all other insurance, endorsements, or exclusions as required by the City and RCFPD in any request for proposals applicable to this Agreement. 12.6 Evidence of coverage. Prior to commencing performance under this Agreement, the Contractor shall furnish the City and RCFPD with certificates and original endorsements, or copies of each required policy, effecting and evidencing the insurance coverage required by this Agreement including (1) Additional Insured Endorsement(s), (2) Worker's Compensation waiver of subrogation endorsement, and (3) General liability declarations or endorsement page listing all policy endorsements. The endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by the insurer(s) to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements or policies shall be received and approved by the City and RCFPD before Contractor commences performance. If performance of this Agreement shall extend beyond one year, Contractor shall provide City and RCFPD with the required policies or endorsements evidencing renewal of the required policies of insurance prior to the expiration of any required policies of insurance. 12.7 Contractor agrees to include in all contracts with all subcontractors performing work pursuant to this Agreement, the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement including the indemnity and insurance requirements to the extent they apply to the scope of any such subcontractor's work. Contractor shall require its subcontractors to be bound to Contractor and City and RCFPD in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to City and RCFPD pursuant to this Agreement, and to require each of its subcontractors to include these same provisions in its contract with any sub -subcontractor. 13. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City and RCFPD relating to Contractor's performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation that City and RCFPD might require. City and RCFPD shall compensate Contractor for any litigation support services in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. 14. Termination. City and RCFPD shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for any or no reason on not less than ten (10) days prior written notice to Contractor. In the event City and RCFPD exercises its right to terminate this Agreement, City and RCFPD shall pay Contractor for any services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of the termination, provided Contractor is not then in breach of this Agreement. Contractor shall have no other claim against City and RCFPD by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation. City and RCFPD may terminate for cause following a default remaining uncured more than five (5) business days after service of a notice to cure on the breaching party. Contractor may terminate this Agreement for cause upon giving the City and RCFPD ten (10) business days prior written notice for any of the following: (1) uncured breach by the City and RCFPD of any material term of this Agreement, including but not limited to Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 10 Last Revised: 10102113 Page 218 Payment Terms; (2) material changes in the conditions under which this Agreement was entered into, coupled with the failure of the parties to reach accord on the fees and charges for any Additional Services required because of such changes. 15. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Contractor's and City and RCFPD's regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses set forth in this Section, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this Section. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to City and RCFPD: William Wittkopf, Public Works Director City of Rancho Cucamonga 8794 Lion Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 If to Contractor: Chris Woodson, President Autolift Services, Inc. 10764 Los Vaqueros Circle Los Alamitos, CA 90720 16. Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. 17. Assignment and Subcontracting. Contractor shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement or subcontract the performance of any of Contractor's obligations hereunder without City and RCFPD's prior written consent. Except as provided herein, any attempt by Contractor to so assign, transfer, or subcontract any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be null, void and of no effect. 18. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time Contractor performs the Services. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and compliance with other requirements on "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 11 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 219 is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The applicable prevailing wage rate determinations can be found at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services, available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Contractor's principal place of business and at the Project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City and RCFPD, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 19. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City and RCFPD of any payment to Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by City and RCFPD of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Contractor, and the making of any such payment by City and RCFPD shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City and RCFPD with regard to such breach or default. 20. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs of experts. 21. Exhibits; Precedence. All documents referenced as exhibits in this Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Agreement. In the event of any material discrepancy between the express provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of any document incorporated herein by reference, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. 22. Applicable Law and Venue. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action relating to this Agreement shall be in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. 23. Construction. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Agreement or who drafted that portion of the Agreement. 24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement consists of this document, and any other documents, attachments and/or exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto, each of which is incorporated herein by such reference, and the same represents the entire and integrated agreement between Contractor and City and RCFPD. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 12 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 220 writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. Contractor Name: Autolift Services City of Rancho Cucamonga By: By: Name Date Name Date Title Title City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District By: By: Name Date Name Date Title Title Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 13 Last Revised: 10/02/13 Page 221 Exhibit A RANCHO CUCAMONGA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") #RFP 19/20-005 FOR FLEET SHOP EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE City of Rancho Cucamonga Procurement Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Deadline for Submissions: June 27, 2019 at 9:00 am Page 222 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Table of Contents 1. OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................................5 1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................... 5 1.2 PROPOSAL DELIVERY AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS.......................................................................................... S 1.3 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS................................................................................................................ 6 1.4 CONTINGENCIES................................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS............................................................................................................. 6 1.6 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ................................................ 6 1.7 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS.............................................................................................................. 7 1.8 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS........................................................................................................................ 7 1.9 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT......................................................................................................... 8 2. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.......................................................................................................................8 2.4 BUSINESS LICENSE................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 PREVAILING WAGES.............................................................................................................................. 8 2.3 REPRESENTATIVES.................................................................................................................................9 2.4 EMPLOYEE CONDUCT........................................................................................................................... 10 3. RFP RESPONSE FORMAT AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS........................................................ 10 3.4 COVER LETTER / INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 10 3.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 11 3.4 EXPERIENCE....................................................................................................................................... 11 3.5 THIRD -PARTY SUBCONTRACTORS......................................................................................................... 11 3.6 STAFF BIOGRAPHIES............................................................................................................................ 11 3.7 PROPOSAL RESPONSE.......................................................................................................................... 12 3.8 NON -DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST................................................................................................ 12 3.9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT...................................................................................................... 12 3.40 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INSURANCE....................................................................................................... 12 3.11 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.......................................................................................................... 13 3.42 VENDOR CERTIFICATION....................................................................................................................... 13 3.43 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE........................................................................................................................ 13 Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 2 of 29 Page 223 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 3.14 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY................................................................................................................... 13 3.15 COMPANY REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 13 3.16 LINE ITEM PRICING.............................................................................................................................. 14 4. SCOPE OF SERVICES..................................................................................................................................14 4.1 LOCATION OF WORK........................................................................................................................... 14 4.2 Working Hours............................................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Response Time............................................................................................................................... 14 4.4 Equipment..................................................................................................................................... 15 4.5 Supervision.................................................................................................................................... 15 4.6 Work Attire.................................................................................................................................... 15 4.7 EQUIPMENT.......................................................................................................................................15 4.8 SERVICES...........................................................................................................................................16 4.9 SITE MAINTENANCE............................................................................................................................ 16 4.10 RECORD KEEPING................................................................................................................................ 16 4.11 PRICING............................................................................................................................................17 4.12 CHANGES IN WORK............................................................................................................................. 17 4.13 LABOR..............................................................................................................................................17 4.14 MATERIALS....................................................................................................................................... 18 S. EVALUATION AND VENDOR SELECTION PROCESS....................................................................................18 5.1 INITIAL SCREENING.............................................................................................................................. 18 5.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES....................................................................................................................... 18 5.3 COST EVALUATION.............................................................................................................................. 19 5.4 REFERENCE CHECKS............................................................................................................................. 19 5.5 DEMONSTRATIONS/ INTERVIEWS........................................................................................................... 19 5.6 FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION................................................................................................................ 19 5.7 BEST AND FINAL OFFER........................................................................................................................ 20 5.8 VENDOR SELECTION............................................................................................................................ 20 5.9 LETTER OF INTENT TO AWARD............................................................................................................... 20 "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RCFPD CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT.................................................................................................................................................... 21 "EXHIBIT B" PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS SUMMARY ................................................ 22 Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 3 of 29 Page 224 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT C" ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION OF ABILITY TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN COVERAGES SPECIFIED.......................................................................................... 23 „EXHIBIT D" ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT............................................................................................24 "EXHIBIT E" VENDORS CERTIFICATION FORM.................................................................................................25 „EXHIBIT F" PARTICIPATION CLAUSE...............................................................................................................26 „EXHIBIT G" SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY........................................................................................................ 27 „EXHIBIT H" REFERENCES WORKSHEET...........................................................................................................28 Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 4 of 29 Page 225 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 1. OVERVIEW 1.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND The City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter "City") and Rancho Cucamonga fire Protection District (hereinafter" RCFPD") is inviting qualified Vendors to submit a proposal response for Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance in accordance with the minimum Scope of Services indicated herein. Vendors wishing to participate in the RFP solicitation must be registered as a Vendor on the City Vendor List. Vendor registration can be accomplished by visiting the City website at www.Cityofrc.us. Only those responses received from registered Vendors will be accepted. Responses must be submitted by the named Vendor that has downloaded the RFP; this information is indicated in the bid system and provides the ability to tabulate the responses in accordance to the named Vendors. Submitting a response under a Vendor name that does not appear to be on the Prospective Bidders list will be deemed as non-responsive and disqualify said response from further consideration. 1.2 PROPOSAL DELIVERY AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS Complete RFP responses must be received electronically via Planet Bids prior to the due date and time specified in the below Schedule of Events. Please note, there will be no paper responses accepted. The City and RCFPD shall not be responsible for any delays by transmission errors. Schedule of Events: Event Description Date & Time Post RFP May 15, 2019 Questions Due June 4, 2019 at 9:00 am Addendum Issued June 11, 2019 RFP Response Due Date June 27, 2019 at 9:00 am Vendor Interviews / Presentation (If deemed necessary). TBD Letter of Intent to Award TBD (The City and RCFPD reserves the right to change schedule of events without prior notice or responsibility to Vendor.) Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 5 of 29 Page 226 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 1.3 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS Vendors finding discrepancies or omissions in the RFP or having any doubts as to the meaning or intent of any part thereof shall submit such questions or concerns in writing electronically via Planet Bids. No responsibility will be accepted for oral instructions. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFP shall be considered a part of this RFP and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFP. 1.4 CONTINGENCIES This RFP should not be considered as a Contract to purchase goods or services but is a Request for Proposal in accordance with the Terms and Conditions herein and will not necessarily give rise to a Contract. However, RFP responses should be as detailed and complete as possible to facilitate the formation of a Contract based on the RFP response(s) that are pursued should the City and RCFPD decide to do so. Completion of this RFP form and its associated appendices are a requirement. Failure to do so may disqualify your RFP response submittal. Vendors must submit signed RFP responses by the due date and time as specified herein. Vendors will be considered non-responsive if the above requirements are not submitted as requested. If only one RFP response is received, the City RCFPD reserves the right to reject the response and re -bid the RFP. Any Scope of Services, Contingencies, Special Instruction and/or Terms and Conditions applicable to this RFP and any Purchase Order derived thereafter shall be effective as of the issue date of Purchase Order (the "Effective Date"), and shall remain in full force and effect until sixty (60) days after the City and RCFPD has accepted the work in writing and has made final payment, unless sooner terminated by written agreement signed by both parties. 1.5 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS All questions or clarification requests must be submitted directly through the City and RCFPD's bid system on or before June 4, 2019, by 9:00 am. Answers and/or clarifications will be provided in the form of an Addendum and will be posted for download from the City's bid system in accordance with the above "Schedule of Events". From the issuance date of this RFP until a Vendor is awarded, Vendors are not permitted to communicate with any City and RCFPD staff or officials regarding this procurement, other than during interviews, demonstrations, and/or site visits, except at the direction of Ruth Cain, CPPB, Procurement Manager, the designated representative of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD. 1.6 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION All materials submitted in response to the RFP solicitation will become the property of the City and RCFPD and will be returned only at the City and RCFPD's option and at the expense of the Vendor submitting the RFP response. A copy of the RFP response will be retained for official files and become a public record. Any material that a Vendor considers as confidential but does not meet the disclosure exemption requirements of the Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 6 of 29 Page 227 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance California Public Records Act should not be included in the Vendor's RFP response as it may be made available to the public. If a Vendor's RFP response contains material noted or marked as confidential and/or proprietary that, in the City and RCFPD's sole opinion, meets the disclosure exemption requirements, then that information will not be disclosed pursuant to a written request for public documents. If the City and RCFPD does not consider such material to be exempt from disclosure, the material may be made available to the public, regardless of the notation or markings. If a Vendor is unsure if its confidential and/or proprietary material meets disclosure exemption requirements, then it should not include such information in its RFP response because such information may be disclosed to the public. 1.7 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS The Vendor shall carefully review all documents referenced and made a part of the solicitation document to ensure that all information required to properly respond has been submitted or made available and all requirements are priced in the RFP response. Failure to examine any documents, drawings, specifications, or instructions will be at the Vendor's sole risk. Vendors shall be responsible for knowledge of all items and conditions contained in their RFP responses and in this RFP, including any City and RCFPD issued clarifications, modifications, amendments, or addenda. The City and RCFPD will provide notice of any changes and clarifications to perspective Vendors by way of addenda to the City and RCFPD website; however, it is the Vendor's responsibility to ascertain that the RFP response includes all addenda issued prior to the RFP due date. 1.8 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS The issuance of this RFP does not constitute an agreement by the City and RCFPD that any contract will be entered by the City and RCFPD. The City and RCFPD expressly reserves the right at any time to: • Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, RFP, or RFP procedure. • Reject any or all RFPs. • Reissue a Request for RFPs. • Prior to submission deadline for RFPs, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFP, or the requirements for contents or format of the RFPs. • The City and RCFPD recognizes that price is only one of several criteria to be used in judging a product or service, and the City and RCFPD is not legally bound to accept the lowest RFP response. • The City and RCFPD reserves the right to conduct pre -award discussions and/or pre -Contract negotiations with any or all responsive and responsible Vendors who submit RFP responses. • Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFP by any other means. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 7 of 29 Page 228 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance • Determine that no project will be pursued. • The City and RCFPD reserves the right to inspect the Vendor's place of business prior to award or at any time during the contract term or any extension thereof, to determine the Vendor's capabilities and qualifications. 1.9 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT The City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD complies with the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6253. (a) Public records are open to inspection always during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. Neither an RFP in its entirety, nor proposed prices shall be considered confidential and proprietary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, companies are hereby notified that all materials submitted in response to this RFP are subject to California's Public Records Act. The City and RCFPD receipt, review, evaluation or any other act or omission concerning any such information shall not create an acceptance by the City and RCFPD or any obligation or duty to prevent the disclosure of any such information except as required by Government Code Section 6253. Companies who submit information they believe should be exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act shall clearly mark each document as confidential, proprietary or exempt, and state the legal basis for the exemption with supporting citations to the California Code. Pursuant to California Law, if the information is requested under the Public Records Act, the City and RCFPD shall make a final determination if any exemption exists for the City and RCFPD to deny the request and prevent disclosure. The City and RCFPD will withhold such information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act only if the City and RCFPD determines, in its sole discretion, that there is a legal basis to do so. 2. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 2.4 BUSINESS LICENSE The selected Vendor awarded a Contract shall be required to obtain a Rancho Cucamonga Business License no later than five (5) business days from notification of award prior to being issued a Purchase Order. Awarded Vendor must possess and maintain all appropriate licenses/certifications necessary in the performance of duties required under this RFP and will provide copies of licenses/certifications immediately upon request throughout the term of the Contract. 2.2 PREVAILING WAGES Where labor is required for public work as a part of any requirement covered by this RFP, pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, Vendor(s) shall pay no less than those minimum wages. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 8 of 29 Page 229 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 2.3 REPRESENTATIVES Should the awarded Vendor require the services of a third -party to complete the Scope of Services indicated in this RFP, the awarded Vendor will not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract or its right, title or interest in or to the same, or any part thereof. Any attempt by the awarded Vendor to so assign, transfer, or subcontract any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be null, void and of no effect. The awarded Vendor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services including Vendors subcontractor. All Services shall be performed by the awarded Vendor or under the awarded Vendor's direct supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by state and local law to perform such services. The awarded Vendor shall be responsible for payment of all employees' and subcontractors' wages and benefits and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer's liability, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. By its execution of this Agreement, Vendor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the services. In case of default by the Vendor, the City and RCFPD may take the following actions which shall include but not be limited to; cancellation of any purchase order, procurement of the articles or service from other sources and may deduct from unpaid balance due to the Vendor, or may bill for excess costs so paid, and the prices paid by the City and RCFPD shall be considered the prevailing market prices paid at the time such purchase is made, withholding of payment until final resolution. Cost of transportation, handling, and/or inspection on deliveries, or Vendors for delivery, which do not meet specifications, will be for the account of the Vendor. City and RCFPD Representative: For the purposes of this Agreement, the contract administrator and City and RCFPD representative shall be , or such other person as designated in writing by City and RCFPD ("City and RCFPD's Representative"). It shall be the Vendor's responsibility to assure that City and RCFPD Representative is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services, and the Vendor shall refer any decisions that must be made by City and RCFPD to City and RCFPD Representative. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City and RCFPD required hereunder shall mean the approval of the City and RCFPD Representative. Vendor Reoresentative: For the purposes of this Agreement, is hereby designated as the representative of the successful Vendor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith ("Vendor's Representative"). It is expressly understood Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 9 of 29 Page 230 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the Vendor's Representative were a substantial inducement for City and RCFPD to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the Vendor's Representative shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Vendor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. The successful Vendor may not change the Vendor's Representative without the prior written approval of City and RCFPD Representative. 2.4 EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All Vendor personnel must observe all City and RCFPD regulations in effect at the location where the Services are being conducted. While on City and RCFPD property, the Vendor's personnel shall be subject to oversight by City and RCFPD staff. Under no circumstances shall the Vendor's or Vendor's sub -contractor personnel be deemed as employees of the City and RCFPD. Vendor or Vendor's subcontractor personnel shall not represent themselves to be employees of the City and RCFPD. Vendor's personnel will always make their best efforts to be responsive, polite, and cooperative when interacting with representatives of the City and RCFPD, or any other City and RCFPD employees. The Vendor's personnel shall be required to work in a pleasant and professional manner with City and RCFPD employees, outside Vendors and the public. Nothing contained in this RFP shall be construed as granting the Vendor the sole right to supply personal or contractual services required by the City and RCFPD or without the proper City and RCFPD approval and the issuance of a Purchase Order. 3. RFP RESPONSE FORMAT AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS Completion of this RFP form and its associated Exhibits are a requirement. To be considered responsive and evaluate RFP responses fairly and completely Vendors must comply with the format and submission requirements set out in this RFP, and provide all information requested. Failure to comply with this instruction will deem said RFP response as non-responsive and will not receive further consideration in the evaluation process. If only one RFP response is received, the City reserves the right to discard the response, re -bid or proceed with an RFP review and negotiations. RFP submittals are due on the due date and time indicated in the above schedule of events. Submittals shall be submitted electronically via Planet Bids; no paper RFPs will be accepted. RFP responses must include the following information and in the exact order and format as shown. 3.4 COVER LETTER/ INTRODUCTION RFP responses must include the complete name and address of Vendor and the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the contact person regarding the RFP response. A signature by an authorized Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 10 of 29 Page 231 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance representative must be included on each RFP response. Said signature will be considered confirmation of the Vendors ability and willingness to comply with all provisions stated herein. 3.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Table of Contents must be a comprehensive listing of the contents included in your RFP response. This section must include a clear definition of the material, exhibits and supplemental information identified by sequential page numbers and by section reference numbers. Each section of the RFP response will be separated by a title page at the beginning of each section. 3.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary shall condense and highlight the contents of the Vendor's RFP response to provide the Evaluation Committee with a broad understanding of the Vendor's approach, Proposal, experience and staffing. 3.4 EXPERIENCE The Vendor shall provide a concise statement demonstrating the Vendor's Proposal, experience, expertise and capability to perform the requirements of this RFP. Provide a brief history of your company, including; • The number of years in business, • The firms service commitment to customers, • If the firm is involved in any pending litigation that may affect its ability to provide its proposed solution or ongoing maintenance or support of its products and services. • State whether your firm is an individual proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or private nonprofit firm, and the date your company was formed or incorporated. 3.5 THIRD -PARTY/ SUBCONTRACTORS If the Vendor intends to subcontract, a detailed list of any sub -contractors, partners, or third -party Vendors who will be involved in the implementation of the proposed services including but not limited to: • Description of the Vendor's experience with each of the proposed subcontractors, • Three (3) customer references for each subcontractor to include references names, addresses, and telephone numbers, for products and services like those described in this RFP, • Describe the specific role of each. 3.6 STAFF BIOGRAPHIES Submit the resumes of the individuals who will be performing the services for the City and RCFPD. Resumes shall be formatted in the following order: • Position with the Company, Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 11 of 29 Page 232 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance • Length of time with the Company, • Licenses, registrations and certifications as required by law to perform the Scope of Work described herein, • Educational background, • Role in the Project, • Experience with the minimum requirements stated herein, • Work history on similar or like projects with the other municipalities. 3.7 PROPOSAL RESPONSE Under this section Vendors shall provide a full, detailed response to the City and RCFPD Scope of Services listed herein. Vendors should be as thorough as possible in their response as it may be the only opportunity to convey information regarding your business, ability and qualifications to complete the services needed. 3.8 NON -DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST Specify any possible conflicts of interest with your current clients or staff members and the City and RCFPD. A signed "Exhibit A, Conflict of Interest and Non -Disclosure Agreement" included herein must be submitted under this section. 3.9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT In addition to the acceptance of the City and RCFPD Terms and Conditions, the successful Vendor will be required to enter into a Professional Services Agreement ("PSA") with the City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD, a "Sample" of which is attached in the City and RCFPD bid system for review. All requirements of said PSA must be completed by the successful Vendor and signed by both applicable parties prior to any services being rendered. This RFP sets forth some of the general provisions which may be included in the final PSA. In submitting a response to this RFP, Vendor will be deemed to have agreed to each clause unless otherwise indicated in "Exhibit B, Professional Services Agreement Exceptions Summary" and the City and RCFPD agrees to either accept the objection or deviation or change the PSA language in writing. Failure to raise any objections at the time of this RFP response submittal will result in a waiver of objection to any of the contractual language in the PSA at any other time. The signed Exception Summary shall be included under this section of the RFP response. 3.40 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INSURANCE Vendors must meet all insurance requirements as outlined in the Professional Services Agreement. Ability to comply with said requirements must be indicated with signature of "Exhibit C, Acknowledgement of Insurance Requirements and Certification of Ability to Provide and Maintain Coverages Specified", which must be submitted with the Bid under the Insurance tab. The awarded Vendor will be responsible for providing the Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 12 of 29 Page 233 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance required Certificates of Insurance and must be the Named Insured on the Certificates. Certificates of Insurance from any other entity other than the awarded Vendor, will not be accepted. 3.11 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendor shall hereby acknowledge they have received all posted Addendums, if any. It is the Vendor's responsibility to log into the Bid System to identify and download the number of addenda that have been posted. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFP shall be considered a part of this RFP and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFP. Vendors must indicate their acknowledgement of any Addendums by way of signature on "Exhibit D, Addendum Acknowledgement" and must be included under this section of the RFP response. 3.42 VENDOR CERTIFICATION Vendors must verify by way of signature to "Exhibit E, Vendor Certification Form" that Vendor nor any of its proposed subcontractors are currently under suspension or debarment by any state or federal government agency, and that neither Vendor not any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. The signed exhibit must be included under this section of the RFP response. 3.43 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE Vendors shall provide a completed "Exhibit F, Participation Clause", must be included with the Vendors RFP response. This will indicate a Vendors agreement to or not to allow other entities to utilize the RFP response and awarded contract as a piggyback option. 3.44 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY "Exhibit G", Signature of Authority must be included with the Vendor RFP response. Unsigned RFP responses will not be accepted. The Signature of Authority declares that the Vendor has carefully examined the instruction indicated herein including all terms and condition and specifications, and hereby proposes and agrees, if the Vendors RFP response is accepted, Vendor agrees to furnish all material in accordance with the instruction and specifications in the time and manner prescribed for the unit cost amounts set forth in the Vendors RFP response. 3.45 COMPANY REFERENCES Provide a minimum of four (4) references, preferably with other municipalities in which similar services are being performed. References must be for work performed or completed within the past three (3) years. "Exhibit H, Reference Worksheet", must be complete and uploaded into the Planet Bid system under the "Response Type" section identified as "Exhibit H". While the Reference Worksheet accompanies your RFP response it is not to be discussed in any other area of the RFP response other than the "Response Type" section in Planet Bids. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 13 of 29 Page 234 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 3.16 LINE ITEM PRICING Line item pricing for this RFP must be provided directly in the Planet Bids system under the "Line Items" tab. This pricing is not an estimate and is firm fixed price for each item listed. Vendors pricing quotes outside of the pricing listed in Planet Bids under the "Line Items" tab will not be accepted or considered for award. Any additional cost required should be noted in the additional cost line item and a summary of the cost provided in the notes section of the line item. While Line item pricing accompanies your RFP response it is not to be discussed in any other area of the RFP response other than the "Line Item" tab in Planet Bids. The City and RCFPD will not be obligated to any estimated pricing or pricing not identified in the "Line Item" tab in Planet Bids. Failure to provide the required Line Item pricing in the required format will cause Vendors RFP response to be considered as non-responsive and be eliminated from proceeding any further in the process. Any questions or clarifications regarding how to correctly submit Lint Item pricing should be submitted by the "Questions Due" date and time indicated in the schedule of events. 4. SCOPE OF SERVICES 4.1 LOCATION OF WORK Facilities owned, operated or maintained by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District including, but not limited to, the Fleet Services Shop at 9153 9th Street, the Epicenter Public Works Maintenance Shop at 8800 Rochester Avenue and the Fire Shop at 11271 Jersey Blvd. 4.2 Working Hours Regular working hours are 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. After Hours are times other than regular working hours, excluding City holidays. Holiday hours are recognized City holidays only. The Contractor shall be capable of dispatching work crews 24 hours/7 days a week including weekends and holidays. All work shall be scheduled at the convenience of the City and Fire District as to not interfere with normal operations. 4.3 Response Time Respond to service requests in person, by phone or email within 30 minutes of initial call. Contractor shall be on site with all necessary labor, material, tools and equipment necessary to provide emergency services within two (2) hours of notification by the City or Fire District. These services shall not be subcontracted out. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 14 of 29 Page 235 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Contractor shall be on site with all necessary labor, material, tools and equipment necessary to provide non- emergency services within three (3) working days of notification by the City or Fire District. These services shall not be subcontracted out. 4.4 Equipment Contractor shall have available and readily accessible all required tools, equipment, apparatus, skilled labor services, materials, etc. to perform all work necessary at the locations defined in this Scope of Work. All work performed, or equipment, parts, or materials supplied shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. 4.5 Supervision The Contractor shall assign a supervisor to be available each working day, during normal working hours and after-hours, for the duration of this contract. The supervisor shall have the expertise in fleet shop equipment maintenance and repair. The supervisor shall be fluent in the English language. The supervisor shall have a cell phone provided by the Contractor and be on-call 24 hours per day. 4.6 Work Attire All Contractor employees shall wear the appropriate work attire pants and shirts with Company Logo. Employees shall wear personal protective equipment (PPE) i.e. shirts, pants, safety glasses, ear plugs, work gloves, and any related PPE required by Cal -OSHA requirements for worker safety. 4.7 EQUIPMENT Inspection, certification, routine maintenance, troubleshooting and repair of various fleet shop equipment, including but not limited to the following: • one (1) Saylor Beall compressor model 707 • one (1) Saylor Beall compressor model T-737-120 • one (1) Rotary Lift 4 -post model SM 18N001 • two (2) Rotary Lift model SP 98 • one (1) Rotary Lift model TL 07 • one (1) Trion Pro -M Lift • one (1) Rotary Lift model 75/48 -S -CF • one (1) Rotary Lift model SL29 • one (1) Rotary Lift model numberR703Q-120 • two (2) Rotary Lift model RU70Q Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 15 of 29 Page 236 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance • one (1) Stahl Crane model 7.5 tons • one (1) Mustang Chassis Dynamometer model MC -EC -CD • Harvey Exhaust Blower ModelOH-10-DST-30 • CUDA Model H2O -2836 serial 1004081 4.8 SERVICES The services to be provided include, but are not limited to the following: Annual service and safety inspections on all hoists and hydraulic hoist pumps according to manufacturer's recommendations and ANSI/ALI "Standards for Automotive Lifts -Safety Requirements for Operation, Inspection and Maintenance". Ensure the integrity of all aboveground hydraulic lift lines and reservoirs (pressure tests if applicable). Annual Service, Preventive Maintenance and Inspection of lube pumps, overhead reels, and associated lines. Semi-annual Service, Preventive Maintenance, repair, and Inspection on air compressors. Provide 7 day/24-hour emergency service. 4.9 SITE MAINTENANCE The Contractor shall maintain the work site in a safe, neat, and orderly condition free of any hazardous conditions, trash, debris, surplus materials, and objectionable matter of any kind, all to the satisfaction of the Public Works Services Director or his designee. During maintenance and/or repair, the Contractor shall protect all existing improvements, including underground, which are to remain in place within and adjacent to the work site from damage resulting from his/her operation. 4.10 RECORD KEEPING The Contractor shall keep a current, permanent operational record of all work performed and a copy at centralized location approved by the City. The records shall be on a form approved by the City. The form shall include, at a minimum, the date, description of equipment including all model, parts, and/or serial numbers, narrative of deficiencies encountered, and a detail of all corrective action(s) taken. Entries shall be made legible in indelible ink. The record shall have the technicians first / last name and be initialed by the technician making the entry. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 16 of 29 Page 237 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance 4.11 PRICING All inspection, certification, routine maintenance, troubleshooting and repair, including emergency repairs, will be performed on a time and materials basis in accordance with the cost proposal. Pricing shall be effective from date of execution of professional services agreement through June 30, 2020. The Contractor shall provide written "Not to Exceed" estimates for non -emergency services based on the rates proposed. This estimate shall include the estimated number of man hours, fixed hourly rate, estimated material and equipment cost and completion date. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to ensure they have all information needed to prepare accurate estimates. Contractor is responsible for all costs associated with integrating new equipment and replacement parts into existing systems and obtaining the required performance from the system into which these items are placed. Price shall include all labor, supervision, materials, equipment and overhead based on proposed rates. Non -emergency work shall only be performed with written authorization from the City or Fire District. Upon authorization actual work shall not exceed the Contractors estimate. Unreasonable estimates shall be deemed cause to terminate this contract. Emergency work may be performed with verbal authorization from the City or Fire District. 4.12 CHANGES IN WORK Should any changes in the specifications be required, the Contractor shall submit to the City, in writing, a formal request for a change in the scope of work. Work shall not proceed until approved by the Public Works Services Director or his/her designee. In event of disagreement on the necessity of such changes, the City's decision shall be final. 4.13 LABOR The fixed hourly rate shall be all-inclusive of all related costs that the Contractor will incur to provide Equipment Maintenance and Repair Services on an as needed basis, including, but not limited to: employee wages and benefits; clerical support; overhead; profit; licensing; insurance; bonding; materials; supplies; tools; equipment; telecommunications; document copying; etc. Man-hours paid under this contract shall be only for productive hours at the job site. Time spent for transportation of workers, material acquisition, handling and delivery, or for movement of Contractor owned or rental equipment is not chargeable directly but is overhead and the cost shall be included in the hourly rate. The City shall accept no proposal with a minimum charge stipulated. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 17 of 29 Page 238 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Contractor must have prior verbal and/or written approval to work outside normal business hours. The regular hourly rate for labor shall be paid for all hours worked during the City's regular working hours from 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. The after-hours labor rate shall be paid for work completed at times other than regular working hours, excluding City holidays. The holiday rate shall be paid for work completed on City recognized holidays only. 4.14 MATERIALS Contractor shall provide all necessary replacement parts and materials required to successfully complete each individual work order. Material specifications shall be approved by the Public Works Services Director or designated representative before being incorporated into the work. All replacement parts, equipment and materials supplied by the Contractor shall be new, undamaged, clean and in good condition. Replacement parts, equipment and materials shall be the same make and model of existing unless substitution has been approved in writing by the Public Works Services Director or designated representative. The markup for all parts, equipment and materials shall be fifteen (15) percent. Copies of all supplier invoices for parts, equipment and materials incorporated into the work shall be submitted with each request for payment. 5. EVALUATION AND VENDOR SELECTION PROCESS 5.1 INITIAL SCREENING All RFP responses will undergo an initial review to determine responsiveness to the instructions herein. Those RFP responses initially determined to be compliant by meeting the RFP requirement as indicated herein will proceed to the next phase of the evaluation process. 5.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES Compliant RFP responses proceeding to the next phase of the evaluation process are then evaluated by an Evaluation Committee. The RFP submittals are scored and assigned a ranking of one (1) through ten (10), ten being the highest possible score. The following criteria have been assigned percentages that the criteria will be scored against, based upon but not limited to the following evaluation criteria factors: Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 18 of 29 Page 239 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Evaluation Criteria Description Percentage Cost 25 Vendor Experience 25% Quality of proposed services or goods 25% Extent to which the Vendors services or goods meet the City's needs 25% 5.3 COST EVALUATION Cost Proposals are evaluated and scored based on the following calculations; Score = Lowest Proposal Cost / Cost of Proposal being scored X Maximum Points Available (10) The score is then added to the spreadsheet criteria scores. 5.4 REFERENCE CHECKS If determined to be required reference checks are conducted by the Procurement Division and the requesting department may or may not be present during the process. The reference checks may be conducted by phone with the information being scribed or conducted by a written form, submitted to the Vendor's reference contact. Reference contacts will be asked several predetermined questions for response and to provide a score from one (1) to ten (10), ten being the highest. Scores are then tabulated and added to the spreadsheet with the criteria scores. It is imperative that Vendors provide up to date and accurate information regarding contact information for reference checks. All scores are then tabulated into the final Vendor ranking. Evaluators do not see the Vendor References or pricing line items. The proposed pricing is evaluated by the Procurement Division during the initial review of the RFP response, only to ensure that the proposed cost is not over the City's budgeted amount or Not -to -Exceed amount for the project. 5.5 DEMONSTRATIONS/ INTERVIEWS Upon completion of the RFP evaluations and data analysis, and only if necessary, selected top ranked Vendors will be provided an opportunity to interview and conduct a demonstration or presentation to further expand on their RFP response. Vendor interviews/demonstrations are scored and assigned a ranking of one (1) through ten (10), ten being the highest possible score, based upon but not limited to the evaluation criteria factors as stated within the RFP. 5.6 FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION Vendors that proceed to the short-list may be required to submit financial documentation as proof of its firm's financial stability and strength. A financial review will be conducted by the City Finance Department. Should a Vendor wish for its financial documentation to be treated as proprietary or be returned upon completion of the review, the documentation must clearly be marked as such. The following documentation will be required of each Vendor on the short-list: Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 19 of 29 Page 240 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance • A copy of the Vendor's most recent annual report. • Audited (by a third party), balance sheets and income statements for the past three (3) years. • If audited data is not available, Vendor shall submit copies of complete tax returns for the past three (3) years. • Describe any regulatory censure and past or pending litigation related to services provided by the Vendor. • Indicate all applicable information regarding Vendor ownership changes in the last three (3) years. 5.7 BEST AND FINAL OFFER Upon completion of Vendor presentations, the City and RCFPD reserves the right to conduct pre -award discussions and/or pre -contract negotiations with all or only top ranked Vendors. At which time the City and RCFPD may request a Best and Final Offer to be submitted from one or all finalists. 5.8 VENDOR SELECTION The final Vendor selection is based on which Vendor is the most responsive, meeting the City and RCFPD's requirements, offering the best value at the most competitive price. The City is not obligated to award to the lowest price proposal. The City may conduct negotiations with several Vendors simultaneously. The City may also negotiate contract terms with the selected Vendors prior to award. The City, at its sole discretion, reserves the right, unless otherwise stated, to accept or reject all or any RFP responses, or any part thereof, either separately or to waive any informality and to split or make the award in any manner determined to be in the best interest of the City. 5.9 LETTER OF INTENT TO AWARD After a final Vendor selection is determined, a Letter of Intent to Award (LOI) will be posted for review by all participating, responsive Vendors. Negotiations shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure to competing Vendors unless an agreement is reached. If contract negotiations cannot be concluded successfully, City may negotiate a contract with the next highest scoring Vendor or withdraw the RFP entirely. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 20 of 29 Page 241 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND RCFPD CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON-DISCLOSURE STATEMENT It is the policy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD to prevent personal or organizational conflict of interest, or the appearance of such conflict of interest, in the award and administration of City and RCFPD Contracts, including, but not limited to Contracts for Professional Services Agreements ("PSA") with potential Vendors. I do not have specific knowledge of confidential information regarding RFP responses received in response to the Request for Proposal "RFP" #19/20-005 for Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance. I agree not to disclose or otherwise divulge any information pertaining to the contents, status, or ranking of any RFP response to anyone. I understand the terms and "disclose or otherwise divulge" to include, but are not limited to, verbal conversations, written correspondence, reproduction of any part or any portion of any RFP response, or removal of same from designated areas. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following statements are true and correct and that I understand and agree to be bound by commitments contained herein. (Print Name) (Relationship to the City and RCFPD) (Relationship to the Vendors) (Signature) (Date) Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 21 of 29 Page 242 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT B" PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS SUMMARY Mark the appropriate choice, below: MW Vendors accepts the PSA without exception. Vendors proposes exceptions to the PSA. Summarize all exceptions on a separate document. Enclose a written summary of each change and title as "Exception Summary", which shall include the Vendor's rationale for proposing each such exception. Each exception must be labeled with the Section number in the PSA. Failure to properly reference exceptions in the submitted summary may deem the response as non-responsive. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 22 of 29 Page 243 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT C" ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION OF ABILITY TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN COVERAGES SPECIFIED I, the (President, Secretary, Manager, Owner or Representative) of , certify that the (Name of Company, Corporation or Owner) Specifications and General Provisions regarding insurance requirements as stated within the Professional Services Agreement (PSA), for the Purchase Contract designated Request for Proposal ("RFP") for #19/20-005 for Flee Shop Equipment Maintenance have been read and understood and that our Vendors is able to provide and maintain the coverage as specified in the PSA. Failure to provide said coverage, upon request to finalize the PSA prior to award shall be sufficient cause for immediate disqualification of award. Failure to maintain said coverage shall result in termination of the contract. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 23 of 29 Page 244 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT D" ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendors hereby acknowledges the following Addenda Number(s) to this RFP have been received, if any. Vendors understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the RFP response to be considered non-responsive. It is the Vendor's responsibility to log into the Bid System to identify and download the number of addenda that have been posted. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 24 of 29 Page 245 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT E" VENDORS CERTIFICATION FORM I certify that neither (Vendors) nor any of its proposed subcontractors are currently under suspension or debarment by any state or federal government agency, and that neither Vendors nor any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. I acknowledge that if Vendors or any of its subcontractors subsequently are placed under suspension or debarment by a local, state or federal government entity, or if Vendors or any of its subcontractors subsequently become delinquent in California taxes, our Proposal may be disqualified. Signature Printed Name Title Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 25 of 29 Page 246 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT F" PARTICIPATION CLAUSE It is hereby understood that other government entities, such as cities, counties, and special/school districts may utilize this RFP response at their option for equipment or services at the RFP response price for a period of days. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation. Any such piggy -back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not an agent, partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts that may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy -back procurement. Each public agency shall accept sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments of the Vendors. Successful Vendors will extend prices as proposed herein to other governmental agencies, please specify. YES NO Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 26 of 29 Page 247 City of Rancho Cucamonga and RCFPD Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 for Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT G" SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY The undersigned firm declares that he has carefully examined the specifications and read the above terms and conditions, and hereby proposes and agrees, if this RFP response is accepted, to furnish all material in accordance with the specifications and instructions, in the time and manner therein prescribed for the unit cost amounts set forth in the following RFP response. THE VENDORS IN SUBMITTING THIS RFP RESPONSE MUST FILL IN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY DEEM YOUR RFP RESPONSE AS NON-RESPONSIVE. Company Name: Address: (Street, Su. # City, State, Zip) Telephone #: Fax #: E-mail address: Web Address: Authorized Representative: (print) Title: Signature: Date: Must be included in final RFP submittal. Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 27 of 29 Page 248 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance "EXHIBIT H" REFERENCES WORKSHEET The following References Worksheet must be complete, please do not mark "See Attached". This Exhibit must be complete and uploaded into the Planet Bid system under the applicable "Response Type" section. Provide a minimum of four (4) clients that are similar in size to the City of Rancho Cucamonga that your company has conducted comparable or like services. Preferred references should be government agencies and be a current customer within the past three (3) years. Please verify accuracy of contact information. To be submitted as an attachment in the Planet Bid system under the "Response Type" section identified as "Exhibit W. Reference 1 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Reference 2 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Des ircDes p iotiot n of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 28 of 29 Page 249 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Reference 3 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Reference 4 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Submittals Due: June 27, 2019 by 9:00 am Page 29 of 29 Page 250 Exhibit 6 IOLII=T Se 6111 111111 10764 Los Vaqueros Circle Los Alamitos, CA. 90720 (714) 816-9890 • (714) 816-9899 FAX 1(800) CAR — LIFT State Contractor License No. A-826743 DIR No. 1000011699 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposal ("RFP") #18/19-025 For Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Chris Woodson President Autoliftservicesksbcglobal.net v (714)366-5362 Cell Kyle Woodson Sales Director kyle@autoliftservices.com (714)860-9405 Cell Cody Woodson Project Superintendent codykautoliftservices.com (714)366-6621 Cell Page 251 AUIOLIIZT Table of Contents ➢ Executive Summary ➢ Experience ➢ Third Party/ Subcontractors ➢ Key Staff Biographies ➢ Proposal Response MI WMG Pg. 11 2 Page 252 Executive Summary We feel our company is able to meet the necessary experience, and will comply with all terms and conditions of this Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance. Our references of quality and professional experience from previous and present maintenance agreements of similar scope of work will enable us to deliver continued professional services to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Due to our central location, we can respond within a matter of hours to any service or emergency. Our 14,000 square foot facility contains fully staffed offices, warehouse with parts inventory, fully operational repair and tool shop and gated yard for equipment and vehicle storage. We specialize in all vehicle maintenance facility equipment including all equipment stated in this RFP as well as most all other vehicle service equipment and tools. The Woodson family is the driving force that prides themselves on the tradition of providing quality automotive installation and service for over 75 years. We will work diligently at the side of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to coordinate periodic and as needed services throughout the duration of the PSA. As a whole, Autolift Services has the experience and capability to perform the necessary services to meet your facility's specific needs, and as set forth by this RFP. We currently have ten full-time employees that include journeyman level millwrights and apprentices. Our key personnel have a combined experience of over 100 years in the vehicle lift industry. They bring their years of experience and professionalism to every project. Our employee technical training program consists of hands on job training, technical seminars, manufacturer's certification training, safety seminars, and in house sessions all under the close supervision of our full time lead journeymen millwrights. Page 253 Experience Autolift Services, Inc. is one of the true pioneers of the automotive equipment industry being one of the first companies founded upon the installation of the original in -ground hydraulic hoists and related automotive shop equipment beginning in 1939. We specialize in consulting, sales, installation, service and periodic maintenance of automotive shop equipment including but not limited to: heavy duty vehicle lifts, light duty vehicle lifts, air compressor and supply systems, lubrication pumps and supply systems, tire service equipment, break lathes, waste oil/coolant drains and systems, bulk storage tanks, vehicle wash systems, vehicle exhaust systems, overhead cranes, parts washers, dyno-meters, etc. Now with the support of his two sons, Kyle and Cody, they have solidified themselves as one of California's premier vehicle lift equipment installation and service companies carrying on the legacy of Autolift Services, Inc. into the future. With 3 generations of professional field knowledge and experience, Chris, Kyle and Cody are able to provide every customer with a product and/or service that fits their needs, application, and facility. These are the cornerstones that have landed Autolift Services over 75 years of continued business with its sole source of marketing as customer word of mouth. Furthermore, we believe that no two customers have the same needs, and all of our work is custom tailored to fit the individual needs and desires of every design, installation, or service we provide. At Autolift Services we pride ourselves on our long standing commitment to service. We stand behind our work providing a minimum 1 year guarantee on anything as small as a simple service to a large installation. Many of our continued customers have utilized our services for over 30 plus years and going. Please feel free to request a list of customers to reference or commitment to quality service. Autolift Services, Inc. is not currently involved in any pending litigation that may affect its ability to provide its proposed solution, ongoing maintenance, construction, and/or support of its products and services. Autolift Services, Inc. is a Corporation of the State of California. State Corporation No. 2375438 Incorporated on 01/23/2002. General Engineering Contractor License No. 826743 A, D-21 w/ Hazardous Materials Endorsement. The company is a corporation, woman -owned, and certified as a small business with LA Metro and the State of California. 0 Page 254 —MMI Third Party/Subcontractors Autolift Services utilizes a close nit of reliable subcontractors that are able to perform any craft necessary to complete a project, and that furthermore meets the expectations set forth by our own quality standards. All of our subcontractors are licensed, bonded and insured accordingly to their craft. Any request of this documentation is available to the City of Rancho Cucamonga at any time. Each of these subcontractors has been working with us for at least five years and has a proven track record of quality workmanship with our company. For this project we do not foresee utilizing any of our subcontractors at this time. All services listed under the scope of services are cable of being completed by Autolift Services staff. If there is a need for special services that fall outside the capabilities of our company we will submit necessary documentation to be approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to subcontracting any work. Page 255 sin Key Staff Biographies CHRIS WOODSON ➢ Owner/President/CEO, 1982 to present o Son of original owner who started the business in 1939. o For this project, Chris will be providing Lead Design and Service Consultation. o Chris grew up working under his father's tutelage as a young boy and gained hands on skills, ability and an in depth knowledge to install, diagnose, fabricate and repair automotive service equipment. o Chris holds a Bachelor's Degree in Industrial Psychology and Business Management. o Chris also holds the "A" General Engineering License along with a specialty C61/D21 license and Hazardous Materials Endorsement. o Chris has completed numerous manufacturer safety training seminars and is considered an expert in the field of automotive lifts. o His work experience includes 50+ years of installation, maintenance and repairs of hydraulic lifts and related automotive shop equipment. o ALI Certified Vehicle Lift Inspector ➢ Previous Heavy Duty Vehicle Lift Project Experience includes: o City of Long Beach: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Capistrano USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Ventura County Fire: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Chino Valley USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o City of Ventura: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative KYLE WOODSON o Sales and Service Director, 2005 to present o For this project, Kyle will be Lead Administrative and Co -Design Consultant, as well as special onsite services representative. ➢ All Administrative Communication: Questions, Requests, Periodic Project Updates, Change Orders, Comments and/or Concerns will be available 24 hours/day via email kyle@autoliftservices.com or cell phone (714) 860-9405 E Page 256 o Kyle has a Bachelor's Degree in Business Management with an emphasis in the field of Event Management. o Being the eldest son of Chris, Kyle has 15+ years of experience, guidance, and mentoring under Chris on Government/ Fleet Design/Consultation and Management of Construction Projects which has now evolved into coordinating and managing all subcontractors, products, and communications during new installations. o Training includes Various Vehicle Lift Manufacturer, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Electrical Diagnostics, Framing, Welding as well as Experienced Heavy Machinery Operator. o ALI Certified Vehicle Lift Inspector o Work Experience/ Relevant Skills includes: o City of Long Beach: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Capistrano USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Ventura County Fire: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o Chino Valley USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative o City of Ventura: Lead Administrative Representative, Design Consultant and Onsite Special Services Representative ➢ Lead Site Safety Representative o OSHA 30 Hour Construction Site Safety Certified o First Aid/CPR/AED Certified o BCSP Certified Construction Health and Safety Technician CODY WOODSON ➢ Gov't/ Fleet Project Superintendent, 2007 to present o For this project, Cody will be the main point of contact for scheduling periodic services and as needed services o Cody has a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Engineering and I.T. Systems. He also has 10+ years of guidance and mentoring under Chris on Gov't/ Fleet Construction Project Management. o Training includes Various Vehicle Lift Manufacturer, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Electrical Diagnostics, Framing, Welding as well as Experienced Heavy Machinery Operator. 7 Page 257 mmm A ➢ All Onsite Construction Communication: Questions, Requests, Comments and/or Concerns will be available 24 hours/day via email cody@autoliftservices.com or cell phone (714) 366-6621 ➢ Work Experience/ Relevant Skills includes Lead Foreman on recent completed projects for: o City of Long Beach: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact o Capistrano USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact o Ventura County Fire: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact o Chino Valley USD: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact o City of Ventura: Lead Administrative Representative, Parts Requests, Periodic Maintenance and Daily Service Contact ➢ Lead Site Safety Representative o OSHA 30 Hour Construction Site Safety Certified o First Aid/CPR/AED Certified o BCSP Certified Construction Health and Safety Technician ROBIN WOODSON ➢ CFO and Secretary, 1984 to present o For this project, Robin will be controlling all of Autolift's finances, providing all necessary documentation and is the AP/AC Director. o She has a Bachelors Degree in Home Economics and Marketing and has over 30 years of financial management experience with our company. o Robin is responsible for daily office management, AP/AR, human resources and customer satisfaction. o She is the Lead Administrator/Contact on all necessary documentation, bid bonds, insurances and financial responsibilities. ANDY MARSAC ➢ Lead Millwright, 1985 to present o For this contract, Andy will be the Lead Technician/ Licensed Millwright. o Andy has 30+ years of experience and dedication to our company. o His specialties include Mechanical Engineering, Certified Welder, Metal Fabrication, Plumbing, Hydraulics, Pneumatics, Lubrication Equipment, etc. Page 258 o Work Experience/ Relevant Skills include: ➢ Quality Assurance and Final Testing on all finished projects prior to release to customer for end use ➢ Multiple Municipality, School District and Military onsite service technician ➢ Warranty/ Technical Support RICHARD VILLAFANA ➢ Lead Mechanical Technician, 2012 to present o For this project, Richard will be a lead onsite technician and key point of contact for day to day operations during all onsite repairs o Currently working on obtaining Bachelor's Degree o Training includes Onsite Vehicle Lift Manufacturers, Lubrication Equipment, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Framing, and Experienced as a Heavy Machinery Operator. ➢ Work Experience/Relevant Skills Include o Multiple Municipality, School District and Military onsite service technician ADAM CARDWELL ➢ Lead Mechanical Technician, 2010 to present o For this project, Richard will be a lead onsite technician and key point of contact for day to day operations during all onsite repairs o Bachelor's in Communication Studies o Training includes Onsite Vehicle Lift Manufacturers, Lubrication Equipment, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Framing, and Experienced as a Heavy Machinery Operator. ➢ Work Experience/ Relevant Skills include: o Multiple Municipality, School District and Military onsite service technician NIC NORIEGA ➢ Lead Electrical Technician, 2014 to present o For this project, Nic will provide lead electrical diagnostics and repairs for day to day operations during all onsite repairs. o Nic has a Bachelors in Electrical Engineering o With 10+ years of experience trouble -shooting and servicing Air Compressors and Vacuum Systems. He is also a certified pump Page 259 o technician and has 5+ years of experience installing new lifts and air compressors. o Training includes Vehicle Lift Manufacturers, Electrical, Plumbing, Concrete, Demolition, Framing, Experienced as a Heavy Machinery Operator, Air Compressor assembly/trouble-shooting, and pneumatic experience. ➢ Work Experience/ Relevant Skills include: o Multiple Municipality, School District and Military onsite service technician Page 260 t{ [4 ■ i\ r 6/26/2019 Ruth Cain, CPPB Procurement Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Proposal Response Autolift Services, Inc., located at 10764 Los Vaqueros Circle, Los Alamitos, CA 90720, has read, understands and will comply with all terms and conditions set forth by the City of Rancho Cucamonga in regards to this Request for Proposals (RFP) #18/19-025 for Fleet Shop Equpment Maintenance for the City's Fleet Shop located at 9153 91h Street, the Epicenter Public Works Maintenance Shop at 8800 Rochester Avenue and the Fire Shop at 11271 Jersey Blvd. In addition to the equipment and services listed in this RFP, Autolift Services is capable of servicing all A/C Machines, Fluid Exchange Systems, Tire Service Equipment, Vacuum Pump Systems, Machine Shop Equipment, Oil Filter Crushers, Portable Floor Jacks, Air Filtration Systems, Brake Lathes, Lubrication Reels, Pumps and Delivery Systems, and more! The primary contact for the RFP will be: Kyle Woodson Sales Director (714)816-9890 Office (714)860-9405 Cell k ly Qautoliftservices.com The secondary contacts for the RFP will be: Cody Woodson Project Superintendent (714)816-9890 Office (714)366-6621 Cell codyAautoliftservices.com Chris Woodson President (714)816-9890 Office (714)366-5362 Cell autoliftservices(asbcglobal.net Sincerely, Chris Woodson President Page 261 Exhibit C Fleet Shop Equipment Maintenance Schedule of lump Sum and Unit Costs Description Hourly Rates maintenance services performed Monday through Friday (excluding recognized City holidays) between the hours of After hours rate for scheduled or emergency equipment maintenance services performed at times other than regular working hours, excluding recognized City holidays. Hourly rate for scheduled or emergency equipment maintenance services performed on Holidays - all hours. (Recognized City holidays only) Material Mark-Up 9/10/2019, 4:37 PM Page 262 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director Dean Rodia, Parks and Landscape Superintendent Paul Fisher, Management Analyst I SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A MONTH TO MONTH EXTENSION OF CONTRACT CO 08-162 WITH UNITED PACIFIC SERVICES FOR CITYWIDE TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $325,000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve Amendment No. 10 to contract CO 08-162 with United Pacific Services; extending the term of the contract on a month to month basis, not to exceed a three- month term, in an amount not to exceed $325,000 during the extension period. BACKGROUND: On October 15, 2008, the City Council accepted the bids received for citywide tree maintenance and awarded contract CO 08-162 to United Pacific Services. This contract has an option for renewal in one- year increments with no stated limit on the number of renewals. Over the past year, staff determined it was time to update the contract specifications to include newer terminology, service requirements, and improved compliance language. To allow time to re -bid these services, the City Council approved Amendment No. 7 to the contract on July 18, 2018, which extended the contract on a month to month basis, not to exceed a seven-month period. On August 23, 2018, RFP 18/19-007 for Citywide Tree Maintenance Services was posted to the City's automated bid system. Four vendors submitted bids by the September 26, 2018 deadline. During evaluation of the proposals, irregularities were discovered in the proposals from three of the four vendors. Therefore, staff determined it was in the City's best interest to cancel the solicitation and re - advertise for these services to ensure the City receives competitive bids. On February 29, 2019, the City Council approved Amendment No. 8 which further extended the term of the contract an additional five months through June 30, 2019 to allow staff the time to conduct this second solicitation. Amendment No. 9, approved by Council on July 17, 2019, extended the term an additional three months. On May 29, 2019, RFP 19/20-007 for Citywide Tree Maintenance Services was posted to the City's automated bid system. Proposals were received on July 24, 2019 and the evaluation process is currently underway. Additional time is needed to complete the evaluation process. It is staff's goal to have a new contract awarded in the second quarter of FY 2019/2020. Under this new contract, work is expected to begin on January 1, 2020. ANALYSIS: Page 263 United Pacific Services has provided tree maintenance services to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for eleven years. There have been NO rate increases during the term of this contract. During the ongoing procurement period it is necessary to maintain services to the residents, especially during emergency events such as wind or rain storms. In addition, United Pacific Services continues to provide excellent service to the City. To that end, staff recommends the City Council approve a short-term renewal of CO 08-162 for a period not to exceed three months through December 31, 2019, to provide the necessary services during the procurement period. FISCAL IMPACT: The contract price is within the contract services budget line items in the approved budget for FY 2019/2020. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item addresses the City Council Goal of Public Safety by maintaining a healthy and sustainable urban forest through proper structural care and tree development throughout the communities and all public access areas. ATTACHMENTS: Description Amendment 10 Page 264 Attachment 1 - Amendment 10 AMENDMENT NO. 10 to Professional Services Agreement (CO #08-162) between United Pacific Services, Inc. (hereinafter Contractor) and City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter "City") This Amendment No. 10 will serve to amend the Professional Services Agreement (hereinafter "Agreement"), CO# 08-162 to incorporate the following: Item 1: The term of the agreement is hereby extended on a month by month basis, not to exceed a total of three months through December 31, 2019. Item 2: Contractor hereby agrees to extend current contract pricing through December 31, 2019. Item 3: Total compensation for work completed during this extension shall not exceed $325,000 All other Terms and Conditions of the original Agreement, contract no. CO 08-162, will remain in full effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Amendment by way of signature by both parties and on the date indicated below. Please return two (2) original signed copies to the City no later than September 19, 2019. The City will process both copies for signature and provide Contractor with one (1) fully executed copy of the Amendment. United Pacific Services City of Rancho Cucamonga By: By: Name Date Name Date Title Title By: By: Name Date Name Date Title Title (two signatures required if corporation) Page 265 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Elisa Cox, Deputy City Manager Hope Velarde, Management Analyst I SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 19-086 APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIED GRANT FUNDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DOG PARK AT CENTRAL PARK. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the application for specified grant funds. BACKGROUND: Between July 2017 and February 2018, the Central Park Master Plan Update was developed with an extensive community engagement process using multiple methods to encourage and maximize community input. Methods included a combination of informational materials, workshops, online surveys, and social networking. Out of nine community engagement participation opportunities, a dog park ranked in the top three for passive recreation facilities. Community dog parks act as a gathering spot for people and pets alike. For dogs, it allows them the opportunity to exercise and socialize with other pets in a controlled environment. While the dogs are playing, community members are more likely to form relationships with other pet owners, participate in conversation and strengthen community connectedness. ANALYSIS: Through the hard work and dedication of Assembly Member James Ramos, the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 State Budget includes $3 million in state funding to complete a dog park at Central Park. As part of the grant requirements, this resolution must be approved by City Council. The proposed dog park is 4.4 acres and consists of multiple sections to accommodate small and large dogs, a shade structure for pet owners, and an area to allow for rehabilitation to keep the park and greenery healthy. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. Upon approval of the funds, $3 million will be encumbered at a later date. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: This item helps achieve the City Council's goal of Parks and Recreation Development; the addition of a Page 266 dog park at Central Park enhances the City's parks and recreational amenities. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Resolution Page 267 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR SPECIFIED GRANT FUNDS. WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility by the Legislature of the State of California for the administration of a grant to the City of Rancho Cucamonga setting up necessary procedures governing application(s); and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of project application(s) before submission of said applications to the State; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete project(s); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HERBY: 1. Approves the filing of project application(s) for specified grant project(s); and 2. Certifies that said applicant has or will have available, prior to commencement of project work utilizing specified grant funds, has sufficient funds, including those provided by this grant, to complete the project; and 3. Certifies that the applicant has or will provide sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s), and 4. Certifies that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in this Procedural Guide; and 5. Delegates the authority to the City Manager or designee to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the grant scope(s); and 6. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 2019 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Page 268 ABSTAINED: L. Dennis Michael Mayor ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds City Clerk I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on 2019. Executed this day , 2019 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Janice C. Reynolds City Clerk Page 269 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Jennifer Hunt Gracia, Community Services Director Jeff Benson, Management Analyst I I Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst 11 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 19-085 CERTIFYING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CENTRAL PARK AMPHITHEATER PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution No. 19-085 certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Central Park Amphitheater Project. BACKGROUND: Recently, the State released funding opportunities under Proposition 68 for park projects. The Community Services Department has applied for a funding from the Statewide Parks Program for segment D of the Central Park Master Plan adopted in 2018. In order for the project to qualify and be considered for funding, a CEQA document must be filed before November 5, 2019. ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the Tetra Tech prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures related to biological resources, noise, cultural resources, geology and soils and tribal cultural resources, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. A copy is available for review at the City Clerk's Office. Tribal consultation as required under AB52 was completed and two tribes, San Manuel and the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation requested consultation and mitigation measures for the preservation of tribal cultural resources, which were included. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has also been prepared to ensure implementation of, and compliance with, the mitigation measures for the project. FISCAL IMPACT: Council's approval of the project, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and adoption does not financially obligate the City to proceed with the project. Should the City be awarded the $8.5 million grant from the Statewide Parks Program for segment D of the Master Plan, the City is obligated to move forward with the project as outlined in the City's application; however, there is no fund matching requirement for this grant. Page 270 COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The completion of this project moves us towards the Council's Park and Recreation Development Goal by focusing on finding and applying for grant opportunities to fund the development of Central Park. ATTACHMENTS: Description ATTACHMENT 1 - RESOLUTION Page 271 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING AN INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE CENTRAL PARK AMPHITHEATER PROJECT AND MAKING THE REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, this item was heard by the City Council on October 2, 2019 at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Rancho Cucamonga, California; and WHEREAS, evidence, was duly presented to and considered by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at the aforesaid meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council has further reviewed the findings made in this Resolution and finds that they are based upon substantial evidence that has been presented to the City Council in the record of proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file and available for public examination during normal business hours in City Hall through the office of the City Clerk, who serves as the custodian of these records. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY FINDS, DECLARES AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference and constitute a material part of this Resolution. Section 2. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed (*Mitigated) Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a (*Mitigated) Negative Declaration (*and Monitoring Program) attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff contracted for the preparation of an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the project. Page 272 Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, it was determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Thereafter, public notice was provided of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. b. The City Council has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds: (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and (ii) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on these findings, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. c. The City Council has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The City Council therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. d. The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based is the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in the City Clerk's Office of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2700. Section 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration which is available for viewing at the City Clerk's Office, located at: City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause this Resolution to be entered in the official records of the City. Page 273 Central Park Amphitheater Environmental Analysis Central Park Amphitheater CEQA • Prop 68 grant application for Amphitheater • Grant required environmental analysis under CEQA is completed and filed by November S • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Circulated to responsible agencies • Made available to the public • Public Comment Period • 8/21/19 — 9/19/19 Central Park Amphitheater CEQA • Tribal Consultation was conducted with 2 tribes • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation • San Manuel • Mitigations added to reduce impacts to: • Biological Resources • Noise • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Tribal Cultural Resources Recommendation • Staff recommends approval of Resolution 19-085 • Adopt Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Central Park Amphitheater Project DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager Elisa C. Cox, Deputy City Manager Anne McIntosh, Planning Director SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00749, ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752, ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00751, ANNEXATION DRC2015-00732, AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459. THE PROJECT WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE 2010 GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY DELETING, ADDING, AND/OR REVISING TEXT, GRAPHICS, AND EXHIBITS AND CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF CERTAIN PARCELS IN ORDER TO INTEGRATE THE PROPOSED ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN'S (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN (HEREAFTER THE "SPECIFIC PLAN") INTO THE GENERAL PLAN. THIS INCLUDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF MULTIPLE PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY THAT HAVE A COMBINED AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 305 ACRES AND MULTIPLE PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE THAT HAVE A COMBINED AREA OF 4,393 ACRES IN A PROJECT AREA EXTENDING FROM HAVEN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE CITY'S BOUNDARY WITH FONTANA, AND FROM THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS TO THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY IN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (HEREAFTER THE "PROJECT AREA"), AND WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, TO LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THAT ALLOW CONSERVATION, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND/OR CIVIC USES. A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN BY DELETING, ADDING, AND/OR REVISING TEXT, GRAPHICS, AND EXHIBITS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN IN ORDER TO REMOVE THOSE PARCELS PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKE OTHER CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. A PROPOSAL TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WILL APPLY TO MULTIPLE PARCELS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA TO ALLOW CONSERVATION, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND CIVIC USES Page 274 FOR A PROJECT AREA EXTENDING FROM HAVEN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE CITY'S BOUNDARY WITH FONTANA, AND FROM THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS TO THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY IN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI), IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN. A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY DELETING, ADDING, AND/OR REVISING TEXT AND GRAPHICS WITHIN THE ZONING MAP, AND CHANGE THE ZONING/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA TO ZONING/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THAT ALLOW CONSERVATION, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND/OR CIVIC USES CONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN (PREZONING THE PROJECT AREA WITHIN THE SOI). A PROPOSAL TO ANNEX MULTIPLE PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE THAT HAVE A COMBINED AREA OF 4,088 ACRES FOR A PROJECT AREA EXTENDING FROM HAVEN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE CITY'S BOUNDARY WITH FONTANA, AND FROM THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS TO THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY IN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN. A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE ALLOWED USE TABLE FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN. THIS PROPOSAL WILL APPLY TO THE PROJECT AREA IN ORDER TO PERMIT ZONING/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THAT ALLOW CONSERVATION, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND/OR CIVIC USES CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN. THE PROJECT AREA EXTENDS FROM HAVEN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE CITY'S BOUNDARY WITH FONTANA, AND FROM THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS TO THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY IN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE - APN'S: 0201-033-32, -35 THROUGH -40, -43, AND -44, 0201-191-27 AND -28, 0201-272-14 THROUGH -18, 0201-281-02,-04 THROUGH -10, -13, -14, -16 THROUGH -22, 0225-091- 03, 05, AND -06, 225-092-01, 0225-101-32, 0225-152-06 THROUGH -11, AND -17, 0225-161-42, 0226-061-03, -07, -16, -20, -26, -27, -28, -33, -47, -56, -57, -61 THROUGH -71, -73 THROUGH -78, 0226-082-08, -19, -20, -21, AND -30, 1074- 351-01, -04, -05, AND -06, 1087-051-02 THROUGH -14, -16 THROUGH -27, 1087-061-01 THROUGH -21, AND 1087-071-01 THROUGH -14, AND -16 THROUGH -21. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions: 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2017091027) for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, make findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Page 275 2. Approve each of the following: • Adoption of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Specific Plan DRC2015- 00751 with the following changes: • Allow density requirements at 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres in the Rural Open Space SubZone and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in the RH SubZone; • Permit Animal Keeping for Livestock and Poultry in the Rural/Conservation Area by right as specified in the Development Code; • Adoption of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749; • Adoption of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750; • Adoption of Zoning Map Amendment and Prezoning DRC2015-00752; • Adoption of Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459; and • Approve and direct staff to process through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Annexation DRC2015-00732. BACKGROUND: A. The City's Vision As described in the General Plan, the City has long held a vision for the conservation of the alluvial fan and foothills between our northern most neighborhoods and the National Forest. The proposed Specific Plan presents an opportunity for detailing and codifying that vision. This detailed vision for the unincorporated foothills above the neighborhoods of Etiwanda was developed after an extensive multi- year process that included analysis of various development and conservation options, a thorough review of the goals and policies described in the General Plan, review by the Planning Commission, directions from City Council, and extensive participation and input from the overall community. Through the Specific Plan, the community has articulated a vision for extensive conservation of the alluvial fans, foothills, and drainage areas that border the City to north, enabled and supported by high quality, complete, walkable neighborhoods that reflect the rural history of Etiwanda and provide a range of housing opportunities to the south. This vision is unlikely to be seen without gaining local control through annexation of this land currently in the City's sphere of influence (SOI) - identified in Attachment 1 - but governed by the County's much more lenient development standards. Guiding principles of the Specific Plan include maintaining local control over land currently in the City's SOI, conserving open space, providing opportunities for active healthy living, maintaining fiscal responsibility, providing public safety, and creating a unique sense of place. B. Etiwanda North Specific Plan In 1992, the City Council adopted the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). The ENSP was adopted to establish pre -zoning and development standards for the Etiwanda area of the Sphere of Influence (SOI). Doing this was an effort to ensure that when development of properties within the ENSP was proposed, such development would follow the City's standards and, therefore, be in conformance with the pre -zoning document and be consistent with the goals of annexation. The current ENSP permits a significant amount of residential development in the proposed Rural/Conservation Area (R/CA) and permits a limited amount of residential development in the proposed Neighborhood Area (NA) while maintaining a substantial portion of this area as Flood Control. The ENSP also established two "floating", i.e. approximate, locations for commercial uses. The size and scope of such development would be determined based on a market analysis of the number of households that would support commercial uses. C. North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal In 2007, the County of San Bernardino (County) informed the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) intended to sell up to 1,070 acres of surplus property on the northern edge of the City. The area had an overall area of 1,212 acres that had previously been needed for Page 276 flood control purposes. In 2008, the City offered to assist the County and distributed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for developers who wished to be considered for a potential joint venture with the County to entitle the land partially located within the City Limits and partially within the SOI, i.e. the unincorporated area of the County. However, the County discontinued the potential joint venture in 2009 due to the economic downturn that occurred around that time period. City leadership recognized that development on the County's land would occur in the future and wanted to be prepared for the eventual sale of this surplus property by the County. Therefore, in January 2015, the City Council reaffirmed the goal of pre -zoning and annexing 4,088 -acres of the City's SOI. This land is currently regulated by the County's zoning and, therefore, allows residential and commercial development that would be subject to the County's development regulations. In May 2015, the City Council approved an agreement with Sargent Town Planning (STP) to prepare the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal. Between the summer of 2015 and the fall of 2017, the City developed an initial plan for the 4,393 -acre Project Area, including the 4,088 acres currently located outside of the City, but within the City's SOI. This initial plan identified the 3,176 -acre Upper Sphere Area as a "Conservation Priority Area" and focused potential development in the 1,217 -acre Lower Sphere Area, identified as the "Neighborhood Priority Area." D. Initial Community Engagement In the fall of 2017, the City conducted four community meetings to solicit comments from interested individuals and community groups on the initial planning concepts. Participants had many questions and concerns about the process, the preliminary concept, including the number and type of residential units proposed, particularly multi -family units, and the amount and type of commercial uses. In addition, there were concerns about fire safety and habitat associated with the configuration of open space in the heart of the neighborhood. Due to the level of concern, the City set aside the preliminary concept and conducted further outreach to better understand the priorities of the Rancho Cucamonga community. During the first half of 2018, City staff worked with the community through a series of meetings and online engagements to consider whether or not to: • Halt planning and annexation efforts and allow the land to develop under County standards; • Raise funds through a new parcel tax to purchase the land for permanent open space conservation, or; • Prepare a plan for new neighborhoods that would allow for conservation of much of the open space. Throughout the community engagement process, the majority of participants continually supported local control and some sort of neighborhood development as a mechanism for achieving local control through annexing the land into the City. At the May 16, 2018 City Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to work toward a neighborhood and conservation plan that would facilitate the community's direction to achieve this outcome. A copy of the staff report and minutes are attached as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. E. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan As this effort moved into the next phase of creating a plan, the City established a name for the Specific Plan: "Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan" (EHNCP) which both communicates the location of the planning area within the City and the intended purpose of the plan. The name reflects the City's intent to balance the community's priorities for conservation in the rural northern portion of the planning area, and appropriate development in the southern neighborhood area that lies between two existing neighborhoods in the City. After the May 16, 2018 City Council meeting, Staff continued the community engagement process, received and evaluated the community's input, and began to draft the plan. F. Continued Community Engagement Page 277 In the Summer of 2018, the City started an extensive public engagement process to learn more about the community's priorities and how to best balance them in order to create a community-based plan. The public engagement process included small group meetings, pop-up events, multiple online surveys, and a large, well -attended public open house where attendees provided feedback on an initial concept plan. The Public Review Draft EHNCP was developed in response to the community's feedback received during this period. The following highlights the outreach efforts: • July, August, and September 2018 — The City hosted popup outreach. At each popup, the City went to stakeholders at events planned for the community. The popups were intended to raise awareness, to distribute accurate information, and to promote later public engagement opportunities, including the online survey and public Open House. Through nine popups events, the City staff and consultant team interfaced with approximately 839 people. • August 21 through August 29, 2018 — The City met with four different small groups to learn about their preferences for various types of housing, parks, and neighborhood amenities. The groups represent unique perspectives on the future of the Project Area. Small group meetings were held with Campeones para la Comunidad (Community Champions), Healthy RC Steering Committee, Healthy RC Youth Leaders, and several home owners associations (HOAs) that include residents who live to the west of the Project Area. • August 28 through September 24, 2018 — The City hosted an online survey to gather input on emerging priorities and concepts under consideration for the EHNCP. A total of 1,099 respondents participated. • September 21, 2018 — The City hosted an open house at the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Courtyard to share concepts and gather input for the EHNCP. The open house attracted approximately 200 people and was organized around five stations spotlighting the main planning topics. • October 2018 through February 2019 — Staff engaged over 200,000 digital impressions and reached nearly 89,000 through various digital survey tools such as Facebook LIVE, Facebook posts, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor, videos, and eNews. • The City has maintained a website for the EHNCP that includes access to all materials related to the process. The website address is: www.cityofrc.us/Etiwanda Heights. A summary of the community outreach events described above is attached to this staff report as Attachment 4, along with a fact sheet called "What We've Heard" that explains and clarifies some of the key topics raised during the outreach process. In addition to the outreach and engagement with the general public described above, staff conducted the following outreach and engagement that included, or were conducted directly with, property owners in the Sphere of Influence: • Notification mailers in Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 • Fall 2017 community meetings: • October 26, 2017 • November 2, 2017 • November 9, 2017 • November 16, 2017 • Spring 2018 community meetings • March 22, 2018 • April 19, 2018 Page 278 • Meetings with small groups and individuals as of September 23, 2019 (meetings ongoing): • April 25, 2018 • May 17,2018 • June 12, 2018 • July 11, 2018 • August 29, 2018 • October 10, 2018 • October 16, 2018 • October 29, 2018 • December 13, 2018 • February 2, 2019 • May 29, 2019 • August 15, 2019 • August 22, 2019 • September 18, 2019 • September 19, 2019 • September 23, 2019 • September 25, 2019 G. Public Review Draft EHNCP The Public Review Draft EHNCP was developed from Fall 2018 to Spring 2019 and was developed in response to the input received during the community engagement period described previously. The overarching goal and organizing framework of the EHNCP is to generate a limited amount of unique, high-quality neighborhoods that are in balance with, and supportive of, large amounts of contiguous open space and habitat. As such, the EHNCP is organized around two areas: the Rural/Conservation Area, which increased in size from the previous draft to 3,565 acres; and the Neighborhood Area, the southern 828 -acre area that lies between two existing neighborhoods in the City. (Note that the Rural/Conservation Area further increased in size, along with a further decrease in Neighborhood Area size, in the subsequent Public Hearing Draft EHNCP, as described subsequently in this staff report.) The EHNCP establishes six guiding principles, along with development standards, design guidelines and regulatory provisions to facilitate implementation of the guiding principles. The Public Review Draft EHNCP was made available to the public on April 15, 2019. H. Planning Commission Meeting At the April 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented a Director's Report updating the Commission on the development of the Specific Plan. Staff provided background on the Specific Plan, a detailed summary of the various components of the Specific Plan, and the community engagement process. The Commission reviewed and discussed the draft Specific Plan document, which was provided to them prior to the meeting for their review. The Planning Commission received public testimony and made several recommendations for improvements and clarifications to the Draft Specific Plan. Overall, the Planning Commission expressed support for the Specific Plan. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Attachments 5 and 6, respectively). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was subsequently presented to the Planning Commission on May 22, 2019 and is discussed under the Environmental Assessment section of this report. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Attachments 7 and 8, respectively). Trails Advisory Committee Meeting On July 10, 2019, the Trails Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed trail design standards and requirements in the Public Review Draft EHNCP. There were minimal questions which Staff answered to the Committee's satisfaction. The Committee requested some revisions and clarifications, which have been incorporated into the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan, and recommended approval to the Page 279 Planning Commission and City Council with the addition of the requested modifications. A copy of the minutes from the Trails Advisory Committee are attached (Attachment 9). Planning Commission Hearing At the August 28, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, Staff presented the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan and Final EIR for review and consideration by the Planning Commission. Staff provided background on the Specific Plan, a detailed summary of the various components of the Specific Plan, summarized changes made to the Specific Plan since the Public Review Draft Specific Plan was presented to the Planning Commission on April 24, 2019, and summarized the conclusions of the Final EIR. The Commission reviewed and considered the Specific Plan document and Final EIR, and received public testimony. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the Council's adoption of the Specific Plan and associated approvals, certification of the Final EIR, and adoption of the resolution for annexation. A copy of the Staff Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the public hearing are attached (Attachments 10 and 11, respectively). ANALYSIS: A. Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan The Specific Plan being presented to the City Council with this report is the culmination of the process described previously in the Background section of this report and includes changes and revisions that respond to input from City Staff, Planning Commission, Trails Advisory Committee, and comments received from agencies, organizations, and the general public during Draft EIR public review period. The Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan is attached as Attachment 12 (with the Ordinance for adoption). As directed by the City Council, the Specific Plan was developed with direct input from the community to develop the guiding principles that set the foundation of the EHNCP. The Community Vision and Guiding Principles were developed from community input, City Council direction, and General Plan policies. The Community Vision and Guiding Principles balance the primary goal to conserve the large quantities of natural open space in the EHNCP's northern area (Rural/Conservation Area) with high- quality neighborhoods in the EHNCP's southerly area (Neighborhood Area) which complement the existing neighborhoods to the east and west. The six Guiding Principles are: local control, open space conservation, active healthy living, fiscal responsibility, public safety, and a unique sense of place. The development standards, design guidelines and regulatory provisions of the EHNCP, were, in turn, developed to facilitate implementation of the guiding principles. The Specific Plan is both a vision document and regulatory tool. The Specific Plan specifies a vision for a series of walkable, traditional neighborhoods designed to incorporate the rural heritage of our foothill neighborhoods. The proposed neighborhoods would be comprised of a range of single-family houses, from half -acre equestrian estates to smaller starter homes to active adult living options. The plan reflects the full extent of our experience and expertise with designing and delivering world-class neighborhoods. Every home would be within a two- to four -minute walk of a park or trail. A small "Main Street" shopping area would provide residents with shopping and dining opportunities within walking and biking distance of their homes. The new neighborhoods would be built around a new K-8 school (the Specific Plan allows for additional school facilities within residential areas if needed), and connected via a network of small, traditionally sized blocks and tree -lined streets. Furthermore, a missing segment of Wilson Avenue will be completed and Rochester Avenue will be extended. This will increase much needed roadway capacity and provide accessibility into the foothill neighborhoods bringing residents traffic relief and improve first responders' ability to access area neighborhoods. The Specific Plan emphasizes design for people and improved accessibility. Initial analysis indicates these neighborhoods will generate at least 15% less traffic per person than existing neighborhoods in the area. In part, the reduced need for cars is achieved by the extensive multi-purpose trails proposed within the Project Area. These trails will connect to, and complete, the City's trail network in the area. The Specific Plan enhances recreational opportunities for those with horses, bicyclists, hikers, and Page 280 runners by providing for more than 11 miles of new trails. Within the 790 -acre Neighborhood Area, the Specific Plan now proposes 2,700 homes, 85 acres of parks, and 180,000 square feet of shops, retail, and community center. (Note that the number of homes in the Neighborhood Area could be up to 3,000 if the full transfer of development rights as allowed by the Specific Plan occurs. (This is discussed in more detail below in the section that describes the Rural/Conservation Area). This proposed development will help achieve the overarching goal of widespread conservation of the "front country" adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest. The remaining 3,603 acres (an increase from the previous draft) are proposed as Rural/Conservation and would provide for a mix of conserved habitat mitigation lands and open space, existing open space preserves, and very low-density rural residential. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises 82% of the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan proposes to do this by, first, prioritizing and directing new mitigation land into the creation of three new preserves. Second, the Specific Plan applies the City's General Plan land uses, proposed for this area ten years ago, onto the front country, applying stronger hillside design standards to undeveloped lands, and providing for no more than 100 new homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. The Specific Plan further defines and clarifies these standards, including requiring clustering of houses, smaller roadways, and vegetation buffers, so as to further minimize the impact of potential new development and reduce fire risks to new homes. Third, the Specific Plan establishes a voluntary transfer of development rights program. This program would provide an incentive and a mechanism for land owners within the Rural/Conservation Area to sell the development potential of their lands to developers in the Neighborhood Area, providing Rural/Conservation Area land owners with a way of increasing the value of their lands without having to undergo all of the efforts necessary to development those lands first. Such a program is intended to deliver more conserved open space without infringing on anyone's property rights and without using eminent domain to acquire any open space or conservation land. Finally, the City's proposed trail network will thread through both the Neighborhood Area and the Rural/Conservation Area, tying the new open spaces and neighborhoods together and connecting them to the City's existing foothill neighborhoods. The policy framework and regulating provisions of the Rural/Conservation Area and Neighborhood Area are described below: Rural/Conservation Area: The City has had a long-standing vision for the foothills in its Sphere of Influence, and, through the implementation of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, set forth specific Open Space Land Use designations devoted to the preservation of the natural resources and open space opportunities. The Specific Plan builds on the General Plan to enhance the efforts of conservation and open space preservation. The Rural/Conservation Area's primary focus is centered around these conservation efforts. The key strategies in the Specific Plan are intended to continue efforts to conserve additional land and restore habitat. This will, in part, be achieved through developer incentives in the Neighborhood Area to underwrite conservation as mitigation to offset impacts of that development. Additionally, conservation will be accomplished with property owner incentives within the Rural/Conservation Area through the voluntary, market-driven transfer of development rights to the Neighborhood Area, and then setting aside the property for additional mitigation and conservation. Although there are large areas of the Rural/Conservation Area that are currently considered Open Space or Conservation, not all properties are actively managed and do not have permanent or adequate funding to continue to maintain and manage the habitat. Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan sets forth clear objectives for conservation management with appropriate implementation measures. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the existing biological setting, a vision for the future of this vital area, a framework of land use regulation and conservation incentive and funding programs to encourage and enable public agencies and private property owners to work together to systematically conserve as much of the Rural/Conservation Area as feasible. Page 281 Section 5.9 of the Plan establishes four regulating sub -zones for properties in the Rural/Conservation Area that are consistent with the intent of the existing land use designations in the General Plan. The regulating subzones in the Rural/Conservation Area are as follows: • Hillside: Allows for limited rural residential development to protect the unique character and resources of natural and rural open space, protect against wildland fire, fault, and flooding hazards, and protect natural resources such as water, plant, and animal life. New development in this sub -zone is subject to the Hillside Ordinance and standards in Section 5.9. • Open Space: Allows for very limited rural residential development in steeper terrain and areas of high fire, geologic, seismic, or flood hazards through restriction of intensive uses, and promotes the retention and preservation of rural open spaces that protect natural features. New development in this sub -zone is subject to the Hillside Ordinance and standards in Section 5.9. • Flood Control/Utility Corridor: Includes lands primarily used for flood control purposes and to support public utilities, consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. Habitable structures are not permitted to provide a high level of public safety, this sub -zone should be left natural for the most part, offering residents the additional benefits of a scenic and recreational resource with limited development potential. • Conservation: Consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation, includes lands to be managed to preserve and protect sensitive habitat, wetland resources, and sensitive plant and animal species potentially occurring in designated areas. This area has high scenic values, limited or no infrastructure facilities, steep terrain, and limited access. Parcels within this sub -zone are owned and managed by a variety of public and private non-profit entities to maximize preservation of open space, watershed and wildlife habitat areas. The land is to be maintained as habitat in perpetuity. As additional land is set aside for conservation in the Rural/Conservation Area, such properties will be rezoned to Conservation. The Specific Plan also establishes design and development standards (Section 5.9) that will regulate development in the Rural/Conservation Area which are intended to preserve the rural character of the foothills. The development standards require avoidance of resources on the site, clustering of structures and homes, minimally improved streets and infrastructure, and fuel modification buffers, as well as design elements that include minimal lighting and appropriately - scaled massing. Development in the Rural/Conservation Area is regulated so as to minimally impact natural terrain and habitat, while taking into consideration potential site constraints, natural hazards, and limited services. As discussed above, the primary focus of the Specific Plan is to maximize open space and conservation. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program will encourage the preservation of land within the Rural/Conservation Area without placing new tax burdens on existing residents. As outlined in Section 1.5, Guiding Principles, one objective for conservation of the Rural/Conservation Area was that new development must make preservation of natural landscapes feasible and fiscally self-sustaining. The Specific Plan has been developed with this in mind to enable enough development of new residential units and sales tax -generating retail and restaurants in the Neighborhood Area, and through the process of transferring development rights. The process of transferring development rights is set forth in Section 7.4 and would allow for a privately -owned property in the Rural/Conservation Area to voluntarily sever the right of residential development associated with land ownership from the land itself and other property rights, and convert it into a marketable commodity, allowing the transfer of the value of the residential development rights to the Neighborhood Area, in exchange for financial or other negotiated Page 282 compensation. The value of the residential development rights subject to transfer would be determined by appraisal based upon the maximum density allowed on the property based on the regulating zone, slope, and other environmental constraints. The TDR program requires that the owners of Rural/Conservation Area privately -owned property be fully compensated for the residential development rights being severed and all cost of participation in the TDR program. A multiplier will be used to balance the difference in values between the sending property and the value to the proposed receiving development based on product type. When a parcel is abutting a permanently preserved property (e.g. the North Etiwanda Preserve), the multiplier may be adjusted to further incentivize the transfer of density from the Rural/Conservation Area. The multiplier would be determined by the City or a qualified entity established by the City (TDR Authority). However, the Specific Plan's total yield would not be allowed to exceed the maximum proposal of 3,000 residential units. An infographic on the TDR process is attached to this staff report as Attachment 13. Neighborhood Area: Section 5.2 of the Specific Plan establishes four regulating zones for properties in the Neighborhood Area. The regulating zones in the Neighborhood Area are as follows: • Neighborhood Estate (NE): The Neighborhood Estate regulating zone is for large homes on large lots, with large setbacks and yards, and expansive views of the mountains to the north and/or valley to the south. A semi -rural, equestrian design character is envisioned to provide for opportunities for equestrian living, with curbless streets that lead directly to multipurpose trails to the foothills. • Neighborhood General 1 (NG -1): This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached homes on a range of lot sizes, knitted together by a connective network of landscaped pedestrian -oriented streets, parks, and trails. Well -landscaped front yards and private rear and side yard areas for family activities surround each home. • Neighborhood General 2 (NG -2): This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached and attached homes, knitted together by a network of pedestrian - oriented streets and Paseos, and in proximity to neighborhood parks or squares for family. • Shops & Restaurants (SR): This two -block area centered on the intersection of Wilson and Rochester Avenues has a classic Southern California small-town "Main Street" character with a distinctly rural twist. Neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants have large shopfronts and wide sidewalks for strolling, dining, and visiting. Parking is provided on the street and in rear parking lots that are accessed by courts and Paseos. For each regulating zone, the Specific Plan establishes development standards that will regulate development in the Neighborhood Area. These standards will be applied to each project through the "Precise Neighborhood Plan" process (Section 7.7). The standards for each regulating zone are calibrated to generate the physical form and character in accordance with the Vision described in Chapter 4. The development standards address: 1) layout of new blocks and lots; 2) building types, including lot size, setbacks, height, and massing for each building type; 3) private frontages; 4) signage; and 5) architectural and landscape guidelines. The Specific Plan also contains development standards for public realm improvements, including streets and open space. Allowed uses are contained in Appendix 1, which will be incorporated into the Development Code. The Neighborhood Area is divided into nine Sub -Areas (Figure 5.3). The purpose of this is to 1) phase development and 2) ensure the intended distribution and mixture of building types. Page 283 The types of housing allowed per the Specific Plan are single-family (attached and detached), and the development standards noted above result in average gross densities in the Sub -Areas of the Neighborhood Area ranging from approximately 1.5 dwelling units per gross acre (in the estate lots), up to approximately 5.5 dwelling units per gross acre. There is no high-density housing permitted in the Specific Plan Area. Open space, views, and access to trails and recreation space was identified as a significant priority during the public engagement process and is a primary focus of the General Plan. The Specific Plan's overarching goal is to provide for just enough development in order to support the larger goal of conserving large amounts of permanent open space and habitat conservation. The Specific Plan establishes a network of trail connections building on the existing trail network and trails identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. It also proposes to improve the trail connections where there is a lack of connection and create unique walkable neighborhoods. A design feature of the Plan is that every residence is within a 5- to 7 -minute walk of the Deer Creek Greenway, Day Creek Trail and/or, the central greenway, named Camino de las Alturas, which all lead to the foothill trail network. (Note that the "central greenway" was renamed by the community to Camino de las Alturas through additional engagement in May and June 2019.) The Specific Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the area; rather, it supports and enhances the Equestrian Overlay through the provision of connected trails, amenities and equestrian lots within the Project Area. A phasing plan is provided in Section 7.3 in order to achieve orderly build -out of the community based upon market and economic conditions and provide adequate infrastructure and public facilities concurrent with development of each phase. The Neighborhood Area is anticipated to develop in nine phases over a period of approximately 13 years, including entitlement and construction. The phase numbers correspond to an anticipated sequence of Neighborhood Area development, with development of land in Phase 1 expected to occur relatively early, as Phase 1 is adjacent to existing streets, infrastructure, and utilities. The order, however, of phased development may change over time, and individual phases may overlap or develop concurrently. The extension and improvement of Milliken Avenue and associated infrastructure (Phase 2) will facilitate the development of higher -priced estate homes in Phase 3 that will take longer to absorb. A summary of the distribution of dwelling units, commercial square footage, and acreages for parks by phase is in Table 7.3 (Phasing Summary) of the Specific Plan. Sub -areas that have no development potential are Sub -area 10, which encompasses a utility easement, and Sub -area 12, which encompasses the North Etiwanda Preserve. Tentative map, phased final map, improvement plan, and building permit approvals will be required for development. Each of these plans, maps, and permits are subject to City review for consistency with the Specific Plan and approval. Phased infrastructure improvements, as required and approved by the City Engineer to support each phase, will be installed by the Master Developer/Builder or Neighborhood Builder(s)/Developer(s). Development phasing will occur as appropriate levels of infrastructure, community facilities, and open space dedications are provided. B. Substantive Changes to the Public Review Draft Plan Since the Public Review Draft EHNCP was presented to the Planning Commission on April 24, 2019, changes were made to the Specific Plan in response to input from City Staff, the Planning Commission, Trails Advisory Committee, and comments received from agencies, organizations, and the general public during Draft EIR public review period. Minor clean-up edits, clarifications and updates were also made throughout the Specific Plan to further refine the document. The substantive changes and those that respond to environmental concerns received during the Draft EIR review period are discussed below: • Reduction of Neighborhood Area Footprint: The overall acreage of the Neighborhood Area was Page 284 reduced from 828 acres to 790 acres, with the remaining 38 acres being added to the Rural/Conservation Area, zoned Rural -Open Space, and intended to become part of the future Etiwanda Heights Preserve. The change occurs in Sub -Area 3 (Figure 5.3), with a reduction in gross acreage of that sub -area from 155 to 117 acres. This change is an approach to respond to comments received from community input and environmental organizations, and results in multiple benefits: • Biological resource benefits: With a reduced development footprint on the north edge of the Neighborhood Area, there are several benefits associated with biological resources, which include: an increase in the size of the Etiwanda Heights Preserve by 38 acres; a decrease in impacts to scale broom scrub by 21.15 acres; a decrease in impacts to non -wetland waters or streambeds by 5.46 acres and that acreage would be added to the Etiwanda Heights Preserve for conservation; reduced impacts to three special -status plant species (i.e. 1 Plummer's mariposa lily, 4 intermediate mariposa lilies, and 882 Parry's spineflower); these individuals would be conserved within the Etiwanda Heights Preserve. • Improved viewshed benefits: As there were still some community concerns about edge conditions on the west side, the revised plan widens the Deer Creek Greenway along the west edge of Sub -Area 3 by approximately 100 feet to provide an additional buffer between neighborhoods and to improve views of the mountains for residents in the Deer Creek neighborhood. • Addition of equestrian standards and amenities to support the Equestrian Overlay: The Specific Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the Project Area; rather, it supports and enhances the Equestrian Overlay through the provision of connected trails, amenities and equestrian lots within the Project Area. With the revision to Sub -Area 3, additional development standards were added to Section 5.4 to ensure equestrian housing is permitted on a wider variety of lot sizes, while still ensuring compatibility with adjacent residences. In addition, with a greater mix of lots sizes in Sub - Area 3, which now range from large single-family lots up to estate lots, the projected financial feasibility of the development improves, which could leverage more amenities. As such, a three -acre equestrian park, flanking the west side of Camino de las Alturas, has been added to the Specific Plan. • Trails: Section 6.1.4 was amended to expand the trail network to provide an additional east -west connection in the Neighborhood Area, and to provide more detail for users of the Specific Plan to ensure that equestrian and multi -use trail needs are met. Updates include the addition of an east/west multi -use trail along the residential street that connects the Day Creek Greenway to Camino de las Alturas, and better descriptions of the type, purpose, and available amenities/features at the various points of access to the trail network. The revisions clearly demonstrate that the trails and points of access are for all users, i.e. is multi-purpose (pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists), and identifies where horse trailer parking is proposed. The Specific Plan also more clearly illustrates the existing/proposed trails as described in the General Plan and the proposed trails as described in the Specific Plan, as well as provides additional text that states that when the Specific Plan does not discuss the design and/technical requirements for a trail element or feature, those implementing the Specific Plan shall refer to the City's requirements, standard drawings, relevant governing documents, etc. that apply to the trails located elsewhere in the City. The Specific Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the area; rather, it supports and enhances the Equestrian Overlay through the provision of connected trails, amenities and equestrian lots within the Project Area. • Rural Development Standards: In response to comments received from the Endangered Habitats League (EHL), Section 5.9 was revised using existing successful programs in San Diego County and San Luis Obispo as models. The revised Section 5.9, Rural Development Standards, sets forth goals and principles for any development in the Rural/Conservation Area and adds specific Page 285 quantitative standards for the avoidance of environmental resources, as well as additional requirements for minimizing site disturbance and maximizing open space. Additional design standards for roads in the Rural/Conservation Area were also added. • Conservation and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): In response to comments received from the Planning Commission and environmental agencies and organizations, and with input from a nationally -recognized TDR consultant, the discussion of conservation and TDR (Section 7.4) was expanded and clarified. This includes modifications to further incentivize the use of TDR as a conservation mechanism, and to provide more clarity to the user as to the density transfer process and the administration and management of the program. The total number of baseline, or "non -TDR" residential units permitted in the Neighborhood Area has been reduced from 2,900 to 2,700, with the maximum number of residential units permitted with TDR remaining at 3,000 so to motivate builders to acquire development rights from Rural/Conservation Area property owners through the TDR Program. The Specific Plan would continue to allow development of up to 3,000 units in the Neighborhood Area through use of the TDR Program. This program would allow for the transfer of development rights for the 100 units allowed in the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area. In addition, the TDR Authority that would be established would hold an allocation of development rights for 200 additional units which will be used to equalize the relative values of the properties involved in the TDR transaction (sender, receiver). Supplemental language has also been added to more clearly describe the 3:1 "global" ratio, which is used as a method for tracking the progress of the neighborhood, with a value -based program on the "sending" property owner side, so the values between the sending (Rural/Conservation Area) sites and receiving (Neighborhood Area) sites can be equalized and take into account the wide-ranging values of the sending development rights, the differences between product types, and the developer/builder's willingness to pay the TDR processing cost. See Attachment 14, TDR Value/Equalization Balancing, attached to this staff report. The 3:1 value ratio was determined to be appropriate on an overall basis, since it can be expected that some portion of the 100 residential units allowed in the Rural/Conservation Area will be built by the owners, or they simply will not participate in the TDR program. In addition, it has been assumed that some of the properties with development rights in the Rural/Conservation Area will be directly acquired by the Master Developer and Neighborhood Builders for direct habitat mitigation and will not be part of the TDR program. The TDR equalization ratio will be set administratively by the TDR Authority on a transaction basis so as to meet the objectives of the Specific Plan. As currently stated in the TDR program, the TDR Authority is allowed to increase the multiplier to further incentivize the density from priority areas. The Specific Plan also includes a re -visiting clause to amend the program if the program is not meeting the intended objectives. In addition, until such time that TDR from the Rural/Conservation Area has been accomplished, units will not be permitted to move between subareas in order to further incentivize the transfer of units from the Rural/Conservation Area. A table and map of parcels within the Project Area that have recorded Conservation Easements was included as Appendix 4 of the Plan for future tracking and monitoring of the TDR program. • Healthy Development Checklist: The Healthy Development Checklist was created by the Riverside University Health System, Public Health, in 2017 and developed collaboratively with agencies in the Inland Empire. It is the most up-to-date, best practices tool for connecting broad - level healthy community policies with the details that occur with neighborhood planning and development review. It was developed as a toolkit for making the connection from policy framework to neighborhood design in creating healthy neighborhoods. Creating healthy neighborhoods is in line with Rancho Cucamonga's core values; therefore, the Healthy Development Checklist has been included in the Specific Plan as a framework for the Neighborhood Area. The Checklist has been incorporated into Chapter 4, and the vision for the Plan carefully considers and addresses each of the six categories of the Healthy Development Checklist with strengths and amenities uniquely derived from its location. The Healthy Page 286 Development Checklist was developed to provide criteria for healthy development practices; therefore, a provision was also added to Section 7.7 to require that every Precise Neighborhood Plan application shall include a completed Healthy Development Checklist to demonstrate how the Precise Neighborhood Plan complies with as many of the criteria as possible to promote health through the development project. The Checklist is intended to be used as a tool to judge the overall health performance and supportiveness of new development projects. • Allowed Uses: In response to comments received by the Planning Commission, Table A-1.1, Allowed Uses, was broadened to permit and conditionally permit additional commercial uses in the Shops and Restaurants (SR) Regulating Zone, while still maintaining the "Main Street" intent of small-scale retail shops and restaurants in this zone. The changes include the addition of business support services, furniture and appliances stores, home improvement supply stores with a maximum size of 5,000 square feet, repair shops for small equipment, medical services permitted on upper floors only, and veterinary clinics with a conditional use permit. The additional allowable commercial uses that were added to Table A-1.1 do not create any additional environmental impacts. The changes noted above concerning the reduced Neighborhood Area footprint and lower number of total baseline dwelling units have been reviewed from a CEQA perspective, and as discussed below, do not result in any changes in the conclusions reached in the Draft EIR, although certain impacts are reduced as a result of the changes. Please refer to the Final EIR, Appendix F, Analysis of Revised Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. Since the Planning Commission Hearing on August 28, 2019, two additional minor edits were made to the Public Hearing Draft EHNCP. Language was added to Chapters 5, 6 and 7 to clarify maintenance and operation of public facilities, and language was added to Section 7.7 to clarify that request of transfers of non -TDR units between Neighborhood Area Subareas shall not be permitted until such time that the City Council has made the finding that all available development rights in the Rural/Conservation Area have been transferred through the TDR Program to the extent feasible. C. Request for Changes to Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan Allowed Density in Rural -Open Space (R -OS) and Rural -Hillside (R -H) Sub -Zones The Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan allows the development of a maximum of 100 homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. The EIR analyzes the potential impacts associated with development of 100 homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. The 100 -home limit in the Specific Plan was a conservative analysis based on a base density of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres in the R -OS Sub -Zone and 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in the R -H Sub -Zone. In response to a recent request of several residents in the Rural/Conservation Area, staff investigated whether changing the regulations in the EHNCP (Table 5.9.3A, Allowed Density Per Regulating Sub - Zone) to allow 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres in the R -OS Sub -Zone and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in the R -H Sub -Zone. These densities follow the current framework of General Plan densities for these land use designations, and would continue to rely on the City's Hillside Ordinance (Chapter 17.52 of the Development Code) to determine site specific density based on steepness of terrain, as well as the requirements of the EHNCP and building code related to other site specific constraints such as geologic hazards and water and riparian features. The residents explained to staff they prefer the existing General Plan framework of base densities, used in conjunction with the site specific analyses required by the Hillside Ordinance and other code requirements, because they are more familiar with the framework and feel that it ultimately provides more flexibility in designing appropriate locations for homes on individual sites. At the residents' request, staff conducted a programmatic analysis of the scenario where the R -OS Sub -Zone has a base density of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres and the R -H Sub -Zone has a base density Page 287 of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. Our programmatic analysis estimates the yield of units under this scenario would be approximately 78 units in the Rural/Conservation Area, which is well within the range of 100 units allowed by the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan and analyzed in the EIR. Because the estimated yield would not exceed the number of units analyzed in the EIR, the change to more closely calibrate these densities to the General Plan densities would not result in any additional environmental impacts or changes to the conclusions reached in the EIR. Staff supports the residents' request to change the allowed density requirements in the EHNCP to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres in the R -OS Sub -Zone and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in the R -H Sub -Zone. We recommend the City Council consider this request and direct staff to make this change with the adoption of the Specific Plan. Use Requirements for Animal Keeping Also at the recent request of two residents in the Rural/Conservation Area, we were asked to revisit the use requirements for animal -related uses set forth in Table A-1.1 of the EHNCP, in particular, the requirement for a conditional use permit for Animal Keeping for Livestock and Poultry. The intent of the EHNCP is to preserve and maintain the existing rural residential lifestyle of the residents living in the Rural/Conservation Area, and the intent of the EHNCP Use Table, which also refers to and is used in conjunction with the regulations for animal keeping in Chapter 17.88 of the Development Code, is to maintain consistency with the County's regulations for animal keeping as an accessory use, which is permitted by right up to a certain number of animals. The residents explained to staff that they prefer to maintain the existing framework under which animal keeping is permitted, and therefore requested that Animal Keeping for Livestock and Poultry be permitted by right, within the number of animals set forth in Chapter 17.88, which is consistent with the requirements of the County's code. Staff agrees with the residents that animal keeping is reasonable and expected use in a rural area and supports the residents' request to change the EHNCP Use Table to allow by -right animal keeping consistent with the County's regulations. We recommend the City Council consider this request and direct staff to make this change with the adoption of the Specific Plan. D. General Plan The majority of the Project Area is designated as Flood Control/Public Utilities, Conservation, Hillside Residential, and Open Space per the General Plan, Figure LU -2. With the exception of a 33 -acre parcel located south of Banyan Avenue and west of the Deer Creek flood control channel, the majority of the proposed Neighborhood Area is currently designated as Flood Control/Utility Corridor. The remaining 3,603 acres of the Project Area are within the Rural/Conservation Area and the Specific Plan would rezone this area consistent with the existing Open Space Land Use designations in the General Plan. An amendment to the General Plan is required to change the land use designations within the Neighborhood Area, as well to provide other changes to General Plan maps and text to memorialize the Specific Plan in the General Plan. The proposed General Plan map, text and table amendments (with the Resolution for adoption) are attached as Attachment 16. The General Plan Amendments are contingent upon approval of the annexation application from the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and will be implemented once the annexation process is complete. Per Section 65454 of the California Government Code, specific plans must be consistent with the jurisdiction's General Plan. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan was approved in 2010, and as subsequently amended, serves as the main land use policy document for the City. Therefore, all future development in the City must comply with the General Plan's goals and policies, unless amended. The vision, goals, development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan are consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and Housing Element. The General Plan Consistency Analysis prepared as part of the EIR provides an analysis of the consistency of the Plan, including the proposed amendment to the General Plan to incorporate the Plan into the General Plan, with applicable goals and policies in the adopted Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The General Plan Consistency Analysis (Table 4.10-2 of the EIR) is attached to this staff report as Attachment 17. In addition, the City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre SOI area to Page 288 identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP is being prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. E. Development Code and Zoning Map The Development Code will be amended to add a description of the Specific Plan and the Allowed Use table for the Specific Plan within the Development Code. This proposal will apply to the Project Area to permit zoning/land use designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the Specific Plan. The proposed Development Code Amendments (with the Ordinance for adoption) are attached to this staff report as Attachment 18. The Zoning Map will be amended to change the zoning of multiple parcels within the Project Area, including the areas proposed to be annexed into the City, to zoning designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the Specific Plan. The proposed Zoning Map Amendments (with the Ordinance for adoption) are attached to this staff report as Attachment 19. F. Etiwanda North Specific Plan As identified in the Background section of this report, most of the project area (approximately 3,494 acres) is within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). During the preparation of the annexation, it was determined that a new specific plan was necessary as the ENSP does not provide for conservation, does not "pre -zone" the entire project area, permits a significant amount of development where it should not occur, and does not adequately address development where it could occur. Thus, the ENSP needs to be amended to remove the EHNCP area from that Specific Plan. The proposed amendments to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (with the Ordinance for adoption) are attached to this staff report as Attachment 20. G. Environmental Assessment Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2017091027), and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. The City Council must consider the proposed findings required by CEQA and a Statement of Overriding Considerations before the EHNCP can be adopted. The purpose of an EIR is to inform the public about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public participation. The contents of the EIR becomes an informational tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best land use for the project site. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan, as well as identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. All environmental categories are being evaluated in EIR. The intent of this EIR is to evaluate the broad -scale impacts of the Specific Plan. Any future proposed projects within the Plan Area will be reviewed on their own merit. The following summarizes key points in the environmental review process: Notice of Preparation A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated on December 4, 2018 to the State Clearinghouse, and to public agencies that have discretionary approval power over the project, i.e. "Responsible Agencies", as well as to Tribal Governments. Also, the NOP was made available for review at the Archibald and Paul A. Biane Libraries, at City Hall, and on the City's website. Consistent wtih State law, the comment period ended 49 days after the date of Page 289 circulation on January 21, 2019. The NOP serves as public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. As discussed below, a scoping meeting was held for the Project. The City received comments from eight public agencies, two organizations, two native American tribes, and 43 individual members of the community. The NOP and the comments that were received are contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Agencies or interested persons, whether they responded during the public review period of the NOP or not, also had an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the public review period and during public hearings as discussed below. Further, as required under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, tribal notification letters were sent in January 2019 by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City complied with AB 52 and PRC Section 21080.3.1 and initiated and concluded consultation with the tribes that responded to the letters, as discussed in the Final EIR. Public Scoping Meeting The City conducted a noticed Public Scoping meeting during a Planning Commission meeting on December 12, 2018. The notice for this scoping meeting appeared in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notification was provided in various social media platforms. The intent of the Public Scoping Meeting was to receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the EIR as it relates to the project and environment. Following a brief explanation of the environmental review process, comments were received from the public and the Commission. Public comments included opposition to the development of the area, preferring to keep the land as a conservation area; opposition due to a perceived loss of property value for the northern portion of the project site; concern with the location of the proposed school; concern about potential for fire and flood events; concern about increased traffic and noise; and concern about relocation of the fire station. The public and the Commission requested that a broad spectrum of potential alternatives to the project be considered and analyzed in the EIR. Draft EIR Preparation and Circulation The Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2017091027) were prepared and distributed to all Responsible and Trustee agencies, and individuals who had expressed interest in the project and/or had previously requested copies. The NOA was also provided on the City's webpage for the project, on the City's "eNewsletter" (which has 18,000 subscribers), and an email was sent to approximately 1,200 individuals who subscribe to the EHNCP topic. The NOA was also advertised in various social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Nextdoor. The 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR began on April 29, 2019 and ended on June 14, 2019. During the public review period, the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review at: • The Archibald Library - 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; • The Paul A. Biane Library - 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739; • The Planning Counter at City Hall - 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; and • www.cityofrc.us/etiwandaheights Comment letters were received from ten agencies and organizations, and thirty-three members of the public, as well as comments from the Planning Commission, during the public comment period for the Draft EIR. The list of commenting parties and comment letters are included in the Final EIR. Written responses to all significant environmental issues raised have been prepared and made available in the Final EIR. Planning Commission Page 290 At the May 22, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented to the Commission a Director's Report regarding the DEIR. Staff and the CEQA consultant provided background on the Specific Plan, a detailed summary of the DEIR and topics analyzed in the DEIR. The Commission reviewed and discussed the DEIR document, which was provided to them prior to the meeting for their review. The Planning Commission received public testimony. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Attachments 7 and 8). Subsequently, and as described previously, at the August 28, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, Staff presented the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan and Final EIR for review and consideration by the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the Council's adoption of the Specific Plan and associated approvals, certification of the Final EIR, and adoption of the resolution for annexation. A copy of the Staff Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the public hearing are attached (Attachments 10 and 11, respectively). At this hearing, some members of the public and Planning Commission raised questions about the flood risk to the Specific Plan area, and the Planning Commission requested further information and explanation about how the historical documentation on flood conditions relates to current documents and conditions. The following discussion provides this information: Flood Control Studies Comments were submitted during the preparation of the EIR that referenced past comments on the hydrology and design studies conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) on the Deer Creek Debris Basin and channel built by the ACOE in 1983 and the Day Creek Debris Basin and channel system, including the Day Creek Diversion Levee, built by San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) in 1990. The comments submitted included comments from 2000 that indicated the 310 -acre foot design capacity of the Deer Creek Debris Basin was too small and that the basin as constructed had a capacity that was less than the 310 acre foot design capacity. The Final EIR includes information from the SBCFCD on the capacity and performance of the Deer Creek Debris Basin in Topical Response 3, Flood Conditions. As stated in this response, the ACOE and SBCFCD completed a variety of improvements and maintenance activities on the Deer Creek Debris Basin between 2004 — 2007 that increased the capacity of this basin. In 2011, the Deer Creek and Day Creek debris dams were mapped and analyzed for their existing debris storage capacity by SBCFCD. The net -available storage capacity was determined at that time to be 322 acre -ft for the Deer Creek Basin and 465 acre -ft for the Day Creek Basin, which exceeds the original design capacity for these basins. The ACOE designed the Deer Creek Debris Basin to accommodate a 100 -year storm. Comments also questioned the 5,400 cubic foot per second (CFS) peak runoff volume used as the basis of defining a 100 -year storm for the Deer Creek Watershed. These comments state that the ACOE lowered the definition of the 100 -year design storm event from 8,000 cfs to 5,400 cfs and lower and, for this reason, the basin and channel do have sufficient capacity to accommodate storm events. SBCFCD installed a rain gauge in the Deer Creek watershed in 1994. The highest intensity of rainfall recorded to date by this gauge is 1.4 inches per hour, recorded on July 24, 2005, which results in a flow rate of 3,348 cubic feet per second. A nearby gauge in Day Creek watershed, installed in 1987, has recorded the highest intensity of rainfall to date as 1.6 inches per hour on March 1, 1991, which results in a flow rate of 3,383 cubic feet per second. During the flood of 1938, which was one of the greatest floods in history, the flow rate in Deer Creek was measured at 4,200 feet per second. It should be noted and corrected that, while some comments indicate changes to the Day Creek Diversion Levee have been proposed by this plan, no changes to this levee are actually proposed. The comments also question the median size of boulders in the Deer Creek Watershed assumed by the ACOE in the design of the basin. Following the 2003 Grand Prix Fire and subsequent storms, SBCFCD did not encounter any boulders larger than 5 -feet in diameter in the basin and no debris left the basin over the spillway in the following years after the fire. These comments reference historical Page 291 information considered by the ACOE and SBCFCD in the design of the Deer and Day Creek Debris Basins and channels and the Day Creek Diversion Levee. The sufficiency of the capacity of both basins was demonstrated in 2003 during the winter storms that followed the Grand Prix fire. Analysis of Project Revisions As noted above, the revisions made to the Specific Plan in response to various comments were assessed to determine whether any new or more severe impacts might result. As discussed in detail in Appendix F to the Final EIR, most environmental impacts of the Original Plan that are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. Impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and potentially unavoidable. Implementation of the Revised Specific Plan would incrementally reduce, but not substantially reduce these impacts when compared to the Original Plan. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) In compliance with CEQA, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-2 for the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Avenue was revised since the Final EIR was prepared. The technical memorandum from Fehr & Peers (included as Appendix I of the Final EIR) identifies the revisions to this mitigation measure. As explained and documented in the attached technical memorandum, the revised measure for this intersection would achieve the required capacity at the intersection and would be equally effective as the measure identified in the Draft EIR for this intersection. With the improvements identified in the revised mitigation measure, this intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour and the significant impact identified in the EIR will be mitigated to less than significant. Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations If significant unavoidable environmental impacts result with a project, the City must balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, the City may adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission must consider the EIR in either its draft or final form before making its recommendations. The findings that the City Council needs to make to certify the EIR are set forth in the Resolution attached this staff report (Attachment 15). The Final EIR, including Appendix F, concludes that with implementation of the Specific Plan and all recommended mitigation measures, air quality emissions generated by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan would remain significant and contribute to cumulative impacts, and would not be consistent with Southern California Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for this reason. The EIR identifies a program of mitigation for impacts to biological resources in both the Neighborhood Areas and for potential impacts from development of up to 100 homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. Because the number and location of homes that may be developed in the Rural/Conservation Area cannot be determined at this time, potential impacts, even with the development standards and review procedures defined in the Plan, may remain significant. While the Plan identifies the preservation of land in the Rural/Conservation Area as mitigation for impacts to habitat, including riparian and wetland habitat and habitat for sensitive species in the Neighborhood Area, if a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, impacts would remain significant. Thus, as a conservative approach, the Final EIR concludes that there may be significant unmitigable impacts to sensitive wildlife species, riparian and other sensitive natural communities, and state or federally protected wetlands. Page 292 Greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan are considered significant, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, because the growth allowed by the Specific Plan is not fully accounted for in current regional growth projections and the total amount of estimated emissions exceeds the threshold of significance used in the analysis. Because the Specific Plan would permit development of an area identified as containing aggregate (sand and gravel) resources of regional value that would preclude access to these resources, this impact is identified as significant and unavoidable. As stated above, because the growth allowed by the Specific Plan is not fully accounted for in current regional growth projections, the population and housing impacts of the Specific Plan are also identified as significant and unavoidable. Also, traffic generated by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan would also contribute to projected cumulative impacts on segments of the 1-15 and SR -210 that would require improvements not identified in current regional plans. For this reason, the impacts of the Specific Plan on freeway traffic conditions are identified as significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Section 21081. A statement of Overriding Considerations is attached to this staff report as part of Attachment 15 for consideration by the City Council before approving the EHNCP. The Statement of Overriding Considerations balances the following project benefits against the remaining significant environmental impacts identified above: Project Benefit #1: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP has been prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. Project Benefit #2: The City desires to take local land use control of the Project Area to ensure that future conservation and limited development meet with the City's high standards. Project Benefit #3: Implementation of this Specific Plan will help achieve the overarching goal of widespread conservation of the "front country" adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest. underwritten by and in balance with high quality neighborhood development in the southerly portion of the Project Area already surrounded by existing neighborhoods. The Specific Plan defines a strategy for development to ensure that conservation and neighborhood development pay their own way and do not place new tax burdens on existing residents. Project Benefit #4: Implementation of the Specific Plan will extend the City's pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trail networks to connect existing and new neighborhoods to one another and to the foothill open spaces above. Project Benefit #5: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide a range of housing opportunities for families of many ages, sizes and lifestyles. Project Benefit #6: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide connections from existing neighborhoods and streets into the Project Area, ensuring access and prioritizing multi -modal safety — designated bike lanes, pedestrian -friendly sidewalks, and limited equestrian paths — while designing safe neighborhoods, complete stormwater management plans and natural fire -safety buffers to mitigate risks of wildfire spread. Project Benefit #7: The Specific Plan provides high quality design standards to ensure that the buildings and landscapes of Etiwanda Heights reflect the unique heritage of Etiwanda and Alta Loma, and that new neighborhood edges are compatible with existing adjacent neighborhoods and respect existing viewsheds. Project Benefit #8: The Specific Plan emphasizes design for people and improved accessibility and initial analysis indicates that the EHNCP neighborhoods will generate at least 15% less traffic (Vehicle Miles Traveled) per person than existing neighborhoods in the area. Page 293 H. Public Notification The Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed project was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. Also, Staff posted notification of the public hearing on the webpage for this project that was created on the City's website, and on social media networks including the City's Facebook page. The City Council public hearing for the proposed project was advertised in the Inland Valley Dailx Bulletin newspaper on September 6, 2019. Also, Staff posted notification of the public hearing on the webpage for this project that was created on the City's website, and on social media networks including the City's Facebook page. Next Steps and Annexation Process Following the City Council's consideration and potential certification the FEIR, adoption of the Specific Plan and associated approvals, and adoption of the resolution for annexation, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District will submit an application for a Tentative Tract Map for the surplus flood control land in the Neighborhood Area for consideration by the Planning Commission. Also, if the City Council adopts the resolution for annexation (attached to this staff report as Attachment 21), the City will submit an annexation application to San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for approval of the annexation of 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. The annexation process is described in Attachment 22, LAFCO Proceedings. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the plan preparation is expected to be neutral as the City can recover costs of preparing the plan through a specific plan maintenance fee paid for by the future development of the area. The fiscal impact of the EHNCP after buildout is analyzed in the Fiscal Analysis of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP), dated September 12, 2019, and prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. In summary, a recurring surplus is projected to the City General Fund, the City Gas Tax Fund, and the City Library Fund for the total EHNCP after buildout. A recurring surplus is also projected to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District after buildout of the total EHNCP. These projected surpluses indicate that existing residents will not bear any tax burden for the new development. This analysis is attached to this staff report as Attachment 23. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP has been prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Location Map Attachment 2 - May 16, 2018 City Council Staff Report Attachment 3 - City Council Meeting Minutes Attachment 4 - "What We've Heard" Fact Sheet and Summaries of Community Outreach Events Attachment 5 - April 24, 2019 Planning Commission Director's Report on Specific Plan Attachment 6 - April 24, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 7 - May 22, 2019 Planning Commission Director's Report of DEIR Attachment 8 - May 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 9 - July 10, 2019 Trails Advisory Committee Meeting Action Agenda Attachment 10 - August 28, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report (without exhibits) and Resolutions (without exhibits) Page 294 Attachment 11 - August 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 12 - Ordinance No. 957 to Adopt the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan with Public Hearing Draft Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan attached thereto Attachment 13 - Infographic on Transfers of Development Rights (TDR) Attachment 14 - Graphic on TDR Value/Equalization Balancing Attachment 15 - Resolution No. 19-082 to certfy the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2017091027) Attachment 16 - Resolution No. 19-083 to Adopt General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749 with Proposed General Plan Amendments attached thereto Attachment 17 - Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis Attachment 18 - Ordinance No. 958 to Adopt Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459 with Proposed Development Code Amendments attached thereto Attachment 19 - Ordinance No. 959 to Adopt Zoning Map Amendment and Prezoning DRC2015- 00752 with Proposed Zoning Map Amendments attached thereto Attachment 20 - Ordinance No. 960 to Adopt Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00750 with Proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments attached thereto Attachment 21 - Resolution No. 19-084 to Approve Annexation DRC2015-00732 Attachment 22 - LAFCO Proceedings Attachment 23 - Fiscal Analysis of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Attachment 24 - Letter from Etiwanda School District Attachment 25 - Letter from City to Etiwanda School District Page 295 +�8 I 111 1111 1111 ;•�Ya`fFtr. APPlewhite - Q t nGeek - "a FO,pj� 1sCz`mpgrountl San v APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET -, 15 `�t e `°m°• r �� k 5Y C-4 ade SoJ s San ao t' x�' �y pry Bernardino NF S y 4 1 ��� 10► � 8J 38 • I ♦ - � 5 s �fi 74 J Da '86 17 sh t Canyon GF Preserve �/ s r• i J* , .. r .. _ oyote San t �.' .. - nPark Canyon West v Marshall Channel - - - Marshallr - Canyon WA 'y County Park 'B Dam- , y i r S S _even Q San CHerta- _ 'Y _ k'e ` Antonio 1. Community Pilo - K Claremont Hills C -Park Marsh" Park- - - Etiwanda Creek Legacy Park Canyon GC Wilderness Park OCa`.i T_-� Day Creek Community Park Marshall Canyon• ' - Park Olive / Rosore Park Lewis - Conservation. 3"°a - Grove Parx Ralph M �.jG Ci ll• (, � SportComplex Corridor S - East - .p �� O Blaisdell .O - s - L 0 k Omps preserve o McCarthy Park do gr1 ^• - - - - - - ' aRrr Live ycamore Park 210 _ - ■ 15 v Cambda �„y�'0 kCany n05 Canyon Jaeger Park Q -r1 - y Kenyon Park Koehler Park/ 19TH ST 19TH ST �• } Park La Puerta June �- ym - m _ Hermosa Park Victoria -a' - / Tlie Landings Thom W Groves Park Vintage Park¢ Windiows Park ..,�` Pso SPorts Park Vail ' Creek & Trail Park > �� BASELINE RD a 16TH ST -f Central al Park Eplark � Heritage Y AlmeriaP k z J Neighborhood ; ® BASELINE RD r Chaparral Q Ma Iia Park 'Red Hill 'Q Victoria has Griffith park l gno Sierra• Communis m : e Center u� Greenbelt H Vista Park y i = Church Mf View Park Arbors Park �•� a•F Park Lewis • C h Ila Park Park Z Park U Street West ,. McDermond , Bill ,e0 ayr Park . t O W 13th Street Park _ Gree—ay Sports Complex - IL^ .r & MCDaY tf Park Weet Martin 7 OC a Q Reservoir _ ” Garcia Park O Park bq orial ,1 J Park `y i id Cabruta p xPark,:�. - a4 W.•Harrion Park Vew Park .a ^I 'B r '" :;'.,- `0 k Park/Rancho' O Seville Park MilleLarkin Park El Bardn Y Q PLU Gul k r . I A sp ns co pd it ARROW RTE_ Park Park 7nyl= ✓t "ti W :� - A'- r% Santa Fe Park 8th Stre t yy >Torrez Park, Z Fern 4> Palomares College Park Rcsa'vO t OIdT Prk a - e w 8TH,ST earns Reserver w x _VEPark 1Prk Park � - PMeadow Upper FeederlU ��- Veteran park aBlaisdell v U' Q �• r _ + Park Moreno. MacArthur 1 - •��' 7 -'�' " a.0 '� Wheeler Park Vista Par Y y dt cc �Golden�0ak '�-■ ' • !i '�- W 4Yi• , �'• � pink - HnO NIeiTg.hRborhoodTed Greene Anthoy Euclid �QZ>NO�j4BTH ST WaZw \etoo'.,ornoW�jaQ LRLNEAYRBWDL IVNDO AVE Jack Park Po... SMu"' Avenue P rk B IkP rkWilderness unrisJoh `CommnityPak_Basin park park Park Parkway Gamin MonNue Park Alma Hoffman Park Ganesha ParkMoutcair _Pa k-Sk (P xi James R. v an F-1 EHNCP Boundary BryantPaik M wd sgPk 11. D.- ,aW r. SLOVERAVE y�vG: ■�� �db DATE: May 16, 2018 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. &llison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Matthew Burris, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL (NESAP). RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to continue working with the community to develop a neighborhood and open space conservation plan for the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal area. BACKGROUND: The North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP) is a planning effort to investigate the feasibility of planning and annexing approximately 4,388 acres of land in the City's Sphere of I nfluence into the City's City Limits. Within the NESAP boundary, 300 acres are within the City and 4,088 acres are within the SOI and this area extends from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the National Forest boundary. Annexation of this land would extend the City's land use authority over the lana, providing local control of the future development of that land through zoning and development standards. The catalyst for this planning process was San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) completing construction of various flood control facilities, resulting in approximately 1,212 of SBCFCD land becoming surplus land. Initial County Development Efforts In 2008, the County of San Bernardino initiated an effort to find a development partner for the development of the surplus 1,212 acres. The City distributed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for those developers who wished to be considered in a potential joint venture with the County of San Bernardino to entitle the approximate 1,200 acres. The County's land is partially located within the City and partially within the unincorporated area of the County, but within the City's Sphere of I nfluence (SDI ). Seven proposals were submitted, one later withdrawn, to develop the project area. The County discontinued the potential joint venture in 2009 due to the economic downturn. As of right now, the County controls the zoning (and thus the uses and density) on approximately 900 acres of their land. Furthermore, the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan anticipates development on the County's land following completion of the flood control facilities. If the County finds a development partner, the land could be developed and the City would have little ability to control the uses, the density, or the impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. The City would also not collect any property tax revenue to pay for the costs of services and maintenance that would come with new residents using our streets and parks. 2015 Review of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan In 2015, the City Council reaffirmed their goal of pre -zoning and annexing an approximately 4,100 -acre portion of the City's SOI. if the land were annexed, it would give the City local control, the ability to achieve quality development, an ability to minimize impacts to the community, and ensure fiscal responsibility_ Later that year, after a competitive bid process, the City contracted with Sargent Town Planning for the 4,388 - acre North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP) through the preparation of a Specific Plan, EIR, and appurtenant support studies and analysis. A decision was made early in the NESAP process to establish a new specific plan as the ENSP does not provide for conservation. does not zone the entire Page 29T NESAP area, permits a significant amount of development where it should not occur, and does not adequately address development where it could occur. Between the summer of 2015 and the Fall of 2017, the consulting team and City worked to develop an initial plan proposal. The early design considerations proposed maintaining the northerly 3,175 acres as a "conservation priority area", and focused potential development in 1,212 acres of "development priority area" in the southerly portion. Early concepts for the development priority area included a mix of residential product types, a central commercial "town center" with neighborhood retail and restaurants, and public uses and amenities arranged in a compact and walkable land use pattern to encourage active living. Furthermore, as the habitat adjacent to the National Forest is less degraded, initial planning concepts were oriented around directing conservation mitigation easements into the northerly 3,175 acres. In essence, the development of the County's land would help ensure the preservation of the land between the City and the National Forest through the purchase of land or conservation easements. Staff worked closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to discuss the NESAP and elicit their comments regarding potential environmental constraints. Because of their comments and concerns, the NESAP area was evaluated for the presence of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) and extensive trappings were conducted. No presence of the SBKR was found on-site. The NESAP area was also evaluated for the presence and quality of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFFSS), which determined that, due to the lack of sand and water flows across the site, the RAFFSS habitat is declining and will continue to degrade. However, the habitat concerns were given strong consideration and heavily influenced the resulting plan proposal. A restoration plan to improve RAFFSS habitat was considered in response to agency concerns. The initial design concept preserved/restored a large central portion of the development priority area, and provided for areas of residential and commercial development around what is essentially the perimeter with a large habitat area in the central core. 2017 Community Meetings In the fall of 2017, the City conducted a series of four Community Meetings held on October 25, November 2, November 9, and November 16, 2017. These Community Meetings were held at public school sites in general proximity to the NESAP area and over a month's time to provide the greatest opportunity for public participation. Approximately 6,500 notices were mailed to all property owners north of the 210 freeway and east of Haven Avenue. All Community Meetings were well attended, with the number of persons in attendance ranging from approximately 60 to 100 persons at each event. At those meetings, staff and the consultant team presented the initial design considerations for the conservation priority area and the development priority area, and some of the reasoning behind those considerations (i.e., USFWS and CDFW comments). Those in attendance raised questions and objections to the following: • Traffic (including existing conditions and potential impacts from future development), • The proposed number and location of residential units, multi -family development (e.g., condos, apartments, attached and SFR), • Trails and equestrian use, • Commercial development, • Loss of view and open space, • Increased property taxes, and • The desire to retain the NESAP area as it currently exists. During this time, the City also engaged the community through a survey and found: ■ 64.4% of respondents like the idea of conserving Upper Sphere Area (-3,000 Acres); ■ 63.7% prioritize conserving foothills; ■ 84.7% report local control is important. Revised NESAP Outreach On December 20, 2017, following the four Community Meetings, the City Council commented on the NESAP. The City Council agreed with the City Manager's statement that comments from the public were heard, that staff would go back and look at the proposal, look at the feedback received and would further evaluate the density, housing types, and amount of commercial. Further development of the NESAP Page 298 concept and E I R were halted while staff evaluated the comments received. In response to the community's concerns, staff initiated additional community outreach efforts to work more closely with the community in defining the future of the NESAP area. Hearing from the community that the initial proposal seemed too intense and that the community desired a greater opportunity for input, the original NESAP concept was shelved. In its place, staff brought a blank slate back to the community, summarizing that three paths are generally: During the spring of 2018, staff met with representatives of the home owner associations adjacent to the NESAP area to explain the project process in greater detail and provide the opportunity to answer any questions. The City conducted another survey to initiate the community workshops and found: ■ 70-9% prefer local control and • 58.9% support some level of development under City zoning. The City then held two Community Workshops on March 22 and April 19, 2018 to work with the community on developing the direction for the NESAP area. These Community Workshops were held at the Central Park Rancho Cucamonga Hall with the intent to provide the greatest opportunity for public participation. Approximately 9,700 notices were mailed to all property owners north of the 210 freeway and east of Archibald Avenue. Additionally, understanding the future of NESAP is a city-wide concern, staff conducted supplemented outreach activities using email and social media. An additional 20,508 engagements occurred over the course of 5 Facebook Live events alone. Both Community Workshops were well attended with approximately 100 persons in attendance at the first meeting and approximately 230 persons at the second. At the March 22, 2018 Community Workshop, participants worked in groups of 6 to 8 participants each to prioritize community objectives for the NESAP area. The first activity asked participants to discuss and identify their top -5 priorities for the planning of the area. The top five priorities identified that evening were: 1) Local Control, 2) Avoid New Property Taxes, 3) Development Compatibility, 4) Preserve Open Space and View Corridors (tied). The second activity asked participants to design a conceptual land use plan for the NESAP area considering their responses from the first activity. Participants were provided a map of the area and various stickers representing different land uses (i.e., housing of various types and densities, neighborhood serving commercial, and parks and open space. As a result, participants prepared 16 maps: • 'I recommended no annexation allowing development under the County, • 1 recommended annexing and keeping the land as open space, and Page 299 Annex with Community-based Options: Do Nothing Annex, Keep as Open Space Plan Community creates plan for Outcome County develops land Community raises $$$, land responsible development before stays open space County finds a development partner High: our options for done to low: little would Potential Community mitigating impacts are change, fere hazards and Low to moderate: most impacts WO uir be offset by mitigation Impacts reduced without land use circulation issues would requirements req control remain High: we will have to tax High: we will have to a for g pay Neutral to slightly g Y positive: the ourselves or otherwise raise Potential Fiscal Impacts services for new neighbors $171 Millionfo pay for and right mix of land uses will be without receiving tax revenue maintain land fiscally neutral to slightly positive High: Dur city has some of the Depends an how much money Quality & Amenities Unknown highest quality development in So is available Cal During the spring of 2018, staff met with representatives of the home owner associations adjacent to the NESAP area to explain the project process in greater detail and provide the opportunity to answer any questions. The City conducted another survey to initiate the community workshops and found: ■ 70-9% prefer local control and • 58.9% support some level of development under City zoning. The City then held two Community Workshops on March 22 and April 19, 2018 to work with the community on developing the direction for the NESAP area. These Community Workshops were held at the Central Park Rancho Cucamonga Hall with the intent to provide the greatest opportunity for public participation. Approximately 9,700 notices were mailed to all property owners north of the 210 freeway and east of Archibald Avenue. Additionally, understanding the future of NESAP is a city-wide concern, staff conducted supplemented outreach activities using email and social media. An additional 20,508 engagements occurred over the course of 5 Facebook Live events alone. Both Community Workshops were well attended with approximately 100 persons in attendance at the first meeting and approximately 230 persons at the second. At the March 22, 2018 Community Workshop, participants worked in groups of 6 to 8 participants each to prioritize community objectives for the NESAP area. The first activity asked participants to discuss and identify their top -5 priorities for the planning of the area. The top five priorities identified that evening were: 1) Local Control, 2) Avoid New Property Taxes, 3) Development Compatibility, 4) Preserve Open Space and View Corridors (tied). The second activity asked participants to design a conceptual land use plan for the NESAP area considering their responses from the first activity. Participants were provided a map of the area and various stickers representing different land uses (i.e., housing of various types and densities, neighborhood serving commercial, and parks and open space. As a result, participants prepared 16 maps: • 'I recommended no annexation allowing development under the County, • 1 recommended annexing and keeping the land as open space, and Page 299 ■ 14 proposed varying ranges and mixes of residential development, neighborhood commercial uses, trails, equestrian facilities, and extending major streets (i.e., Wilson Avenue, Milliken Avenue, and Rochester Avenue). Between April 5 and April 12, 2018, the City conducted a series of 9 community Pop -Up events and asked participants to complete a survey regarding the NESAP that served as a "Virtual Workshop." A total of 262 people completed the survey, which contained questions regarding: • the Annexation Proposal, • Neighborhood Development, • Parks, Open Space, and Trails, • Streets, Traffic and Circulation, • Annexation Funding. General comments indicated support for the local control and facilitating local control through low -intensity development, with large lot single-family homes, parkland, open space trails and habitat conservation, agreement with the need to connect and complete existing streets, and roughly equal support and opposition for conserving the area. At the April 19, 2018, Community Workshop participants seated around tables with 6 to 8 participants each to answer three questions about the type and nature of development that might make sense (focused on Open Space Types, Neighborhood Types, and Neighborhood Amenities) to solicit refinements to the community priorities and preferences for the NESAP area expressed in the previous Community Workshop. During that workshop, the City received wide-ranging feedback on the types of open spaces, housing, and amenities that might be appropriate for the NESAP area. Generally, the input coalesced around the idea of creating high-quality, low intensity neighborhoods that continue the equestrian trail network and are rural in character. During this workshop, the idea of finding a mechanism for purchasing and preserving this land was again raised by some community members. Open Space Survey Since the original proposal was unveiled last fall, staff have received repeated input about the possibility of the community self -taxing themselves to raise money and buy some or all of the NESAP lands for preservation as open space. Avoiding new taxes has been an operating principle from the beginning of this work effort and this principal was confirmed in the fall meetings, the March workshop, and the Virtual Workshop. However, given the repeated request to look at this option from some community members, staff initiated a FlashVote survey to better understand whether this may be an initiative the community would support. Staff estimated the costs for acquisition of the land, installation of basic infrastructure as would be required under the General Plan, such as finishing trail connections and Wilson Avenue, and providing for the long- term maintenance of the plan. Far the lower 1,212 acres, costs were estimated to be $129 million. For the remainder of the un -conserved acreage of the conservation priority area, costs were estimated at an additional $42 million. Between April 30 and May 2, 2018, the City conducted a FlashVote to obtain information regarding community support for purchasing land within the NESAP using funds from a new tax. A total of 601 participants completed the vote, 486 identified themselves as local residents. Approximately 51.2 percent did not support a new tax to purchase the area and only 33.7% supported purchasing the land through a new tax. ANALYSIS: There are three options available to the City: 1. Discontinue the annexation proposal. The NESAP area would stay under County jurisdiction and any development proposals would be subject to County entitlement processing and County development standards. The City would not be able to impose its Development Impact Fees to construct new infrastructure needed to serve the new population nor collect taxes to operated and maintain its roads and parks that would be impacted by the population living in these new neighborhoods. 2. Annex the area and keep as Open Space. To respect property rights and not put the City at undue risk, conserving the area as open space would require the land be purchased specifically for Page 360 open space. There is virtually no grant money available for the purchase of land of this scale and quality. The only feasible method identified thus far would be for the City to purchase the land. However, the City does not have the funds to purchase this land and the money would have to be raised by a local initiative. Under this option, the City would purchase the NESAP area, funded through a band measure (such as a Mello -Roos) to be repaid through a new parcel tax. Staff has evaluated three options, which reference the Lower Sphere Area (the 1,212 acres north of Los Osos High School) and the remaining 3,176 acres generally north of the current City boundary (Upper Sphere Area). These options include the following and would distribute the parcel tax citywide: ■ Buy and conserve the Lower Sphere Area for approximately $129,000,040, paid for by an additional annual tax of $260 per parcel over 20 years ■ Buy and conserve the Upper Sphere Area for approximately $42,000,004, paid for by an additional annual tax of $95 per parcel • Buy and conserve both the Lower and Upper Sphere Areas for approximately $171,000,000, paid for by an additional annual tax of $355 per parcel 3. Annex the NESAP with a Community -Based Plan. The third option would entail the continued preparation of a community-based plan that would allow enough development to provide for the desired amenities, such as trails and parks, and open space conservation. This option would utilize feedback we have from all community meetings and continued community engagement. Of the three broad options available, discontinuation of Annexation is the least supported by the community. Throughout the community outreach process, via both surveys and workshops, the community has repeated that local control is of the upmost importance: • In the October FlashVote, 84.7% respondents supported local control • In the March FlashVote, 70.9% reported local control • 1 n the March 22 Community Workshop, local control was the top community priority and all but one of the working groups recommended plans for local control • In the April Virtual Workshop, the top priority for NESAP was again local control Thus, we believe Option 1, in which the City does not continue the effort would not be preferred by the community. Option 2, annexing the area and keeping it as open space, also appears to be a less viable option. Throughout the process, several community members have stated this option is the preferred option and the community would be willing to self -tax to raise the funds. The City does not have the funds to purchase the land from the County or other private land owners in the NESAP area. Additionally, staff has not been able to identify any outside funding sources that would facilitate the purchase of this land. This leaves the suggested path of passing a new bond measure that would be repaid through a parcel tax, but this option does not appear to have enough community support to actually pass a new bond measure: ■ "Avoid new property taxes" was the second most important priority identified at the first workshop and third most important priority identified through the Virtual Workshop • Only 47.7% of respondents to the Virtual Workshop agreed that the City should investigate exploring the possibility of a new parcel tax to acquire the lower 1,212 acres However, given the repeated requests for this option, staff tested this idea via FlashVote to determine how much support there might be for a new tax to fund acquisition of the land. Only 33.7% of respondent were in favor of passing bond measure and parcel tax to purchase the land. Given this input from the community, staff recommends moving forward with Option 3: Annex the NESAP area with a community-based plan for new neighborhoods and open space conservation. Through the community outreach activities this past spring, staff has heard several objectives repeatedly from the community: • Local control • High quality • Low -intensity • Rural character Page 385 ■ Continue the Equestrian Overlay • New trails that connect to existing trails and open space • Safe and walkable streets • Amenity rich • Preserves open space • Does not result in new taxes or costs for existing residents As such, staff recommends continuing to work with the community to prepare a plan for the NESAP area based on this vision. Under this option, staff envisions working with the community over the course of the next several months to explore and refine the vision for open space and trails in concert with the Equestrian Overlay, high-quality low -intensity neighborhoods, and habitat conservation. This would include the development of a Specific Plan and E I R as a mechanism for facilitating local control through annexation. The time necessary to complete the NESAP will follow a path of further community engagement, Specific Plan and EIR preparation, circulation of the project EIR, Planning Commission consideration and City Council consideration, and finally submitting the annexation application to LAFCO. Staff anticipates scheduling the NESAP for City Council consideration in the first or second quarter of 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the plan preparation is expected to be neutral as the City can recover costs of preparing the plan through a specific plan maintenance fee paid for by the future developer of the area. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: By 2015, review the Citys long-term objectives for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere area and identify development, mitigation, preservation and annexation potential. City Manager's Office and Community Development (prior year Council Goal). ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Community Workshop #1 Results Attachment 2 - Virtual Workshop Results Attachment 3 - Community Workshop #2 Results Attachment 4 - October FlashVote Results Attachment 5 - March FlashVote Results Attachment 6 - Open Space Survey Results Attachment 7 - Spring 2018 Media Coverage Page 31913 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 NESAP Community Workshop #1 Summary Goldy S. Lewis Community Center at Central Park 11200 Base Line Rd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 March 22, 2018 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Workshop #1 involved approximately 100 residents of Rancho Cucamonga. Participants were organized seated around 16 numbered tables (of approximately 6-8 participants per table). Following an opening summary of work completed to date, and workshop objectives by Matt Burris, Susan Harden, of Michael Baker International, led the group through two "Table Activities" to solicit community priorities for the Plan Area. Activity #1: Identify Top Priorities Each table was asked to discuss and identify their top -5 priorities for the planning of this area. A preliminary list of 20 "Possible Community Priorities" was provided to each table, with the invitation to identify new/alternative priorities if they so wished. Each table was given 5 colored "dots" to be used to identify their tap -5 priorities on a large poster to consolidate and summarize the "top priority" trends of the larger group. Activity #2: Design the Plan (mapping exercise) Each table then provided with a 500 -scale poster of the plan area, as well as sheets of stickers of various sizes (cor- related to acreages in scale with the posters) representing a variety of land uses — ranging from housing of various types and densities, to neighborhood -serving commercial, to parks and open spaces. In light of the top priorities identified in Activity #1, each table was asked to design a conceptual land use plan for the plan area. The results of Both activities are summarized in the pages that follow. www.0tyofRC.us/NESAP 1 1 Page 307 ,so 4 ..p 7 . Alos , i ►1 I . www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 2 Page 388 Table Activity #1: Identify Top Priorities - Summary Findings Local Control Fiscal Impacts Avoid new property taxes Minimize development impacts Preserve open space Development compatibility View corridors Expand trail system Connect Wilson Ave New park facilities New equestrian facilities Neighborhood commercial spaces Housing options for empty nesters Housing options for the young Active, safe and healthy neighborhoods Reduce fire hazards Street network options Existing property rights Community focal points Water & energy conservation ADDED: No commercial ADDED; �/z to 1 -acre homes ADDED: 1 -acre lots minimum ADDED; No apartments & no condos 11 8 4 b 7 b 1 2 4 a 2 a 4 2 4 5 a a 1 1 i 1 —.e -S •� POSSIBLE COMMUNITY PRIORITIES 11401 J L ... ..i ieAK& 1-1.1If K N o 1> �� Y Completed "Possible Community Priorities" paster after top priorities were identified by each table group 4 s www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 1 3 Page 389 T7 �^Wa"w Z...�... s, e•,« iJ71 -i T�� ■ Completed "Possible Community Priorities" paster after top priorities were identified by each table group 4 s www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 1 3 Page 389 UGAMONGA Table Activity #2; Design the Plan - Table Transcripts and Poster Summaries .- 9 mYan 5! vh�* %Vd(.WF.fi,_ Area and Context No information provided. Table 1 Transcript "Dur consensus was very low density. A little bit higher density down by Banyan. And also that area, this was a last-minute request, was a small commercial, with a hospital facility, which we don't have much in our area. We had somebody that works in the hospital industry - (unintelligible) - there were also concerns about another fire station up there. Concerns about the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey High School District in that area. Parks was big, and kind of goofed - we think we went too high up. But a larger park facility for all youth activities, and then also, if, on the equestrian side, it could accommodate, you'd need a ten, to potentially twelve to fifteen -acre park in that area. And that's kind of the reader's digest version." Paster Summary • Very low density overall • Could include slightly higher density near Banyan • Potential for health-related use and/or additional fire station • Parks and equestrian — particularly in northern plan area (up to 10- 15 acre) ■ Single-family residential VLE/HRE ( 1 -2 du/ac) north of Wilson Ave ■ Single-family residential L (2-4 du/ac) south of Wilson ■ "San Antonio Regional Hospital East" • Park -space throughout (up to 10-15 acre) www.0tyofRC.us/NESAP 1 4 Page 306 MI � i f _.JBcnYL•rr Sr !.� _ Ir 4 IZ7 L_ . ........... qwd a wrwa Gnd Yrsihwnl ■ wow _ . nr �*r.eoa+e.rw ■ twe[aaue+�ti+ ■ wMyr,�n pian Area and Context Table 3 Transcript "l represent the property owners, the people that live to the north of the city, east of the preserve, to the Fontana city limits. We would like to stay rural and county, just like the people that live to the west of the preserve to Upland, which is County, just like they do." Poster Summary • No Annexation • Maintain existing County Zoning IL_ 1 7 Table 4 Transcript "Six-year resident of Rancho. Dur table was mostly long-term folks that have lived there. One of our concerns in getting to this (gestures to map) was absolutely no sustainability elements in the plan. We came up with the idea that the city go ahead and annex this and leave it as it is, and this - (unintelligible)." Poster Summary • City to Annex the land, and do nothing (maintain as natural open space) www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 1 5 Page 36T Poster Summary ' Table 5 Transcript Our group was mostly longtime residents. My wife and I were the newest to the group. We wanted to make sure, first off, there's enough money to buy this, or be able to cover the cost with the county. But the one thing we thought our city really need- ed, having kids ourselves, was the open space, the park space, and that doesn't come free. So, we knew that we would have to put in some housing to cover those costs. Same thing with Wilson. Wilson isn't free. We really looked at the idea of what is the minimum housing that we could do to cover the costs of what we were laying out. And then there was the idea that, not a full-blown golf course, but there wasn't a nice three -par anywhere around. +*r Those offsets with the money that brought in would iaz also help develop this. i I And then the one thing that's missing in the city is r: .. that — I think on here it said (looks at handout) the E empty nester and senior - and wanted to make a F` nice area for that. Because a lot of people have C lived here for thirty, forty, fifty years, and they want to stay in their neighborhood and we don't have Sa��ys a lot of that, especially, I mean there's nothing to that high up, so we did make one section that really covers that area there." ■ Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • Par -3 golf course • Balance new amenities with enough housing to pay for it ■ Housing options for empty nesters / seniors ■ Single-family residential VLE/HRE, VLE (1-2 du/ac) north of Wilson ■ Single-family residential L, LM (2-8 du/ac) north of Banyan ■ Age -Restricted single-family residential LM (4-8 du/ac) north of Banyan • Age -Restricted Attached north of Banyan • Neighborhood Centers along Banyan and Wilson • Park/open space throughout (--130 acres total) www.0tyofRC.us/NESAP 1 6 Page 308 I TABLE 6 1 Table 6 Transcript "Very quickly, very similar to the last presentation, we really like the existing pre -zoning for this area. South of Banyan - (unintelligible) - which is pretty consistent with the adjacent residential uses. North of Banyan up to Wilson, up to two dwelling units per acre. North of Wilson, one acre minimum. We're also emphasizing that the Equestrian Center that's supposed to happen in Etiwanda should happen somewhere in this area (points generally to the map), and the City's collected money for that to the tune of $679,000 over the last I heard quoted from. That's generally what we're talking about. I obviously want to see trail connectivity. Wilson Avenue was a question that went about half-and- half at our table, but it's pretty essential in terms of traffic circulation." Poster Summary • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • 35 -acre Equestrian Park north of Wilson • 50 -acre Wilderness Area in upper sphere • 25 -acre park north of Levee • One -acre minimum north of Wilson • Single-family residential VLE/HRE, VLE j 1-2 du/acj north of Banyan • Single-family residential L (2-4 du/ac) south of Banyan www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 1 7 Page 309 Table 7 Transcript "We have some newbies and we also have t ?, some long-time residents at our table, and most i ry of them are thinking a lot, like we're all thinking, is �. we don't want an more traffic. So, minimize, The "x1.Y • I \ annexations not a bad idea because we want it under City control, Because left to the County, lord so knows what could happen, So, the annexation is sn •+ �. not a bad idea to do. So, with that being said, our roup has decided to mirror what's over to the west g p ' f is Deer Creek and Haven Estates. So we have one acre lots over here (gestures to lower -east), And we 4' have people that would like to, since we lost Empire ! Lakes, have a golf course. RM - - They'd like to see single family homes that are one story. And lots of parks as you can see. And parks I i _ . - ;.; don't need to be huge. Parks can be small. So, Bunycn Si _ _ ;: ±• �- _�- ' r - ` ' f °' there's a lot of green on our map. That's because we n�• I+n err - want to see a lot of green left. We would also like to see ballparks and trails - and let me look at the i 1 map -mainly, and the biggest thing, no commercial, none, zero." Poster Summary • Minimize traffic • Mirror development in Deer Creek/Hoven Estates • Single-family residential VLE / HIRE (1 du/ac) north of Wilson • Single-family residential VLE (1-2 du/ac) south of Wilson • No commercial • Golf Course south of grovel pit • Park space buffering perimeter of development area www.0tyofRC.us/NESAP 1 8 Page 364 r banyon SI t .:ter.._ Poster Summary Table 8 Transcript "So, the general consensus of our group was that we would like to see the city annex this space, because we like local control. And in going with that theme, we followed many of the other groups, we want to see a lot of low density housing in there, just enough that it would hopefully pay for itself. And we wanted an emphasis on the equestrian lots to connect with the existing equestrian trails. We wanted a lot of open space if we can get away with it, And we included some senior housing and we definitely want to see Wilson connect and Rochester to alleviate a lot of the traffic areas." ■ Connect and complete Wilson Ave and extend Rochester ■ Low-density housing in the plan area — balanced to fund cost of annexation. ■ Emphasis on equestrian lots to connect to the existing trail system • Lots of open space (including large space south of levy) • Senior Housing ■ Large open space area south of levee. ■ Single-family residential VLE/HRE, VLE t 1-2 du/ac) north of Wilson • Single-family residential LM j4-8 du/cc) north of Wilson at Rochester and south of Banyan ■ Single-family residential VL ( 1-2 du/ac) south of Wilson ■ Neighborhood Centers at Wilson & Milliken, and Wilson & Rochester www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 1 9 Page 365 1IGAMON(;A TABLE 9 1 on r___ " too i... ..00nyan3f �.....,..,.— — r Poster Summary Table 9 Transcript Facilitator on behalf of table speaker: "I'm reading open space here at the top. Some crossed out houses so maybe this is open space." Volunteer speaker: "Open space here because this is a levy, so we don't want anything up in there. The stickers were confusing people, but basically, we want two per acre houses up above like everybody else. A little bit higher density, maybe four per acre to sort of match up with all the other areas, so lower density in here, little bit higher here and down below. And yes, some nice parks in there and the tab;e really liked the idea to put some ballparks next to Los Osos." ■ Connect/Complete Wilson Ave and extend Rochester & Milliken • Single-family residential VLE (1-2 du/ac) north of Wilson (west of Rochester) • Single-family residential L (2-4 du/ac) north of Wilson (east of Rochester) • Single-family residential L (2-4 du/ac) south of Wilson • Parks/open space (2-5 acres) throughout Plan with open space above the levy and sports fields next to Los Osos High School www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 110 Page 362 Table 10 Transcript "We were basically on the same page as everyone else's as far as density. Very low density, and j. connectivity to the trails all the way around. One -- - big concern we have is this corridor here (gestures to far east annexation border line) should remain +a as open space, untouched. If there were to be trails, - - - they could be along this side (continues gesturing to far east annexation border line). Preserve this I for a Bight path for wild birds. There's been very little attention paid to the interface between the WMA AY8 wilderness and urban interface. We think this is a k. chance to get it right. So many communities along r �••— the foothills have gotten it wrong. Let's do it right i ! j Rancho. So, we think this should be just like the way 1 # it Is." f~ I C7 r. Irl- _ _. . t.'a. = �r-�___�,•.. I■ wnsen WdrrilA+nr «wmer; n Poster Summary • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • Connectivity to trails on all sides • Wildlife corridor in SCE Easement • Neighborhood Center beside Fire Dept (Banyan Ave) and in southeast corner (along 210) • 35 -acre equestrian park north of Wilson • Single-family residential VLE/HRE, VLE (1-2 du/ac) no of Banyan www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 1 11 Page 363 y AFTable 11 Transcript _ First Speaker: "Our team consisted of newbies and 9 40 long -timers, and when you said make it compatible RvQ�with the areas at the top of Day Creek right now r - they're building large homes and larger lots, We just don't want to see the high-density homes so we --� r -- -- - put the one acre lots and general - (unintelligible) - parks." .. so t� 1 I f Iff Second Speaker: "We do need ballparks for Vineyard Little League in Rancho Cucamonga, because they don't have any place to play ball." Third Speaker: "They were going to put the baseball fields closer to Los Osos just so that we can maybe --,-,7` get some more parking down in that area, and then 1: �w over on this side (gestures toward lower -east) and they we kind of threw in some roads here that we desperately need (motions from south to north on im aphm : west side) so that we can get from the east to the west up at the top of the city, that will kind of relieve is y; some of the other congestion down below, closer around Los Osos." v f Y - Poster Summary • Make compatible with large -lot housing and Day Creek • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • Extends Rochester Ave to Wilson • Add new road access along foothills and extend Milliken Ave to new foothill access road ■ Single-family residential VLE/HRE (1 du/cc) north of Banyan • Parks west of Milliken and east of Rochester, with little league ball Rel ds next to Los Osos High www.0tyofRC.us/NESAP 1 t2 Page 368 rte_ _.._. Ise 17 i �{l i = ,'s F Flow ►, 6i i V 13 �• •'� . 6anyon SI .._.._ _ 7 k8onypn 51 � - _ - .. .tai 4+ ' ..- -'t.•- _ _ . y ! F I n - Li ■ �•a [4odf�tWs —•Rin irc�dwne�rr j Table 12 Transcript "We kind of agreed with everybody else regarding the larger homes, equestrian area up here being able to be accessed up into the mountains - the foothills there. Parks throughout, I did like baseball diamonds down in the area where we had just a lot of parks. It would be nice for the kids. It would be nice for Los Osos. And the key, too, is preserving the view for the folks that do have views at the present time." Poster Summary • Low-density homes • Preserve views of existing residents ■ Baseball diamonds adjacent Los Osos High School • Single-family residential VLE/HRE (i du/ac) north of levee • Single-family residential VL, L (] -4 du/ac) north of Banyan (south of levee) • Single-family residential LM (4-8 du/ac) south of Banyan ■ Numerous 2-5 acre parks throughout the plan area (a concentration of such west of Milliken/south of Wilson) _�= r Table 13 Transcript ��- ,;* "We wanted nothing with the land, so we need to - buy it with a bond. And I know that would increase taxes. It will be worth it so it will remain open. So that's the bottom line we want it to remain the some, sort of like no annexation of here (gestures to another concept map), but we have to buy the land in order to do nothing with it, to leave it alone." Poster Summary 1 I"' Purchase the land from the County via bond or new tax r 0 k3ri� __ Leave it open k www.0tyofRC.us/NESAP 113 Page 369 �yoyyryhSv��nl � idpB=Yan St Table 14 Transcript "Our table consisted of longtime residents of the area and newbies as well. The idea here is to maintain the same feel as the way the area is right now, which is basically larger, more equestrian lots towards the top and generally flowing into slightly higher density. But not real high density at all as we get down closer to Banyan." Poster Summary ■ Identified "Bands" of development typologies: starting at Banyan and moving north: Band 1: (south of Wilson) single-family residential LM (4-8 du/ac); SFR (age -restricted) LM (4-8 du/ac); Small -lot SFR (8-14 du/cc); Band 2: (north of Wilson) single-family residential LM (2-4 du/ac) Band 3: single-family residential VLE (1-2 du/ac) Band 4: (north of gravel pit and north of levee) single-family residential VLE/HRE ( 1 du/ac) • Identified continuous park/open space along east side of deer creek channel, and along north side of Los Osos High School www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 114 Page 376 I l 1i3 Ta � i YI t Y 75 — ' Banyan SS � San ,. OX m j r c 0 HansmGraMMine (JOMLw ' FaCdn,ei — — Plan Are48mndary ants ❑ and Context �- Table 15 Transcript Facilitator on behalf of table speaker: "I'm just going to take the liberty of looking at table 15 and looking at one acre minimum at the top and a little bit higher density but still very low density throughout, looking at a small park as well. So, it looks very similar to the other concepts." Poster Summary • Large -lot (1 -acre housing in general • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • Single-family residential VL (1-2 du/ac) north of Banyan and lining north side of Wilson • Single-family residential (1 du/ac mina north of SFR VL (south of levee) • Identified SFR L (2-4 du/ac) west of Milliken (south of Wilson) ■ Sports Park (trails, soccer, etc.) north of Los Osos High School • Large open space north of Levee www.CityofRC.us/NESAP 115 Page 3-17 k A �— — — — Table lb Transcript "So basically, what we tried to do is have upper to kind of dense, not super dense, housing. And have 4 a little shopping center up here you can't cross t j through. So we have streets that will connect Wilson and Milliken and Rochester and continuing down to �`.f° have the flow of traffic come down. And have a mix _150 - �. 1 of residential in there, enough that we can have the city be able to pay for the annexing, acquiring the i annexing." Poster Summary Connect/Complete Wilson Ave Extend Rochester and Milliken to levee 1 r..—. — — I ;;w Add new street connecting Milliken and Rochester south of levee j 1 ! — I - Adds new connection from Rochester to Day mn soas _ _ 1 s� , . sr, Creek Blvd j A mix of housing (generally low density) to fund I annexation Single-family residential VL 1-2 du ac south of -a �.....s'r _* j Banyan 4k - Single -family residential VL, L (1-4 du/ac) north of Banyan (up to levee) • Small shopping center at Wilson & Rochester ■ HmsertfxareF�t�r{rorrn�r} Large "open land" north of Levee and west of kid- — •Ran Area Boundary deer creek channel 2-5 acre parks in various locations mixed all and Context throughout "' AnnnLtiOn DrppGydi . www.0tyofRC.us/NESAP 116 Page 378 RURTM EASTERIA SPMERE ARREXATIOR, VIRTUAL COMMUNITY WORKSHOP R'. rtw�ww—wwww' -- — J 7 _ �� 1 �r � .•rte,. V11r�5on venue ITT' Ave --- , 71F o- 6al :119k,le INN Rr.;a - '' .y.16 w r■* — , Clic v Virtual Workshop As s -M1211, fralb"EJ!,0190 a. • Between April 5th and April 12th, the r City conducted � Pop -Up events COMMUNITY WORI{5HDP#1 FOLLOW-UP SURVEY On March 22. 2018, the City held o workshop to hear the community's vision For a 4.388 -acre area currently under the lonA-use lurisdicrion of San Bernardino County - rhot the City is studying the feosrbiIiry of throughout the C i ty to gather annexing, with o primary {acus an the lower 7, 212 xre s of that area rhnr are owned 6y rhe So Bernardino Gaunry Flood Canrrai DisrrkP. The County hos determined Ihot most of that 1,212 -acre area - which hos hisrorical Fy been needed far flood community input as a follow u p survey control operations - is now hne from flood hazard and should be sold as excess property. To Poke back control of our foothills, tha City has requested to be given the Fist opportunity to lead o pionni ng process to the March 2 2 d co m m u n i ty with the Couint h to determine hi wstpri nip 1, but for this Oreo, with the into nhan of annexing to the Ci Py. The County has agreed to this In principal, 6urmainlains their intention ro sell Phis land, manning Ihere is a window of opporlunily now, Po make Phis happen. Workshop. • The Virtual Workshop was available on the City's NESAP website. • A total of 264 surveys were submitted. • The results follow bellow. GrophM sMwMg r� a.788wereAb^^l^Fa+.e wM+lower t,?12 act., FIpBGghrd Your feedback is nnporPgni +o us. Ase purpasw of fits survey Is to repod back cIl the April 14 Comrnunly Nokhop and confirm wha+ we leord dui Pi wg he Mach 22 Conrtw nity Wbtkslop, and begin prro.ilkziny tammvr.iiy irMresfs a,d i cn7 Gal nest :rep. We 4r lk yp„ for your p+ariiclpCPiort r --ifr W.aL,rr,p A $ Ffkd .n 3. y 1 + NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL k""ON Page 32® �{icnaIo�c" Part 1n. Community Priorities At the March 22 Community Workshop, Community Members ranked their top priorities. A preliminary list of 20 "Possible Community Priorities" was provided to each table, with the invitation to identify new/alternative priorities if they so wished. Each table was given 5 colored "dots" to be used to identify their top -5 priorities on a large poster to consolidate and summarize the "top priority" trends of the larger group. Community members expanded the list with, "No Commercial, 112 to 1 -acre homes, 1 -acre lots minimum, No apartments and no condos." The rankings and expanded list were evaluated through the Virtual Workshop in the following questions. NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL I Local control Z rkcahmpacts 3 Awed new property taxes 4 Ninimice new development imps" S Presem open space 6 Development compatibility 1 View corridars 8 Expand trail system 9 Connect W{Isoo Avenue 10 eJew park facilities 11 New equestrian facilities 11 Neighborhood cornmercial spaces II Housing options for empty nesters 14 Housing optinnv for the Young t Active, safe and healthy neighborhoods 16 Reduce fire hazards l7 Street network options 18 Existing property rights 19 Corarrnunliy focal points 20 Water& energy conservation Page 325 POSSIBLE COMMUNITY PRIORITIES of [he fuilarring constderauons. which Ones are the mvsf Important to Mr teem' Indicate your chvi[es by placing dots In the CWumtr under your team number RANG] FO L' ° MANIONGA TEA145 1 ? 3 6 5 E 7 9 9 10 I rt 13 !d !S IE 7 18 14 :O K • • • i i i • ■ ■ ■r i i i i I i i i 1 - LI■ i IT _i_ -I- I- ■ RANG] FO L' ° MANIONGA Virtual Workshop Results 001 Mul 160 �. Do you think that these 140 120 priorities provide appropriate 100 guidance for the annexation So 60 process moving forward? 40 20 0 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL ■ Yes Yes: 65.15% (172 responses) No: 23.85°/0 (63 responses) Answered: 235 1 Skipped: 29 Page 3212 ■ No C3icnafo�cn Virtual Workshop Results Z. Are there additional priorities that should be considered? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 ■ Yes Yes: 37.12% (98 responses) No: 51.59% (137 responses) Answered: 234 1 Skipped: 34 Page 323 ■ No jjC,LiCA'1 'A Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: _ If yes, what are they? 3 consider bikes Connect way SUCH views minutes Daycreek BETWEEN little schools control Wilson ALSOincmde need THERE storage like dant Protect already acre active increase has rakes due Walking Wildlife This Water sustainable know lot considered 1 Ave one plan - AN low if t & YOU course street ownerscan farm Adding residents da at ,nIhe 10211 fmnact Table SulOt un rma area. toot Even HIST conservation NEEDS and with 10 Of Not a 411 property were here Raltcnfl would - space - land 5 that commercial trof4r, more existing nave money was Solite city qt rate should add Community. CONGESTION Cf�ifliilUllli'"y io[s going Small parks ate development housing density We built businesses life �g or Current 2 country TRAIL Cfllunty our by additional allow as +� crime OPEN trails type farming S° over minimum building build habitat least live equestrian their will GULF WHO apartments Affordable Hew leave AROUND only labs WANT 2D facilities front MAKE park NORTHERN Rochester tratfic. Cucamonga without Answered: 89 1 Skipped: 175 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL R'"""" Page 324 C{r�+o�cn Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 2. If yes, what are they? Lesser sprawl type developments and consider a denser type of design strategy. 7 Environmental and Animals 51 water Supply Present Species in the area Farm land, sustainable farming, research federal grants for "healthy cities" v US Army Corps of Engineers report which allow development in a flood control zone. Not available for public participation , create a USC44,Title VI, violation. Public participation is a channeled community support, that may have been based on "fake news" type decision making, Protect homeowners' views by leaving open area Sports faculty! Like the Fontana Aquatic Center!!! RAN NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL ION Page 325 ���cn�+o�cn Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 2. If yes, what are they? At least one area of increased density housing a Thea above "Possible Community Priorities" study does not accurately reflect the opinions of those present. We were told to only mark 5 categories. And it was by Table, not by individuals. There was no consensus at our table. I think the process was flawed. 0 Solar farm and water storage Water storage and maybe a photo voltaic solar installation on the conservation green space Environment and future land reserve for our next generations. Protect existing wildlife. Leave it as open land J Not sure if #1 includes traffic control Nature Center with focus on Rancho Cucamonga geography, natural habitats in the region with large open space and walking trails NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL UCAON Page 3S8 �+icnMa+o�cn Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: If yes, what are they? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Traffic impacts to city and nearby residents, school over crowding, promise made to AL residents that NO commercial would be built above 19th, original promises made during incorporation, preservation of sage and mitigation executive golf course; Rancho's previous 2 courses were lost to development Hospital, like table 1 said Low traffic Adding traffic to Banyan Street, between Day Creek Ave and Milliken Ave, needs to be intensely considered and NOT over summer break! It is so busy already and there is NO room to widen it. Adding anything in the area just north of Banyan is going to severely impact ALL residents even more. For example at 7:30am weekdays it takes at minimum 20 minutes to make a turn (right OR left) off of Rocking Horse. Even going out through a different side street takes at least 15 minutes to get onto Day Creek Ave. due to the traffic. Please seriously reconsider ANY and ALL development in this area. Page 327 doRANri r0 CUCAMONCA Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 2. If yes, what are they? ,;. Animal relocation No commercial buildings. Only Senior housing and 1 acre lots to 1/2 acre lots ONLY. No high density. Reclaimed water for irrigation. Water storage and solar panel system. Do not build homes that would obstruct views for the residents along the Deer Creek channel. h General Plan has facilities priority already listed. No Commercial, low housing, Central Park. I Impact on traffic and services provided by County and City. To build the equestrian facilities with the funds set aside for that purpose. Maintaining the low crime rate in the area. Adding commercial areas and apartments would increase the crime rate. Current residents of the area paid a lot of money to live in an area of Rancho with low crime and excellent schools. R& N(-.] EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL UCON Page 328 �+icnMa+o�cn Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: If yes, what are they? Crime rate will increase in the area Someone who didn't attend the initial workshop may have great ideas too. This shouldn't be considered an all encompassing list. 11 Walking and horse trails with lighting powered by solar If the land is left under county control, do you know what they would consider doing with the land? 9 flooding (even though the county says it is not ... planning is long-term) it If you do this and develop that space, I don't want to hear shit about how "we're out of water" ever again. Plenty of people live here already. No one wants the additional traffic. No new housing should be built anywhere without a plan for where the required water will come from. 11 The impact on existing homeowners in the contiguous area. Wildlife Dedicate the habitat conservation area to solar power generation. A NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL k ON Page 329 CU+iCnMa+o�cn Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: If yes, what are they? Dedicate the habitat conservation area to solar power generation. I like small pocket parks that we can walk/ride bikes to. Equestrian trails are underutilized and facilitate crime/drugs. Put them only around equestrian homesites. #16 should allow multiple responses. Disagree with premises of #9, 10, 11..... #21, 23, 25 are poorly worded or need more explanation. These are listed as if one "priority" is independent of the other. You don't have to be a professional Civil & Environmental Engineer like me to know is not possible to effectively plan that way. Some of these priorities are silly. Of course you can't buy the land with no money so fiscal impacts need to be considered before all else. That doesn't mean if you do have the money you can buy the land without regard to existing plans and minimum lot size that adjacent property owners referred to when deciding weather or not to invest in their properties. Etc Etc. Rain water capture and storage Leave it alone aft NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL UCAnMa+o�ON Page 3S� �+iccn Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 2. If yes, what are they? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Parks with youth sports fields 3 Low density — no apartments, commercial or condos Connect Rochester to Wilson 11 Impact of development on local schools THERE NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATE BUT LIMITED COMMERCIAL SPACE TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. THE COMMUNITY SEEMS TO DESIRE A TRAIL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE WESTERN AND EASTERN PORTIONS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPED SECTION OF THE ANNEXATION. SUCH A MODEST TRAIL PLAN MIGHT ASSUAGE THE NEIGHBORS WHO MOST WANT TO RETAIN SOME OF THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT A NINE HOLE GOLF COURSE WOULD BE A COMMUNITY ASSET THAT WOULD PROVIDE USABLE OPEN SPACE. SMALLER FOOTPRINT RESIDENCES AROUND SUCH AN ASSET COULD ALLOW FOR THE DENSITY NEEDED TO MAKE THE PROJECT VIABLE. ]UST THINKING THAT REASONABLE COMPROMISES NEED TO BE FLOATED! New water sources and storage to support more homes Golf Course The needed infrastructure to accommodate additional housing and residents, there needs to be more schools and additional police and fire personnel Connect Rochester to Wilson Less traffic, no more schools -keep as open land, however, if houses are to be built make it at least 1 acre lots, no gas stations. R&NN uO Page 385 AN MANIONGA Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 2. If yes, what are they? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL n Shotgun, trap range, hunting land, trails and hiking paths • Wildlife conservation, parks and recreation for kids/teens Farm land, sustainable for farming traffic planning if additional residences/commercial businesses established. traffic is horrible already in that area No commercial zoning. No apartments/condo living no commercial zoning/ no low income apartments or housing (minimum sq. foot housing) Alleviate congestion @VG and add more restaurants and small businesses Community outreach/environ mental awareness. An engaged and active community is a safe and healthy community. Preserving wildlife habitat & native plant communities Wild life refuge The development should blend into the existing RC community. R&M -A r0 Page 382 C UCAMONGA Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 2. If yes, what are they? Affordable housing More parks than bikes more solar chargers Developers pay their fair share r Conservation ,- Compensate existing property owners for the struggle that is coming their way. Parks. There needs to be a dedicated little league park for the city of Rancho. We pay almost 16K in property taxes a year, and there are no little league fields. It is a shame. Rancho claims to be a great city, but it lacks adequate parks. Extending this Test to include all of the Northern Borders of Rancho Cucamonga 0 stop building in Rancho! Preserving land, not increasing traffic, listening to residents who live in the affected area, absolutely no commercial NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL RANION Page 383 ���cnN+o�cn Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 2. If yes, what are they? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Land conservation, habitat conservation facility such as an arboretum Add some commercial development at walking distance instead of driving I Wildlife corridors, street density and parking Im Reduce number of single family homes County Front Country Trial mapping to be confirmed and integrated with the open and conserved spaces to allow connectivity across the entire front country for access all the way to Glen Helen Regional Park for camping - current trail exists on County maps, not gps'd. Open space for trails Mixed use development r Affordable housing for young families Minimize noise and light pollution to the maximum extent practical Some active senior units No more housing/apartments or commercial aft R&Nr., ro Page 389 iff C UCAMONGA Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 2. If yes, what are they? You should include a gated community, it adds value to the all the neighborhood dust control on county terrain and vehicles driving on preserved land all hours of the night, prevent temple from building 85 foot super community, Don't build on land, habitat conservation, no development at all, no commercial R A plan for the Wildland Urban Interface has not been discussed. I am happy to provide video of the Panorama Fire, one of the historic fires in the area. The old timers will remember. The shape of the annexation actually facilitates this and the low density housing prevalent in the maps is also an advantage in this environment. Small 2, 3 bedroom home. Board needs to restrict builder's to comply or don't build here NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL UCAnMa+o�ON Page 3SS �+iccn Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 3. Based on this list from the March 22 Community Workshop (above), and/or additional priorities you've identified in Question #2, what do you believe are the top -5 priorities that should be considered for the annexation of this area? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 120 Ci] 40 ;oma �ti5 � .• : �� �..• -�; • .• �•.�: � .�,�� e o�e� ���,a ``aa ��� �yQ .� � y,� c, 0 1.4) ��� �s'�t `°Qe �o e��A e" e e e'�c e o o a e Q tie� a c� . Hca�o�` r� Gce P�Q,a 1. Local Control: 47.73% (126 responses) 2. Preserve open Space: 47.35% (125 responses) 3. Avoid New Property Taxes: 40.53% (107 responses) 4. No Apartments & Condos: 34.85% (92 responses) 5. Connect Wilson Ave: 25% (66 responses) Answered: 244 1 Skipped: 20 Page 396 R�N1- C3icnaf"A Virtual Workshop Results COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 3. Based on this list from the March 22 Community Workshop (above), and/or additional priorities you've identified in Question #2, what do you believe are the top -5 priorities that should be considered for the annexation of this area? 6. Expand Trail System: 24.62% (65 responses) 7. No Commercial: 24.24% (64 responses) 8. New Park Facilities: 20.83% (55 responses) 9. Water and Energy Conservation: 18.94% (50 responses) 10. Development Compatibility: 19.32% (51 responses) 11. Active, Safe, healthy neighborhoods: 19.32% (51 responses) 12. Reduce fire hazards: 25.53% (41 responses) 13. Minimize Development Impacts: 40% (40 responses) 14. Fiscal Impacts: 14.02% (37 responses) 15. 1/2 to I -acre homes: 13.64% (36 responses) NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL �Rro GA Page 397 Part 2: "The Vision for the Future'" In the March 22 Community Workshop, community members worked in groups of 6-8 people to define their vision for the future and 15 different maps showing possible visions were created. Twelve maps identified some variation of low -intensity development in the 1,212 acres, compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, supported by a mix of open space types including neighborhood parks, sports fields, and habitat conservation. • Two maps articulated a desire to keep the land in permanent open space by self - taxing and purchasing the land from the County. . One map articulated a desire to stop the annexation process and leave existing County zoning in place. NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL cRM, NG Page 39� n Part 2: "The Vision for the Future'" In the maps that supported some form of development in the lower 1,212 -acre area, there also appeared to be general support for completing the city's planned street network in various forms, such as finishing the Wilson Avenue connection between Milliken Avenue and Day creek Boulevard, and in some cases, extending Milliken Avenue and Rochester Avenue northward into the development area. These sorts of changes would add route choices, potentially improving local and regional circulation patterns and decrease emergency -response times. There was less clarity on what an appropriate "upper range" of residential density would be, or whether any "neighborhood -scaled" neighborhood -serving commercial (as planned by the Etiwanda North Specific Pian) should be included, or how housing types should be distributed in the lower 1,212 -acre area. The following questions sought to better understand how the community valued the various trade-offs inherent with developing new neighborhoods. NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Page 399 .s R,Nt:nn C,ltCA 1f oNcn Virtual Workshop Results 4. Do you generally agree or disagree that the City should consider annexing this land? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 250 M,1 150 M1111 M11 0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 81.44% (Z 15 responses) Disagree: 17.05% (45 responses) Answered: 260 1 Skipped: 4 Page 340 do C,LiCA'1 'A Virtual Workshop Results 5. If you agree with Question #4, do you agree (perhaps with some refinements or exceptions) or disagree that the initial direction that some form of low -intensity development is appropriate for the 1,212 acres owned by the County? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 62.12% (164 responses) Disagree: 17.05% (45 responses) Answered: 209 1 Skipped: 55 Page 345 C ,LiCA11"A Virtual Workshop Results 001 Mul W.9 6. If new housing is needed to 140 120 make annexation feasible, do 100 you agree or disagree that 80 new housing adjacent 60 ao existing neighborhoods 20 should be built at similar ° densities as surrounding neighborhoods? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 71.21% (188 responses) Disagree: 27.27% (72 responses) Answered: 260 1 Skipped: 4 Page 342 R1 "C 1111 C,LiCA11"A Virtual Workshop Results 7. If new housing is needed to make annexation feasible, do you agree or disagree that housing density should generally be lower at the north of the property where it is adjacent to conserved open space? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 250 M,1 150 10111 601 0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 83.71% (221 responses) Disagree: 13.26°/ (35 responses) Answered: 256 1 Skipped: S Page 343 C ,LiCA11"A Virtual Workshop Results 120 100 8. If you were considering S0 moving into a now 60 neighborhood in this area, 40 would your preference be to live in a neighborhood with: 20 IV d no Equestrian Lots ■ Large Lots Medium Lots ■ Smaller Lots Attached Lots Equestrian lots that allow horse ownership and care: 16.29% (43 responses) Large lots with a semi -rural look and feel: 39.77% (105 responses) Medium-sized lots that look and feel like many of the neighborhoods surrounding this area: 25.76% (68 responses) Smaller -lots that still include nice private yards, but require less maintenance: 9.85% (26 responses) Townhomes, attached homes, or similarly scaled homes with small yards or shared recreation spaces that require minimal maintenance: 5.68% (15 responses) Answered: 257 1 Skipped: 7 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Page 344 ja C r,I��'A Virtual Workshop Results 160 AC 9. If it meant you and your 120 children could remain in your 100 neighborhood for a long time, 80 do you agree or disagree that 60 neighborhoods with a variety of 40 housing types for families at all 20 life stages (i.e., young families, empty nesters, etc.) would be appropriate in this area? ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 59.55% (158 responses) Disagree: 38.25°/ (10 1 responses) Answered: 259 1 Skipped: 5 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Page 345 Ccnao�cn Virtual Workshop Results 10. If it meant a greater financial burden on the City (tax payers), do you agree or disagree that development in this area should be limited to very -low density, large -lot housing (half- to 1 -acre lots)? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 145 140 135 130 125 120 115 110 105 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 53.41% (141 responses) Disagree: 44.70% (118 responses) Answered: 259 1 Skipped: 5 Page 306 C ,LiCA11"A Virtual Workshop Results 160 140 120 11. If it resulted in a more fiscally 100 responsible development, do 80 you agree or disagree that the 60 City should look at a wider 40 range of housing types as well 20 as neighborhood -commercial rather than exclusively large lot development? ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 53.79% (142 responses) Disagree: 43.55°/ (115 responses) Answered: 257 1 Skipped: 7 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Page 307 Virtual Workshop Results 12. If it meant that more open space could be preserved, do you agree or disagree that it could make sense to reduce some lot sizes? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 160 140 120 100 so 60 40 20 0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 63.26% (167 responses) Disagree: 34.09% (90 responses) Answered: 257 1 Skipped: 7 Page 308 Virtual Workshop Results 13. If it meant that people did not have to drive as far and traffic could be reduced, do you agree or disagree that some limited neighborhood - serving commercial (such as a Bristol Farms, whole Foods, cafe, or dry cleaner) would be acceptable uses? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL W. : 11 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 61.74% (163 responses) Disagree: 36.74% (97 responses) Answered: 260 1 Skipped: 4 Page 309 R1 "C 1111 C,LiCA11"A Virtual Workshop Results 001 Mul W.1 14, If it would help reduce traffic 140 120 impacts on Banyan, do you 100 agree or disagree that 80 50 development should be 40 concentrated along Wilson 20 0 Avenue more than along Banyan? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 57.05% (177 responses) Disagree: 29.17% (77 responses) Answered: 254 1 Skipped: 10 Page 380 C ,LiCA11"A Virtual Workshop Results 15. If new development occurs in the lower 1,212 -acres, do you agree or disagree that new neighborhoods should include public open spaces and a pedestrian network of safe streets and new trails for people to walk? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 250 200 150 100 M11 a ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 83.71% (221 responses) Disagree: 14.39% (38 responses) Answered: 259 1 Skipped: 5 Page 365 R,N1' C,LiCA11"A Virtual Workshop Results 16. If new public open spaces are provided in this area, which type should be prioritized: (Choose one) Habitat Conservation: 42.42% (112 responses) 1)0 loo 80 60 40 20 0 Conservation ■ Neighborhood Parks Golf Course ■ Sports Fields Equestrian Center Neighborhood -serving parks, greens and playgrounds: 35.98% (95 responses) A golf course: 8.33% (22 responses) Regionally -serving sports fields: 6.82% (18 responses) An equestrian center with arenas and boarding facilities: 4.92% (13 responses) Answered: 260 1 Skipped: 4 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Page 3812 iff &"'1 'A Virtual Workshop Results 17. If the completion of Wilson Avenue between Milliken Avenue and Day creek Boulevard would improve traffic congestion at some nearby intersections and decrease emergency -response times, do you support the completion of Wilson Ave? 250 W,1 150 well] 481 0 ■ Yes Yes: 81.82% (216 responses) No: 15.91% (42 responses) Answered: 258 1 Skipped: 6 ■ No NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Page 383 Le C�icnR'"°"" a�"A Virtual Workshop Results 18. If new streets are built in this area, do you agree or disagree that new streets should be designed and built in a manner to minimize speeding and unsafe driving? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 250 M,1 150 M1111 0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 78.41% (207 responses) Disagree: 18.94°/ (50 responses) Answered: 257 1 skipped: 7 Page 389 LeR,N1' C,LiCA11"A Virtual Workshop Results 19. If new streets are built in this area, do you agree or disagree that new streets should be designed and built in a manner to balance the needs and safety of all modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, local transit, equestrian)? 250 M,1 150 M1111 0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 81.82% (216 responses) Disagree: 15.91°/ (42 responses) Answered: 258 1 Skipped: 6 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Page 369 Ccnao�cn Virtual Workshop Results 20. If the extension of Rochester Avenue north connecting to Wilson would improve public safety and relieve traffic congestion at some nearby intersections, do you agree or disagree that Rochester Avenue should be extended? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 250 M,1 150 M1111 0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 79.17% (209 responses) Disagree: 18.55°/ (49 responses) Answered: 258 1 Skipped: 6 Page 356 dffR,N1'110 C,LiCA11OVCA Virtual Workshop Results 21. Do you agree or disagree that it is acceptable for new neighborhoods to add new long-term net costs to the City's finances? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 za 0 ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 41.57% (11 O responses) Disagree: 53.79% (142 responses) Answered: 252 1 Skipped: 12 Page 357 in&N1-,11.,0 'A Virtual Workshop Results 160 140 120 22. If it meant the community 100 could receive additional amenities such as more parks 80 and open space, trails, sports 60 fields, etc., do you agree or 40 disagree that it would be 2C acceptable to allow for a marginal increase in housing densities in this area? ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 54.17% (143 responses) Disagree: 43.55°/ (115 responses) Answered: 258 1 Skipped: 6 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Page 358 Virtual Workshop Results 160 140 120 23. The initial estimate for the 100 purchase and long-term g� maintenance of the 1,212 acres as conservation open space is �° approximately $75 million. Should 40 the City explore the possibility of a "° new parcel tax to acquire the a 1,212 acre property for habitat conservation? ■ Agree ■ Disagree Agree: 47.73% (126 responses) Disagree: 500lo (132 responses) Answered: 258 1 Skipped: 6 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Page 359 Le C�icnR'"°"" a�"A Virtual Workshop Results 24. If new recreational facilities are built, how should the maintenance and operation of the facilities be funded? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 180 160 140 220 100 80 60 40 20 0 ■ Development Fees ■ City's General Fund ■ other From development fees collected from the new residences: 58.71% (155 responses) From the City's General Fund: 25.38% (67 responses) Other: 12.88% (34 responses) Answered: 256 1 Skipped: 8 Page 360 &N1-,11.,0 'A Virtual Workshop Results 140 120 25. Development of this area will 100 require habitat mitigation at a 80 significant cost per impacted 60 acreage. Very low-density housing (1 acre and 1/2 acre lots) impacts 40 more habitat and costs more per Za house to mitigate than smaller lots. Would you support raising your a property taxes to pay for the acquisition of habitat to help make low density housing feasible? ■ Yes Yes: 30.30% (80 responses) No: 57.05% (177 responses) Answered: 257 1 Skipped: 7 M No NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSALCRA; Virtual Workshop Results 26.A Did you attend March 22 Community Workshop? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 250 200 150 100 60 0 E Yes Yes: 12.50% (33 responses) No: 84.85% (224 responses) Answered: 257 1 Skipped: 7 Page 362 ■ No R�svr.�1� �;1iCA 1f OyCA Virtual Workshop Results 160 140 26.8 Were you previously aware 120 of this planning process? 100 so 60 40 20 0 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL ■ Yes Yes: 62.88% (166 responses) No: 34.85% (92 responses) Answered: 258 1 Skipped: 6 Page 363 ■ No R,N1' C,LiCA11"A Virtual Workshop Results 26.B If not, how could we improve our community engagement efforts? online Reach F8 residents, information advertising Reach mountains hour around send cfasse5 trails alone standard social be�Qtl, youth withal weeks Have commercials meetings. local letter Written tours ���� � g did Interaction slirdents Vying Direct lirst Get dews media more Ihls 0� least meetings Ry urvuosals rancho property connected open Promote ���� f info MM SM Ayers a�� very sent that networking a F Y Portion a n Illi fM sponsored email D f 8 lust cards. Interactive etc. da newspaper �i�� not a Postings leave RC guided Put hear college tolyl pin M0111" homes? campus Host resident school storelronts atrywhere! nespaper aren't Rbulausly for How small notice. tv notice discuss each etiwand hard. fetters step Using entire uni<l maybe at wehske newsletter. Advertisement plaEfonns up Facehvok everything annex desseminalian achieve HextDoor.com residence considering hiillhoards ads moves Dggq,q building must staff lAft FO NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL xAN�{�cnaIo�ON Page ��� cn Virtual Workshop Results 26.0 Do you currently live in Rancho Cucamonga? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 250 M,1 150 M1111 011 I M Yes Yes: 83.33% (220 responses) No: 15.15% (40 responses) Answered: 260 1 Skipped: 4 Page 368 ■ N❑ R NIll.O C,LiCA'1 'A Virtual Workshop Results 26.D Do you currently work In Rancho Cucamonga? NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 ■ Yes Yes: 40.15% (106 responses) No: 57.20% (151 responses) Answered: 257 1 Skipped: 7 Page 3136 ■ No R NIll.O C,LiCA'1 'A Virtual Workshop Results 70 60 50 26.E What is your age? 40 30 20 10 0 21 and under: 4.92% (13 responses) 22 - 34: 22.73% (60 responses) 35 - 44: 20.08% (53 responses) 45 - 54: 19.70% (52 responses) NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL ■ 21 & Under ■ 22-34 35-44 ■ 45-54 0 55-64 ■ 65+ ■ Declined 55 - 64: 14.02% (37 responses) 65 and over: 12.50% (33 responses) Decline to Answer: 4.55% (12 responses) Answered: 257 1 Skipped: 7 Page 387 R,svcil� C,LiCA110�1CA MMMSARGENT ��■ TOWN PLANNING 25 April 2018 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 - SUMMARY MEMO CENTRAL PARK COMMUNITY CENTER 19 APRIL, 2018 1 6-9PM i I N.; P Oil Over 200 members of the public attended the Community Workshop, pictured here during one of three Table Discussions. I. WorkshOD Surrlrrlar Workshop #2 was held at Central Park with a turnout of approximately 230 members of the Public, with participants organized/seated around tables (of approximately 8 participants per table). Following an opening summary — by deputy City Manager Matt Burris — of the annexation proposal, a recap of outreach efforts completed to date (with a general summary of results) and the goals for Workshop #2. Siri Champion, of Michael Baker International, led the group through three "Table Discussions" — 20-30 minute sessions to answer three questions (focused on Open Space Types, Neighborhood Types, and Neighborhood Amenities) designed to solicit refinements to the community priorities and preferences for the Plan Area expressed in previous outreach / engagement efforts. Summaries of those questions and community feedback are provided on the pages to follow, and transcribed responses are provided in Appendix A. Great Western Building i 706 South Will Street, Suite 12001 Los Angeles, CA, 90014 i 213.599.7680 I www.SargentTownPlanning.com Page 408 Team Discussion ^l.: i:'' �„'- 1'Ic�.r -n i'•1f�:^:.115:1•. ��-.r�i,f ; r _ '; _ ::i,n;= ITl' '. i,•. 2. What tYpes of housing or other usesYou 'jrwil support if they helped offset the cost of alm2n tl� willing to 3. �;I, i'•t I,:ni?You want? 1�,,; ili:"Y': ]:�L i;l ��`_ .i ES;l•F�..�L ."•a•-�'� - .-.ur .,S�i:, >•�-,csrr.r Three questions were provided to the group to inform each of the Table Discussion exercises. Il. Table Discussion Summaries: Question #1: "What types of Open Spaces, housing and/or other amenities might help make such new neighborhoods valuable to you and your family?" Common responses from the groups included multi -use trails (for horses, bikes, and pedestrians), neighborhood -serving parks (with an expressed disinterest in regionally -serving sports parks), and habitat conservation. While not explicitly asked in Question #1, a few groups expressed a preference for larger scale equestrian estates, and a number of groups expressed a preference for no housing altogether. An -");ties s,ecwaiks Conservation Re pnaiLand C v Si I I Urd 8V41OPn� N�,Mp,�s '�.:,i„ ncu❑G''c Equestrian ^� H'rse Rnss,bl, `I [. t u re/4 w � to I /2 Acrep,P�P Linear Park Very World Trailhead autyPreserve Want Hames o�Er Generatioiisa StsN ei gh b o rho �LaStpaceFan in•nrp-EC J.O Estates a1r1C�i Densi F,. ne Gold a r M.,ii. T.,. Vc etahle IT es �"�" A+ruvrak Areas YP Sp"r,s ��P l Pathsy '-�r ,. PubiiC/4I s�s s'i,er Fund� ve i`M i.! Multi LO Lase Bikes �� Hi h Facilities n`Housing ° Habitat"° a g MuchstreetP, a rilc District Littie(_omrrwnity Course Word Cloud highlighting common responses to Discussion Question #I Page Z of 5 Page 409 r r .W Workshop participants discussing the first of three questions related to preferences for Open Space in the Plan Area. Question #2: "What types of housing or other uses would you be willing to support if they helped offset the cost of the amenities you want?" Most groups expressed a preference (if housing is necessary) for low density housing; large lot zoned homes (1/2 -acre minimum, estates, equestrian estates, and large -lot suburban homes) that are able to provide enough space for horses and stables. Similarly, to the previous question's responses, there was an expressed interest in the development of trails and for the preservation of nature. S,reer Lower Those Small Bond Preserve Su burbanSizeN3tlL: ,,. ��� cnrrio Larger Formed J i�iscus5ing Area• Commercial 01f F III;Priced Amenities Kind , .,, „ Lighting Uestrian SrnL��Ier Park�^ LowDensity Banyan ala ever . Want Pa yViewHousea �nr�e Multi Generational �rroPhrtY pogs omesModerately Sports Prefers,[e°r;t�', Play Rl.l _ I .i :.ffba b-1-1 Rancho Minimum �'lal l High% r�is riot Keep Commun�tY W. � S4 Cl s Dc.�,� i Hone PurchascHabitat Reside"Hole G e n e re al Hillside Lar e Lvts�tS Group S.an-e.,6alrc'c'm Ad❑ tiara �Jei hbnr�,nnd Par Senior Above P ewee g tat Connect Hor's'e to' �C { 'it _� > Detached N atu re F Parcels I , 2 I EndAc re Tax F [•oi dkPropose Course Al IOW Living Word Cloud highlighting common responses to Discussion Question #2 Page 3 of 5 Page 424 Question #3: "'What types of elements or activities might detract from your appreciation of a new neighborhood or the lifestyle you currently enjoy?" Many groups emphasized a strong preference for no commercial of any type (with the preference of keeping all commercial south of the 210 freeway), with the exception of a few respondents who expressed some interest in the possibility of a small neighborhood cafe, a branch library, or nature/interpretive center. Most responses were in opposition of "high density" development and the assumed congestion that would come with it. Similar to Question #1, there was an expressed interest in the addition of open spaces in various forms, including parks, multi -use trails, and preserves. 5t,reetTraffIC ` ; Water Crowd ����r� •Nvv Table �""SAme�itins a""'Eler7 &hts ExCepi �" More Fire rveW See SiaPs e n s i L. "` Area j $ Gases Market Ae RCt3il 'Pa rl< Kee Listed .. Crime_ "�"h p'u Mall/,Requn� Use lricreaseperDetra.CtFxistin� :.• Cafe PrlCafeLibrary it F Ex s . &ts" squareu lc.: m BooP acesbdestyle Propertyl' �ayCal-c i..._ "°Additional 5>=f'I R me reig ���bor ardennlatur�tY Nhhood,- Gas �y�- ��. 5cac�ofsgpartmeEs Multr Mary . : c -le -grin Communit idCesTray I g° Y Equestrian Crc_e:�. Lir,_- Condos 05r )o !ourserts—li �Upen hC.,r ,, DoVelopeOAmQunrn Non Facilities. "'l Word Cloud highlighting common responses to Discussion Question #3 lrlr[g9�sdeN^rW�rhrwgaw+vc::: �v w�lwli Wftm*wP d1 WImble Iv JW z i hf�fC;f fRCR�rF?r1{�.11.�^7+l me Each Table Group provided their answers to the three questions on a large post -it note that was stuck to three large format posters for the larger group to view each response at the end of the Workshop. Responses are transcribed in Appendix A. Page 4 of S Page 325 APP ENDIXA-TABLE DISCUSSION SUMMARIES The following is a transcribed summary of the post -it notes provided by each Table Group in response to the three Table Discussion questions. Page 5 of 5 Page 426 aFlashVote 2 FlashVote helps you make a difference in your community Results: Proposed Annexation and Open Space 2 Survey Info - This survey was sent on behalf of City of Rancho Cucamonga to the FlashVote community for Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 604 Participants 559 of 1258 initially invited 144%) Margin of error: ± 4% Q1 Applied Filter: Locals only Participants for filter_ 200 Started. Oct 12, 2017 12:08pm Ended Oct 14, 2017 12:00pm Tarno r•,3rtirrpanl;: All Rancho Cucamonga The City of Rancho Cucamonga is working on a possible "North Eastern Sphere Annexation" of 4,115 acres (6.4 square miles) of land that is along the foothills north of Rancho Cucamonga city limits. This land is currently not within city limits/boundaries and is subject to development under San Bernardino County standards. Prior to reading this question which best describes your knowledge of this topic? (521 responses by locais) Options Locals (521) I didn't know about the land being unincorporated or about the possible annexation 41.8% (218) I knew about the land being unincorporated. but not about the possible annexation 15.7% [82) I knew about the land being unincorporated and about the possible annexation 39.7% (207) Not Sure 23% (14) Q2 This annexation plan (see map fink below) would allow for preservation of 2,916 acres for wildlife and habitat (conservation priority area in orange) and in return, the development of approximately 1,200 acres of this land (development priority area in green), in proximity to existing development. Which best describes your reaction to a possible designation of 2,916 acres of this land as a "conservation priority area", which means an emphasis on habitat conservation instead of development? (509 responses by locals) Page 423 Options Locals (509) I like it 64.4% (328) I'm neutral 11.4% (58) I don't like it 9.6% (49) I don't care 0.8% (4) I'd like more information 13.8'x, (70) Q3 Which of these annexation features Is most important to you? (509 responses by locals) Options Locals (509) Future development in that area is controlled by city standards 13.6% (69) Development in that area contributes taxes for city services 8.8% i45) Infrastructure can be improved in that area (roadways, storm drains, etc.) 2.834 (14) The foothills area is conserved against development 63.7% (324) Not Sure 6.9%v (35) Other: 4.3% (22) Unfiltered responses I don't want "City Standards" to be implemented in this area whatsoever. develop under city not county standards and generate taxes that pay for services Golf Course would be nice Multi use park(soccer,baseball, rover eating areas) I like the green annex area for development, but why not let SB County keep conserved area? Page 428 Leave it the way it is preserve equestrian lifestyle and trail system. The additional over development of the area. Schools becoming even more crowded. Not enough police coverage for city to expand. Impacts to curreht residents Maintain the area but make it accessbile for hiking and other outdoor activities I'm for conservation habitat, but VERY CONCERNED about retail/housing development on the 1,200 acre If development occurs, it Is sparse and blends with the natural condition. We need more water storage and treatment facilities. It Would be cool if there was a big solar PV Future development is to city standards AND the foothills is conserved against future development!! keep the lower area green and allow the higher areas to be developed with very low density. Flow can you build on a earthquake fault? Nothing should be built on that land at all Water storage and rain/runoff collection. Solar power generation. We don't need to build something on every piece of open land. I think the whole foothill area should be conserved against development, not just the 2,000 acres. All of the above are important. Major concern re. fire & evacuation impacts In new developed area. Q4 How important is it to you that the City of Rancho Cucamonga have local control (zoning, City Development processes and approvals, tax contributions, etc.) over this currently unincorporated land? (505 responses by !ocais) Options Locals (505) Not At Ail Important (1) $.1% (41) Slightly Important (2) 7.3% (37) Moderately Important (3) 20.6% (104) Very Important (4) 26.5% (144) Q5 Extremely Important (5) 26.3% (143) Not Sure 7.3% (37) Page 429 Any other comments or suggestions about possible annexation or development of nearby land? (200 responses by locals) live homeI � � � tax make stop high curamvnga fire rancho traffic conserve need nature wildlifehouse see ■ want water� � � � I i ke C I Park enough preserve control already a rea annex resident space open build people leave school use much Unfiltered responses 5o long as it's not completely controlled by the Lewis family no more new housing. we are overpopulated as it is right now. we need more protection against crime and coyotes Definitely more information is needed to be able to form any kind of opinion about this Issue Please make sure natural beauty and rural atmosphere is maintained. Don't adhere to developers who would ruin the environment. We don't need to develop every square foot that we see! Leave the land wild we don't need any more congestion and pollution. More information is needed.. Conservation and development in the area are both important. Completely wiping out the habltat would be a shame to the local community and local wildlife. Before you develop ANYTHING you need to fund the development at CENTRAL PARK!!!! We have too much traffic and congestion at present. Preserving the land is very important for animals, scenery and the overall feel of our city - Our City is very congested. please do not allow any more homes in our foothills What will the conservation area expenses be and how will they be paid for? Will this annexation make the city limits the same as the fire district boundaries? Rancho is big enough Who really benefits from this annexation? Who is waiting in the wings to get the project monies in the future. I hardily approve of a city that is interested in conserving and protecting wildlife habitats_ Too many have dissappeared . Well done RC The city is overwhelming our streets with traffic coming from all this high-density development. Everything north of Banyan needs to continue to be 112 acre lots. Please dont destroy our miurptains with more development. Get it and preserve it all for at least 100 yrs. Remember we have a water shortage and have increased traffic when developments are approved. How is these developments going to Impact the city's waters Expedite the process Stop taking up all of the vacant land and placing people and structures on it. We don't have enough water for more people. Let the wild life have their homes. no more development... way too many houses and traffic and people here now.... stop already... Leave the land alone. We Don't need the traffic. Rancho doesn't want to turn into Corona. Page 436 no more development, traffic is a nightmare already. Why would you want more development? No more development Don't do it! I'm glad there's a wildlife zone, and future development can't happen Leave it as is. I feel it's fust another excuse to create a bond that will be passed to the taxpayers. We ultimately pay the price for land development. Leave the land alone. No more development is needed. Tao many people already. We need to stop developing near the foothills. The coyote problem has worsened over the last tew years driving them further out. Rancho is too crowded Stop developing so many apartment buildings. Our city is becoming so very over crowded! No more development up here. We need the rural to laser. Put up a soundwall on the south bound side of 1-15 to less the freeway noise and increase property values Water supply, fire suppression, law enforcement, ana [rafflc are all key concerns. No, i feel like we don not need anymore residential buildings in the city of Rancho Cucamonga_ What are the environmental impacts? Not sure about the project, need more info 1 would rather have that entire area used for wildlife conservation. I would like to see even more open land and less developed acres. Just make sure It works as planned. Make damn sure the land is preserved better than the etiwanda preserve, and dont develop any more housing. Dont put houses together they will catch fire look at Anaheim Hills Canyon Fire 2 Please protect nature. Thanks 1 would like to see the ENTIRE AREA preserved, rather than a portion of it being developed!! Allow pedestrian and bicycle access to conservation area. Also have restaurants in developed area. NO We have so little open space left I wish we could just not develop anymore. The traffic is terrible Completely against annexation if any of the area will be used for residential or commercial development. Annexation = We control what goes there, and we get the taxes. As long as proper safety standards are met and as long as all the natural habitats are not threatened, i am good. A mix of responsible development and conservation areas that are controlled by the city government vs the county gives us more control over our local area. I need to know who owns the land and what might be done on the "to be developed" part. As long as there is no additional burden put upon existing residents. NA Leave the land vacant. Stop the build on every vacant parcel. Enough is enough. Against any more development as we lose our quaint and nice neighborhood. I would like the land not to be developed because of the existing wildlife and possible fire hazards. There is too much development going on in the city. STOP DEVELOPING THE LAST OF OUR GREEN SPACE!! THE CITY HAS ALREADY GIVEN UP SO MUCH TO BIG DEVELOPERS (ALL FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT). LEAVE IT ALONE!!! I am not really sure about why the city, after myself living here for 15 years, would all of a sudden want to develop or look at this areal Page 43T Why now?? Stop developing!!I! Land In the foothills is too susceptible to brush fires. When homes are put In the foothills the cost to all residents is high due to the fire and flood danger. Roads tru esp wilson 1 would like to have more Information about what type of development It would be and how the habitat would be maintained, Wish you would listen to us the voters that we are tired with all the over development. I would like to see the land kept in its natural state with a US Forest Service station in the vicinity. Local woodland firefighters would be helpful, 1 would like to see more of it conserved with better parking for those who wish to hike. Charge those who do not live in Rancho Cucamonga. Please preserve open space! Park should be built on the north side away from the HS. Support conservation area and the development area as long as development area is not HOA homes and that a public park is included in the development area. Preservation means preservation Before proceeding on this new venture of annexation.... funds, resources, and priorities should be given to the completion of Central Park. I am very much afraid that once Rancho has control over this area that it will be far too easy to change the protected status of the foothills area. Don't build more houses! We have enough empty ones now! Save that land for just land, and stop building apartments!! Don't feel we need any more houses roads or parks in this area leave it as open land and beautiful landscape None I visit the Etiwanda Reserve quite often and hope this would not cause it to be inaccessible for hikes to the falls. Can park of conservation area be turned into a public park with hiking trails? Build a municipal public golf course to replace the open space loss of Empire Lakes Golf Course. Dont expect the county to do the right thing. The city needs ti incorperate as much surrounding land as possible. As long as standard of living doesn't decrease, i.e., NO subsidized housing. I like the conservation aspect, however not crazy about more development In Rancho. just curious what they would do with it. The area above Oses. 1 would like to see minimal development and more conservation of open land. We could use the orange area to rehome the wild animals In Central Park field area. Leave alone and if city is going to annex portions of land, I vote for local control yet keep for habitat and environmental reasons. The area needs to stay how it is now. We have paid big money to live in Deer Creek and we don't want more intrusion on the area. In this area, a grocery store is needed, parks are needed, Wilson Ave. needs to be expanded from East Ave. to Etiwanda ave. Quit developing every inch of empty land! I have concern about what that would do to additional u n I nco rp a rated areas. Do not want to see further development up the foothills. Watch what is happening up north with the fires... consider the long fire history of this area—it is very predictable what will occur and with more development up there the more exposed people and structures are to that inevitability. Do not scrimp on fire defenses and public safety infrastructure if any development is to occur..., constant vigilance, maintenance of defensible space, public education etc will be necessary. ... .the open preserve would be a tremendous cam munity asset.....aIso don't forget the history in that area including the remains of the CCC road camp that is there and the history that accompanies It. We must consider the global demands of developing that area and the surrounding area including roads, emergency services and access, pollution, schools, etc. Devote more to open spaces Page 83,8 Only wish that eye appeal coincides with the existing beauty of the City. NIA Limited development and no apartment complexes. I need more Information about both annexation and development. My concern Is -that additional development will strain existing infrastructure which is already beyond it's limits. Yay for development. i love my City! Highly support the conservation of undeveloped foothill areas!!! So happy that this is even being suggested as an option. I just want to keep as much of the undeveloped spaces as possible. I think we have more than enough development here. I do not know Frst develop the land within city Iimits that remains undeveloped. STOP BUILDING. We need natural land around us. Developed area should have low density housing and just a small local use shopping area. Am concerned about the proposed development of more housing in an over crowded city now! What is the purpose of this proposed annexation? Building more houses would be a strain on her fire -fighting services far when (not if) a wild -land fire eventually comes. Leave the land alone! We already have way too many people and too many uninhabited dwellings in Rancho Cucamonga! Do NOT develop the land please We have too many houses! Development needs to stop. Better to have city standards for development than county standards. Would rather not see ANY more development in that area but would rather it ALL be protected. I just hope that if it does get develop they use a different architect then developed Los Qsos High School which is very ugly building County of San Bernardino does not effectively manager all of the land it currently awns, I would !Ike it better of City of RC had control over it. If the annexation means more property taxes I am against It. Make sure it is for the good of the people and wild lire as well. Make sure it does not create danger to both human life or wild life. We need to preserve Our natural land and the animals we share this space with! What will be the cost to the city (i.e. the taxpayer) bel If land is developed, emphasis should be centered on improving traffic that will increase in that area. Make sure animals have sanctuary Concerns that this area is not being maintained and is a Fre Hazard. Tao much development already in that area. No control over future fire prone area as it is. City resources already overtaxed no DO NOT DEVELOP ANY MORE AREAS. We are already congested, we do not need or want any more developed areas. Reserving for natureis fine, we need more green areas, not more homes, not more people, not more cars. Foo much development now. Quality of life in this City has declined ten fold for my family since moving here due to over building and shifting population along with impact oftraffic on local streets. Concerned about additional traffic, over crowding at schools, increase in crime, etc. and how annexationldevelopment will imoactof our community. Major concern on impact to Police and Fre services and how response times will be affected. How will additional development will impact the council districts in regard to area size & population equity? Water being a unknown quantity, we have been ask to conserve. It doesn't make sense to keep building adding more people using water. This is an ongoing concern for the future. This is a great opportunity to build additional water storage and reclamation facilities. Make sure there are wide streets to allow for Page 439 emergency vehicles in case of wild fires. Keep the residential density as low as possible Rancho Cucamonga has become a MONEY HUNGRY CITY, truly sad. Current homeowner's are not allowed to do with their property without the city having a say as to RV parking, Trailer parking on our driveways. Fontana is looking more promising and offers more to their residents than Rancho Cucamonga does. I would like to see less rental development as it seems to overcrowd the area and lead to conflict of resources. Responsible ownership Within this area would be appreciated Prefer the land stay undeveloped. We already have a huge population and often times, we do not have the means to support it. I'm not sure more development would be in the city's best interest. Let's leave nature as -is! 1 would like to see a larger portion of the land declared a conservation area, with the area being proposed for development reduced by half. Additionally, i think it's extremely important any development be done with City standardslcontrol. Development of this land for hameslbusinesses will tax this cities police resources which are currently not adequate. Schools are already overcrowded and don't really see how this can improve the city's overall general welibeing. While I do want our city to gain control in order to prevent problems, I have a concern. Our city is being developed to the point that traffic and services are being overly impacted. I wish we would slow our development down. We pay the price of overcrowded roads and schools when development is allowed at such a high rate. I do like the idea of a conservation/wildlife area. Maybe the coyotes could all move there. NO FRICKING WAY.....,RANCHO IS ALREADY MAKING VERY POOR DECISIONS ON BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT, THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HAS GONE TO CRAP. STOP ALREADY. I HATE LIVING IN THIS CITY ANY MORE AND CAN'T WAIT TO LEAVE. JUST ANOTHER WAY FOR MORE COYOTES TO COME DOWN INTO OUR LIVING SPACES. CITY MANAGEMENT HAS LOST IT There must not be development at a later time within the preserved 2900 acres unless it is to promote the wildlife and nature of the area. Such as With the Etlwanda Preserve. Make sure there is plenty of road access for large emergency vehicles to fight possible wild fires. Please also use this opportunity to add water storage and treatment equipment. Install a big solar array that we can all be proud of. NO annexation. City is over populated & we don't need high density and/or low income housing. Because of the drought We are mandated by tiered water to conserve or we pay dearly from our incomes. This is all about taxation of population to subsidize the pockets of city employees. ENOUGH ALREADY! This city is crowded enough. on, and what about the fires that rage through the proposed areas every few years? Who pays far that? We Ilke our city population the way It is. No more, please. Stop referring to a conservation "priority" area. This makes it sound like the priority could change. Commit to making it a conservation area and refer to It as such. I am quite sure you would be receiving less backlash from the community. Call It an expansion of the preserve that will remain for conservation and the only thing to be developed is the area identified. Wildlife encounter in the neighborhoods close to the foothills (Brentwood, etc) are becoming common. Possibly because lot of new development are being done encroaching into their habitat. I personally believe that more emphasis should be given to conserve the land than doing development. If development is done it has to be done with a wildlife friendly way and by preserving local flora and fauna_ Also the community has to be educated about coexisting with the wildlife. Annex it and leave It as open space for now until a master plan is avallable so we all can see the pians. I suggest doing nothing to the land for 5 years after annexation, Step back, take a break and forget about revenue. We need a lot more open space!! I! Resident & City Should Watch Out Over all the Land around there City - we should also leave area for the natural wildlife that lives in our mountains - so we all can Live Peaceful Together!! Look at the 210 in the morning 7:30 to about 9:36. Bumper to bumper, all four lanes heading West. East is not quite that dense although it Is close. When that traffic merges an to our streets we have frustrating delays. Our lovely town is churning out too many apartments and homes. The density is an encumbrance to our streets, parking lots and our joy In living here. The City should not move forward with this plan. The "preservation" of open space is a sham to put lipstick on the development pig. The plan as proposed goes against the wise current zoning plan for the east side of the city. Multi -family housing should not be allowed. Lot sizes need to be minimum half acre. Developers (who don't care about our city) have been after these 1200 acres for over a decade and now they want to pack as many housing units into it as possible to stuff their pockets. All 4100+ acres are currently undevelopable open space County land. It is an alluvial plain that is necessary for flood control. Because the developers cant acquire the land without a 415 vote from the County SOS, they are trying an end run around the SOS by having our City fund the acquisition of the land and approve the development. If this plan goes forward, quality of life will suffer for all RC residents. Crime and traffic will increase. Dant be fooled by greedy developers. i would prefer that all the land he conserved for wildlife and no development be done. That is best. California is burning. No more people in the foothills tempting fate. Our homes are already squeezing out wildlife to the point that bears are wandering streets and coyotes are snatching up cats and opossums are dead all over the road, Leave all of those lands alone. Controlling growth is a primary concern, although I don't believe that has been a significant focus of the City thus far. The City's financial vitality can be assured without new high density housing and without significant new development in newly annexed areas. Keep the rural flavor that exists in some of the proposed area. Want to see more conservation and much less development. Tired of over priced high density housing. if we have more developement, I would like it to get back to basics- single story 3-4 bedroom family friendly homes with a little bit of a front/backyard. Not huge houses crammed on small plots of land being sold at ridiculous prices_ The city needs to do a much better job of attracting growing families with young children. Are median age is becoming older and older. It is important not to price out young families, I would actually like see any undeveloped land at the northern end of the city stay natural and undeveloped. We have already encroached upon too much of wildlife's habitat, The coyotes have come down out of the hills and roam freely through out the streets dining on our pets. Let's leave the undeveloped land near foothills as it is. Page 380 any development should include green spaces within the properties - right now. Rancho does a very poor job of developing new areas with sufficient green space for the local resident or business and parking - the minimum requirement are not sufficient. it appears that the land is currently owned by SB County Flood Control. If it's annexed in, will the ownership change? What zoning will be applied to that "development priority" portion? Questions are specific with specific answers. There is too much Involved for definite yes or no's. Land under city control is good only if the city follows the wishes of the people and not developers. Who is in whose pocket. Dense development in the wild. Remember the fires. Please maintain the high standards our City has demanded in the past. Randall Lewis is nice and everything but he doesn't, and won't, live in Rancho Cucamonga. What's good for us needn't be sacrificed for what is good for the Lewis Operating Companies. We need to conserve the wildlife areas in the north. i understand the need for growth and development in the area around Los 0505 HS with a high demand for traffic Infrastructure and consideration of lot size to avoid over population and density in an already heavy residential area. Traffic Is a major concern with the 210 and 15 corridor and no room for lane growth on the 210. It is already heavy. So I would propose an area Tike San Elijo, Ca near Carlsbad which has its own commerce to Ilmit commuting and drive local revenue and employment and offer a more exclusive residential environment which I think Rancho Cucamonga is known far. ! oppose this annexation, Rancho is too crowded already. The RCWD is always skiing us to concerve water because they do not have enough water to fill at the current needs. If the development does not pay into city taxes for fire, police, and ems, the city should not provide it For free. This would possibly be a county problems. My taxes should not be used for those who do not pay into the funds. There is already enough building in Rancho Cucamong. Schools over crowded, crime, traffic, etc. 3004 to 4400 HIGH DENSITY housing units at the Lakes, by Lewis, empty business rental sites. Enough building already. Please don't continue to fill every square foot of RC with high density housing/shops/hotels. Create a plan to make a nice living area for the future. There is already enough traffic and crowding with building residences right on top of each other. Thank you for trying to safeguard the development around RC. ! live adjacent to the area that may be developed (in Haven View Estates). I do not like the idea of building and construction and mixed use literally in my backyard. If i knew the area for conservation would remain conservation i would be for it. But our City Counsel gives a lot of exceptions that we the people dant like, I dant think they can be trusted to keep It conservation. Protecting and preserving natural habitat is vital. We see too many Coyotes wandering Into suburban areas, and we could be helping several species, by keeping native plants and animals flourishing in this space. ! am very interested in conserving open space and limiting development- From what I have read it seems like a developers dream - the open space conservations doesn't seem to be written invert specific terms. And, what about environmental impact of the the development and infrastructure impacts like water and traffic? While the proposed annexation map indicates the northern 2,900 acres to be preserved as open space, I'm not seeing how any sort of development could occur in an area where there are significant flood control facilities such as the Day Canyon and Deer Canyon washes and channels and a levee structure. if the county has not approved any developments there until now, why annex for development purposes? The entire acreage should be preserved for open space and ongoing maintenance of those flood control facilities. I would also like to see a detailed analysis of the potential ongoing costs of additional development to the city in the form of additional services and maintenance of new facilities after any estimated development fees are exhausted. Finally, potential land use designations and zoning for the area proposed to be developed need to be made public as part of any outreach effort to city residents and other stakeholders. This should proposed development densities. I feel the development need to be NOT small side by side house but preserve the area by only development of homes with .5 acre or more. The congestion and traffic is already too much north of 210 That section of land is known to be occupied or to have recently been occupied by listed species- Trading it in to be developed by establishing stronger protections on already protected land is wrong. All of those areas are valuable and rare, and should be a proud part of our city. We have some of the hest Sage Scrub habitat left in the Inland Empire, and none of it should be developed. ! am strongly opposed to any development in this area. I'd prefer it remain undeveloped and protected as wildlife conservation. The city does not need the additional taxes, with all the continuing development in the city we, the citizens, are seeing the negative side effects. Please leave this land undeveloped! I! I am glad to see so much set aside for preservation, but would like that number increased, and the acres of development to be decreased. I am also concerned about development in an area more threatened by wildfire. If the city does this and annexation gets approved, they will just allow more houses to be built. I am so tired of watching our once wonderful city turn into nothing more than traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, and an extreme rise in crime. Stop the building and !et there be some open space. RC city council will not be happy until every square inch of bare land has a house on it. So sad. Not knowing where either the city or the county stand, it's difficult to make the selections that best represent what I think should be done with the land - left alone and protected. People get elected to office and new people come in; I would support the strictest "no land development" rules that are actually impenetrable. Do either the city or the county support that? I haven't a clue; I'm concerned that a media relations or consulting group will be brought in to help pull the wool over the eyes of residents/voters. The city should plan to have nice homes that would Bring up the property value of the area. These new homes would definitely impact Los Osos nigh school, Golden Elementary and Pay Creek Intermediate Schools. My concern is that the city would zone for apartments or condos and I don't think that this type of housing should be permitted. Residents would not be happy about that. These new homes or businesses would also increase the traffic on Banyan which is very slow due to the amount of cars getting their students to the schools on Banyan. Page 385 Banyan is a single lane road and a traffic light may need to be added. Not only as a resident of Ranch Cocamonga but a resident of California, I find this plan to be irresponsible. The question is not if the hills will bum but when and this entire area is a high fire zone and I would imagine a high flood zone. Looking beyond the obvious that our city and schools are currently unable to keep up with current resident demands, this expansion will further tax our roads and community services. Not all our open spaces need to be developed. We moved here to get away from the congestion and overdevelopment of other titles, but that is exactly What is happening here now. It needs to stop. Preserve the natural beauty of our city and stop ruining our open land! The City of Rancho Cucamonga should work to improve serVlces and development and of the West and South parts of Rancho Cucamonga. it is very obvious that ONLY the North East side is considered worthy of care and investment - From landscaping, parks, recreational facilities, positive policing, road maintenance, and general upkeep, those in power are creating two different Rancho Cucamongas, Shame an You. The development of the land to include 'some businesses' as noted in the newspaper article would not he a favorable idea. Including multiunit dwellings is not a Favorable idea. Both of these will distract from the area's exclusivity. I'm sure the: city and developers see this taxation scheme as highly profitable. It is not about the money where WATER and TRAFFIC and CRIME issues are involved. It is most important to me that the nature and ecological elements of this parcel be preserved. Development an this rocky slop is always going to be very unstable and susceptible to earth quakes, heavy rains and fires. The area "designated for conservation" will never get high density, it is not financially feasible to do that in the hillside and thus it will remain relatively undisturbed. What is more important is to conserve more of the areas that are easily buildable green. The residents of Deer Creek are against any land being developed! Our roads up here already can't handle the traffic with the schools and college. We want that land and its habitat to stay as Is we will not support this project or any projects to develop uninhabited land in RC If it's going to decrease my property taxes then I'm all for it. The property tax rate in RC Is ridiculous. Fix the crime problem in our neighborhoods. No one wants to live in a home with high property taxes and constant break ins, -1 love to see the foothills conserved. They are the best part of living in Rancho Cucamonga_ -1 would like to see more trails be clearly designated for foot hiking. It is unclear where people are allowed on a lot of them. -Above all, please protect the area at the top of Beryl from development. Rancho doesn't need more housing. It is too crowded in this wonderful town. All of the open fields of beauty are being developed into housing. The beautiful golf course was eaten up by development. The Infrastructure Is not built for the number of people that now live here. Concrete and asphalt keep in the heat from the sun during the day, so it remains our area doesn't have a chance to cool down in the evenings. Leave land open so the heat from the day can be "eaten" into the ground and cool down the evenings. I know this area has been sought after far development for years , What about he infrastructure ?? The roads are already crowded and Los Oses HIS is Is near capacity. This area was also involved In wildfires about 10 years ago .....do we really need more development ?? It would be nice to leave the entire area undeveloped and left as habitat for indigenous plants and animals. Not all land has to be developed. Let's be a leader in the area to preserve our local flora and fauna_ I believe the priority should be to plan for land use which results in either revenue generating capital improvement or open space. While these concepts may seem in conflict, here's my rationale. Residential growth is typically more burdensome on infrastructure than the property tax revenue it generates. Additionally, unless the goal is to increase revenue generating developments which draw residents, businesses and visitors to Rancho, the emphasis should be on preserving the beauty of the foothills. I major benefit to living in RC is the still untouched 'mountainscape' and abiiity to quickly find a zero density hiking trail or two within minutes of home and services. It seems most vacant land is having homes built on it. I want to see an empty field with wildlife and greenery. It's Important to our children to know their adults were smart enough to protect some beautiful things in nature for them. As time goes on and development proposals are submitted, I Imagine the city will approve very dense housing which puts a strain on traffic and services. It doesn't matter what people say at public hearings, they will approve very dense housing instead of various densities. As far as conservation, I think real parks and trails are a great idea. However, the city seems to think that open space consists of 'tot lots' and a few benches where adults can gather. Has no one heard of real parks anymore? We have too many houses and apartments as it is using up precious water and contributing to traffic, etc_ More houses in foothills means more fire fighting resources having to be used. I know the city always wants more taxes so the city council can give themselves another raise. Enough Is enoughl Humanity exist because of the nature we live in, that must be given respect and priority, nature, animals and alike. if given permission to build within the open space, with profit and greed, humanity will always overlook the nature and its purpose! My concerns of adding 1,200 developed acres, residential and commercial, there WILL BE traffic nightmares. There Is already constant traffic in this area. Especially when school is commencing or ending. The housing developments to the West (Deer Creek, Compass Rose, etc.) will definitely be impacted. I'm sure part of the proposal will be to allow westerly street access via Wilson & Hillside for people wanting to travel to the west. This is NOT FAIR to people who already own homes in this area. Especially Hillside Rd. I don't feel existing or even improved infrastructure will help. Traffic will be a nightmare. Our streets are already extremely crowded, as is the 210 freeway. PLEASE RETHINK PUTTING HOMES IN THIS AREA. Can't you leave it alone and make it all conservation area?? Maybe add trails and parks. Leave some area In Rancho the way it used to be_ Don't continue to make it a concrete mecca. If you can't leave it alone, maybe the county would have a better plan. The conserved land is too costly to develop, and should not be developed. I trust the 5B County more not to develop the conserved land, than I do the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The planners at Rancho Cucamonga are more interested in developers and less in the citizens of the .city (and that is known by experience). Plus for the city to waste tax payers money on such undevelopable land, it's like having a fire department that rapes the city for benefits, but uses the county's Sheriff department to control local crime. Why not have a county Fire Department instead. Oh, we have councilmen benefitting from the city fire department. Page 486 you must address how water rates will be affected.,.. grandfather/roll back our rates and have new development pay higher water rates based on additional Infrastructure required... Open land areas are vital; too many housing developments are being crammed into smaller and smaller spaces which only adds to traffic and diminished natural habitats. No more houses or shopping centers. Fill up the VACANT" shopping centers first. Too many people, congestion, school crowding. Our gem of a city is not going to be a gem much longer. A golf course even a nine hole would lead be great. All of Rancho's golfers are contributing to other cities instead of our own. Even other youth sporting activities would benefit the city. Fontana serves its citizens in parks and recreation better than Rancho Cucamonga Dear City Council members, The Streets of Rancho Cucamonga are already crowded and congested. Why is it that every small piece of land has to be developed. Why can't the area stay in its natural state? When I moved here in 1982 this was the best place in the world to live. I can no longer say that. Take the developers cash fIiled hands out of your collective pockets. This response is constructive and respectful, 1 wonder if it will see the Ilght of day If annexation is accomplished, any development should be consistent with existing homes in the north west areas. Half acre properties need to remain the standard. We should not deviate from that pian and allow waivers on lot size. Trails need to he incorporated as part of the Preservelopen space, if this land is annexed. That did not happen in the current Etiwanda Preserve area, which left significant blockages to our east -west trails In that area. I would like to see less development in this city. we have too many people and where is all the water coming from. We are asked to conserve water but you keep adding to the population. Leave it all open landH You don't even have money to maintain our parks now but you want to add more maintenance to your agenda. Respect the land we have and leave it alone!! Appreciating that it is difficult to plan for a growing population, while protecting our precious natural resources, I ask that the city planners work towards achieving the best possible balance, regardless of the economic bottom line. I am ok with development as long as there Is a significant portion going to preservatlon of land for wildlife and as long as the follow current standards for building and developing of Rancho Cucamonga Icy Copyright 2013-2017 Govemance Sciences Group, Inc., Patent pending Page 383 Vj FlashVote 01 FlashVote helps you make a difference in your community Results: Updated Proposed Annexation Concepts Ift Survey Info - This survey was sent on behalf of City of Rancho Cucamonga to the FlashVote community for Rancho Cucamonga, CA - 626 A_ 626 Participants 580 of 1368 initially invited (42%) Margin of error- :t 4% Q1 Applied Filter: Locals only Participants for filter: 526 Response Time (ho... ]an 190 I2❑ re z tin, �� 3a ya fz in Started Mar 16, 2018 1:08pm Ended: Mar 19, 2018 1:05pm Targe[ Fanlcioan[s. All Rancho Cucamonga For six months, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been providing information and gathering feedback about a possible "North Eastern Sphere Annexation" of 4,300 acres (6.7 square miles) of land that is along the foothills north of Rancho Cucamonga city limits, This includes an initial FlashVote survey in October 2017 and four Community Meetings in October and November 2017. Did you attend any of the Community Meetings in October or November? (526 responses by locals) Options Locals (525) Yes 14.6% (56) No 88.8% (467) Not Sure 0.6% (3) Yes No Not Sureo.6-1. Y�1" 10% 10% 30%% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 40% Percent Q2 = Locals Page 488 San Bernadino County owns the 4,300 acres of land and is currently expected to sell it. Without City annexation, the land will be developed under County standards and zoning. With City annexation, the land will be developed under City of Rancho Cucamonga standards and zoning. Which best describes your preference, if any, for control of development standards and zoning? (516 responses by locals) Options Strongly prefer County control Slightly prefer County control Neutral Slightly prefer City control Strongly prefer City control Not Sure Strongly pre... Slightly pref... 3.3 Neutral Slightly pref... _ Strongly pre... Not Sure 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% Percent Locals (516) 7.0% (36) 3.3% (17) 8.1% (42) 18.4% (95) 52.5% (271) 10.7% (55) Locals R3 Which of these hypothetical future development options, if any, do you like the most? (514 responses by locals) Locals Options (514) Keep all 4,300 acres as open space for about $75 million (approximately $1.400 per 18.9% household) by Buying the land from the County (97) Page 489 Locals Options 15141 Develop 1,200 acres at low residential density and keep 3,100 acres as open space, at some 23.3% net cost to the City's finances (120) Develop 1,200 acres at normal mixed-use density and keep 3,100 acres as open space, at no 22.2% Cost to the City or residents (114) Develop 2,000 acres at normal mixed-use density and keep 2,300 acres as open space, at 13.4% some net benefit to the City's finances (69) Do nothing so all 4,300 acres remain subject to County approved development, at no cost to 13.2° the City or residents (68) 3.7% None of these (19) 4.5% Other: (231 Keep all 4,3... Develop 1,2... Develop 1,2... Develop 2,0... Do nothing... None of these Other: 0°I li)% 15% r,.•,a Percent � Lflcals open preserve 1200 keep acre space let Cox develop densityresidential Unfiltered responses Preserve. the 4,300 acres and da not build. We have too much traffic, too many apartment complexes, and we are still not out of the clear from the water drought. Rancho Cucamonga is turning into LA Page 386 Open the entire land to development, if any builders are willing to proceed. Lobby the state and county governments to build and expand freeway corridors. Probably the 1200 acre low density option. Can the remaking area be hiking, like the NE preserve? Develop 1200 at low -residential density along with a grocery -store anchored shopping center with restaurants. Wildlife Reserve !! Preserve the land as option one. Or, 112 acre or larger lots in that area. Zero commercial developed. Zero condos, apartments, low income, multiple family dwellings... preserve land. Develop 1.200 acres a low residential density and keep 3,100 acres as open space, at no cost to the City or residents. Last I heard, property taxes are a percentage of the purchase price. Higher priced homes will have a higher tax to pay vs lower price home. Traffic, schools, crime, etc are TERRIBLE why would anyone I like the develop 1200 acres but, even with some taxable retail [mixed use] zoning, would like to see a significant percentage dedicated to low income and senior housing. Not enough in Rancho.. Let the Buddhist compound be developed, 1200 acres very low density SFR (.no commercial) and keep the rest open space 1200 -1500 acres low residential density, 1000+ acres for some small/medium commercial use, balance open space and a park for mixed use Develop 1,200 acres at low density with a small retail/commercial component and keep 3,100 acres as open space and walkable trails. Whatever is proven to raise the property values, and not create more crime. Spend money to finish central park first, then add a lane to the 210 freeway to help with the traffic congestion. After road capacity has been increased, then consider low density development. Option 1 - keep all 4,300 acres as open space; please explain however, what is meant by $1,400 per household. Develope 2000 low res. homes, large lots, no commercial or develop 1,200 low residential, large lots, build a small 1-2 street of single story village area, add connecting horse/walking/biking trails Purchase the land then hold discussions with the community to determine possible development #2 if there is a clause that prohibits future development of thee 3,100 acres and a clear pictures of "net cost to the City's finances" Extend adjoining Etiwanda Specific Plan over area. 1-2 units per acre (were already zoned), and flood control remain as flood controliopen space. EIR must list all alternatives. Estate Lots. Develop 1,200 acres at very low density and keep 3,100 acres as open space. Keep it true to the historical character of Rancho Cucamonga (low-density and open space). Keep control at the local level in every sense. I'd like to see some acres developed at low or normal residential density, and some baseball/softball fields developed, then leave the rest as open space. Develop the lower 2,300 as low residential zoning, letting the Developers to pay for ALL 4,300 acres, and allow upper 2,000 acres remain open space. NO COSTS TO EXISTING CITY RESIDENTS. ,, Think back to October 2017, when a FlashVote survey asked your opinions about the initial annexation proposal. How does your current opinion of possible annexation compare to what you thought then? (510 responses by locals) Page 48T Options I like it more now I like it about the same now I like it less now Not Sure like it mar... I like it abou... I like it less... Not Sure 0% Log 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30°% 35°% 400/4 Percent Locals (510) 14.1% (72) 40.8% (208) 17.8% (91) 27.3% (139) M Locals Any other comments or suggestions about a possible North Eastern Sphere Annexation by the City of Rancho Cucamonga? (171 responses by locals) plan already pleasedensity a rea lowe v traffic elop ' keeplot commercial annexcast City high Unfiltered responses Please continue to move on annexing and developing the property to our current hight standards. We really need a grocery store and gas up there! Its way too far to drive down to Highland for services. We do not need a bunch more homes to tax our already overloaded water and traffic systems. Leave the land alone.. we have far too many homes and cars in the area now... we like the rural atmosphere of the hills behind us and would like it to stay that way! No more signs posted to advise of building because we have reached the limit. Open spaces need to remain untouched. I've lived here for 40 years and our quality of life is affected by the road noises, traffic, car fumes, accidents, people, crime and all around too busy a life style. NOISY. We are not New York City people. Concentrate on preserving only what we have and maintaining the status quo. We need a new city Page 448 manager who can actually manage the revenues, not spend more and not make the city have to keep increasing on more taxing funded by it's residents. Bring back Jack Lam. Live on a budget. Or does that finance department not know how to do that. No retail, only single family homes with large lots, ideally 20,000 sq. Ft. or larger. No more construction. We should control it. Im also in favor of more housing as we have a shortage in our city and the IE in general. Apartments would be ideal There has been a lot of interest in this topic discussed on the Next Door social app. I think it would be best that the City Council really listen to the views of its residents that clearly want the NESAP to fall under the current General Plan, and be kept as low-density zoning with no commercial activity. Any deviation to this by the council will have big implications in the next council elections this Fall. please keep it open space ... too many homes, too many apartments, too many cars! Quality of life in this City should be number one priority. Keeping it open space would not diminish quality of life any further than it has already deteriorated in the past 20 years. I no longer enjoy living here, but life circumstances dictate I must remain for the time being. Contain runaway development. Do not have any problem with annexation by city but do NOT want development of housing or commercial of any kind. IF any housing were approved, can only tolerate very low density housing, but would prefer none We don not need more housing and cars on the roads. Rancho is congested enough. Leave it alone. There were 2 questions that this survey did not allow me to go back to and change. They were inadvertently hit and this system does not allow me to correct the mistake. it moves so fast I did not see the last 2 questions. I think the city should stick to the general plan. I think the city should commit to low density development and keep the city a beautiful uncongested place to live. Rancho Cucamonga should be the city of gracious living. I am not against limited retail that serves the low density residential meaning 112 acre equestrian lots. Most people moved here for that lifestyle and value it immensely. As do we. Please don't pull a bait and switch on this community. Na On the last question I indicated I like the idea of annexation better now than I did originally. That answer is predicated on the idea that there be no high-density housing in the plan, that the overall nature of the planning is a rural feel, and that 3100 acres remain as open space (Even if it is at some cost to citizens). would think most of what the City sees as potential cost to existing citizens could be passed on to the developer of the 1200 acres, and thus onto the purchasers of the rural lots that were then developed. Yes, build more freeways before considering new developments. The additional traffic caused by development needs to be accommodated. DO NOT DEVELOP THE AREA PLEASE don't add any more residential homes. There are already plenty of homes being built in the surrounding area (e.g. North Fontana) that will add traffic to the congested freeways. New freeway interchanges, off ramps, and lane additions are built based on existing traffic. Adding new residential homes defeats the purpose and we will always be living or driving in a construction zone. In your hypothetical question about future development, you needed to elaborate on the #1 option - is the $1,400 per household annually or a one time cost per household? And in your last question whether or not you like the idea of the annexation more or less, etc. since the last survey, you should have had a box for other. I don't oppose the annexation. I think it's a good idea for the city to annex and not rely on whatever the county would do to this land. However, I'm concerned what the city would do with this land. I would like to see it left alone OR at the least, very low density housing with NO commercial in this area. I wouldn't be totally opposed to your option of the city developing the 1,200 acres and keeping the 3,100 acres as open space at some net cost to the City's finances, but that would depend on how the City finances would pay for it. Need more information on that. I thought we were in a drought?? Where's the extra water coming from?? DO NOT DEVELOP THIS LAND We need some commercial (small scale) i.e, a grocery store, gas station, etc. in the proposed area. Be sure the land is used for the advantage and enjoyment of all residents. Page 449 Not enough information is given on this subject. Please sent a map or diagram of this proposed annexation area so people know the boundaries. It is difficult so say without using strong language, so I will be brief. NO MORE GODDAMN HOUSES. That is what makes the city special. Let up a bit. Our representatives and officials are quite well enough compensated already. Thank you for providing opportunities to discuss further. I hope to be able to attend the upcoming meeting at Central Park on this. It needs to be low density up there. That is premium land. I doubt if there should be any or much commercial in there, either. I have no problem with the purchase of the land from San Bernardino. I have HUGE ISSUES with the development of the land with anything BUT very low density housing. When I bought here in 1978, 1 was assured that nothing North of Wilson would be less than 112 acre plots on average. Somehow that promise was compromised on Day Creek. ENOUGH! Less residential and multi housing. No win situation. We do not need additional development in RC. The streets are crowded and it take too long just to drive a simple 5 miles. But if it is going to get developed, I want it developed under the same requirements of RC. No way should anybody develop that land. Why does the County want to sell it and why does RC want Annex it? We don't need more stores & businesses in our area. We have everything we need nearby. More large horse property lots with trails and open spaces. No high density housing is acceptable in this area under any proposal. Tell me what is wrong with the minds of elected officials? Why do they think we need to develop 4,300 acres which will go towards moving more people into an area where there is drought conditions which cause the water company to now restrict our water usage so we cannot even water our exterior plants. What is next?!? Will we only be able to shower once a week? What next after all of those acres are developed. All anyone thinks about is collecting the almighty tax dollars. There isn't even a middle class left in this state. What happens after that. Guess what. Soon there will be no one to collect money from. You all will probably be out of office by then; or you will have left the state. God help the next state you move on to ruination. The poll you provided proves you are of unsound minds. We get to choose between bad and worse things in this so called poll you are now providing. Respectfully yours. * * * * *************** I along with affected residents do NOT want the land developed -it should be permanently preserved. If it must be developed, we want NO commercial, apartments, or townhomes in that area. They should be single family homes on 112-1 acre lots. Aquire the land and leave it undeveloped. Equestrian and estate lots as well as adhering to hillside development codes as originally envisioned in General Plan is the most compatible development idea. It is what residents were previously told and relied upon when coming to this community. Densifying the hillside is a stupid idea; even if it makes some developer or county more money. Represent your residents interests not developer and outside interests We are overily developed now. Please do not add anymore housing. Any development should be contingent upon availability of water, power, natural gas, police and fire protection and schools, without increased taxes to the rest of the residents. Once open land is utilized for homes or businesses, it NEVER converts back to the beautiful land God created. I am STRONGLY opposed to developing this land H!!!!!H!!!H!!!!!H!!!H1111!H!!!H1!!!!!!!!!!!!!H we don't need any more delevopment that would increase traffic and tax natural resources. Why would the city even consider the whole idea of more development We moved out here due to low-density housing and the land/vegetation/wildlife and would like to see it kept that way. Keep it open land. Page 300 While I like the thought of having city control as opposed to county. However I strongly do not trust our city planner and city council to keep this land free from development. it should remain as open space. no housing or development. Have the money come from the fightfighter's salaries, etc. If the city would manage their money better, they could buy it. What does the county have planned? Or what can they do that's worse than what RC wants to do with it? Leave it open space. Keep large majority open, housing on large parcels, no shopping. Charge the developer for any required park space so the rest of us don't have to pay for it. Leave the land open for Wild Life please do not add any more apartments or any more rental properties (cars, parking lots where you cant find a space, crime) to our once great city. What is happening at the corner of Baseline and Day Creek has the potential to add abt 1000 more cars to our already over -crowded streets. The city doesn't have enough services for the current population. More fire and police means more taxes. Not in favor of city annexation of the property. As long as our taxes do not go up. City needs to be transparent. I am not okay with the high density housing, and commercial being proposed. Preserve the land. Please retain our lifestyle, do not change the density that is consistent with the existing community Keep commercial use and high-density housing out. Complete Wilson Ave. between Milliken Ave. and Day Creek BI. Development consistent with the area is okay, plus some neighborhood commercial for increased options. Connecting Wilson and Hillside through to the east side would be great! Please don't overdevelop! None Purchase the land to keep the County from developing it and just leave it as green space! Rancho is turning into a crime laden city! There's already too many people and not enough police support to handle what the city is today...what do you think is going to happen if this "high density development" plan is approved? Don't bother coming up with an answer, I'll move before a single soul moves in. No more houses or high residential housing. I don't want any commercial development only residential and not low income housing at the top of the hill. There is plenty of businesses down the hill to accomodate 1200 new residences. Keep remainder open space and recreational parks. I wouldn't mind a few houses up there. But our roads, schools, and other infrastructure are ridiculously crowded now. There aren't enough roads and it's hell driving around town most of the time. Please don't trade our quality of life for the ability to make more money through taxes or whatever. I know progress is inevitable. But could we be smart about it, please? Listen to your constituents, the people who live here and will have to accept whatever changes are made. Most of us cannot afford to move. Thank you. The homes should be built on half acre lots . We definitely do not need more high density housing in Rancho Cucamonga. There are already too many people in this city and the traffic is horrendous . Our council seems set on squeezing as many people as they can into the smallest area available. We do not want more high density housing, but the city council has proven by their past decisions that our opinion does not matter to them. Keep Rancho Cucamonga rural, traffic, schools, crime, etc are out of control. in these surveys you need to explain terms such as mixed use, low density, etc. and you need to explain why there is cost for low density vs mixed use and how much Cost? Leave it alone no need to develop I feel the biggest concern is increase in the traffic flow. There is too heavy a traffic pattern currently! Page 305 No extra comment None Just leave it open space. We moved here 40+ years ago and it was mostly country and open space. Let's keep growth to the bare minimum. none Stop building!! You'll move more coyotes out of their area. N/A Leave it open, don't develop it. Annex and take city control to guarantee it's not developed. Please keep the residential density low, add a small retail component (like the new Stater Bros. development on Day Creek) to offset the cost to the city, preserve open space, add water storage and keep mixed use or high density from ever being built up there. No high density apartment and condo development! The city has plenty of that already. Would love to see a master planned 55+ community developed in that area. Not assisted living facility, but single family homes in a gated 55+ community with amenities. Ambiguity. Need FIRM facts. What I have read indicates there are variables with each option. Facts! I don't agree with either the city or county proosed control as I firmly believe all facts have not been disclosed. The city of Rancho Cucamonga has grown exponentially over the last decade or two and to lose whatever little open space we have left to high density housing is outlandish. We have a hard time keeping our parks clean and properly maintained with the city population now how much more taxing will it be to have more people living here. Our crime rate appears to have increased as well. We need to better maintain what we have and only then think about adding to it. I agree in buying the property but disagree with developing into housing. Open it as a preserve and label it as a city wide project at conserving our natural resources. Get companies to donate/invest to help with some of its funding. Make it equestrian homes to keep our heritage. Have hiking trails and mountain bike trails so the residents of Rancho can actually have some open space. This city is being over developed!! Leave it alone.!!!!! I would like it to be used as a wild life animal preserve; maybe with a zoo like Hesperia or like the Living Zoo in Palm Springs. Please preserve open space and low density housing Planning needs to ensure wildlife isn't pushed further into residential neighborhoods, and that "more" crime isn't brought to the area. I know there is a great deal of concern about low income housing possibly effecting the crime rates. This may or may not be a real concern, but the research should definitely be prioritized on both of these items. Thank you. The city continues to ignore the will of the people which CLEARLY are in favor of limiting further development in the city. The city is already grossly over built and our resources are already stretched to the limit. Most of the land should be kept undeveloped or used for hiking/preserve area. Concern about additional population growth in the City as we are already experiencing overgrowth symptoms. Major increase in crime, infrastructure that cannot keep pace with additional residents all which impact the quality of life for the residents of Rancho Cucamonga. Residents of Rancho have repeatedly made their opinion known—no stack and pack in the annexation area. Keep the density low with no commercial development. Elected officials we have an election coming up and the PEOPLE you are supposed to serve are watching you. Your behavior so far is disappointing. You will be voted out in spite of your fire unions support Think first about what would lower the cost of services in our city. Riverside has significantly lower power and water costs compared to Rancho. Consider a solar farm in that area instead of housing. There's other areas that are prime for development before introducing more housing. Consider the open fields on Foothill next to Home Depot and on the south side of Foothill. Bringing in business with safe shopping areas would be my first step. Page 302 City planners and city council should have had meetings with the community prior to contracting to do studies regarding the plan that the city council wanted. The community was not informed prior to plans including high density housing and commercial business.. Buy the land and leave it alone. This area serves as a natural habitat for many animals. Development continues to push them out into neighboring areas. Also, RC is unique in its zoning with commercial development restricted to areas at Baseline and below Baseline. Adding apartments and commerce to this area will bring in added crime and upset the balance of an otherwise peaceful area. I would support the option with controlled development including open space and NO commercial development. PLEASE KEEP IT UNDER CITY CONTROL, WHATEVER YOU BUILD THERE...... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NO COUNTY CONTROL Central Park should be priority. Fix it first! We need more Senior or low cost housing maybe yiu can make it more nature preserve and Senior Low income housing would be nice Open land with trails would be awesome for day hikes/walk. Use all native planting. Yes. Somewhat related. I moved here last June and i am astounded by the number of apartments and condos here, as opposed to single family detached houses. To pile as many people and families as possible into small spaces obviously affects traffic and needed resources. To think of the city copying this model on county land, if it is actually annexed by RC, is an extremely discouraging thought. I lived in Dana Point in the mid 70s, went away to college, and when I came back to that area in the mid 80s, was disgusted to see what had been done to the acres of land that had been developed. Miles and miles of identical looking structures, ugly and more ugly, all for the sake of big money in the developers' and city's pockets. Please don't do that to our beautiful foothill area. PLEASE. PLEASE. PS. The only reason I have not attended city meetings re: this is that I am non weight bearing on my driving foot after foot surgery. When I am recovered I plan to attend. Thanks You spelled San Bernardino wrong in you 2nd question. NIA Development of the land is the worst possible option. The increased congestion, traffic, and drain upon City resources would not be offset by the increased tax base. Keep the land as open space. No commercial period. Large lots. No stack n pal and no low income. Keep it out of County control. I prefer open land but if not then very low density housing with some open land! But I don't want to have it developed and then have people complain about the nuisance animals that lived there first! Must keep development concurrent with housing code --properties north of Banyan, at least 112 acre. Maintain Equestrian areas and trails. Please stop all the building. The streets are so crowded, always a shortage of water, more crime, more homeless. I could go on, but it just seems that with all the extra people moving in here, the quality of life is suffering. One of the beautiful things about this area is/was the open spaces, that give/gave a feel of being out from the city life, although they're being used up by developers. It's all about money, I guess. It's all very sad to see happening. The most recent proposal is ore I keeping with good planning ofRancho Cucamonga The less the development the better .... any development must preserve the essence and ambiance of the foothills.... access and development of the front line trail should be a strong component {not like Claremont though}, Leave the buffer in place as it is. A little wilderness is a good thing in my eyes. Can't wait for this current City Council to be DUTI!! Collectively, over the they've done little to enhance the quality of life in Rancho. Quit delaying and annex the area, bringing into the City under the current General Plan. Do not change the General Plan. Allow residential housing only, preferably large lots, No apartments, No condos, No commercial. No Retail. Allow development (or single residences) in as much area as necessary to make it pay for itself and some parks and sport fields. Page 403 The city should annex in the interest of land preservation, instead of seeing the land as potential revenue. Take a step back and look at the map - development of this area will not be attractive, nor will continued development to connect with Fontana. There are storefronts in the city that have stood empty for an extended period of time. I would like to see the city perhaps renovate them so they are made attractive to businesses. Water resources are also a concern. The proposed development will further stress our precious resources. Lastly, the region's homelessness problem has become apparent in the city. I would like to see a focus of time, planning, and resources placed on developing solutions. Please consider forming a partnership with surrounding cities; although each city may be experiencing the issue of homelessness differently, addressing these problems together is more likely to result in viable solutions. Don't be a city that puts dollars over people. Please and Thank you. These surveys are frustrating due to the questions that are NOT asked. Stop development. This is one of the largest growing cities in the nation and the current infrastructure cannot handle more people. The schools I went to were already overcrowded years ago, Lord knows how bad it is now. just leave the land alone for wildlife. We don't need to build anything up there. Leave it as it is. Do NOT change the city general plan. We bought here because of the open spaces and the quiet and do NOT want any more development! Let's keep the rhythm of Rancho's development rather than rely on those outside our interests. Adding any type of residential or business to that area would already negatively impact the city's increasing population. What we need is more parks. That's why I moved here over 20 years ago. It is a plus that you are considering low-density construction on the section that is not open space. But I expect there won't be realistic approaches to fire safety, water impact, and traffic impact. In past projects the city gets around these issues by saying they cannot be mitigated (oh yes they can) and the benefits outweigh the risks (I disagree). We favor the annexation but certainly hope the land remains undeveloped and Tabled a reserve. Absolutely no commercial or high density housing. Provided the development fits with the area I would rather see the city control the area. The county is already about to approve a 24 building Buddhist campus in the area the city would protect so we know the county is planning to allow much more development in those areas surprising the city is not providing that evidence to residents, it's crazy to put a campus in the foothills!! I am not for developing the area. There is enough traffic up there already. The City needs to keep a rural atmosphere in that area. It's ideal to do nothing for the wildlife but I understand that won't happen. My biggest concern is any building will add to the already overcrowded schools and traffic. Whatever happens, wider streets and rezoning the schools will be needed. Do not build multi -residential above 210 fwy Rancho Cucamonga's sphere of influence should include the 4300 acres that are between Day Creek and Milliken. This upper land area needs to carefully be planned with consideration for the drought conditions that have been and will continue to affect the lives of all, including the flora and fauna. Traffic patterns for any new residence must be carefully planned around Chaffey College and Los Osos High School . Other considerations would be for developers to match or exceed the square footage of the largest homes already built in the area . Half acre lots would be a minimum requirement N/A We must keep the city's density low I appreciate your efforts to inform the residents about this project. no The city will just turn it into more housing and commerce. No none Page 304 The City of RC has plenty of open land to develop right now and that is where it should focus new development. Leave it alone. We have too much traffic already. Leave some open space, unless you want another over populated L.A. I don't. It needs to be purchased from the county and left alone as a nature reserve. We need more open land and less developments in our hills. Please preserve the beauty of our area and leave it without homes, parks, and grocery stores. No apartments Quit building. Leave the land alone The city is extremely crowded now. The freeways are jammed. Either develop the land as low density or we buy it as a community and leave it undeveloped or make it a park I do NOT want to change the density of the general plan that is known place for the land. I would like to keep it at about 1 house on an acre to 314 acre of land even if the City annexes the land. We need housing for the middle class growing family. My own children are finding it hard to continue to live here with the high housing expense. I seems like a great idea to have the land under city control. It would also be good to have some retail up there too. This is a high flood area, as well as a known bog. The safety of the people tricked in to buying new homes on this land is in question. none Do not like the Agenda 21 Development plan. Parcels should remain the half acre lots / equestrian as defined in the General Plan. Efforts to circumvent the general plan and ammend it should not be pursued. It is just dishonest We don't need more land that remains unused for public use such as the land adjacent to current Community and Senior Center. Buying land without an immediate purpose which benefits the entire community is a poor decision. nla Further development will INCREASE crime, traffic, noise pollution to an already OVER POPULATED city! LEAVE THE OPEN SPACE ALONE!!!! Further development Continues to drive down the quality of life!! None Environmental protection for nature, animals. Environmental impact with traffic, building etc. In my view, there is no other option than the City annexing the land. Keep the developed portion low density. No commercial development needed for the NESP. Too many existing commercial vacancies in RC. I have many concerns regarding the annexation and am interested in hearing what the future developments will be No Commercial. EIR needs to include Absorption Study about impact any new proposed commercial/industrial would have on existing commercial/industrial. {Many existing commercial vacancies along Foothill - area can not support more commercial Existing Schools need impact review, not just automatic acceptance. Water shortage and Park shortage needs to be included in EIR. Residential needs to stay 1-2 units per acre (Estate Lots). just to be clear, I think it is important for the City to annex the land and for any development to be under City standards. This should be done without changing the general plan as follows: keep the equestrian overlay, allowing only low density housing, preferably large lots, and open space including parks, sport fields and with no apartments, no condos, no commercial, and no retail developments. I don't know what other options there could be, but I do know that I'm very against housing development in this area that would increase the people population. The infrastructure to accommodate increased traffic Page 309 is not there, especially durning an emergency I STRONGLY oppose apartments being built in that area. I believe that a golf course and large estates would better fit with the surrounding community and its values of its residents. The part that is developed should match the zoning of the adjacent neighborhoods. No further developments. Hidensity is killing our city. We need water reclamation , no more cement, concrete or asphalt choking our aquafirs! Not enough resources to help in fire or natural disasters in the foothills as they are. Wake up politicians and developers Put Wilson or summit thru ZERO COMMERCIAL, ZERO HIGH DENSITY, PRESERVE LAND A5 OPEN SPACE (AS IS) ONTO-; The City of Rancho Cucamonga is becoming too congested with residential and retail. We need more open space to maintain the beauty of our natural habitats and our community. What initially prompts people to move here. do NOT develop this land, this area is already over developed, it should not cost us money to NOT develop My biggest concern is the impact any commercial or medium to high density development would have on the aesthetics of the area, the impact on traffic, and the impact to the environment. Increased population will lead to greater impact on the local schools, particularly Los Osos High School, strain our limited water resources, and increase air pollution due to increased motor vehicles in the area. I purchased my home in the Northern area of Rancho for multiple reasons, including the aesthetics, the large lots of land, and it being more nature -oriented being at the foothills. Simply put, I do not want apartments or commercial in this northern community and would be willing to pay in the form of a bond or tax or fee to keep that area with the least amount of development as passible. Please no high density housing ... low cost section 8 ....or commercial development. IE yet another Starbucks or gas station. I appreciate the ability to take these surveys. Work out that ALL the costs are paid through the Developers (all 4,300 acres) and only develop the lower 2,300 acres and leave the upper 2,000 acres as open space. BTW... I don't trust the City Planners and/or Officials to properly conduct this work. This is why I would trust the County Officials to do a proper and legal process. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is ran no different than the current WH and POTUS business controls [c] Copyright 2013-2017 Governance Sciences Group, Inc., Patent pending Page 496 9J FlashVote FlashVote helps you make a difference in your community Results: Open Space Options for North Eastern Sphere Annexation C Survey Info - This survey was sent on behalf of City of Rancho Cucamonga to the FlashVote community for Rancho Cucamonga, CA. These FlashVote results are shared with total officials 601 Participants 536 of 14 25 witla Uy mvlted 138%) Margln of error; s 4% Applied Filter: Locals only Participants for filter: 486 Rmpo nse 111rim [hv... �o a� started: Apr 30, 2018 1:39pm Ended May 2, 2018 1:34pm T.rget Pa kklpanu. All Rancho Cucamonga Q1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga is continuing to study all options related to a possible 4,300 acre North Eastern Sphere Annexation. One of the options suggested by citizens is purchasing land with money from a new tax. Which of the following options best describes your preference? (466 responses by locals) Options Locals I4W Buy and conserve the Lower Sphere Area (about 1,200 acres) for 5124 million, paid for by an additional annual tax of 1.6% (8) $Z60 per parcel Buy and conserve the Upper Sphere Area (about 1.700 add ltionaI. acres) for s42 million, paid Tar by an additional 10.7% (521 annual tax of $95 per parcel Buy and conserve both the tower and Upper Sphere Areas for 5171 ml11Ion, paid for by an additional annual tax of 2L4% (104} $355 per parcel Don't buy either one - I don't support a new tax for those purchases 51.2% (2491 Not Sure 15,6% (73) Buy and Buy and Buy and Don't hu Not Q2 Options 1)% 5% 1096 15% 20% 25% 3046 35°b 404y 45% 5095 S5% Percent = Locals The purchase costs in Question I were based on paying for the purchase with a bond over 20 years. Which best describes your preference? {175 responses by localsl I would prefer a higher annual tax increase to retire the debt in 10 years I'm ok with the annual tax increases mentioned and retiring the debt in 20 years I would prefer a lower annual tax increase to retire the debt In 30 years Not Sure Locals 11751 4.1% (16) 34.9% [611 49.7% (87) 5,3% (13f Page 49T M Locals I would pref... I'm ok with... I would pref... Not Sure G% 5% 11M 151. 20% 25'% -1(1% 35% 4G% 45% 509E Percent Q3 The annual tax casts in Question 1 were based on spreading the casts across all the parcels in the City. If less than the entire City were responsible for this new expense, the annual tax per parcel would he higher. What would be the fairest way to spread the costs? (475 responses by locals) Options Locals 1475) Oniy tax the pmpertylpafcel owners north of the 210 freeway 12.6% {60) Only tax the property/parcel owners north of Foothill Boulevard 1.9% i9) Tax ALL of the property)parue I owners in the entire city 50.5% (240) Not Sure 12.8% (61) Other. 21.5% (102) M Layals Only tax tile... Onfy tax the... .9"• Tax ALL of t... Not Sure Other. 0% 5% 10% 151A 20% 23% 34% 35% 40% 45% 50% 5395 Percent anyone high wantleavearea fund bujkdneedalready buy use �af1Cf property owner pay tax 94 develop enough residence city purchase houses gray open Space plansupport costbudget parcel current Unfiltered responses No new taxes for anyone within the city IImIts No way are we going to pay anymore taxes for land. There is no fair Way, DO NOT purchase this land, We're already taxed enough with little to show. Dant raise taxes on citizens to buy land we don't need. There Is federal grant money for this. Do your homework! Dant buy Don't purchase Leave the open space alone and as Is. We do not need more buildings or houses, Page 398 use the $$ for Central park ...GET RID OF THE EYE -SORE WEEDS no tax tax only the parcels contained within the acquired area plus the developer. DO NOT TAX ANYONE I am not convinced the city can't buy that land without raising taxes No Taxes increase DO NOT leave it open. Build on the land and tax the builders and new home owners. Is there an option of Mello Roos for new development? Only tax the parcels in this new development. We already pay more in this area than those outside. No new taxes or habitations building No New Taxes Only tax those who buy land in that new annexation Don't tax anyone. Let the developers who will benefit by the new building land pick up the entire Do not support purchasing this land and there is not an answer like this. You have no business buying this property with our tax money. Stop taxing us to fund YOUR interests No not do it. No tax would be necessary if low density, high end housing was allowed to go in. We are already paying a lot on taxes .... lower the salaries in city planning, city council, all poli Don't buy it quit finding more ways to tax us Don't buy it. No one wants to pay for it. Leave the open space as is! No tax on anyone NO TAX No new tax! Use existing funds or do not buy. Use the funds the city made on all the green space they sold to developers over the last years. All other RC residence are not responsible for the payment for the annexed land. Keep thinking DON'T BUY IT! I don't want to pay for a piece of land I will never go to. dont buy the property Tax the new homeowners and developers No new taxes! Only allow free access to the conserved areas for city residents. Others should pay. Don't buy it and no prob I Only new houses or businesses in the new area. The tax should be added to the price of the homes built. Don't buy Offset any tax with development impact fees consistent with the cost to any new development. Enough Tax's, live with in a budget, reduce the overpaid salaries and retirement of Rancho Cucamong NO NEW or NO EXTRA TAXES or NO BONDS!! No tax Please!!! One cannot agree to any annual tax if not shared with entire city. Shave the budget and save it from current income No to tax. Many people are on a fixed income. This can be a hardship! Page 499 No new taxes. don't charge anybody. No taxes for anybody we don't NO TAX! DON'T BUY IT Cut the firemans pay to pay for the land Only east of Haven Do not wish current owners to pay higher taxes. Have anything being built in that area pay the tax Don't tax anyone for purchasing something that only city council will benefit from. no tax = no purchase if the city can't afford it, it shouldn't buy it. Just like real people. Do not buy the land. We do not need more taxes. Don't pay for it with tax dollars. Buy it, then sell a portion to developers to pay for it. No tax at all do not buy the land No new tax, don't purchase land Neither Tax the properties North of Foothill and East of Milliken. More taxes is not what residents want to pay No taxes period. Taxed Enough Already No new taxes. only tax the builders and land owners for the new area. No tax for current residents! Don't tax anyone for this purpose! Rancho is already too crowded, it's schools are impacted, etc -1 No more taxes for any I am against this purchase because the city leaders are intent on building more high density housin The city should have enough money to purchase the land without taxing parcels. No new tax Buy the land Upper and Lower and sell a substantial portion of it to developers to offset the cost. Do not favor a tax. New homeowners should pay for it. Not convinced about land usage yet. Too many shopping strips tax the ultra wealthy mansions, they can afford it, basically above 210 but make sure its high into No taxing. If the city can't buy It with current monies over time, don't buy it. Do not want any more taxes No new tax Is the only way to raise the funds an additional tax? If you buy the property charge the builders and the new residents that purchase the new houses Do not purchase! No additional tax. RC residents already pay high taxes percentage based on proximaty [ex. 75% No 210, 15% 210 to Foothill, 10% slo Foothill Don't annex the property Tax business owners and property owners but don't develop the land Leave it alone Page 480 No new taxes) Plan S. Don't develop the land. No new property taxes for anyone! Budget and cut back ridiculous salaries and benefits in the city. Use city reserve and pay back with future taxes on future developrnents I don't support additional taxes I don't support purchase. I want open space. no new taxes Dont buy Don't tax for property 04 If open space was to be preserved, what types of open space uses would you support? (Choose all that apply) (459 responses by locals) Options Strict habitat conservatlon With limited human access Habitat conservation with restricted recreational access Habitat conservation that includes trail access for hiking, biking, and horseback riding Sports fields Equestrian center Golf course Community parks Other; L• -s l0� 20 h 3p% 60% 50% 60% 70% Percent M LoCals Iea VG—rl city nature tax like golf oIf course la nd buy park ; r,L preserve Unfiltered responses Locals 1459) 21.1% (97) 22,1% [1W 69.9% (3211 13.7% 163) 18.7% (86) 13.2% (56) 27.3% (125) 9.6% (44y Page 485 No new land purchases DON'T BUY IT no off road motor vehicles! No, no, no, no. Stop this nonsense A combination recreational hicking and sports for fitness. leave the land alone. No building! Preserve the land none leave it be. Don't buy it! Golf course. What a joke. You just tore out a good golf course. dont buy the property Restaurants, shops tno major chains], a small theater and a Whole Foods BASEBALL & SOFTBALL facility. We lack a nice facility like neighboring cities for these sports. Don't buy Is a golf course sustainable 7 There are areas that are more sensitive than others. Can't commit w/o new EIR We had a golf course and 3 to 4 THOUSAND housing units to be built at the Old Lakes Golf Course ? The area has to be patrolled and monitored so that it is safe and people won't graffiti and damage A splash parklwater park, a nice Fountain & museum, a natural pond ecosystem for kids to explore Do not purchase Why not finish Central Park before taking on a new project. This is ridiculous! Community pool, example Fontana aquatic park. Off Road Vehicle use It should be a natural preserve. Non-profit organization lottery for specific community development proposals Leave the land "AS IS" and DO NOT run Wilson Ave to Fontana!!!! Keep it out of the hands of the Lewis Operating Companies Cannot take care of the parks that already exist. If open space is not preserved we should not buy it. Pickle Ball courts please!!!!!!!!! :1 No golf course!!! No commercial that north!! opress the obnoxious horse people if youre an equestarian go to the midwest or something We worry community parks will attract homeless, more than other options. Year Round Reservior for habitat and emergency fire management needs. No public access Only with out additional taxes don't forget the handicapped children, they don't have a playground make special for them yet. Buy the land through a tax and then leave the land as it is today. Leave it as Is None Motocross track the above require even more funds in addition tax amounts for land, so none Dont buy Page 482 Leave land as is. Preserve in its natural state [RESTRICTED] will this happen? RC can't even develop central park Q5 Any other comments or suggestions about open space and the Northern Sphere Annexation? (160 responses by locals) space new property need build Unfiltered responses no building of any sort..... open like live � I t `Y tax resident Want Iiikcs keep le: leave p a y develop [and Don't sell the community property we need more open space to encourage and give opportunities for all residents too enjoy More homes and shopping, Pi ease! I strongly feel the residential development should be 1 acre lots with NO commercial development The more open space the better Let the county dispose of it if we have to pay more taxes to protect the City of R.C. NO MORE TAXES!!! Let's spend the money to develop the,cIty park on baseline that should have been completed 25 years ago I believe keeping open space for horses and walking, nature trails would be awesome. Once that space is gone, nothing is going to bring it back so we need to plan for the future with protecting and keeping open space as a priority. I would vote to purchase both the lower and upper sections if the payment was about $150 a year Leave it alone. Do not build any more multi family dwellings. The traffic congestion in this city is already out of control. Stop lining your pockets with developer money. WE KNOW WHAT YOU"RE DOING. With all due respect, once again we are being led down the road to more taxation. We do not need to buy any land whatsoever. How do we pay for this when our monetary resources are being stretched to the max. When does the water tax kick in again this su mmeN What other taxes do you have in store for the sinking middle income? Signed, Frustrated overtaxed citizen Let the county manage it. Central Park is still into mplete and monies are long gone There is federal grant money to purchase this property. Someone in the City needs to do their homework! Stop building. Leave our open spaces as they are. FIX WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE If you are going to open it up to hiking 1 running trails please include ample parking so that we do no face the same issues with towing cars like at the Etiwanda Preserve. There should be a mix of development (like already exists in that area] and open space, with the development financing the preservation. NO HOUSING, NO COMMERCIAL BUILDING. Water. Fire danger. Congestion. Infrastructure. More housing brings more crime. CVWD must weigh in on how rates will be affected? No medium or high density housing, no commercial or industrial development. Not everyone Is against reasonable and sensible development of some of the area In order to pay for the acquisition. If Rancho doesnt acquire the area I am pretty sure SB County will allow some level of development anyway and likely will probably that development occurs in the area. No new taxes! The land should just not be left open. I agree that it should be annexed, to ensure city control and zoning, but it should be built -out with residential, plus a retail center or two. It seems like the only people opposed to the annexation are those that live near the empty land and somehow expect that the land would never be developed, which seems unreasonable. If they want that land to remain open, tax ONLY them, not the rest of the city. Otherwise, build it out and let those who construct it i live on it pay for it. I think the way that you are asking the questions are leading, especially the first one which sets the stage for the rest of the survey. When you create, in the very first question, a dichotomy between purchasing and conserving the property with higher taxes or not purchasing and Page 483 conserving because they don't want to be taxed, is incorrect and leading methodology. The better way to do it is to ask about the whether they would like the land conserved, then ask if the land should be purchased to be conserved, and then ask if they would like to be taxed to purchase it for that purpose. You are leading the survey respondents to get the answer that you want, which is don't purchase for conservation because it will lead to a tax. This is wrong and a very unethical way of surveying residents. The city has gotten crowded. The traffic is ridiculous. No more development and no more taxes. The homeowners in this area is already paying taxes for services that those outside the area but still in Rancho Benifits from (schools, fire dept, parks, etc). No more habitational buildings in Rancho. No more taxes! Let only those who want it as open spare pay the taxes. I am fine with developing it if it means no new taxes Make sure you have sufficient school systems adequate enough to education that whole entire area, whether that is building schools in that land or increasing teacherfstaff workforce in existing schools. Keep it open space. By no means should multi -unit residential or commercial development be considered for this area Just PLEASE do not build any more housing [that includes NO apartments] The residents of this city do not want to fund your personal interests. Stop trying to remake the city into your own vision of it and to benefit from those changes. The city belongs to us, not you snake -oil salesmen who think we live here by your good graces. It's time for all of you to be removed from the government of our city; and good riddance too! The land should be purchased and preserved as best as possible, with some areas designated for outdoor use (biking, hiking, parks, etc). No homes, no apartments, no commercial occupancies. The City has grown enough. Let's improve and build on what we've already here (roads, infrastrastructure, public services, etc.) We need open spaces. Allow Rancho Cucamonga to a progressive, modem city with consideration to preserving and respecting the beautiful surroundings this city was built upon. What might happen to this area If RC does not purchase It? Are there other potential buyers with plans? It was pretty clear to me at the last meeting that you can't have it both ways. If you want the land clear, taxes are necessary. I don't think it's fair to the rest of the city to pay additional taxes to make the owners in the northern part of the city happy. Low density, high end housing would take care of the issue. I think I heard that the properties had to be worth $750,000 and higher. That shouldn't be hard to do. Don't make the rest of the city pay for the perks of our horse owning neighbors. While it would be nice to keep that land untouched, maybe it isn't feasible. Wilson should also be completed to give us another east/west route in the city. This is a safety and traffic issue. I grew up in Rancho. While I miss the orange groves and vineyards, they are not coming back. we have to do the best we can moving forward. Leave the open space as it is. It's nice to look towards the mountains and not have houses right up to the base. IF you continue to develop any part of the Northern Sphere, all costs should be borne by the NEW property owners only. Frankly I don't think existing properties should bear the cost at all. Quit trying to build on every single piece of land! This city has built enough. Please leave the land like it is. I'm being asked to conserve water, yet you want to build ... we have a water shortage. I do not want commercial or high density. Preserve the land. It any development is to happen on this land, roads will need to be redesigned to ensure safety of drivers and pedestrians around the high school (which is already a challenge certain times of day), we don't need it and we don't need another TAXA Don't purchase. Don't develop. If County wants to develop, restrict them from using all RC city seryices. Create a park/open space like Guasti. Let everything cast as its used. No one complains about Guasti and people love it. We need a facility like that in the Northern part o the city. This is another way of paying for things, instead of raising taxes. Also consider adding more parking to existing parks and add meters to offset the cost. I have lived here for 30 years and I am still waiting for Central Paris to be finished. What I see here is more tax that will probably be used for something else other than the annexation. If more tax is the only solution, let the county keep it. If the land MUST be developed, designate parcels as horse property with million dollar+ single family residences ONLY. We don't need additional gas stations, strip malls or high density dwellings. The city should be more forthcoming with public documents. Stick to general plan. NO SPORTS FIELDS. Continued use for horse trails, hiking, biking, picnic areas. Remember this area is NOT the typical RC property. Yes, it is more exclusive. Yes, those who are established residence are paying a premium for living above the rest. Keep it similar. Don't buy it!! I can't afford anything else put on my property taxes. Leave the land alone!! I struggle to pay my property taxes now --- l can't afford additional taxes Very limited development Your one question was misleading in the fact that if you only taxed those above a certain portion of the City, would everyone still in the City be granted access? What about private access for those that are paying the tax? Agree with low density housing similar to what is already near the 1200 acre area to preserve the 3,000 other acres. Take control of this land and conserve it, to keep all of Rancho Cucamonga's view of our natural foothillslmountains beautiful Page 484 And housing or commercial development would severely, negatively impact local infrastructure, including water supply, freeway and local roads, traffic volume, traffic noise, air pollution levels, school populations, law enforcement and all quality of life issues. PLUS, such development will increase the cost of water, all infrastructure maintenance, local law enforcement and public school costs. What might happen if we do not buy this land. Can we still control it's use? I live below Baseline, I most likely will NOT be going all the way up there to use the area. I should not be taxed for purchase of this land. Has the city investigated philanthropic conservation groups, NGO or government funded organizations to see what is available!e other than development Why must the City always need more tax money to do anything [Purchase this land, complete Central Park, properly maintain landscape districts, etc.]? With all the new businesses and residences in the City, where does that additional revenue go? We don't need more houses we are outbuilt now. A nice baseball softball complex would be awesome. This purchase is splitting this community. Citizens no longer trust the people they elected to take care of their interests. Proceed without compromise and you may find you do not care for the consequences because those voted in can be voted out of office. Please stop over building. Invest in conservation and improving the beautification of our city. Supporting a healthy life style. Purchase the land and put one or two parcels perlacre . With less commercial and business. . NO New Taxes!! The city is obviously trying to put the North and South residents against each other and the question about taxing all or some residents is just absurd. ALL residents in our city are sick and tired of the over building and the lack of respect that the city staff and city council has for our quality of life! The existing overlay of open space needs to be maintained, and consideration needs to be given to a firewlse community. The Panorama Fre is one example of the needed stewardship to maintain the northern sphere. Limited development similar to the beer Creek area or even the Brock Estates would allgn with the area that could be developed. Please do not repeat the mistakes made in Corona, where apartment city is rapidly developing. Enough building, traffic, schools, crime, quality of life is gone. Why can't it just be left alone the way it is? If we can Zone the property "restricted open space with trails for hiking, biking and equestrian use" without purchasing it, I'm in favor of that too. Improve the parking situation for the Et i wa n d aWi ldemess area. I live in the south western part of Rancho Cucamonga, I know I won't have to deal with the impact of traffic, crime, or other concerns as much as my fellow neighbors up north. I do feel that anything that can make our city special and better is a plus, we have enough commercial and industrial areas, so I wouldn't want anymore of that. Nature and open spaces for enjoyment would be nice. Whatever you decide, please make sure to think all aspects through, like parking and trash collection, and whether pets should be allowed. Thanks for all the hard work on this project and good luck! It is clear that the city wants to build homes etc. The taxes that the city is going to force to pay for this needs to be paid by the people who will occupy the new building. We do NOT support building, nor do we support any kind of bond or tax increase! Not sure what it is going to take for the CITY to understand that they have failed the citizens in their mission. Our perception of you is that you are sneaky and underhanded. By the way, if my mission statement as a public employee included the word 'perception' in it, I am certain that I would be at minimum told to change it as it gives the stakeholders the idea that one does not care about the real mission. Develop lower portion Neighborhood retail center like the new Stater Bros on Base Line and Day Creek. They also need a small gas station up there. Preserve this area. Adding trails for hiking and horse back riding in the hills would be a great compliment to our history leaving the rural atmosphere we Rancho residents enjoy. Leave as open space because soon it will be all we have left in this concrete jungle. How about using some of the excess money the city has to purchase it. Let's have council members take a drop in pay [like most of us have] to finance this project. Higher taxation for multiple dwelling operators to pay for annexation Tax by income is an option. Take care f what's already on the books. Then take on new projects Ensure impact on wildlife is taken into consideration & protect the wildlife! You never finished centralPark when you could have. But you built Quakes Stadium with the money!!! I remember reading the story in the Dally Report. I have been in Rancho Sense 1976, and heard all the excuses why when my kids were young and needed the park & lakes. Where were they? just replace the Funds and build Central Park like the City was to do!, Also just clean up the weeds it's an eye sore! But don't tax us far not building The park when you could have! just look up the old news paper articles if you don't belive me. Where are all the Concerts & other money makers that were to be done in Quakes Stadium????? No NEW taxes. California's are being taxed to death. You should show a map with this type of questionnaire. We vehemently oppose any development in the Northern Sphere Annexation Page 489 Try managing the city as it is now. Take a look at some of the overpaid city positions. Lets get their pay back in line. Look at the way some city departments are being run. Let's lean things down. Maybe put some money into the schools. Take a look at some economic development projects that benefit the city and not just the pockets of city council. RC is the most generic city I have ever lived in. And 1 have lived in a lot of different cities in a few different countries and a lot of different states. If our taxes are going to rise again I would like to see a project that benefits the community. The land should be used to create space where people in the community can get outdoors and enjoy nature or exercise. I'd love to see more parks and sports fields. do not get involved in a purchase!! Sensible use would be approvable. That is high end land. We don't need a new city up there. No apartments. No shopping centers. High end homes, parks and maybe a small convenience center. Yes, focus on the real needs of the city. We have high taxes, city salaries out of this world, miss management of city funds, hence ongoing increases in city taxes. The cost of living in the city of Rancho Cucamonga has sky rocketed. Our financial department reflects poor stewardship of city funds. Tell the City Council to stop screwing around and listen to all the people who have gone to all the meetings and requested low density housing 112 to 1 acre lots. Council stop playing games If you allow some non profit organizations that work direct with the community, Usually the cost savings for misC social and Civic services pays for itself. Leave the land "AS IS" and DO NOT run Wilson Ave to Fontana!!!! This is just one option, you say? This whole discussion about these parcels has gotten so confusing. I'll leave the declslon to those that understand it better. We are already on water conservation. Any more development will just tax our resources more. When you ask a question about upper and lower sphere you should include a map! I just believe the open space should remain open space! If we develop this land there will be more coyotes and possums and other wildlife squeezed our of their habitat and driven into our backyards. All the homes bordering it will get the mice that are currently feeding the hawks and we will lose our hawks. We HAD a golf course ... we have HAD open space ... now both are gone and the Lewis family profits. How much is enough. Randall??? Build only single family residences. You should put the information found at the end, in the beginning prior to voting.... 1 didn't want to pretty any additional taxes until I read the county most sell it. CONSERVE AWAY!! Leave as is. NO MORE DEVELOPMENT!! Fund it by reducing exorbitant salaries and pensions. City compensation Is way out of line with normal people. Ontario managed to build their New Madel Colony without impacting the established residents with a new tax burden. All costs to the expansion should be bome by the developers and new residents. If Rancho annexes this space, I hope NO houses are built on it! We're overcrowded as it is, our schools are already impacted, and traffic is heavy. Yet, for some reason, we just keep building and building and bringing in more people! Nature is beautiful and should be preserved with activities that blend with that open space. Since the people who live nearby have been so vocal in what THEY want and who they want around they should be paying the taxes. Most of Rancho Cucamonga will not benefit from conservation area. I personally am against any more high density housing. If we do purchase it, it should only include housing an half acre property and include riding trails and plenty of open space for riding and hiking. Think about the citizens for once instead of how much money you can bring in by building high density. By the way. I don't own a horse but that space was originally designed for horse property and it should remain so. Why do we need this land? There are not enough services in the city now and new taxes would not produce more services only payment for the land we don't need. Keep Rancho Cucamonga Beautiful!! RC has been good at making wise investments. Use good choices and discernment when evaluating. Honestly, I wish this was not such a public forum, most community members only care about themselves and do not consider the City as a whole. Then they make decisions on what's in it for themselves, not the best choice for the City. Do not allow housing, apartments, retail. Add a park or shelter w/bathrooms for hikers and horse riders. STOP overbuilding Rancho, we don't have the water resources. Don't want more traffic headaches. Prefer not to have tract homes Limit any constructlon to the lower 1200 acres and with only equestrian style homes. It would help if a map was included in this Survey. Take Care of Central Park first!!! I'm 100% in favor of open space, trees, hiking, and parks and I'm willing to pay far them through my taxes Page 406 What happens to this land will have huge implications for our city and its future. U have an opportunity to raise the value of our city. This won't happen if u are short sighted and go for the quick buck. Do not bring in high density housing or commercial development and lots of traffic. Keep it as natural as possible with as few homes and maybe a small tax to balance that. Thank you The council members need to be present at the meetings and answer ALL questions. If there isn't enough time at one meeting schedule others until ALL questions are answered. That's a lot of money and we need answers. Have all of your experts there so that questions can be answered on the spot, not "I'll get back to you" Keep habitat conservation and as much open space as possible. No high density or commercial building at all. If have to have some type of building (which I don't really want to see, as believe habitat conservation is extremely important), would like minimum half acre or 1 acre properties, or large equestrian properties (5 acres or more). I value the open space and natural habitat To buy this area for housing is poor land management. We live in an overcrowded area with limited water resources. When we conserve water, we wind up paying more for it because of fixed costs and expenses. Maintaining a stable population is critical for future sustainability. Continuing to build and increase population degrades our continued existence. We need to conserve this open land for the wildlife in the area. No new taxes! No annexation! We definitely do NOT need more homes or high-density housing!! If the land is develop do not build high density housing. Build horse property with a minimum of 112 acre. and charge the new owners and the builders for the property and not the rest of the city. Why do we have to buy it at all? Stop trying to develop every piece of open space. Listen to your constituents and be transparent and forthcoming. I was born and raised her 49 years ago. Our city has continued to grow. It is a necessity we preserve undeveloped open land space for generations to come to enjoy the hawks, the squirrels, the rabbits, the bobcats, the coyotes, the mountain lions, the bears. Otherwise we may as well live In a concrete city like the east coast that rely on a park in the center of a city. Sad very sad, in my opinion. That's not the Rancho Cucamonga I grew up knowing and loving and having family in. Our city is lucrative in resources, I own a small business here. Please be kind to our city and residents, those residents include the wildlife that makes our city so beautiful, diverse, and a desirable place to live. When did the option of buying the land become a possibility. I have answered more than one of these surveys, and they were always about annexation so that governance would come from City of Rancho Cucamonga instead of San Bernardino County. Since when did outright purchase pop up and why7 Rancho Cucamonga should not purchase the property if it will generate additional taxes on residents No apartments!!!! There is only one opportunity to preserve open space. If those are in doubt it would help to look at cities that have made the decision to maintain open space and see how great a benefit there is to the community. Cities such as Monrovia, Huntington Beach, Irvine, San Diego... This is an opportunity that will pass and never be an option again. The only way to truly control development is for the City to own the land. Any other arrangement will be another condition where the city only gets to oversee development done by developers. not understanding the tax implications... how much would each household be paying for this land? Why are the proposed tax increases different for the two areas in question when one section is larger than the other but the smaller one would have a larger tax cost? We all need to commit to conserving open space where we can and where other species, animals and plant life, may continue to exist in their habitat --their rightful place on this planet. If we can do it in such a fashion as to allow safe, limited access to hiking, so as to develop in our fellow citizens an appreciation for the need to protect nature and open space, that would be a very good thing. Do not build more houses. Do not build more schools. Do not build more apartments. Do not build business. Please preserve something for us to enjoy. "The Central Park " is still waiting. We purchased in 1998. The area is one of the few places in the world where White Sage grows, alluvial flood plains are extremely rare. I would like to know how the costs for the property was determined. Quit playing games and wasting our city dollars with these snake oil salesmen you have masquerading as consultants. None right now. Who owns the land now? The County? I suggest we leave it alone - this area is immediately above my house and it's beautiful just as it is. Protect the land and water resources and you'll earn trust back. You are not elected to line your pockets or decide what gets sacrificed because you think citizens are too dumb to know better. Stop seeing dollar signs. What happened to the original numbers when the City said it would cost 75 million, not 171 million? If parcels were to be taxed for the purchase of part of this property, how many years would each parcel be taxed? If you have to add additional taxes to residents to purchase or develop the Northern Sphere then I am against the annexation! Your survey is bias in that your question about taxes pits the north and the south. The manipulation in your question makes lends an appearance that this process is "Shady". I would be willing to incur a small tax increase, but the price of $266 sounds Incredibly high, especially if shared by all residents of the City. I continue to support this area being open space. Definitely NO commercial/retail development. I support equestrian, trails, wildlife habitat. Look at all the really desirable communities in California. None are wall to wall concrete. To truly retain property values and quality of life we must preserve nature. Page 407 If a selected group or area has to pay for it then they should access to enjoy the area; therefore, it should be the whole city or none. Prudent use for habitat preservation and hiking only ! No Bikes, Horses or other non hiking activities would provide humans a very nice escape form the noise and distractions from Bikers and horses . People need a quite place! No apartments or low income housing! If people want it perserved, they need to pay for it, not all homeowners. We really should not develop further. Our infrastructure is strained enough as it is. My only concern is what can happen if this land is sold to others. no new taxes for purcase We are faced with a dearth of undeveloped open spaces in the city. This purchase is critical to provide recreation and access natural habitat for citizens of the city. This is an investment in the health and lifestyle future generations in Rancho Cucamonga. Leave it as is. Don't buy! Leave land in its natural state. Do not interrupt its existing wildlife and plants. No more high density in R CH Need to add more areas of uncemented space or permeable products so we can fill our natural aquifers. Preserve our unique and religious properties from code enforcements that will destroy them! I.e.: CW feed, tea house, church property on Helman and baseline, etc. Have developers buy the land with heavy restrictions, and only develop the land around the extension of Wilson. All I know is I can't afford any more tax hikes. I do not have enough information on it to know how to vote. tax the mansions and the residents there who are rude as hell and especially the horse people who brought their horses into government pg buildings and my Janitor friends had to clean up their [RESTRICTED]. equestrians aren't oppressed try being gay or something. [c] Copyright 2013.2018 Goremance Sciences Group, Inc., Parent pending Page 408 NESAP Medmia Coverag mofti. q'if �.::. Spuln ''.. Page 409 CONTACT US TOP USiS Search site HOME BUSINESS REAL ESTATE BANKING EDUCATION OPINION TOP LISTS CONTACT US DONTMiSS More good housing data Home n City 1 County News > Rancho Cucamonga considers major arnexann Rancho Cucamonga considers major annexation By IE Business Oaily on February 99, 2016 SHARE TWEET SHARE SHARE 0 COMMENTS The city wants to add more than 4,000 acres north of border. Some residents are less thanca, -0, Anton "M thrilfed with the idea. ygh+s Wax nQ Rancho Cucamonga is trying to became °an'i0 s larger. About six square miles larger, to be precise. RANCHO CUCAMON'GA - y as The city wants to annex approximately 4,100 Upland Rancho n &a acres of land north of its border, much of which menga W +iaY is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. �„s+•Dan Ewnrdn Yntano That land, which the district has said it no longer O aP1a mustQ � P+m InEPrnat•onal needs, is mostly north of the Foothill Freeway a3 Airport s�tnrap. and east of Haven Avenue. That puts it within p, nand fwr V."" Rancho Cucamonga's sphere of influence, Q G1enAK making it easier to bring within the city's borders- ,. Z The Rancho Cucamonga City Council has directed staff to study possible commercial and residential development on about 1,200 acres on the sou them end of the property. While the county would still own the land, annexing it would place it under the jurisdiction of the city, giving Rancho Cucamonga more say in what's developed there, said Matt Burris, deputy city manager. But some residents are concerned about any development in an area that is largely pristine. They believe what is being proposed is too dense and would add to the city's traffic and air quality problems. 'I go almost everywhere in the city, and the traffic is terrible," said Joseph Cowan, a Rancho Cucamonga resident for more than 50 years- "During rush hour it's almost impossible to move around, and this would make things worse- We can't handle the extra population." Opposition to the project grew late last year, during four community meetings and several online events- A F•acebook page, 'Stop Rancho Cucamonga Expansion,' was staged. In response, staff put together a list of frequently asked questions, with answers, to update and clarify the proposed annexation's status. One clarification: The city has an agreement with Sargent Town Planning, an urban consulting firm in Los Angeles, to prepare a specific plan for the annexation area. Sargent Town has also arranged for completion of an environmental impact report - HICKEY MARKETING GROUP AMYdinp MP, bP t ltl. MarkP1iurr}.. �itrt�tu'rrr�. Web De4�ef�pntett. � S'EG S'efivic� �r}7 I t%lllut! �IlttQt r1P 8tldtII.PddPd. LATEST NEWS POPULAR COMMENTS *t„,;,,t, ^ Data Backup Strategy By Ryan Kincer Every business knows they need to... M. rlay in. 2018 a Lake Elsinore Lands Ice Manufacturer (0_ An ice manufacturer and rte+ • , distrlbutor will accupy an industrial... May 10, 2018 a http://iebusinessdaily. com/rancho-cueamonga-considers-maj or -annexation/ Delinquent Mortgage Payments Drop The inland Empire's mortgage delinquency rate dropped slightly between,.. May to -2058 0 5/10/2018 Page 464 The two-page question -and -answer document, which was released early this month, also makes clear that the annexation is not a done deal. The specific plan and environmental report, both of which are required to complete the process, have barely gotten started, and development rights for areas within the site must be determined. Also, once the city agrees on a final plan, it must be approved by the state Associations of Local Agency Formation Commissions in Sacramento, which has final say regarding annexations. Rancho Cucamonga officials have already revised their plans based on the opposition raised during the community meetings last year. Bums said. Plans for multifamily housing and an urban village have been dropped, and the city no longer plans to put office buildings in the annexation site. Most of that land is open space, but it has some development, incfuding a fewsingle4amity residences, the Ling Yen Mountain Temple and several Southern California Edison transmission lines. Now, city officials are studying plans to possibly develop more single-family homes, and possibly some light retail, on the site, but not much mere. The amount of development there could be scaled back to 900 acres, according to Burns. 'There was a lot of concern about the: amount of development we were proposing," Burris said. "A lot of people thought it was too dense, and we understand where they're coming from. It's their community, and they expect to have some say in how that property is developed. 'We're shill going to do the annexation. The question now is how will we develop it once we do annex it.' Rancho Cucamonga officials have been oons?dering annexing the land — the pro ecPs official name is the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project — since 2005, when the flood control district began negotiating with developers about sell Ing the property. No deal was reached, opening the door to annexation, which the city wants because it wants any development there to be subject to its zoning laws and other regulations. 'What's developed there now isn't as important as having control of that property,' Burris said. "We don't want something going in there that we don't like, so we have to come up with a plan. If the county were to decide to leave it vacant, that would be fine with us.' Some opposition to the planned annexation goes deeper than concerns about traffic and dirty air, Cowan said. Rancho Cucamonga has its share of horse owners, and parts of the annexation area permits houses where people may keep horses. 'One of our big issues is keeping that equestrian overlay,' said Cowan, president of the Alta Lama Riding Club. `The city's general plan allows for half -acre [residential] lots for horse ownership, and we'd like to see it stay that way." City offidals are planning to hold at least two more public meetings, one in March and another in April, along with more online forums, Burris said. Council members should receive a fmal proposal in May, and a final environmental impact report could be ready by January_ Without annexation, the land would go back to the county, at which point it would have to resume negotiations with a developer for a possible sate. 'Neither side wants that to happen,` Burris said City 1 County news featured REtAYEO POSTS http://iebusinessdaily-com/rancho-cucamonga-considers-major-annexation/ 5/10/2018 Page 465 j)[J Daily Bulletin How Rancho Cucamonga can weigh in on the city's annexation plans residents Sandra Emerson PUBLISHED: March 19, 2018 at 12:55 pm I UPDATED: March 20, 2018 at 10:01 am Local News https :llwww.dai lybulletin. coml2 0 l 8lO3l l 9lhow-rancho-cuearnonga-residents-can-weigh-in... 5/10/2018 Page 46a The city of Rancho Cucamonga will hold community workshops on its plans to annex 4,300 acres of land north of its city limits. The workshops are planned for 6:30 to 8:30 p. m. March 22 and April 19 at Central Park, 11200 Base Line Rd., Rancho Cucamonga. Rancho Cucamonga officials want the community's help drafting a vision for the future of more than 4,000 acres the city plans to add to the northern part of town. Workshops have been planned for 5:30 to 8:30 p.m, Thursday, March 22, and April 19 at Rancho Cucamonga Hall in Central Park, 11200 Base Line Road, as a way to gain community feedback on future development of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project. or NESAP, area. Dinner and childcare will be provided. 'We're bringing the question of what to do with the land back to the community," said Matt Burris, deputy city manager. "We're not bringing a proposal. We're going back to a blank slate and asking the communityto partner with the city on articulating a future for that site." The 4,300 -acre unincorporated San Bernardino County area extends from Haven Avenue east to the city's border with Fontana and from the northern city limits to the National Forest boundary. �•ilF + ■ r Iva R#VIpW*7•■F.■IFi'.■■.rtasp .r■■..r4+krrr.,'•■r�r.w■■■�*■����,r■111■lw■■■rr■■iil 1 1 i ! 1 Conservation 1 Pflority Area 1 ! � ■....M,■■. F �- - }rare■■■a■■■�■r■■■■.■r■■uu■.■.0■1 f 1 tr.a �p•� - ! 1 !Mid' 1 r https://www. dailybulletin. coml2O l 8103l l 9lhow-rancho-cucamonga-residents-can-weigh-i n... 5/10/2018 Page 453 , Iel hborhood `-4 Development ' Prlo l�,Area Overview of North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project area Initial designs maintain 3,100 acres as a "conservation priority area," with the remaining 1,200 available for development. The area available for development is north of Banyan Street, between Milliken Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. Residents criticized an earlier city proposalexpressing concern over the inclusion of high-density housing. In response, the city revised its proposal, eliminating all multi -family housing and scaling back the type of office and commercial uses. 'We got a lot of negative feedback on that proposal," Burris said. 'We also heard a fairly wide range of concern and suggestions from the community as to what we should do instead." https:llvAvw.dailybulletin.coml2Ol8lO3ll9lhow-rancho-Cucamonga-residents-can-weigh-in... 5/10/2019 Page 468 Burris said there seems to be consensus among the community that having local control of the property's future development is important and annexation makes sense, but what the land will ultimately be is a question they are trying to answer. "Local control is one thing, but what do we want to do?" he said. "What do we hope to achieve with that land?" The lower portion of the annexation area, about 1,200 acres surrounded on three sides by the city of Rancho Cucamonga, is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The district no longer needs the land for flood control and is looking to sell it to help fund other projects. Annexing the property would mean any future development would fall under the city's development plans. Development of the area would take 10 to 20 year$, according to the city. The city would benefit from future property and sales tax revenues, officials said. "If there's going to be development there, we'd like to make sure we have a say in how it's developed and we'd like to make sure we're able to collect at least enough taxes to offset the demand for additional services throughout the city," Burris added. To RSVP for the March 22 or April 19 workshop, call 909-774-4312. In addition to the workshops, there will be some online engagement opportunities for the public, Burris said. The feedback obtained over the next two months will help city staff draft a proposal for City Council consideration in May, he said. https:IlwwFv.dailybulletin.coml2018103ll 9lhow-rancho-cucamonga-residents-can-weigh-in... 5/14/2018 Page 469 LOCAL NEWS Rancho Cucamonga residents want local control, quality projects for 4,300 acres proposed for annexation Rancho Cucamonga residents look over a map of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal area during a community input and discussion meeting Thursday evening March 22, 2018 at the James L.. Brulte Senior Center in Rancho Cucamonga. (Photo by, Will Lester, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG) By SANDRA EMERSON j semerson[scng.com j Redlands Daily Facts March 24.2018 at 6.01 am https:llwww.dailybulletin-coml2018lO3l241rancho-cucamonga-residents-want-local-control... 5/10/2018 Page 4-18 Gaining local control, having compatible development and avoiding new property taxes are among residents' priorities for the 4,300 acres of land Rancho Cucamonga wants to annex into its northern city limits. Working in gzoups, residents identified their priorities for the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal_ or NESAP. during a workshop Thursday. March 22. at the Goldy S. Lewis Community Center in Rancho Cucamonga. About 100 residents attended the workshop, which was an opportunity for city staff to hear from the community before presenting a plan to the City Council in May. "What I want to see is development that is consistent with what's up there right now. that's super conscious of the effects that it's going to have on the surrounding neighborhoods," said resident Ryan Hutchison. "And, also is going to be conscious of )ust maintaining the feel of Rancho Cucamonga and funding the highest best use for that area for the residents and the community." The 4,300 -acre unincorporated San Bernardino County area extends from Haven Avenue east to the city's border with Fontana and from the northern city limits to the National Forest boundary. Residents criticized an earlier city proposal, expressing concern over the inclusion of high-density housing. In response, the C4 _ Council revised the proposal, eliminating apartment homes and scaled back the type of office and commercial uses. City staff has decided to clear the state and create a new community-based proposal to take to the council. said Matt Burris, the city's deputy city manager of economic and community development. "We need to tell them; Here is a community-based plan. This reflects the will of the commtuiity," Biuris said. During Thursday's workshop. residents ranked obtaining local control over the property as their highest priority. Tlne lower portion of the annexation area. about 1.200 acres surrounded on three sides by the city of Rancho Cucamonga, is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and falls under the county's zoning laws. https://www.dailybull eti n. com12018/03/24/rancho-cucamonga-residents-want-local -control... 5/10/2018 Page 417 The district no longer needs the land for flood control and wants to sell it to help fund other projects. Annexing the property would mean any future development would fall under the city's development plans. The city also would benefit from future property and sales tax revenue. The city is not proposing to purchase the land or levy new taxes on residents, Burris said. -The most important thing for me in all of this is that Rancho Cucamonga maintains local control of this area immediately adjacent to it," Hutchison said. "That's my No. l priority is that the development standards are that of Rancho Cucamonga, not the county." Hutchison is in good company. More than 70 percent of about 500 residents who responded to a city survey last week were in support of local control, Burris said. "One of the things we heard pretty consistently is that the community is very interested in local control," he said. Residents also ranked preservation of open space. preservation of view corridors and respecting existing property rights highly. There are several private property owners in the northern portion of the annexation area, some of whom attended Thursday's workshop. Building new park and equestrian facilities, housing for young professionals and families, housing for empty nesters and seniors, and community gathering spaces had little to no support. Some people were in favor of connecting Wilson Avenue through the Annexation area, which is something that needs to happen. Bturis said. "That area of the city was never designed to function with just the 210 and Banyan." he said. "We need Wilson to alleviate travel impacts and for safety in terms of fire and emergency response." After the ranking, residents marked their plans on maps of the area. Don Horvatich, who lives nearby, said he does not want to see Section 8 or high- density housing. httpc:llwww.dailybulletin.coiiV20181031241rancho-cucarrronga-residents-want-local-control... 5110/2018 Page 418 " I don't want to see the streets overcrowded." he said. " I see that Fontana is overgrown. We're surrounded by overgrowth where we are." Horvatich said he was happy the city invited residents to share their opinions. "I think it's a big bonus that Rancho Cucamonga is at least taking our opinions," he said. A follow tip workshop will be held from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. April 19 in the Rancho Cucamonga hail at the community center_ 11200 Base Line Road. Tags: Top Stories IVDB Sandra Emerson Sandra Emerson covers the cities of Redlands, Highland and Yucaipa for the Southern California News Group, 0 Follow Sandra Emerson @TheFactsSandra VIEW COMMENTS Join the Conversation We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions. If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the "Flag as Inappropriate" feature by hovering over the right side of the post, https: //www.dailybuiletin.com/2O l 8/O 3/24/rancho-cucamonga-residents-want-local-contro 1... 5/10/2018 Page 419 )IJ Daily Bulletin How Rancho Cucamonga residents can participate in annexation discussion virtually Sandra Emerson PUBLISHED: April 10, 2018 at 5:08 pm I UPDATED: April 10, 2018 at 5:10 pm Local News Rancho Cucamonga residents unable to attend the city's workshops on the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal, or NESAP, can still give their feedback. The city is conducting a virtual workshop through the end of the week as part of its effort to gather residents' ideas for 4,300 acres it plans to annex into its northern boundary. The community will have several more opportunities to share feedback:rn rn t • 10 a.m. to noon Wednesday, April 11, at the Archibald Library, 7368 Archibald Ave. rn t • 6 to 8 p.m. Thursday, April 12, at the LoanMart Field at the Epicenter Sports Complex, 8404 Rochester Ave. https:lhvww.dailybulletin.corxi120 l 81041101how-rancho-cucamonga-residents-can-participa... 5/10/2018 Page 420 rn t - 6:30 to 8:34 p.m. April 19 in the Rancho Cucamonga haft at the Goldy S. Lewis Community Center, 11200 Base Line Road, rn rnAbout 100 residents identified their priorities for the proposal area during a -community workshop March 22 at the community center. Among their highest priorities were local control of the property, which is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and various private property owners, compatible development and avoiding new property taxes. Residents criticized an earlier city proposal, expressing concern over the inclusion of high-density housing. In response, the City Council revised the proposal. eliminating apartment homes and scaling back the type of office and commercial uses. City staff has decided to clear the slate and create a new community-based proposal to take to the council in May. Participate in the virtual workshop here. For more information on NESAP, visit the city`s website. View more on Daily Bulletin Promoter! Stories https:llwww.dailybutletin.coml20 l 8lO41101how-rancho-cueatnonga-residents-can-partic ipa... 5/10/2018 Page 425 DB Daily Bulletin Top Rated senior Living And V> X Retirement Communities, j Learn More Now Why Rancho Cucamonga equestrians are speaking out about city's plan to annex 4,300 acres Sandra Emerson PUBLISHED: April 23, 2018 at 4:31 prn I UPDATED: April 23, 2018 at 4:34 prn Local News Horse Savannah hangs her head over rider Jennifer Higa of Rancho Cucamonga as they take part in the Rancho Cucamonga equestrian community rally outside the community center prior to the city's workshop on the North Eastern Sphere htt p s:11 www.d ai lybu II eti n. co m12018/04/2 3/wh y -rancho -cu ca m onga-eq uestri ans-a re -spec ki ng -ou t -a bout-citys-pla n -to-an n ex-4300-acres/a mp!?_twitter_i nn p re ssi o rr Page 422 Annexation Proposal Thursday in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. April 19, 2018. (TERRY PIERSON, THE PRESS-ENTERPRISEJSCNG) Don't forget the horses. That's the message equestrians in Rancho Cucamonga want to share with their neighbors as the city creates a proposal for 4,300 acres it plans to annex. For several weeks, officials have been working to gather input from Rancho Cucamonga residents to determine their priorities for the land that abuts the city's northern boundaries. Residents want the city to make open space preservation a priority, but equestrian use has been missing from the list. joe Cowan, president of the Alta !roma Riding Club, and others set out last week to shine a spotlight on the equestrian community, its needs and its presence in the area targeted for annexation, "We want people to know that we're here," Cowan said while atop Charlie, his horse, at a rally Thursday, April 19, in Central park. "We would like them to know https:hwww.dai IybuI Ietin.com12018/04/231why-rancho-cucamonga-equestrians-are-speaking-out-about-citys-pia n-to-annex-4300-acreslampl?`twitter impression Page 423 that we would like open space. We would like the equestrian overlay to be in tact and if it's possible, we would like a nice equestrian center in that project if we can get one:' Cowan and others gathered with their horses prior to a workshop that sought resident input on the annexation plan, called the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal, or NESAP. Zoning in the area supports equestrian living and allows horses on lots larger than 20,000 -square -feet. There is also a network of bridal trails. But Cowan and others say they wonder if enough people know about the equestrian community's use of the area. At a March 22 meeting, reside nts mre -asked to ra n th eit priorities for future development of the land. Adding new equestrian facilities did not make the list. "We heard through the last community meeting that non -equestrian community was just not aware that we were here," Cowan said. After lining up at the park Thursday evening, Cowan and others took their horses back to their trailers and then joined the workshop that was attended by more than 200 people. Before the meeting, Matt Burris, the city's deputy city manager of economic and community development, assured equestrians that the city has no plans to remove the equestrian zoning nor are there plans to remove equestrian amenities. "This is not a meeting to talk about getting rid of horse trails in Rancho Cucamonga," Burris said. "This is not a meeting to talk about getting rid of equestrian zoning here in Rancho Cucamonga. That being said, we are talking about the future of a big chunk of land up in our equestrian overlay area, so it's really, really important our equestrian community members are here." There ►rajas a misunderstanding about the city's intentions over the past week or two, Burris said, but the city's plan all along has been to maintain equestrian living https:!lwww.dailybuiletin.cam/2Ol8tO4i23Mhy-rancho-cucamonga-equestrians•are-speaking-out-about-citys-plan-to-annex-4300-acres/ampt?._[wifter impression Page 428 in that part of town. "What we've heard at the city is that rural, equestrian living is really important to the community," he said, "and we agree." The acreage is currently within San Bernardino County Iimits. The lower portion of the annexation area, about 1,200 acres surrounded on three sides by the city of Rancho Cucamonga, is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The district no longer needs the land for flood control and wants to sell it to help fund other projects. Annexing the property would mean any future development would fall under tie, city's zoning laws. The city would also benefit from property and sales tax revenues from any future project there, which would help pay for the development's impacts on the city. Residents criticized an earlier city proposal, expressing concern over the inclusion of high-density housing. In response, the city r vi i =Rg3aL eliminating all apartment homes and scaling back the type of office and commercial uses that would be allowed. City staff, however, decided to clear the slate and create a new community-based proposal to take to the council in May. They have collected community input through in-person and virtual workshops. About 100 people at the March 22 workshop identified local control, avoiding new taxes and development compatibility as their priorities for the property. Open space preservation, meanwhile, emerged as a priority in a recent virtual workshop attended by 2.64 people. At the workshop Thursday, the city asked attendees to further define the type of open space, housing and amenities they would support. https.ffiww.dailybuIIatin,comf201$104123lwhy-rancho-cucamon ga-equestrians-are-speaking-out-about-citys-plan-to-annex-4300-acreslamp/7__hvitter impressiom Page 429 "Largely what we heard was, if we need development there to make annexation feasible, it should be low density. It should be rural in nature," Burris said. Residents also want connect streets to reduce traffic issues; safe, pedestrian - friendly streets; and an extended trail system to connect the west and east sides of Rancho Cucamonga. Cowan said he didn't know if his wish for a new equestrian center was financially feasible, but he said it would be a benefit to the community. "It would just be nice to be able to have kids and adults go somewhere where they can see what horses do, take a lesson and get on a horse," he said. "We've packed hundreds of thousands of people in the city, it would just be nice to see them come out and enjoy a horse." View more on Dy_ Bulletin https!/Iwww.daIlybulletin.com/2018/04/2atwhy-rartch"ucamonga-equestrians-are-speaking-out-about-eitys-plan-to-annex-4300-acreslampt?`Lwitter impression Page 480 r L f � y r i r Y mm UND ANNEYATIQN MEETING f wu+crracucu�c�w I �-- 4CA rC,r#r _ LAND ANNEXATION MEETING '.1 -----Original Message ----- From: Joseph Cowan [mailto.joeofire@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 8, 2018 5:40 PM To: Burris, Matt <Matt.Burris@cityofrc.us> Subject: Channel Four News Mayor, City Council and City Staff The Channel 4 News on April 19th implied, by editing my interview, that the Alta Loma Riding Club was opposed to the development of the property associated with the NESAP. This was a misrepresentation of aur position. We did not say nor did we infer that we were opposed to the development of the site. The stance of the Alta Loma Riding Club is to protect the "Equestrian J Rural Overlay". This would include equestrian trails and connecting trails, equestrian crossings of roadways where needed, equestrian- friendly barriers for communities with trails (per code), lots with horse facilities or pads for horse facilities, and equestrian facilities on the east side of the city. The Daily Bulletin portrayed a much more accurate account of our position on the proposed development. We would like to be involved if possible in the planning with regards to equestrian needs. Additionally, equestrian mitigation fees were collected many years ago to build a large, state of the art, equestrian facility on the east side of the city. Unfortunately it was not built, but we would certainly support such a facility. There seems to be a misunderstanding of some community members as to why there were horses at the April 19 NESAP meeting. We attended the meeting on horseback to show the general community that we are still here and to garner support to protect our rich equestrian heritage. We were not there to voice dissent of the development or annexation, nor to show that the equestrian community had some sort of ongoing disagreement with the City. We were there because in the previous meeting we had heard that the general community had forgotten about us. We were actually there to support the city in fighting for the equestrian community and maintaining the equestrian rural overlay. We notified Deputy City Manager Matt Burris stating our purpose of being there to support the city in it's goal of protecting the equestrian rural overlay. All equestrians in attendance were in agreement with our goals for the meeting. The Alta Loma Riding Club is proud of our positive working relationship with the City, and all of it's Staff. Thank You Joseph Cowan President, Alta Loma Riding Club Please forward this email to: Mayor Dennis Michael Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy Council Members Willian Alexander Sam Spagnolo Diane Williams City Manager John Gillison Page 488 May 16, 2018 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CLOSED SESSION, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 in the Tapia Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Bill Alexander, Sam Spagnolo, Diane Williams, and Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James L. Markman, City Attorney; Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services; Elisa Cox, Deputy City Manager/Cultural & Civic Services; and Matt Burris Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Development. No public communications were made. No discussion or actions were taken. D1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9591 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND MARTIN ZVIRBULIS, GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. — CITY D2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA) AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. — CITY May 16, 2018 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 1 of 8 Page 429 D3. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0229- 012-08-0000 AND 0229-012-10-0000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND DAN DE LA PAZ, REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. — CITY D4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) — SOUTHWEST VOTERS REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT AND LOUISA OLLAGUE V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; CASE NO. CIVRS 1603632. — CITY D5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND RANCHO STREET AS PARCEL NUMBERS 1061- 621-30-000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES CITY MANAGER JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND JENNIFER GOODELL, REAL PROPERTY AGENT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. — CITY The closed session recessed at 6:00 p.m. The regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were held on May 16, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Bill Alexander, Sam Spagnolo, Diane Williams and Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James L. Markman, City Attorney; Linda A. Troyan, City Clerk Services Director. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy led the Pledge of Allegiance. Al. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Month of May 2018 as "Mental Health Month". Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented a Proclamation to Joanna Marrufo, Healthy RC Management Aide; Healthy RC Community Champions; Healthy RC Mental Health Subcommittee; and Healthy RC Youth Leaders declaring the month of May 2018 as "Mental Health Month". Healthy RC Management Aide Marrufo announced a Mental Health Resource Fair taking place on Tuesday, May 22 at 5:30 p.m. at Central Park. May 16, 2018 1 Fire Protection District, 1 -lousing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 2 of 8 Page 430 A2. Presentation of a Proclamation to the Cucamonga Valley Water District, Declaring the Month of May 2018 as "Save Our Water Month". Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented a Proclamation to James Curatalo Jr., President of the Board of Directors of the Cucamonga Valley Water District, declaring the Month of May 2018 as "Save Our Water Month". A3. Presentation of a Proclamation to the YMCA, Declaring the Month of May as "Water Safety Month" along with a Water Safety/ Drowning Prevention Presentation by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. Kelly Donaldson, Community Affairs Coordinator, RC Fire District, led a PowerPoint presentation about Water Safety. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council along with Kelly Donaldson, Community Affairs Coordinator, RC Fire District, presented a Proclamation to Tim Walborn, YMCA of Upland, declaring the Month of May as "Water Safety Month". Larry Henderson, on behalf of the Alta Loma Riding Club, spoke on the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal and the staff report provided under item K1. Luana Hernandez expressed concern with the Planning Commission on preserving a historical home at 5917 Archibald. Janet Walton offered a prayer and thanked Council for their support on the National Day of Prayer. Natasha Walton spoke on the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal and asked the City Council to consider various alternatives and having open space for the area; and promoted living a healthy life style. Mark Rush spoke on the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal; expressed concern with low density housing in that area due to potential negative impacts. City Manager Gillison addressed Ms. Hernandez concerns and asked the City Engineer to clarify the deadline and process with Ms. Hernandez. C1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. C2. Consideration to Approve Bi -Weekly Payroll in the Amount of $597,229.20 and Weekly Check Registers in the Amount of $1,005,357.83 Dated April 24, 2018 Through May 7, 2018. C3. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedule As of April 30, 2018. C4. Consideration for Approval to Utilize The National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) Valuepoint Cooperative Agreement for Computer Related Procurements. MOTION: Moved by Board Member Spagnolo, seconded by Board Member Alexander, to approve Consent Calendar Items Cl through C4. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. May 16, 2018 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 3 of 8 Page 431 D1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. MOTION: Moved by Vice -Chair Kennedy, seconded by Agency Member Williams, to approve Consent Calendar Item D1. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. MOTION: Moved by Agency Member Williams, seconded by Agency Member Alexander, to approve Consent Calendar Item E1. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. F1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. MOTION: Moved by Vice -Chair Kennedy, seconded by Agency Member Spagnolo, to approve Consent Calendar Item F1. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. G1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. G2. Consideration to Approve Bi -Weekly Payroll in the Amount of $1,169,674.93 and Weekly Check Registers in the Amount of $6,061,659.47 Dated April 24, 2018 Through May 7, 2018. G3. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedule As of April 30, 2018. G4. Consideration to Approve the Purchase of One (1) Traffic Sign Truck in the Amount of $165,975. G5. Consideration to Award a Contract to Mariposa Landscapes for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, and Medians. G6. Consideration to Reject Bids for the "FY 17/18 Parks Painting Project" as Non -Responsive to the Needs of the City. G7. Consideration of a Contract with Vido Samarzich, Inc., in an Amount of $968,678, plus a 10% Contingency for the Fiscal Year 2017/18 ADA Access Ramp Improvements at Various Locations Project. G8. Consideration of a Small Cell License Agreement with Mobilitie, LLC for the Placement of Small Cell Infrastructure on City -Owned Poles. G9. Consideration for Approval to Utilize the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) Valuepoint Cooperative Agreement for Computer Related Procurements. G10. Consideration of an Appropriation of Funds in the Amount of $3,000 from the CA Recycling/Litter Grant (Fund 225) for Costs Associated with Increasing Beverage Container Opportunities. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Alexander, seconded by Council Member Williams, to approve Consent Calendar Items G1 through G10. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. May 16, 2018 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 4 of 8 Page 432 H1. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 928 Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Commencing in Fiscal Year 2018/19 and Each Ensuing Fiscal Year Solely Within and Relating to North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ORDINANCE NO. 928 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF NORTH ETIWANDA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT H2. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 929, Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code to Enact Requirements and Standards for the Development of Wireless Communication Facilities Within the Public Right of Way. ORDINANCE NO. 929 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENACT REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Council Member Alexander, seconded by Council Member Williams, to adopt Ordinance No. 928 and 929, by title only. City Council recessed at 7:46 p.m. due to an occurrence in the audience. City Council reconvened at 7:50 p.m. Linda Troyan, City Clerk Services Director, read the title of Ordinance No. 928 and 929. VOTES NOW CAST ON MOTION: Moved by Council Member Alexander, seconded by Council Member Williams, to adopt Ordinance No. 928 and 929, by title only. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Alexander, seconded by Council Member Williams, to approve moving item K1 forward on the agenda. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. K1. Update on the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP). City Manager Gillison introduced Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager, who provided an update on the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP), and reviewed planning efforts; community engagement and participation; open space preservation cost estimates; neighborhood possibilities; housing type possibilities and the three options presented in the staff report: 1.) to discontinue the annexation proposal, 2.) annex the area and keep as open space or 3.) Annex the NESAP with a Community -Based Plan. Deputy City Manager Burris clarified that staff is looking to receive direction for a plan and recommended increasing communication efforts with the neighborhoods. May 16, 2018 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 5 of 8 Page 433 Discussion ensued on open space; funds for equestrian facilities; open space preservation; and estimates and costs for the various options. Council Member Alexander expressed support for open space. Council Member Williams would like to see a plan that is seamless, that has nature and is neighborhood commercial and would like to receive more community input. Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy requested the PowerPoint be made available on the website and would like to increase the communication efforts. Discussion ensued on costs to maintain an infrastructure model and various factors to look at to analyze proposals; communication efforts at workshop meetings; feedback received on survey and meetings; demographics on participants at workshops and participation rates. Mayor Michael thanked staff for their efforts and expressed support for local control. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Spagnolo, seconded by Council Member Williams, to direct staff to proceed with Option No. 3 to Annex the NESAP with a Community -Based Plan and proceed with community engagement. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. None. J1. Consideration of a Resolution for Placement of Special Assessments and Liens for Delinquent Solid Waste Accounts. RESOLUTION NO. 18-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES FROM BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LIENS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND SHALL BE COLLECTED FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ATTHE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS ORDINARY COUNTYAD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES John Gillison, City Manager, introduced Linda Ceballos, Environmental Program Manager, who gave the Staff Report and reported that the City received written protest letters by Lowell Dean Cox, Michael Totten and Lolita A. Sy. Discussion ensued on the senior discount awareness/notifications, self -haul service, and providing notification to property owners on non-payment of trash service. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing item. Darlene Tate spoke on the non-payment for trash bills by her tenants and is opposed placing a lien on the property. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing item. May 16, 2018 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 6 of 8 Page 434 MOTION: Moved by Council Member Alexander, seconded by Council Member Williams, to adopt Resolution No. 18-031 for Placement of Special Assessments and Liens for Delinquent Solid Waste Accounts. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. J2. Consideration of a Resolution for the Placement of Special Assessments and Liens for Costs of Nuisance Abatement on Private Property. RESOLUTION NO. 18-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF UNPAID NUISANCE ABATEMENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LIENS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND SHALL BE COLLECTED FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS ORDINARY COUNTY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES John Gillison, City Manager, introduced Jana Cook, Community Improvement Manager, who gave the Staff Report. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing item. There were no public communications made. Mayor Michael closed the Public Hearing item. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Alexander, seconded by Council Member Williams, to adopt Resolution No. 18-032, for Placement of Special Assessments and Liens for Costs of Nuisance Abatement on Private Property. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. J3. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance No. 930, Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code to Revise Sign Regulations for Public Property. Mayor Michael opened the Public Hearing item. MOTION: Moved by Council Member Williams, seconded by Council Member Alexander, to continue Public Hearing to June 6, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. City Council meeting to take place in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. L1. INTER -AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) Council Member Williams reported her attendance at two Local Agency Formation Commission meetings regarding the Executive Director position and the City of Hesperia's Sphere of Influence for Fire Services. L2. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) None. None. May 16, 2018 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 7 of 8 Page 435 Mayor Michael adjourned the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, gada . Troyan, MMC %Citerk Services Director Approved: July 18, 2018 - Regular Meeting May 16, 2018 1 Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga I Page 8 of 8 Page 436 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA What We've Heard Conservation and Transfer of Development Rights The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan seeks to maximize open space and prioritize habitat conservation in the Rural/Conservation Area through a complementary strategy with Neighborhood Area development. This strategy aims to generate funding from Neighborhood Area development for the permanent preservation and ultimate restoration and long-term maintenance, and management of lands in the Rural/Conservation Area. A key priority of this strategy is the conservation of lands adjacent to the existing North Etiwanda Preserve and other preserved open spaces to provide larger contiguous conservation areas and habitat linkages. Importantly, this conservation strategy is to be accomplished without placing new tax burdens on existing residents. To incentivize permanent preservation of the maximum amount of open space and habitat, a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program would be established that allows for the transfer of density from the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area. The Rural/Conservation Area includes approximately 2,463 acres of land that are not permanently conserved The City currently implements a TDR program for hillside development consistent with Municipal Code 17.52 (Hillside Development), specifically 17.52.040 (Transfer of development credits) and 17.52.050 (Transfer process and provisions). While the Conservation Incentive TDR Program is tailored to this Plan, it applies similar concepts and approaches as the City's existing Municipal Code. How does the Transfer of Development Rights Program work? A TDR program creates a market for willing buyers and sellers of development rights. Landowners in "sending areas" (areas designated for preservation) are permitted to sell their development rights to landowners or developers in designated "receiving" areas, who are permitted to build additional units if they purchase development rights. Once the development rights are sold from the property, the land is protected from future development in perpetuity with a conservation easement. The conservation easement is held and managed by a qualified conservation entity. The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan TDR program is a voluntary, incentive -based, and market-driven approach to preserve land in the Rural / Conservation Area and steer development away from these upper foothills into the Neighborhood Area. Who benefits from this Transfer of Development Rights Program? Rural / Conservation Area landowners benefit because they will realize economic return through the sale of development rights to private developers/builders who are able to build additional units in the Neighborhood Area. Community residents benefit when they experience preserved open space and wildlife habitat areas with minimal increased impact upon their neighborhood with no new tax burdens. See section 7.4 of the Etiwanda Heights Plan for additional information Neighborhood -Serving Shops and Restaurants Neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants are in a location with convenient access by residents of existing and new neighborhoods, on foot, by bicycle, on horseback, and by car. Sales tax generating shops and restaurants offset the cost of services for the housing and to ensure the overall Plan is fiscally self-sustaining. Strategies available to reduce traffic related congestion and air quality degradation include neighborhood shops and restaurants to enable existing and future residents to conduct some of their daily errands on foot or horseback, or by bike or a short drive within the neighborhood. Page 437 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA The 2019 market study shows that there would be support for 55,000 to 130,000 square feet of neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants in the Plan Area. This number may be higher under current market conditions. The supportable amount of such uses will be dependent on a number of variables, including their location, timing, mix of tenants, and their quality and design character. The existing foothill neighborhoods represent a significant amount of purchasing power that is currently met only by shopping centers along the 210 freeway and often is scavenged by communities adjoining the City. That purchasing power would be significantly increased by the introduction of new residents within the Plan Area. The potential to locate a small collection of neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants at the intersection of the newly completed Wilson Avenue and Rochester Avenue extensions represents an opportunity to capture a share of those purchases while generating much less traffic per errand than current conditions. See section 4.3, 5.4.13, 5.5.5 of the Etiwanda Heights Plan for additional information. Single- Single Family Dwelling, Attached: No Multi -Family Housing Multi -Family Housing is a building containing more than five dwelling units. Multi -family Housing is inconsistent with the Vision of this plan, and would not be permitted in the Plan. Under the proposed Plan, single-family housing would be allowed. See section 5.4.9-5.4.12 of the Etiwanda Heights Plan for standards. Trail Network, including existing Equestrian Overlay Existing Trail Network The General Plan defines two types of public pedestrian and equestrian trails in Rancho Cucamonga, Regional Trails and Community Trails. Regional trails are long distance connectors to regional parks, scenic canyons and other open spaces, designed for hikers, bicyclists, and equestrian users. Community Trails provide connections to community facilities, such as parks and schools. These trails are designed for hikers and equestrian users. Approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site is the Pacific Electric Trail. This regional trail extends from the County line in Claremont to the City of Rialto, providing 21 miles of a recreational path. Directly to the north of the project site, the Etiwanda Falls trails are popular local hiking trails. Existing trail types that are to be maintained — and in some cases enhanced — include: A. Existing flood control channel service/access roads. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District will continue to own and maintain these roads. The east edge of the east side road along the Deer Creek Channel will be enhanced per the vision for Deer Creek Greenway in Chapter 4. The roadway along the west side of the Day Creek Channel will connect new parks as shown in Chapter 4, but will otherwise be available for trail use in its current condition. B. Decliff Drive within the Rural/Conservation Area, available for trail use in its current condition. Private roads within the Rural/Conservation Area will be off -limit for public access unless express permission is provided by the property owner. C. Multi-purpose trails flanking Banyan Street and Wilson Avenue, accommodating pedestrian and equestrian use. Proposed Trail Network In addition to and integrated with the street network is an extensive network of more than 1 1 miles of multipurpose trails, providing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian access throughout the neighborhoods and connecting into the foothills above. Three new trail types are proposed, in addition to those already present. (Described in detail in Chapter 5.7.19-20, consist of the following: Figure 6.1.48 Maser Plan OTrails _ _ _ _ --- '-L_J ----- —I r' a 1 ii V• Existing Multipurpose Trails New Multipurpose Trails Class 1 Bike Way New Multipurpose Trails + Class 1 Bike Way - - - North Etiwanda Preserve Trails Parks Page 438 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA Financing and Taxes Is the City buying the land within the Annexation area? Prior to the initiation of the annexation proposal, the City purchased some land within the annexation area for mitigation purposes associated with other City projects. The City is not purchasing additional land within the annexation area for any development or conservation purposes. All private property within the annexation area will remain under its current ownership. Following annexation, the City will establish zoning over the Area to guide new development in a manner consistent with the community's vision. There is no part of this process that involves the City purchasing land or using eminent domain as the Plan is strictly a land use document. Will the Plan cause property taxes to increase? No, the Plan will not result in property tax increases. Property/land owners outside the of the Plan Area will not pay taxes for the acquisition, operation, and/or maintenance of lands within the Plan Area. The Plan ensures that mechanisms are in place to acquire, manage, and maintain any conservation lands within the Conservation Area. These mechanisms include sufficient residential development, and neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants to support the operation and maintenance of conservation lands, paid for by future developers of lands within the Plan Area. One reason the City is proposing this plan is to ensure that any new development would pay its own way and not become a burden on our existing tax payers. A complete analysis of the conservation mechanisms is addressed in the EIR. See section 7.6 of the Etiwanda Heights Plan for additional information THIS PLANNING EFFORT DOES NOT PROPOSE TO: ■ Eliminate the Equestrian Overlay or ■ Add Section 8, low-income or high discontinue the equestrian trail network density housing to the area • Purchase the property 01 7m: .air- • Burden residents with new taxes D Page 439 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA During July, August, and September, the City hosted popup outreach. At a popup the City goes to stakeholders at events planned for the community. The popups were intended to raise awareness, to distribute accurate information, and to promote later public engagement opportunities, including the online survey and public Open House. POPUP EVENTS Through the following nine popups, the City staff and consultant team interfaced with approximately 839 people. Event, Location & Date Completed Completed Drawings Offered Dot Survey Long Survey by Youth Information (Estimate) • Movies in the Park at Los Amigos Park 9 2 7 25 July 30, 2018 • Movies in the Park at Victoria Gardens 18 4 11 40 July 31, 2018 • Concerts in the Park at Red Hill Park 19 3 10 50 August 2, 2018 • National Night Out at Terra Vista 52 1 6 100 Shopping Center August 7, 2018 • Concerts in the Park at Red Hill Park 17 4 7 30 August 9, 2018 • City Hall Lobby/Healthy RC Teen 40 0 0 60 Leaders Information Session August 15, 2018 • Back to Playschool at Lions Center East 57 0 0 100 August 16, 2018 • Rancho Cucamonga Police Citizens' 0 0 0 120 Advisory Committee August 29, 2018 • Central Park Lobby 12 0 0 35 September 6, 2018 Subtotals 1 224 14 1 41 560 TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE REACHED THROUGH POPUP EVENTS 839 DOT SURVEYS Participants were given strips of four dots and invited to respond to questions on four different boards. Participants were asked to place a dot next to their top response. In addition, they were offered an area on each board to suggest additional answers. The dot surveys were used to understand what residents value and to inform preparation of the Online Survey. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Popup Results — September 7, 2018 Page 440 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN LW H�,,,,,,A11, F�Nithin walking or biking distance or a very short drive - W, xhaps at the edge of the neighborhood, I would hope to valkinglbiking trai• • • • q.,. Aspports • • . • • •• at connects to other . • • >- �neighbarho u • • ntvthefoothills,hills. • • • •.• ��_' • • An equestrian center where I could keep andlor ride a horse. • • A small grocery store or market, such as Bristol • Farms. • A cafe or small local restaurant. . • • A drycleaner. ••••• •0 • ETIWANDA HE1VPLA,,,�,.f, NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION Within walking or biking distance or a very short drive - �rhaps at the edge of the neighborhood, 1 would hope to ialkiRg/biking trai• . • •• • • • .,connects to other • _ A^'° A sports k. • • • • • • tte hborhoods and u • • • • intothetoothdls. . • • • •• 00 I • • • An equestrian center wherelcauldkeep . andforride a horse. . A small grocery store or market, such as Bristol Farms. . A cafe or small local restaurant. A drycleaner. A branch library. I A branch library. A small office building A small office building • • 000 where could start, move, my small business. • • . • A nice condo my do A nice condo my 80 • • year-old parent for my 24 . • . • • • year old childl could liv0 in. • These answers don't include neighborhood destinations • that I'd like to visit. I'd like my neighborhood to include: neighborhood to include: ••••• •0 • ETIWANDA HE1VPLA,,,�,.f, NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION Within walking or biking distance or a very short drive - �rhaps at the edge of the neighborhood, 1 would hope to ialkiRg/biking trai• . • •• • • • .,connects to other • _ A^'° A sports k. • • • • • • tte hborhoods and u • • • • intothetoothdls. . • • • •• 00 I • • • An equestrian center wherelcauldkeep . andforride a horse. . A small grocery store or market, such as Bristol Farms. . A cafe or small local restaurant. A drycleaner. A branch library. Page 2 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1 Open House Results — October 2, 2018 Page 441 A small office building qWF 000 •• where I could start, or move, my small business. • • . A nice condo my do • • year-old parent (or my 24 year old child) could live in. • • • • • These answers don't Include neighborhood destinations that I'd like to visit. I'd like my neighborhood to include: Page 2 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1 Open House Results — October 2, 2018 Page 441 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLA Within my neighborhood - within a few blocks of my house - l would hope that we could also find housing of the right type and price range for: .. • U000 0 • • My family or friends wh wantabigger fancier 000 • house than we can afford. • Muftige—rational houses thartaflowsdult,h d, Parent, toli,, r� myadult children to live 001000 with me. • • I • • • My son or daughter a, 19 � • •• • . r their amiry with s II _ • • . • 0069 •• My family or friends who • want a smaller less • 0 10expensive house than we have. • • • These answers don't consider my family's housing needs.l'd want my future neighborhood • to include housing for: • • ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN p, ,,, .., -, Within my neighborhood - within a few blocks of my house - I would hope that we could also find housing of the right type and price range for: My aging paten • • • My son or daughter anP • • •• i • •� • r thei amiry withII �� k ' X00 My family or friends who • • • . My family or friends who • want a bigger fancier I want a smaller less I. house than we can afford exp: • expensive house than we • have. • • • thaM.t my par houses • • that dint, my parents or ® •. my adull children to live • with me - Page 3 Etiwanda Heights Plan These answers don't mnsidermyfamily's • housing needs. I'd want m"uture neighborhood • • to include housing for: N:c.tr • Open House Results — October 2, 2018 Page 442 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN When 1 step out the front door of my new home 1 would want to find: Abig front yard thatmy • • • Acomfortahfe,saOO • • 001000.00 + kids can play in with the )0 , • 0 • • ; environment so the * .a ;.., _ 0 -- neighbor kids. can walk to atgroun • 4 •• • orpi 'D 0 'D 000 N Plenty of parking for A shaded, treelined guests and family members. A front patio or porch . • Other houses that look where we could have similarto mine_ coffeeand chatwith neighbors. Horse and multi-purposeA variety of styles and • trails. sizesofhouses. / -' • • • • This question doesn't let me tell you what l think is most important. I think the most important considerations are-. I ETIWA14DA 4P NEIGHBORHOOD Jar CONSERVATIONI LAN When l step out the front door of my new home 1 would want to find: i A sig playrd hat my+ • kidbcann,iriwiththe .•• neighhokids• Acom00 • •' 00 • . anwakoground.•• or ••��• ••• Pfenty of parking for guests and family members. A front patio or porch where we could have coffee and chat with neighbors. liorse and multi-purpose trails. i This question doesn't let me tell you what! think is most important. I think the most Important considerations are: 4P • • ••• - - A shaded, treelined street. ileos e 40 • • Other houses that similarto mine. • A variety of styles . sizes of houses, I Page 4 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 2, 2018 Page 443 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN At the parks in and near my neighborhood, I would want opportunities for me and my family to: Have a playground for • • • 4Vie Play organized sports like 1 little kids by walking f -k r softball games or soccer from our house. • • X . • a matches. . • • • • Practice soccer or softball Walk or run a fitness • or other sports with I course with outdoor • . neighbhood kids. • • • exercise equipment or stations.. • • i Have picnics or .•�• • . in or exercise my ue 6arbeqs with family horse. and friends. Cultivate vegetables and • • • • These answers don't fruits in a community .•� • include the activities that • are important to me. I'd garden, • • • • • • � • like facilitiestodo: „rr � fr pry,i umly 11 C7 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS � NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN R . *At Sparks in and near my neighborhood, I woul want opportunities for me and my family to: Have ai playground for • �• • • igloo* tittle kids o walking from our house. ••.••• • Practice soccer or softball or other sports with neighbhood kids. 111110• Have picnics .0 • • • 6arbeques with family and friends. Cultivate vegetables arid 11* • •• • fruits Ina community 0410,000 • •• • 0 gard�0 0 00 • • 0 Page 5 Etiwanda Heights Plan Playorgani-cl sports like r softball games or soccer • s matches. • Waik or run a fitness • • course with outdoor Am a exercise equipment or • Train or exercise my horse. • • These answers don't induce the activitles that are important to me. I'd : M� 4 _ A b'trM7 urn7Y Peril Open House Results — October 2, 2018 I r f. I Page 444 stations • • • like faalines to do I r f. I Page 444 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA SMALL GROUP MEETINGS The City met with four different small groups to learn about their preferences for various types of housing, parks, and neighborhood amenities. The groups represent unique perspectives on the future of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Area. • Campeones para la Comunidad (Community Champions), August 21, 2018 The Campeones para la Comunidad (Community Champions) are a group of Latino residents who provide leadership training and encourage participation in local government. • Healthy Rancho Cucamonga Steering Committee, August 28, 2018 The Healthy Rancho Cucamonga Steering Committee is made up of residents, businesses, non-profit agencies, City and County staff, hospitals, and community groups. The committee focuses their work on the City's health priorities as identified by residents. • Healthy RC Youth Leaders, August 29, 2018 The Healthy RC Youth Leaders give teens an active, meaningful voice and focus on health issues that matter to youth. • Home Owner Association Leadership, August 29, 2018 The Home Owner Association small group is made up of residents who live near the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Area to the west. RESULTS FROM SMALL GROUP MEETINGS Campeones para la Comunidad (Healthy RC Community Champions) During a regularly scheduled Healthy RC Community Champions meeting, the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan was included in the agenda. Following a background presentation and video, attendees were shown a series of images and asked to rank them using green, yellow, or red card — with green indicating a positive response, yellow a neutral reaction, and red a negative response. They were asked to respond to the images based on how well they would fit the character of Rancho Cucamonga and if they would be appropriate in the Etiwanda Heights neighborhoods. The general responses are described below: • All uses received mostly green response • Housing with front porches and trees and the town square/central gathering space both received noticeably stronger responses • Townhomes received green responses, but a few yellow and red responses were given as well — participants noted the noise and other nuisances generated by living in close proximity to neighbors • Participants noted that estate and larger homes elevate the community overall, but that they are inaccessible to most people Healthy RC Steering Committee During a regularly scheduled Healthy RC Steering Committee meeting, time was set aside for a visual preference survey. Following a brief background presentation, attendees were shown a series of images and asked to rank them using green, yellow, or red card — with green indicating a positive response, yellow a neutral reaction, and red a negative response. They were asked to respond to the images based on how well they would fit the character of Rancho Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 4, 2018 Page 445 Cucamonga and if they would be appropriate in the Etiwanda Heights neighborhoods. The general responses are outlined below: • Parks & open space images — mostly green • Sports parks — mostly red and yellow [dialogue indicated that many thought sports parks would cut into the amount of native landscape; additional dialogue indicated comfort with a couple of fields, but not a big sports park) • Equestrian, ped and bike trails — all green • Housing with front porches and trees — mostly green [participants also noted a desire for courtyards] • First homes/downsizing — mostly green [some discussion about fear of speculators buying less expensive options and then selling at high prices] • Original styles of Etiwanda — mostly green • Semi -rural houses/streets — mostly green [discussion focused on need for sidewalks and a preference for the low water plants] • Cottage courts/bungalows — mostly green [discussion as to whether these types of units could be offered as rental; group felt these would be appropriate also for seniors; the group discussed the need for affordable options for residents] • Mixed use — mostly green • Library / nature center — mostly green • Equestrian center — mostly red and yellow [group felt that the City already had a center that was underutilized and that other uses were more important for the area] • Neighborhood market — greens and yellows [group discussed that the need is further south than in the Etiwanda planning area; they would support a market located as far south as possible] Participants suggested that the planning team should consider pop -ups at some of the apartment complexes to attract a wider diversity of input. Healthy RC Youth Leaders During a regularly scheduled Healthy RC Youth Leaders meeting, 30 minutes were set aside for a visual preference survey. Each student received a handheld polling device and the results were collected and illustrated in a graph on the screen in real-time. The results of the survey appear in the following slides. Page 2 Etiwanda Heights Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 446 Your Input Imagine that it is 2025 and you've found a house that you really like and purchase in the new Etiwanda Heights community. Please tell us on a scale Of I to 5 how pleased you would be to find the things on the following slides somewhere in or adjacent to your new neighborhood — for you and your own household and/or for friends and loved ones you hope might live nearby. t, No, I dislike very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 1. Homes with Front Porches 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. 4k, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 3 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2. 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 447 2. Shallower Yards with Fences/Hedges F �uull:lllllui..�► S .4 IlIIUII IIIIIIIIIIIIiI !IId1 - 1Y111llrid 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it L 2. 3. G 5. 3. Front Yards with Landscape and Driveways r..� 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 4 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 448 4. Large Houses with Green Front Yards I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. 4k, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 5 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1. 3 3. G 5. L 2 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 449 Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 6 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 450 I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. 4k, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Qk, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 7 Etiwanda Heights Plan Low i. 2 3. 4. 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 451 Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it S. Great, I love it Page 8 Etiwanda Heights Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 452 Please make your selection... i it 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. 4k, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it '51lease make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much Z. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5, Great, I love it Page 9 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 3 3. 5. L 2. 3. 4 5. LkRr �1 C .'� �•�.: . Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 453 Please make your selection... iiii; 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 10 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 3 3. 4. 5. L 2. 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 454 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it '511ease make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 11 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2. 3. 4 5. L 2. 3. 4 5. it $ AM011 Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 455 Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Please make your selection... AlkY k '• - ~� a.: '-f •I r'r - - 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 12 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2. 3. G 5. L 2 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 456 Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 13 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 457 Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 14 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 458 Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Please make your selection... r Y - y ~ 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 15 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2, 3. 4, 5. L 2. 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 459 Please make your selection... 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it a Please make your selection... 944 -,1 { R 1. No, I dislike it very much Z. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5, Great, I love it Page 16 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2. 3. G 5. 1. 2 3. 4. 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 460 Home Owner Association (HOA) Leadership The HOA Leadership meeting was dedicated to discussion about the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. The meeting included questions and answers, a visual preference survey, and an open discussion. Each participant received a handheld polling device and results of the visual preference survey were collected and illustrated in a graph on the screen in real-time. The results of the survey appear in the following slides and notes from the discussion appear thereafter. Overview of Visual Preference Survey Results Areas of Support or Willingness Mixed Middle Ground Areas of Dislike My Neighborhood My Neighborhood My Neighborhood • Large Houses with Green Semi -Rural Hillside First Home/Downsizing Front Yards Neighborhood Streets Shallower Yards with • Estate Homes Low Water Use Landscape Fences/Hedges • Front Yards with Landscape Original Styles of Town Houses and Driveways Etiwanda • Treelined Streets Homes with Front Porches • Cottage Courts/Active Adults Our Parks and Open Spaces Our Parks and Open Space • Flexible Active/Passive Play Sports Park • Pedestrian/Bike/Equestrian Smaller Playgrounds and Trails Pocket Parks • Habitat Town Green/Square/ Conservation/Permanent Gathering Space Open Space Parks with Nearby • Nature Trails Amenities Nearby Activities Nearby Activities • Branch Library or Nature Neighborhood Market Center Mixed -Use Center • Equestrian Center Quiet Recreation Parks • Small Cafe/Local Daycare Center/Pre- Restaurant School Page 17 Etiwanda Heights Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 461 Visual Preference Survey Results Imagine that it is 2028 and you (Or your friend or family) have found a house that you really like and purchase in the new Etiwanda Heights community. Please tell us on a scale of 1 to 5 how pleased you would be to find the things on the following slides somewhere in or adjacent to your new neighborhood — for you and your own household and/or for friends and loved ones you hope might live nearby. 1. No, I dislike very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 18 Etiwanda Heights Plan cuc nnioe:ai L 2, 3. G 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 462 2. Smaller Playgrounds and Pocket Parks 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 3. Quiet Recreation Parks 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 19 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1 2, 3. G 5, Li 1 1. 2, 3. A. i. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 463 4. I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 5. Sports Park r' I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 20 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1. 2, 3. A. 5, Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 464 I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4, Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 1 2, 3. 4. 5, 7. Pedestrian/Bike/Equestrian Trails _4 I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4, Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 21 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1. 2, 3. 4 5, Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 465 8. Habitat Conservation/ Permanent Open Space I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 9. Nature Trails I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 22 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2, 3. G 5, L 2, 3. G 5, Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 466 10. Branch Library or Nature Center ,z I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 11. Equestrian Center fv L. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 23 Etiwanda Heights Plan -. 2, 3. G 5, -. 2, 3. G 5, Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 467 12. Daycare Center/Pre-School L. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 13. Small Cafe/Local Restaurant L. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 24 Etiwanda Heights Plan 3. 4. _. 2, 3. A. 5, Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 468 14. Neighborhood Market ■ r - hi� I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 15. Mixed -Use Center r � I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 25 Etiwanda Heights Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 469 16. Mixed -Use Center t I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 18. Homes with Front Porches 1. No, I dislike it very much Z. Ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 26 Etiwanda Heights Plan _. 2, 3. A. 5, Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 470 19. Shallower Yards with Fences/Hedges i� IlIIIIiI VIII III III 1166Il1111YII IY I.. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it L 2. 3. A. 5, 20. Front Yards with Landscape and Driveways w. :r o- 7977 L. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 27 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1. 2 3. 4. 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 471 Z 1. Large Houses with Green Front Yards 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Qk, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 22. First Home/Downsizing 2 p 1. No, I dislike it very much Z. Qk, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 28 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1. 2 3. G 5. L 2. 3. 4 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 472 23. Estate Homes 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 24. Treelined Streets 1. No, I dislike it very much Z. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 29 Etiwanda Heights Plan L 2. 3. A 5. L 2. 3. A 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 473 25. Cottage Courts/Active Adult 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Page 30 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1. 3 3. G 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 474 27. Town Houses 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it 4k 28. Low Water Use Landscape 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. ok, I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it S. Great, I love it Page 31 Etiwanda Heights Plan 1. 2 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. G 5. Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 475 29. Semi -Rural Hillside Nei hborhood Streets 1. No, I dislike it very much 2. Oki I can live with it 3. I'm neutral 4. Good, I like it 5. Great, I love it Comments on Visual Preference Survey 1. 2 3. G 5. Comments: Parks & Gathering Spaces & Trails • City parks are well used, but less so on weekdays • Water & maintenance concerns • Regional draw — will pull people from outside the area • Pocket parks — good for dogs & walking • Large yards would allow kids to play in back yard; less need for parks • Community park/plaza could attract homeless; would be better in Central Park • Sports parks — too many; bring the wrong people; should be in Central Park • Prefer trails that are not mixed (separate horses, bikes, and peds) • Worried about trailhead parking • Trails in open space should be for everyone — don't exclude bikes & dogs MA c. „.. . Comments: Community Facilities or Amenities • Equestrian center — might be okay because would limit residential and provide good recreation • Library or other community amenity has people and cost implications • Day care — NO • Cafe/market, etc. — we are okay with driving to these uses; might prefer some of this instead of more housing • No two story • No commercial Comments: Housing/Neighborhoods • Half -acre or more preferred • No condos or townhomes • Image of houses with front porches — seem to close together; no sidewalk • Prefer upper sphere of area to remain County property Page 32 Etiwanda Heights Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 476 • Must have adequate parking for cars at each house • Trails in front for more rural feel • Square lots vs. rectangle — more rural and estate feel • Senior (Del Webb -like) housing acceptable; active adult — locate closer to Banyan • Tree -lined streets preferred • Landscape — size, quality, setbacks Discussion about Neighborhood Concepts After the Visual Preference Survey, meeting participants learned about and discuss three different neighborhood concepts. Neighborhood Concept Development Based on community input and Council direction that neighborhood development within the Neighborhood Priority Area (NPA) not be more than necessary to ensure that it pays for itself, City staff and consultants are studying the relative feasibility of three potential "neighborhood footprint" diagrams that balance neighborhoods and open space conservation in different ways. The following applies to all three concepts: ■ The red outline depicts the 1,212 -acre "Neighborhood Priority Area" (NPA), which will include a balanced mix of neighborhoods and open space conservation. ■ The 120 -acre utility easement along the east side of the NPA can be neither neighborhoods nor habitat conservation. Page 33 Etiwanda Heights Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 477 Concept A ■ 450 -acre footprint reserves degraded sage scrub habitat south of planned Wilson Ave extention as suggested for consideration by resource agencies. ■ More habitat in this area will likely mean smaller lots to achieve economic feasibility. ■ Includes parks, small scale neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants, possibly a market, and a 15 -acre school site. ■ For feasibility analysis, the number of dwelling units, is relatively consistent in each scenario. * Based on preliminary economic and environmental analysis. More is underway and will be part of a full EIR. Concept B • 550 -acre neighborhood footprint, with contiguous neighborhoods in southerly area, better connecting them for walking/biking and using land more efficiently ■ Rather than habitat between neighborhoods, Scenario B conserves more land contiguous with high quality open spaces to the north. Wildfire hazard is lessened as fewer homes would be adjacent to natural open space. ■ Includes parks, small-scale neighborhood -serving shops, restaurants, possibly a market, and a 15 - acre school site. ■ For feasibility analysis, the number of dwelling units is relatively consistent in each scenario. * Based on preliminary economic and environmental analysis. More is underway and will be part of a full EIR. Page 34 Etiwanda Heights Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 478 Concept C ■ 670 -acres neighborhood footprint, with additional area north of Wilson Ave extension providing opportunities for larger view lots. This may contribute to feasibility and fund additional park and trail facilities. ■ This scenario replaces the existing urban/wildland edge condition with an access drive for emergency responders. ■ Includes small scale neighborhood -serving commercial with shops, restaurants, possibly a market, gathering spaces, and a 15 -acre school site. ■ For feasibility analysis, the number of dwelling units is relatively consistent in each scenario. I Based on preliminary economic and environmental analysis. More is underway and will be part of a full EIR. Comments: Concept A • No neighborhood commercial on Wilson or westside of planning area • Why is most "neighborhood" area adjacent to million dollar homes? • Commercial attracts crime (e.g. Vons) — need Sheriff rep. (note: that area needs more patrolling) • What conservation groups have been involved? Invest more for preservation Comments: Concept B • Relocate police substation to approved location on Milliken • No commercial on westside • Don't want views of commercial from homes in Deer Creek • Traffic and noise concerns from commercial • Put commercial below Banyon • What about a golf course with % acre lots surrounding? Comments: Concept C • Not sure school is needed (enrollment is low) • More land, nicer big lots • No commercial on west • Give conservation groups first right at land • More investigation into conservation • Homes and lots on west should be comparable to surrounding residential Comments: Overall Preference • Generally, the group would prefer conservation and no change • Alternatively, there is a preference toward concept C without the commercial (or a new concept that would be a golf course and large lot homes) • Don't want to lose the quiet, natural environment!! Page 35 Etiwanda Heights Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 479 Community Outreach Suggestions: • Who is "community"? • Survey sent via mail to residents only • Extend survey period; mark postcard for residents • Use Next Door to promote • Use HOA newsletter, but not ready til November Page 36 Etiwanda Heights Plan Small Group Meeting Results — October 2, 2018 Page 480 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS , of NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN RANCHO CUC,1A,ONGA From August 28 through September 24, 2018, the City hosted an online survey to gather input on emerging priorities and concepts under consideration for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. A total of 1,099 respondents participated. ONLINE SURVEY Results from the survey are included below and are accompanied by screenshots of the survey. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood Screenshot 1. Survey landing page Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 481 Question 1: Priorities: What's most important to you? Screenshot2. Question 1 Instructions How did people respond to Question 1? The survey asked people to order their priorities. They are shown in order from highest to lowest priority. The lower the score, the higher the priority. Ln or, M N M N N N ri �j N N -1 2,14 � / F � �q2� �ilO 'y0G 9l �,ti ��9.c 4-1 ti0 /Ix Fs�A 292 Ce cTs �9 clf- Page 2 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 482 Screenshot3 Who responded to Question 1? PLACE OF RESIDENCE AGE Page 3 Etiwanda Heights Plan In addition to ordering their top four priorities, respondents had an opportunity to "suggest another" priority and to make comments on those included. The suggestions and comments in their entirety are included in Attachment 1. ■ 25 and under ftippa ■ 25 to 40 28% w 4 to 50 fit to 80 Age not 20% specified 1% Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 483 Question 2: Preferences: What appeals to you? Etiwanda Heiahts Neiahborhood & Conservation Plan 6) Prowls _ Screenshot. 4. Question 2 Instructions How did people respond to the images under "My Neighborhood"? The survey asked people to rate eight images representing several types of housing and streetscapes. They could respond with up to 5 stars. Higher scores represent a higher average rating. Respondents could also make comments on the images. The comments appear, unedited, in Attachment 1. Page 4 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 484 TREELINED STREETS rl OUT OF FIVE STARS qr HISTORIC ETIANDA ui OUT OF FIVE STARS tri Page 5 Etiwanda Heights Plan m OUT OF FIVE STARS Enhancing rural character and promoting safer traffic speeds Original housing styles Hillside streets with features celebrating rural heritage Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 485 PORCHES & YARDS OUT OF FIVE STARS LARGE FRONT YARDS � rry OUT OF FIVE STARS LARGE HOMES Page 6 Etiwanda Heights Plan OUT OF FIVE STARS m A place to greet neighbors and keep an eye on the kids Room for driveways and landscaping Large front yards for extensive landscaping Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 486 ESTATE HOMES P_ Q� OUT OF FIVE STARS ry COTTAGES 0 OUT OF FIVE STARS rw Page 7 Etiwanda Heights Plan OUT OF FIVE STARS Grand entrances and large private yards Quaint homes with shared courtyards Great for young professionals, young families, first-time homebuyers, and retirees looking for lower maintenance and a sense of community Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 487 TOWNHOM1ES L, tN +- OUT OF FIVE STARS r -i Benefits of large homes with less maintenance and shared amenities How did people respond to the images under "Nearby Activities"? The survey asked people to rate the images of five types of activity centers by assigning up to 5 stars. Higher scores represent a higher average rating. LIBRARY OR NATURE CENTER SMALL CAFE OR RESTAURANT Page 8 Etiwanda Heights Plan Learn kq OUT OF FIVE STARS m Socialize +n OUT OF FIVE STARS Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 488 I ., { r y SMALL CAFE OR RESTAURANT Page 8 Etiwanda Heights Plan Learn kq OUT OF FIVE STARS m Socialize +n OUT OF FIVE STARS Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 488 EQUESTRIAN CENTER Ride �R q OUT OF FIVE STARS en k k MIXED-USE CENTER Socialize OUT OF FIVE STARS Shop rw MARKET OR LOCAL STORE OUT OF FIVE STARS Page 9 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 489 How did people respond to the images under "Parks and Open Space"? The survey asked people to rate the images of five types of places for outdoor activities by assigning up to 5 stars. Higher scores represent a higher average rating. NATURAL OPEN SPACE Enjoy & protect natural open space � rt OUT OF FIVE STARS PAVED, GRAVEL, OR DIRT TRAILS 11116 Walk & ride on paved, decomposed granite, or dirt trails r 4 OUT OF FIVE STARS OPEN FIELD OR PLAYGROUND Page 10 Etiwanda Heights Plan Get outdoors and play in an open field or at a playground 9 m OUT OF FIVE STARS Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 490 CENTRALGREEN5PACE OR GARDEN Gather & grow in a central greenspace or a community garden I OUT OF FIVE STARS PARK FOR SOCCER, BASEBALL, ETC_ I1 OUT OF FIVE STARS Who responded to Question 2? PLACE OF RESIDENCE Page 11 Etiwanda Heights Plan AGE 2% Practice & play soccer, baseball, basketball, and more at a sports park ■ 25 and under ■ 26 to 40 r w 4 to 50 ` 51 to So 18% 336 Age unspecified Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 491 Question 3: Scenarios: What's worth consideration? Screenshot. 5. Question 3 Instructions How did people respond to the three scenarios? The survey asked people to rate each scenario by assigning up to 5 stars. Higher scores represent a higher average rating and indicate a willingness for the scenario to receive further consideration. Respondents could also make comments on the images. The comments appear, unedited, in Attachment 1. For reference, each of the three scenarios appears on the following pages. TOTAL RATING OUT OF FIVE POSSIBLE STARS SCENARIO B SCENARIO C SCENARIO A Page 12 Etiwanda Heights Plan lD Oq N Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 492 SCENARIO B SCENARIO C Neighborhood Priority Area -1,212 Acres Neighborhoods are contiguous within the southerly area, better connecting them for walking/biking and using land more efficiently, which may allow for larger average size lots. Instead of habitat between neighborhoods, Scenario B conserves more land contiguous with high quality open spaces in the National Forest. Wildfire hazard is decreased as fewer homes would be adjacent to natural open space. With an efficient 550 -acre neighborhood footprint, the average lot size may be larger than in Scenario A and also includes parks, small-scale neighborhood -serving shops, restaurants, possibly a market, and a 15 -acre school site. The third scenario adds large view lots north of a future extension of Wilson Avenue, which may contribute to feasibility and fund additional park and trail facilities. The scenario replaces the existing urban/wildland edge condition with an access drive for emergency responders. As with the other scenarios, economic, fiscal, and environmental feasibility is being analyzed. IKITL. With 670 acres of neighborhood, additional area north ..•h� of the Wilson Avenue extension provides opportunities for large view lots. The scenario also includes small- scale neighborhood -serving commercial with shops, restaurants, possibly a market, gathering spaces, and a 15 -acre school site. Legend Neighborhood r Park School/Fire Station Neighborhood Commercial Natural Open Space "fFrenypy-214-- - — _.�'? , -.ten ya, nc � ....n..:n: air tt � ►� � i! M`�:ll7(!All Page 13 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 493 SCENARIO A Neighborhood Priority Area -1,212 Acres Preserves the degraded sage scrub habitat south of planned Wilson Avenue as suggested for consideration by resource agencies. Habitat separates residential areas, increasing wildfire hazard and decreasing walking and biking connectivity between communities. More habitat will likely mean smaller lots to achieve economic feasibility. In this 450 -acre footprint, a large central open space reduces land available for homes so average lot size a may be smaller to fit enough homes to achieve Q economic feasibility. The scenario also includes parks, small-scale neighborhood -serving shops and 9 Los Osos t� f1' i�'�SL I restaurants, possibly a market, and a 15 -acre school site Banyon Strcet[ Legend" Neighborhood m r ,9' Park I } School/Fire Station - Neighborhood Commercial, - Natural Open Space - Foothili Freeway - 210 Who responded to Question 3? PLACE OF RESIDENCE Page 14 Etiwanda Heights Plan AGE ■ 25 and under ■ 26 to 40 s41toGO t 61 to 8o 13% Age unsped ited 2% Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 494 Attachment 1: Suggestions and comments Question 1. What's most important to you? Other Priorities Suggested by Survey Respondents Affordable housing for current Rancho Cucamonga residents can upgrade to. Keep it undeveloped These items are all equally important to the area, picking just 4 out of 8 isn't doing the right thing. 1/2 acre or larger, wilson straight through Public swimming pool, or natural water park. Preserve the land, no commercial Conservation by way of grants Golf course NO COMMERCIAL Leave it as it currently is. No commercial development. Play sing businesses and homes would actually increase the traffic. Therefore, don't place businesses or homes in that area. No further development. Leave as open space- city has too much development already Leave the land alone. New City Council!!! Access to a city pool for lap swimming. Single -story 55 and older community No building at all Keep it the way it is. Stop ruining our city please Minimize impact to schools Age 55+ housing N/A Current overlay 1/2 acre lot homes 1. Build nothing 2. Homes on half acre lots (same as everything else north of Wilson in Rancho) but only after extensive research has been done on how traffic will impact the area because we already know that there is too much traffic with the current amount of residents. It also needs to be determined where these kids will go to school because of the schools in the area are already impacted. The people running these meetings already admit that none of these studies have been done after we have already spent $2 million on consultants!! Ridiculous!! Allowing natural areas to thrive for wildlife. Leave as is No retail or housing, or if so to a dire minimum. Invading on natural habitat space problematic. No more development I have been to many seminars about large company wanting more large home and large lots to move their CEO into area so they can have companies and move there companies to Rialto, Beaumont, etc. where there is land to build. But with this plan you are taking Rancho Cucamonga above baseline to lower income buyer. If you want to keep RC like a Pasadena where you have all levels of homes. Don't loss the Estate Homebuyers to keep people that pay higher property taxes. Please leave out shopping centers below WILSON... Please Conservation only. No building. Leave as is. Page 15 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 495 Other Priorities Suggested by Survey Respondents No more new homes or condo/apartments Common sense states that with on ongoing water shortage and we are asked to conserve building more homes just compounds the issue. Leave the land as is. Keep it in it's natural habitat. Tennis courts, skateboarding, bocci ball or chess for seniors Use recycled water for all landscaping. Baseball fields Minimize flooding Water conservation Allow SB Valley Municipal Water District to purchase for conservation Cemetery, Catholic Church Cemetery, Catholic Church, Education Reduce cost of water Maintaining natural habitat NO development Preservation Single story affordable housing. Community walkability, gathering spots. Walkable shopping, restaurants, etc. No commercial businesses at all Sufficient retail to support its' residents. Recall all council members and city planning! People need to take back their city!!! Dog -friendly Ice Skating Rink Ice Skating Rink and Aquatic Center Leave the general plan as is. A Botanical Garden and cultural center. Where we can celebrate the arts and preserve plants and teach neighbors about plants. A park were walking petting zoo, horseback riding, mini train , big open theatre etc small amenities along with the park facility will be there. Keep it as it is with open space. Keep the open space as it is. Single Family Homes Only Affordable housing for seniors in 55+ communites No affordable housing up there. Make it match or exceed deer creek. No commercial Leave it as is! Higher density housing Do not develop any housing or commercial interests in this area. Maintain the natural beauty. Conservation of local history Do nothing. When are we going to stop building and leave some open space to enjoy. Cities seem to be more interested in building building building and how much tax review can they bring in! Look at the recent new construction in Rancho Cucamonga CA the last 10 years. The shopping malls are jam packed in, you can hardly navigate. It's ridiculous. Step back and go towards Los Angeles and look at the rat race, sardine packed in mess they created. Is that what you want Rancho Cucamonga to become. Open your eyes and think about preserving what we have. Enough said and I'll bet I never heard from anyone about my comments Preserve the land, no commercial, no high or medium density. Page 16 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 496 Other Priorities Suggested by Survey Respondents Wildlife and habitat conservation education Options for nature education, like labels for sightseeing and what type of plants/animals exist so people learn more about the site Protect the watershed No community that is considered "desirable to live" is over developed. Open space and natural surroundings are key. Cultural events for all ages No additional taxes Do you not realize that building new housing and business will have an impact on the already water rationing issue? Do you not realize that building new housing and business will have an impact on the already water rationing issue? What about the additional traffic it will create in that area? I don't think the City of Rancho Cucamonga is listening to the residents. We do not want housing and business built on that property. no commercial entities No new taxes Water Conservation -Rain Water accumulation ponds I have read that the overwhelming majority of residents DO NOT want this land "annexed" as you call it. Surface fault rupture along the active Cucamonga Fault Debris flow hazards Wildlands fires Comment Focus Comment Walking, biking, Great idea as long as the greenspace isn't used for parking. horseback Walking, biking, This is healthy and beautiful for Rancho Cucamonga to have. What a great combination of horseback having the city having houses busineses build but also have bike path & horse ride track Walking, biking, _horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback with walkers to enjoy it as well while enjoying the besutuful mountain views and vsriaty of vegetation along the way. And educated & healthy ways of family and friends time. These are important, especially the trails off the street that are safer for kids. This area is in the Equestrian Rural Overlay, should have an equestrian center included. Spending already collected mitigation fees is good for the health of the community Is water available for irrigation for trees or plants? No houses. Leave as natural as possible. Maybe more police on trails to make it safe. No more houses. Definitely no more apartments! We need fewer people living here, not more. We need more of these to keep our community active and healthy. Small skateboard arena. No more housing -especially the terrible high density ugly apartments/condos that are going in now. The Planning commission needs an overhaul. Very poor judgment on recent buildings. Page 17 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 497 Comment Focus I Comment Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, _horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, _horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Walking, biking, horseback Animal/plant habitat horses benefit very few, trails are not utilized, provide opportunities for crime. Walking and biking trails are good I would like to be able to take my dog with me on walking trails. New housing is not needed for this Horse trails and walking trails. No bike trails. Bikes and horses are usually not a safe combination. No Keep bike lanes and trails off the roads. Do not mix with vehicle traffic. This is an area that has active families and the ability to continue to walk, ride and bike in this area is essential Expanding bike trail to this north area please no more building Great for walkers and bikers. Keep traffic down by providing those lucky enough to have a safe way to get to and from work and other activities. I'm in favor of Bike and Walk paths, but enough with all the horse trails. I for one am tired of paying for trails that are vary seldom used and when they are only as dog runs. The only people with horses live on the west end and yet they are everywhere. Even in homes that have no yard to support it such as the Victoria neighborhood which are forced to pay for them even though their houses are too small to have them. Please stop with the horse trails, it just gives the kids more fences to keep breaking and more of our tax dollars to fix something that is never used. Its such a waste. We get in the car and travel to do this and forget we have this in Rancho ... needs to be community -wide promoted more Leave the land as is. NO MORE HOUSING/Development. We were promised not to be another big city when we incorporated. If there's water for buildine/densitv. then lower rates Animal/plant habitat Animal conservation and habitat conservation is crucial to the area. Without good land management the eco -system is negatively impacted. Neighborhoods developed in this area will have a severe negative impact on flora and fauna. Human development is forest areas usually result in loose of natural wild life. For example: coyotes and mountain lions seen as dangerous pest. Rabbits, squirrels and racoons poisoned because they are seen as pest. raptors will be negatively impacted as the prey population is diminished. I would like to see the environmental impact's report on the impact to the area. Animal/plant habitat We don't need more houses. We are bordering on drought conditions with the amount of houses the city has currently. Animal/plant habitat The Etiwanda Preserve has been a natural habitat for all kinds of wildlife and the beauty of the natural plants cannot be understated. This should be preserved at all costs for our future generations Animal/plant habitat Leave it natural. No building Animal/plant habitat No shopping centers Animal/plant habitat Not having all the new homes invade habitats. Page 18 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 498 Comment Focus Comment Animal/plant habitat Love it Animal/plant habitat No new housing Animal/plant habitat Please just leave it as is in it's natural beauty.... Animal/plant habitat nature contributes to everyone's well being in the long run as evidenced by overcrowded spaces are in high demand. cities Animal/plant habitat Leave the land as is. No more building! Preserving it as open space/conservation should be the only effort. Development only if this Animal/plant habitat can't be done. Go back to USFWS talks with SB Valley Water District to acquire for conservation and/or other conservation groups. Leave natural and indigenous plants in and use drought tolerant landscaping Animal/plant habitat Animal/plant habitat This Designated Severe Fire Risk Zone requires NO DEVELOPMENT that add more People & Infrastructure at risk. Animal/plant habitat Add initiative on election to tax all residence for conservation purpose only. Animal/plant habitat keep the wild wild. it's much more beautiful than a bunch of asphalt and concrete Animal/plant habitat Why not give me the opportunity to say leave it as it is Animal/plant habitat Man made lakes. Conservation isn't created by tearing acres down for development! There will be nothing Animal/plant habitat left to save if that happens NO (zip, zero, none) high density housing! Animal/plant habitat Animal/plant habitat Stop building every where! Stop making it difficult for people to use the trails and mountains. Stop allowing the rich people to dictate parking, ie, trails at top of Beryl. You don't restrict parking on the streets near the Pacific trail!!!!!!! Animal/plant habitat Preserve the land, no housing ... we do not want it. Animal/plant habitat Leave this area natural. Stop trying to develope it! Animal/plant habitat As a IE resident since 1960, I've seen way too much development and not enough preserved for our animal and bird friends and natural environment. Too much traffic, lines of people, crime, etc. The natural environment would be very much welcomed. Animal/plant habitat Could part of the area be used for a zoo or botanical garden featuring local plants and y of enue Beauty maintenance This is true, but placing a shopping center next to an existing residential area, degrades that area. Any shopping center should be near the center of the new development area (people moving into the area will know in advance of commercial areas around them). Beauty maintenance NO commercial!!! Grandfather water rates!!! Beauty maintenance We are pushing out the animals that rely on these open lands. The population of coyotes visible during the day has gone from one every six months to one every six days. The fire hazard in these built up areas is too costly to prevent structures from burning. Page 19 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 499 animals? Animal/plant habitat The land needs to stay as it is. Animal/plant habitat This is what is important to me and my family. I would NOT like the area developed. Animal/plant habitat Nature being nature ... how natural is that?! Animal/plant habitat Open spaces and native habitats provide mental health value and add to a higher qualit life for the people. The Etiwanda Preserve is oversaturated with visitors. Natural open spaces are in high demand. Beauty maintenance Rancho Cucamonga is a beautiful city - if you leave it alone it will stay beautiful. Beauty maintenance We need more soccer fields. We could create a 20 field soccer plex that could create revenue by it converting itself to lawn concerts and rentals for club teams. Monthly rev can be in the thousands oer month. y of enue Beauty maintenance This is true, but placing a shopping center next to an existing residential area, degrades that area. Any shopping center should be near the center of the new development area (people moving into the area will know in advance of commercial areas around them). Beauty maintenance NO commercial!!! Grandfather water rates!!! Beauty maintenance We are pushing out the animals that rely on these open lands. The population of coyotes visible during the day has gone from one every six months to one every six days. The fire hazard in these built up areas is too costly to prevent structures from burning. Page 19 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 499 Comment Focus Comment Beauty maintenance This website/survey is bullshit. Most seasoned/elderly people will not know how to use it. Leave the AREA AS -IS!!! Beauty maintenance Green Grass Beauty maintenance Make sure parking is sufficient as the city has not made that a priority with all the high density buildings Beauty maintenance No horse trails. These benefit only a small minority of very wealthy residents Beauty maintenance no commercial! Grandfather water rates. Beauty maintenance people paid money when thebuy the houses to have a peaceful environment with a beatiful view of the city Beauty maintenance No Beauty maintenance Minimal maintenance design to keep long term costs down. Beauty maintenance no more building Beauty maintenance rancho is not conforming to a concrete city ... please keep the land a beauty Gathering spaces/parks Generation Y are starting to realize the importance of community social gathering. Gathering spaces/parks no more building Gathering spaces/parks No Gathering spaces/parks do not want over crowded places in a quite residential area Gathering spaces/parks This city needs to focus on putting in a pedestrian crossing at Los Osos and look into a traffic study along Banyan. Gathering spaces/parks Yes Gathering spaces/parks it need to stay in rancho Gathering spaces/parks why no planned churches included Gathering spaces/parks Community garden maintained by adult. However, introduces to children learning the importance of growing their own food. Gathering spaces/parks I would love to see a senior community such as Four Seasons in Beaumont. Gathering spaces/parks Preserve it, do not develop it. Gathering spaces/parks It would be pleasant to have a bit more of space for kids to enjoy to run and play with pets if they have any, or even just for them to play in general. Gathering spaces/parks Rancho Cucamonga definitely due for this. So many houses & businesses being built but the promised of the park near Baseline & Miliken still and empty land without used. Gathering spaces/parks Since this won't be the town center for events, consider more pocket parks or green belts that double as public places/parks where residents can walk their pets, exercise and —I socialize. Gathering spaces/parks The fact of relative heavy usage of parks and low use of "trails" speaks volumes. Consider replacing a few sidewalks with dirt "trails" will make everyone happy. However if you permit horses on 3/8+ acre tracts, then PLEASE build an extensive network of trails to exercise the animals. Gathering spaces/parks Range of housing Range of housing Range of housing Range of housing Range of housing Range of housing for the entertainment of the community single family home, so two-story homes limits; concern for view obstruction sites by home sites How about the no -house option Desire homes on 1/4 to 1/2 acre lots to preserve the integrity of the Deer Creek communities. Do not want any form of affordable housing such as condo's, townhomes, etc. Higher density will only lower our home values. Single family homes only! One story housing One house per half acre or more Page 20 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results – October 2, 2018 Page 500 Comment Focus Comment Range of housing Half acre or more lots Range of housing This project is in the Equestrian Rural Overlay and current restrictions should be adhered to. Range of housing For the record apartments are perfectly fine by me. As are low-income apartments. Range of housing No more building please. Let's keep Etiwanda trails and the wildlife is so beautiful here. open spaces just clean and areas to hike and walk are appreciated. Range of housing Want various housing sizes and single story options for seniors Range of housing Absolutely no multi family domiciles AKA stack n packs they attract nothing but LA and San Bernardino trash! _ Range of housing NO MORE BUILDING!!! The City Government has shoved The Lakes project down our throats, look at Foothill and Hellman, Red Hill. NO MORE STACKED AND PACKED HOUSING UNITS! Range of housing Condo's, senior living, apartment, single family home. Mobil homes. Range of housing Single family homes Range of housing Keep zoning how it is. Range of housing I would like to suggest make a multipurpose hall for birthday, anniversary parties on cheaper rate with the nice size Swimming pool for kids to play in summer for like dollar 1 entry fee. Range of housing I No housing at all! We have too many people in Rancho! What do you want, to turn us into Fontana?? Range of housing Far too many multi housing projects with no end in sight. Range of housing Take a look at the hideous "housing' being built at Haven and Church and you will know exactly what we do not want or need! Range of housing low density only Range of housing keep it the same as surrounding deer creek estates or haven view estate style of minimum 0.5 acre lots Range of housing I would love to see tiny houses for seniors and/or affordable senior apartments. Range of housing No homes with shared walls. Range of housing no multi family homes. Minimum 1/2 acre lots Range of housing No Range of housing NOOOOOOOOOOOO Range of housing We prefer low density neighborhoods with homes of half acre lots Range of housing it would be great to see apartments above small business Live/work units but the work units should be large enough to support a staff of 3-5 people. Range of housing We don't need more housing. Rancho is congested enough. Minimize traffic Minimize traffic by less building of any type of structures which also minimizes impact of impacts fires. Minimize traffic If you don't build anything the traffic will remain the same. impacts Minimize traffic no more building impacts Minimize traffic This area should follow original plan and NOT be developed. It should be left as wild space impacts with community access to nature. Minimize traffic Having less density housing will minimize traffic impacts. RC has so many excellent impacts shopping/retail that local residents will drive farther to get what they want. Page 21 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 501 Comment Focus I Comment Minimize traffic Take a look at Banyan/East from Monday to Friday. There are already too many impacts cars/commuters in the Etiwanda community. The rules of the road are not enforced during these times, and it is only a matter of time before another fatal accident occurs. Hopefully it is not another child!!! _ Minimize traffic I do not want not support any development of the area. The congestion impact on this area impacts is already a problem. I want to hear from the water district about impacts to our water resources as well as reps from Edison regarding increasesed power usage. We do not want any more housing in the area Minimize traffic Poorly worded question or explanation. No development at all reduces traffic impact better impacts than mixed use Minimize traffic _impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts Minimize traffic impacts No Stores Who will go to a new restaurant when there are already so many struggling to stay open? Please keep the impact minimal to this area. I drive this area when I need to gather my thoughts and have done so for years. We need spaces like this in our city. You are delusional. What brings a lit more traffic is alot more building. STOP the building on every square inch of land. Build wide multi -lane vehicle thoroughfares for this community. The area around Los Osos High School and Milliken and Wilson Streets is already impacted with school, neighborhood and other community traffic. It is already almost impossible to leave neighborhoods on the north side of Wilson during the school terms. Adding shopping and/or commercial activities in this area will make the congestion impossible with the noice, additional traffic and potential of crime coming into the area. The commercial areas should be on the more inside of the development if they are necessary at all so that the impact will be reduced. do not want chitic traffic situation With the additional infrastructure to support a reduced traffic impact and if new taxes are not imposed how will the City financially be supporting the ongoing preventative maintenance No business parks or high density housing You have already overburdened this city with population and ruined its rural charm No commercial businesses above the freeway. None Smaller community shops vs large department shops. We do not want any commercial buildings or business in our areas. We have all made this clear at the previous meetings. So I am aggravated that this keeps coming up as an option. The driving and flowers of traffic around Banyan, wilson and milliken due to the elementary school, Los Osos and Chaffey College is already extremely crowded and maxed out. I think this is one of the top priorities, as well as the environmental impact. This area has become VERY congested! I think there are already too many people concentrated in a relatively small region. Additional housing will only make matters worse. No development equals no traffic impact Page 22 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 502 Comment Focus Comment Minimize traffic It would seem that having more shopping and restaurants would encourage the outside impacts communities to ho their. Minimize traffic Minimize shops and restaurants impacts Minimize traffic This is true for going to a grocery store, etc., but most shopping is done downtown or in impacts major centers. One of these only attracts traffic from outside. Minimize traffic Make Wilson go all the way through. impacts Minimize traffic I don't know why they are building in a flood control area! Wildfires are also an issue and it impacts seems like a stupid idea. Minimize traffic No one will walk or ride a bike to these commercial businesses. You can minimize traffic impacts impact by not placing businesses in the area. Minimize traffic More consideration is needed for traffic around the current schools. (LOHS, DCIS, and many impacts elementaries.) There are many one-way directional traffic patterns that don't match where the students live which creates excessive u -turns and congestion. If Wilson was open North of Los Osos, traffic on Banyan could be reduced. There is gridlock every morning because the only way to the school is via Banyan. Day Creek Intermediate also has terrible flow and the traffic up and down Day Creek is dangerous. Minimize traffic Stop building! As residents congestion is crazy, schools overcrowded and we are being impacts charged up the rear end for water! Extreemely important to have all the dry trees leaves are clean up quick. Giving a tax break Minimize wildfire risk for resident who water the city trees will be great motivation for us to take care city trees that look neglected. Minimize wildfire risk I strongly support jacking up the property taxes of ALL Rancho housing immediately adjacent to wilderness. Minimize wildfire risk Also develop areas for run-off capture The land has already been determined to be a high risk fire area. Building anything there Minimize wildfire risk would be a danger to the community. Minimize wildfire risk No housing and make available to nature and and animals. Protect it from damage. There are enough citizens in this city and no view of natural beauty of the area. SO SAD Minimize wildfire risk I am not sure what you mean by limiting the length of the perimeter. I am for more open space, less or no houses and NO commercial development Minimize wildfire risk I live in a community where we have been cornered in during a fire with minimum exits. Minimize wildfire risk We need nature all around us for oxygen, life and more. Especially trees with long roots. Minimize wildfire risk If a walking trail is not dog friendly, I will not have occasion to use it. Minimize wildfire risk maintain adequate fire prevention breaks Minimize wildfire risk No Minimize wildfire risk No retail and high density housing Minimize wildfire risk Why build there at all? Just allow the area to exist for hiking, walking and nature conservation. Minimize wildfire risk Build houses far away from areas with lots of green vegetation and have more accesible freeways to those areas in case of an emergency you can reach faster Minimize wildfire risk Fires are a natural part of the local ecology. Fires help to maintain a health forest system. It is when housing infringes on the forest that dangerous situations occur. Keeping homes and businesses out of the foot hills would eliminate a dangerous situation for our brave fire fighters and families. Minimize wildfire risk no more building Minimize wildfire risk Don't build anything! Page 23 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 503 Comment Focus I Comment Minimize wildfire risk When there are enough people that care and volunteer on a regular basis to maintain the community in which they live and even some that are passersby like me who love nature, try to keep the wildfire risk down to a minimum, also with a watchful eye, we may be able to be helpful...:) Minimize wildfire risk Keep that whole area open space. No new development is needed. With acception of hiking, walking and riding trails. Semirural character Maintain Rancho Cucamonga's character Semirural character We need to get maintain a rural yet blended urban feel in today's communites Semirural character would prefer to see no less the 1/3 acre lots with mostly single story development. ample yard setbacks to get away from that typical tract development style where you can hear your neighbor snoring if they sleep with their window open. Semirural character Range of home above wilson need to be large homes on LARGE lots. My kids said how can we keep staying in RC and grow to a larger home if their is none to sell your starter home and move up the hill like our parents? They are talking about most of our friends 1989 bought our first home in Terra Vista,2nd home in 1994 La vine st, 3rd home in Deer Creek Estate our kids want to do the same but you take the larger homes away they will move to the beach, Claremont ect.??? Semirural character I don't like this Semirural character The character of Etiwanda and north Alta Loma has been a rural feel with spaces between homes and highlighting the beauty of the preserve area. This should be maintained. Semirural character No high density housing which would contribute to more traffic, air pollution and water demand Semirural character 1/2 ac and up. lots. Lower portion even with Los Olso, Would agree with smaller lots. _ Overall would like no improvements. Semirural character We want the SAME rural character we have now! Semirural character Good. Semirural character IF, we HAVE to have houses, then it should be semi rural. This limits traffic, would be LARGE lots - at least an acre, and NO commercial development. Semirural character Could any of this be used for commercial agriculture such as orange groves, grapes, etc? All proceeds to go to RC. Semirural character The surrounding neighborhoods are large lot with semi -rural character, which is why we bought here. We do not want this character changed. Semirural character This area is in the Equestrian Rural Overlay and should be maintained as MINIMUM half acre lots Semirural character Some of these choices are loaded and designed to encourage development under the guise of labeling them "minimize fire risk" and "semi -rural chacter". _ Semirural character Not preferred, but better than a mall. Semirural character Livestock? Cattle? Really? There large areas already designated for keeping if horses in Alta Loma and Eiwanda. Very few homeowners actually take advantage of this. Newer neighborhoods with a maze of unmaintained private feeder horse trails to every single lot that do not get any use? We need well designed multi -use community trails across the base of the foothills, provide connectivity, recreation for all. Protect natural features and land contours. Semirural character more rural, no commercial of any kind Semirural character NO parcels less that 1/2 acre. PERIOD Page 24 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 504 Question 2. What appeals to you? Comment Focus Comment Comment on Historic Etiwanda Provides character, not cookie -cutter homes. Comment on Historic Etiwanda These homes feel authentic and remind of the small town where I grew up. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Homes and other structures in the foothills must be fire resistant Comment on Historic Etiwanda Unique individual houses add character and charm to a neighborhood. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Not cookie cutter housing Natural settings Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda This looks more like old -town Claremont. Would look out of place, amongst the I'm not a big fan of how these houses look, but they match the RC house theme, new tracks. Comment on Historic Etiwanda It brings character to a town to see original homes and buildings that are Comment on Historic Etiwanda renovated yet maintain the original structure. It's just pleasing to look at the Trees! We need more! Rancho Cucamonga use to be a beautiful place full of pretty homes with porches out front. Very nostalgic and comforting. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Some component is desirable but many of these are marginally more than tear - downs and functionally obsolete. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Typical Santa fe style for the area Comment on Historic Etiwanda Maintain the historical nature of Etiwanda. Comment on Historic Etiwanda But, actual old homes. No new construction. The city is beginning to look like trash! No continuitv! No architecture. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keep it clean the way it was back When! Comment on Historic Etiwanda Single family homes help keep neighborhoods nice and cater to the dying middle class Comment on Historic Etiwanda set our city apart from the scourge of track/cookie cutter design Comment on Historic Etiwanda These homes are historic and have a lot of character to their architecture: Spanish style, bungalow, and craftsman homes appeal to me. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Seems appropriate for this type area. Comment on Historic Etiwanda These homes have more character and don't look "cookie cutter" we already have a lot of "cookie cutter homes" in Rancho. The Alta Loma area is special because of the old home feel. Comment on Historic Etiwanda I'm not a big fan of how these houses look, but they match the RC house theme, and the terracotta roofs seem to work It's unique and has character. This is beautiful and historic and is not crowded. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Trees! We need more! Rancho Cucamonga use to be a beautiful place full of trees, now its house upon house and less and less green Comment on Historic Etiwanda The houses are too small unless they were placed on one acre lots this would lead to more congestion more traffic We don't want more housing of any type! Preserve the land, no housing Old and ugly Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Preserves the rich history of this area Comment on Historic Etiwanda Fits the area's history and has a timeless character. Comment on Historic Etiwanda A lot of history in community and it should be recognized and honored Comment on Historic Etiwanda Historical preservation of the Alta Loma area - horse property, variety of houses - not all cookie cutter Large lots Need more housing for our seniors Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Page 25 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 505 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Historic Etiwanda Give character to our rich history Comment on Historic Etiwanda The historic homes are more appealing to look at. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Allows least number of residents while allowing space for ownership of horses. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Love the uniqueness of different designs, no cookie cutter housing. Keeps the Comment on Historic Etiwanda history of Etiwanda alive. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Too old looking. Comment on Historic Etiwanda House w/character and large lots should be the goal. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Looks and maintains historical note Comment on Historic Etiwanda Tired of ALL houses in Rancho looking the same. Character is more important Comment on Historic Etiwanda than efficiency for a builder. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Once again. leave it as -is. The only push for this to be developed is because some people get to be PAID OFF!!! Total crooks!!! rcmment on Historic Etiwanda Preserve historic architecture. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Rancho Cucamonga is losing it's old charm that attracted me to move here over 16 years ago. Let's bring it back some character and history back!! Comment on Historic Etiwanda They have character and the look of old Cucamonga Comment on Historic Etiwanda Character of homes. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keep with historical beauty Comment on Historic Etiwanda keep the architectural fabric and character of the community Comment on Historic Etiwanda Housing as such only allows one family to live in it vs the other type of housing people tend to share with more family. It's nice to see the history of the city, how it started out in our neighborhoods. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda No new homes. Too many houses Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Although it would be nice to maintain the Etiwanda feel, it needs to be a mixture of old fashioned with current relevance Comment on Historic Etiwanda I think a mix between historic styles and more current estate home style would be best. Younger people don't necessarily like historic homes and we want to attract younger lucrative members to the community. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Love historic non cookie cutter homes. At least 1/2 acre lots. No high density or Comment on Historic Etiwanda commercial Comment on Historic Etiwanda Beautiful and charming. if they are affordable I'm in. Also think of the price for our kids and grandkids. Comment on Historic Etiwanda There is no need for more homes Comment on Historic Etiwanda I As long as the historic homes have large lots. 1/2 acre+ Comment on Historic Etiwanda To maintain historic look of the area. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Larger lots with homes of character insure the area will be desirable in the i future and minimize traffic impact. Comment on Historic Etiwanda I I don't like to see Garages or Street Parking. Comment on Historic Etiwanda If the lot sizes are at least 1/2 acre and larger, I don't care what the design is. I also don't need to see carpet samples. Are you telling me a developer is going to bring in old age trees as appear in these pictures? Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keeps the local history Comment on Historic Etiwanda Absolutely no high density housing and no retail stores!!! Stop building Comment on Historic Etiwanda Old growth trees provide shade Larger lots preserve privacy. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keeping the history of the city alive is important for future generations to retain the history of the citv Page 26 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 506 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Historic Etiwanda I think there needs to be more homes because there is alot of people that cant afford where to live and its time to make a damn change in this world Comment on Historic Etiwanda Our historic properties should be protected and maintained. Comment on Historic Etiwanda There is nothing charming or pretty about this. It's plain, not much thinking effort went in to this landscape. This is not complimentary, at all. Comment on Historic Etiwanda No pic available to review Comment on Historic Etiwanda to help keep our community unique and desirable. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Maintains the character and feel of the Etiwanda community and neighborhoods Comment on Historic Etiwanda Character and history! Comment on Historic Etiwanda Reflects the architectural history of the original Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Shows established neighborhood. Cozy feel Comment on Historic Etiwanda Not cookbook Comment on Historic Etiwanda Classic style Comment on Historic Etiwanda We needy preserve our history. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Looks rustic and calming Comment on Historic Etiwanda Maintaining old character and minimizing traffic to the area Comment on Historic Etiwanda Most of my life, I've lived in old homes. My father and brothers maintained, thus Comment on Historic Etiwanda Hard to keep up Page 27 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 507 Comment on Historic Etiwanda History Comment on Historic Etiwanda Leave open space Comment on Historic Etiwanda retain it's historic charm Comment on Historic Etiwanda No more building. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Grew up in this area & feel need to save some history. I own a historic home Comment on Historic Etiwanda Incorporate 1/2 acre or more in a single dwelling home Comment on Historic Etiwanda These look friendly and I would like to live here. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Grew up locally miss history. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Old simple and discreet Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keeps the heritage and does not look like average track homes. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Historical look-alike homes have little value compared to the real thing and make the city look behind the times. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Hard to keep up Comment on Historic Etiwanda Nice house sizes. Look established. Comment on Historic Etiwanda It looks like nothing has been done to improve the area visually. Comment on Historic Etiwanda restrict to single story. lots of 1/3 acre and up Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keep the history of Etiwanda alive. My family has been here since 1960s and of all the photos shown, this just feels the most like what old Rancho was. The soul of Rancho if you will and its essence. Not the Irvine feel the old City Manager was morphing us into that made me almost move ... WE ARE NOT IRVINE! We are Rancho Cucamonga... embrace That!!! We are proud of that!!! Stop building more houses! No homes at all. we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants. :( Preservation of the history of Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Cment on Historic Etiwanda om Page 27 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 507 Comment Focus I Comment Comment on Historic Etiwanda Continuing the older Etiwanda neighborhood respects the history of this community. A mix of old/new is very appealing and doesn't resemble cookie cutter neighborhoods. Comment on Historic Etiwanda No houses at all. You are greedy! This is horrendous! Comment on Historic Etiwanda Reminds of old RC Comment on Historic Etiwanda It will be lack of maintenance and hard to conserve water. Comment on Historic Etiwanda These are loaded questions. This has nothing to do with building on a flood plain. But if you want to know, I like historical houses. Comment on Historic Etiwanda The historic look can be maintained.. there are several architectural styles in Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda We're fortunate to have multiple historic neighborhoods and the Etiwanda Historic neighborhood is worth preserving and honoring. The tourism alone from highlighting our history is definitely worth consideration. Comment on Historic Etiwanda The landscaping is why I like this, and the apparent size of the home indicates a large single family residence with plenty of yard space. The Spanish style facade is nice but I prefer Craftsman style. Spacious Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Your choice of words in instructions "will come together" and "will affect" sound like development is a done deal. What about those that do not want Development? _ Larger estates equals more natural landscape. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keep some original character in the community is important to see where we started and have it for future generations before we all conform to the same thing Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keep originals look Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keep original looking homes Comment on Historic Etiwanda Etiwanda is currently known for its historic homes. I would like to see this continue as part of planning of new homes Comment on Historic Etiwanda Not crowded Comment on Historic Etiwanda Feels like Claremont, but without the attractiveness of the colleges. Unless Chaffey expands. Comment on Historic Etiwanda I would like no homes built. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Keep it the way it is. stop ruining our city please Comment on Historic Etiwanda Historic and beautiful Comment on Historic Etiwanda This area was zoned for horse property and should remain that way! Comment on Historic Etiwanda Old homes in established neighborhoods. Big trees Comment on Historic Etiwanda Its consistent with the area Comment on Historic Etiwanda They're beautiful and fit the community. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Historical homes are lovely! Comment on Historic Etiwanda This area already has a heritage. A heritage we all love and appreciate. That's why we live here. Let's keep the look we already love j Got to know where you have been to know where you are going Comment on Historic Etiwanda Comment on Historic Etiwanda It gives the community character and looks more homey than track housing. Comment on Historic Etiwanda actual historic houses look good, new imitation ones in areas the citizens do not want developed, not so much Comment on Historic Etiwanda Adds character and history of our city Comment on Historic Etiwanda This does not fit the character of the surrounding, existing neighborhoods Page 28 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 508 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Historic Etiwanda Like to see more charcter in these homes. These style of homes will maintain the Comment on Cottages historic style of the community. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Looks pleasing Comment on Historic Etiwanda Energy inefficient. Comment on Historic Etiwanda Unique homes, not cookie cutter look alike homes Comment on Historic Etiwanda Not a reality Comment on Historic Etiwanda There is a front yard, it looks like a single story which is preferred Comment on Historic Etiwanda Don't want any homes or shopping Comment on Historic Etiwanda These houses make the city look prettier! Comment on Historic Etiwanda These homes are okay as to g as they are large and are on big lots; otherwise Comment on Cottages they would not fit with existing neighborhoods. Comment on Historic Etiwanda This area lends itself well to nicer, more historic type homes or use similar to the Comment on Cottages area of Thoroughbred. We have plenty of large homes with tiny yards. Families Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages w;int cnara Comment on Historic Etiwanda No development. Leave the land alone Comment on Cottages No development Comment on Cottages This type of housing is nice but does not at all fit this location. It will not increase or improve property values. This opens the area up to more commercial use which makes no sense. Cottage style houses do not compliment existing, established developments. Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Don't want any homes or retail Comment on Cottages Nice community living Comment on Cottages Open space is great, has a good neighborhood feel Comment on Cottages Like this style of home, but do not want to see small lot subduvision. Comment on Cottages Would allow too many homes Comment on Cottages These continue to preserve the current nature of the surrounding existing neighborhoods. Comment on Cottages Adds a variety, as long as it is low density. Comment on Cottages Privacy plus community interface. Comment on Cottages don't wish to see any homes in the area in question Comment on Cottages Do not prefer the smaller residences in this area of estate style homes. Will result in higher density which we absolutely do not need. Comment on Cottages It's Socal. I think if folks want new England. ...they should move there Comment on Cottages Cottages are charming. Comment on Cottages Interesting Comment on Cottages Wouldn't want a shared space with people I like more privacy Comment on Cottages Nice, but looks too beachy for rancho I prefer no homes to be built. Sharing something with neighboors is like my experience with military family housing. But good jobs in the local area are also needed for this. Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Crowded Concerned about what kind of fees are connected with common space that cause people to move out of housing they thought they could afford --but find out they cannot. No cookie cutter No cookie cutter homes Cottages equal high density population. Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Page 29 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 509 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Cottages Your choice of words in instructions "will come together" and "will affect" sound like a done deal. What about those that do not want Development? Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Beautiful and plenty of yard space I'm just not into shared courtyards- not all neighbors are considerate, and therefore you're stuck or fighting. Too close together Semi rural areas do not want to share space. They want more open space and maintain the 1/2 acre minimum properties. Comment on Cottages It will dense with smaller buildings and create a heavy traffic. Comment on Cottages small -medium scale Rather have personal yards we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages No homes at all. Comment on Cottages Stop building more houses!! Comment on Cottages Absolutely not, because this isnt a fairy tale! Comment on Cottages There isn't much privacy in this setting. I don't know that it would be very popular. encourages high density, traffic Affordable Mix of housing styles is best Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages We value space from our neighbors with defined boundaries. Comment on Cottages Is not California style Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Too many of them Lowest density possible no more building Comment on Cottages Small homes would bring in more residents. 1/2 acre lots preferred. Comment on Cottages No more building and overcrowding. Comment on Cottages new style of housing not commonly found in area Comment on Cottages Does not match the local area Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages A few homes of this type are good to represent the heritage of the area. They are ok, been in a few as a guest but the charm is not there. I came from a farm house and still miss it! Continues the look of old Etiwanda Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Great for retirees Comment on Cottages As a homeowner o would not want to 'share' with my neighbor. I like privacy. Comment on Cottages High density Comment on Cottages The cottage styles shown are cute however, the close proximity to neighboring houses is out of character with the Etiwanda/North Alta Loma neighborhood feel. These look like they are town homes or condos architecturally made to look like a cottage. Density of homes in the area should be maintained at a low rate Comment on Cottages this would help with keeping things unique and keep a "country living" feel Comment on Cottages I think it would be amazing to see more cottages like these Comment on Cottages Small affordable cottages would be very nice. Good family starter home or something for seniors Comment on Cottages I have lived where there are no fences. Shared property leads to disagreements Page 30 Etiwanda Heights Plan and salaried employees have to arbitrate. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 510 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Cottages Low density equals lower traffic impact as well as less of an impact on local services. Comment on Cottages quaint with shared courtyards means their not single family residences on minimum 1/2 acre lots/ Comment on Cottages Too many people packed into small areas. Comment on Cottages There is no need for more homes Comment on Cottages Smaller, charming, friendly, Comment on Cottages The houses themselves are lovely, but a SHARED courtyard? I understand that alleviates yard space, and promote children to play outside with neighbors, but who would maintain it? what about pets? a few of these communities would be ideal, but there would also need to be strict rules to maintain harmony for all habitants Comment on Cottages Too many houses Comment on Cottages People too closely packed.. Comment on Cottages I like the idea of creating a space that promotes community and a sense of neighbor hood where kids and neighbors can gather together in a shared space Comment on Cottages Blends with historic area medium sized homes Comment on Cottages More family friendly and affordable. Comment on Cottages Sweet, calm. Comment on Cottages I feel like these devalue a neighborhood and bring in a bad element with higher crime. Comment on Cottages They look cozy and practical Comment on Cottages Bring back the historical and charming look back to Rancho Cucamonga. We're losing the original roots! Comment on Cottages Create and maintain better level of privacy between neighbors. Comment on Cottages _ Houses not right next to each other, nice landscape. Comment on Cottages Like but not for Etiwanda Comment on Cottages Would prefer private yards, no shared courtyards. Comment on Cottages Too many damn houses too damn close Comment on Cottages Affordable middle class homes are needed on 1/2 acre or more as stipulated in the general plan. Comment on Cottages This would allow for dense population. Comment on Cottages While I'm not s fan of shared courtyards, or shared spaces, the cottages would be a great option for a wide range of families. Comment on Cottages Promotes community. Need more housing for our seniors! Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Smaller houses are fine, but yards should be private, not shared so houses can be farther apart. Small houses = more people and cars per square acre Adds to the feeling of come mmunity Enables moderate income engagement Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Old and ugly Comment on Cottages Too small too many houses too much traffic Comment on Cottages We don't want more housing of any type! Comment on Cottages We dont need a pile of buildings that are too expensive for good people to live. Comment on Cottages Too crowdedilillI! Comment on Cottages This has a shared community feel. Comment on Cottages Probably won't be affordable to me should I choose to move Page 31 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 511 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Cottages These homes have more character and don't look "cookie cutter" we already have a lot of "cookie cutter homes" in Rancho. The Alta Loma area is special because of the old home feel. Comment on Cottages No! Half acre to acre lots only!!! Comment on Cottages Acceptable but as appealing as the historical style. Comment on Cottages goes along with charm and distinction of the area Comment on Cottages These look beautiful and encourage community and engagement by sharing Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Cottages Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes spacestogetner Too close; too many people. This is Socal...not new England Attractive, desirable and affordable. No condos or townhouses To get some actual charm and character to our neighborhoods would be amazing. Something different than the same ole same ole tile roofed, stucco suburbs, please! and enough with squishing 2400 sq foot homes on 5,000 sq foot lots. This is dumb too. a return to old fashioned character and charm would be amazing. Preferred ver two story housng My personal preference is for larger yards but I recognize the need for more affordable types of housing. The courtyard green space where my son could play with others and I could enjoy a mini neighborhood. _ Good options for small, young families or those that are downsizing. We already have plenty of estate size options for those that can afford it. They are nice, but far removed and not something that I could afford. This is a highly desirable type of home for my personal preference. I bought a million dollar home in deer creek to get away from all the city stuff below. Our family doesn't want to be invaded with small or cottage type housing that lives above us. I know you like the taxes from estate homes, but please. We have enough. How about housing for the majority of people, not the select few. Comment on Estate Homes It's not Beverly Hills Comment on Estate Homes No more McMansions This is Rancho Cucamonga. Lets get slightly serious. Nice but if your thinking of preserving open space this kinda goes against that. I Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes want to preserve nature We don't need "grand." Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes Super no!! Those are horrible and a blight! How could you even think to juxtapose these monstrosities against the backdrop of a natural habitat for wildlife?? That area is 1 acre to 1/2 acre homes and should be continued that way. Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes No way, no need for Bradbury Look! Comment on Estate Homes The need for a few larger homes may still be there now, but how about in the future- if anything... granny cottages in the back will be needed on larger properties. kids don't want them underfoot, but on the same property Comment on Estate Homes not very interested in, again, improving the area for most wealthy who already get the best parks, etc Comment on Estate Homes Overdone in the foothill areas and they tend to dominate the landscape. T Page 32 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 512 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Estate Homes I think there are plenty of Estate homes already. Comment on Estate Homes Keep Home values up. Supply & demand. Comment on Estate Homes Keeps consistent with existing housing Comment on Estate Homes More space and privacy as long as you don't let dictate parking and trail use! Comment on Estate Homes Bring back the quaintness of Rancho Cucamonga Comment on Estate Homes We don't want more housing of any type! Comment on Estate Homes minimize number of homes (i.e., people) per square mile Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes if you have to have houses then at least these are big enough so that you won't have as much traffic and congestion really thinking about the traffic along Wilson coming off the 15 and 210 freeways Estate homes are limited to people with large incomes Comment on Estate Homes They increase existing property valves and are built on larger lots. Comment on Estate Homes Sets up an exclusive enclave Comment on Estate Homes Large lots mean less people, less traffic, and they would be rich enough and happy enough to down to the 210 to shop and would not need commercial development Comment on Estate Homes Expensive and prohibative to many people- we have too much of these estate homes in this city already Comment on Estate Homes We have enough of these currently Comment on Estate Homes Large lots Comment on Estate Homes Need more affordable housing for our seniors Comment on Estate Homes Bad for the environment. Comment on Estate Homes This type of Home is unaffordable for many middle class families. They take up a lot of space, they lend nothing to the preservation of the original feel of the area. Comment on Estate Homes This just does not match existing housing. Comment on Estate Homes Actually I don't ANY of these homes in any of the pictures, but you don't give an option for that!!! Comment on Estate Homes We don't need more large, expensive homes. We need affordable middle class homes. Comment on Estate Homes Since these homes would be at higher elevations closer to the foothills, the should have a grander and more elegant look. Comment on Estate Homes Not too many house too damn close Comment on Estate Homes Large lots ideal. Comment on Estate Homes No neighbors tend to stay behind walls. Comment on Estate Homes Too big and too expensive for middle class. Comment on Estate Homes NO... This is a typical Orange County home. Comment on Estate Homes Too big and expensive to own Comment on Estate Homes To big Comment on Estate Homes Too big. Not practical. Comment on Estate Homes There are enough of these homes in Rancho. I would like to move to a larger home and stay in Rancho but they are either too small or way too big. Comment on Estate Homes Less family friendly, more for older people with more money, not practically for mid-upper middle class professionals. Comment on Estate Homes Too many McMansions, not enough open, undeveloped land! Comment on Estate Homes I'd MUCH rather have a large backyard than a large front yard. No one uses front yards, but with a large backyard my kids can safely play outside. No new houses Comment on Estate Homes Page 33 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 513 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Estate Homes Too many houses Comment on Estate Homes The homes themselves are gorgeous and I wouldn't mind a few of these in the new area, but too many of them will give the area an Elitist ambience and seclude the area from the rest of the city. Comment on Estate Homes The most important thing to me regarding housing type is that are streets and sidewalks remain free from cars being parked overnight. By eliminating -------- -i ---"-� -- ----`----`- ----- I --I.- `- -��--- "--`- --- 1-1---A----i- ------`--- Lommeni on tstaie homes UVclIilglIL NaInn1g U1 JLIccLJ yvu IicIN w cininIiaw IIciSliuvi iwvu �Ullr3caLl . Comment on Estate Homes We have enough of these already for wealthy people. Let's think of affordability for our kids and grandkids so they can live near us. Also seniors and young Comment on Estate Homes families want something smaller There is no need for more homes Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes They require more land between homes and taxes will help support funding this larger homes use more utilies, water, etc project. Fewer homes, less of an impact on amount if traffic. Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes If you absolutely mess it up so bad that conservation of open space does not We don't need to cater more to the rich. occur and you approve it for development, then this is close to the acceptable Nice privacy, lots of room. All the team work of cleaning or hiring, WOW! I could design. It just has to be minimum 1/2 acre lots (and larger) no apartments, no get lost for days.... condos, no townhomes, no quaint cottages sharing courtyards. Comment on Estate Homes There is still plenty of vacant land capable of supporting estate type homes in only if houses are far enough apart. On at least one acre if not Imore other portions of the city. Few people can afford these. That's why we moved here Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes If you want estate homes just drive through Haven View Estates. We don't need Comment on Estate Homes more luxury housing. We need AFFORDABLE housing, not big estates. Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes This type of overindulgence is unnecessary and works to further divide people in Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 a time when screens are where the majority of interactions are had. It would be a dream come true Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes costs are already going to be high in this area due to our community and the location. if estates are here, there would be much less opportunity for "blue collar" or tradesman class of people to afford these homes. That has been in the greater plan for 30 + years Resale value of current Comment on Estate Homes residence is a major concern. 1/2 acre plus lots are the norm above Wilson. Lommeni on tstaie homes IT malnialnea on large lois, inese nomes are DeauvTui ana neeaea In ine area, however if lot sizes do not match with the home size, the character of the area is lost.... no McMansions Comment on Estate Homes Make the homes something we can afford. Not for people selling in LA and moving here to our community Comment on Estate Homes larger homes use more utilies, water, etc Comment on Estate Homes Brings up the value of the area; so long as they are upscale enough and the owners take pride in the landscape. Comment on Estate Homes We don't need to cater more to the rich. Comment on Estate Homes Nice privacy, lots of room. All the team work of cleaning or hiring, WOW! I could get lost for days.... Comment on Estate Homes Increased property values Comment on Estate Homes only if houses are far enough apart. On at least one acre if not Imore Comment on Estate Homes Stop the overcrowding. Comment on Estate Homes Keeps same character as current area Comment on Estate Homes 1/2 acre or more preferred Comment on Estate Homes To match the homes already north of Banyan or Wilson. Page 34 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 514 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Estate Homes Will add less population to the city minimizing the impact on current city resources ABOVE WILSON IT KEEP A PLACE TO GROW FOR YOU IST HOME TO YOUR LAST Comment on Estate Homes IN RC. Places for CEO to stay in RC and have there business in Fontana, Rialto, Beaumont etc. We need to keep the ESTATE HOMES in RC Comment on Estate Homes no more building Comment on Estate Homes This type of homes will maintain the value and create low traffic Comment on Estate Homes I keep getting mail telling me to conserve energy. These homes would take a lot of energy to cool or heat. And lots of water if they have real grass. Fits neighborhood Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes To funcy Comment on Estate Homes People who can afford these homes will keep the area looking nice. Comment on Estate Homes Exclusive homes can lead to exclusivity of others Comment on Estate Homes I would prefer no homes, but if you must build, build big. Comment on Estate Homes Too much space taken by a very few. Comment on Estate Homes large lots=less density. need to restrict ry storage to areas not visible to public streets. Comment on Estate Homes This seting screams dionneangeles@outlook.com, "Private, stay dionneangeles@outlook.coml" I think people would wonder if they had entered soneone's private residence, insyead of a public place. Stop building more housesll Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Estate Homes Rancho is already over built. Just picked this so there is less buildings. We don't need anymore houses or businesses. Comment on Estate Homes Like the set back and the apparent size lot, house is ok, not as good as the first one. The style if the secind one was ok too, but wasy too close to the neighbor and needs a much bigger lot on the second one, but maybe not quiet as bitlg as this. _ Comment on Estate Homes No homes at all. Comment on Estate Homes On these large estate will conserve more habitat and owners should be imposed on HOA for maintaining schrub Comment on Estate Homes On these large estate will conserve more habitat and owners should be imposed on HOA for maintaining schrub and surrounding Comment on Estate Homes Aweful Comment on Estate Homes Larger homes are fine as long as All homes meet the 1/2 acre minimum. Using an average property size is like cheating, don't you think? This is a developers way of maximizing their profits at the expense of the community once they sell their properties. Comment on Estate Homes This model is consistent with the existing neighborhoods. Comment on Estate Homes I'm sure there's some space for some of these mansions, hopefully they won't end up like Skyline -abandoned or rented out and turned into party mansions like in SAH Comment on Estate Homes Who wouldn't want that? Requires larger setbacks, and will result in high quality occupants. This type of housung tract almost never sees the high crime rates of Comment on Estate Homes Page 35 Etiwanda Heights Plan density type projects. for the amount of land required for estate homes, more neighborhoods could be created to attract new homeowners who want to live and raise their families in Rancho Cucamonga Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 515 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Estate Homes Again ... don't want Development. Comment on Estate Homes Uber estate homes equal unspoiled natural landscape. Comment on Estate Homes No big estates homeowner are not friendly Comment on Estate Homes No big unfriendly homes Comment on Estate Homes While the concept of a lower occupation rate of land is appealing, sometimes Comment on Smaller Homes the families that purchase "estates" have many cars, multiple families with lots of members and a tendency toward group parties and a sense of entitlement within the neighborhood. Comment on Estate Homes It's adjacent to fine homes on large lots. Comment on Estate Homes We already have these. Comment on Estate Homes I prefer no homes to be built. Comment on Estate Homes Too Beverly Hills. Comment on Estate Homes Beautiful idea very expensive and not realistic for most people Comment on Estate Homes It's not affordable to purchase. Comment on Estate Homes To appeal to families who can pay higher taxes, so the city can have great schools! Great for property values Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes Less density and continues the flow of the Deer Creek communities. This will preserve the value of our homes and not add excessive density to our prestigious neighborhood. don't wish to see any homes in the area in question Not affordable to many families. Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes Comment on Estate Homes Uses more land which leads itself to lower density housing and keeps values at a high level. Comment on Estate Homes These are great to maintain current values but not practical for all but a portion of the area being developed. Comment on Estate Homes These are beautiful homes, but that will then make this area not affordable for the middle class. Comment on Estate Homes Exclusionary gentrification. Comment on Estate Homes We have enough "estate type property" Comment on Estate Homes Rancho is not Brentwood. Never will be. Build small to moderate homes so families can afford to move in and attend our great schools! Comment on Estate Homes We need affordable homes in RC. The emerging adult population, despite having dual incomes each over 6 figures can hardly afford Rancho. Not everyone d/ t M M k f 'I' h d' t' Comment on Estate Homes w nee s an s a c ansion, eep young ami ies ere an give us op ions. Prefer NO homes or retail in area. Of all the home options ESTATE acre properties would be the ONLY option. Comment on Estate Homes Will enhance existing dvelopments (Deer creek, haven view, deer creek estates) Comment on Estate Homes Not a fan of big houses Comment on Estate Homes That's the type of home that should be there! Comment on Estate Homes Leave the land alone ... zero development Comment on Smaller Homes Absolutely no small homes ... no to stack and pack Comment on Smaller Homes Rancho Cucamonga is VERY expensive... it would be nice to see some new smaller homes offered that would allow 1st time buyers or middle income singles a chance to buy in the area. Comment on Smaller Homes We already have new developments with smaller, high-density housing. Land north of the 210 does not need this type of housing. Buyers for this area prefer space and land. Not high density. Page 36 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 516 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Smaller Homes Great!! Please we need more affordable houses Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller homes, condos and apartments do not belong in the foothills. They do not compliment existing developments. Absolutely not. It devalues the existing surrounding homes values! Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes because are more accessible for media class families Need more upscale 1600 sq, to 2200 single story home for retirees Comment on Smaller Homes Greatest need. More access to housing for more people. Inclusionary. Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Will add too many people and traffic to area Smaller homes are nice. We need affordable housing. Do not want to see small lot, high density subdivisions. I really think that this type of development has made the developers richer, but your crowding the community. People leave LA county areas because of how crowded the cities are. This is crowding our community but only with newer homes. I think the larger lot size is nicer. Please stop crowding our community. I know it's more $$$ for the city. Sorry to say, but that's what the city govt sees. Comment on Smaller Homes I would have liked to seen something like this where whatever that monstrosity is that is being built on Hermosa and Foothill ... but ... I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question Comment on Smaller Homes These significantly negatively change the character and population density of the surrounding areas. Comment on Smaller Homes Most affordable to middle class, the working class. Comment on Smaller Homes I would have liked to seen something like this where whatever that monstrosity is that is being built on Hermosa and Foothill Comment on Smaller Homes Increased density and congestion. Affordable housing attracts a different clientele which this area does not need. Not every one has 15+ people living in a home, build for small families 2-4 Comment on Smaller Homes people Comment on Smaller Homes Everyone else is doing this. If you want this, look to Eastvale. Comment on Smaller Homes Hurts property values and invites crime. Sad statistic but true Comment on Smaller Homes To appeal to those who want smaller homes, yet live in a great safe upper middle class neighborhood. Not in this area. Single family homes. Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Most ideal however who wants to be on top of a neighbor? I have large dogs and they value a good size yard Too much traffic Too crowded I prefer no homes to be built. Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Crowded. Not compatible with area. Comment on Smaller Homes We really like the concept of limited occupancy in this area. If smaller homes meant smaller numbers of residents, that would be positive. But our experience shows that more small homes are crammed into a development, and the number of cars and residents multiply sharply. Comment on Smaller Homes No apartments or condos Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller homes equal Super Dense Population with nightmarish traffic conditions. Comment on Smaller Homes No Development - too much impact on traffic, schools and environment. Concern about wildfire and traffic and overcrowding that is already an issue in city. Page 37 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 517 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Smaller Homes Too many people in too small and area Comment on Smaller Homes All can still be unique, designed to blend in with the Historical Etiwanda look. individual private spaces as well. Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller homes are more attractive and universal in appeal as we move away from the excess of larger estate homes Comment on Smaller Homes This is the high density development that residents are opposed to. Build smaller homes in areas already designated for high density. Our Master Plan clearly laid out the framework for development with the Equestrian Overlay for the semi - rural areas. Don't succumb to the developers - we will live here Long after they are gone, This high density model will create impacted traffic. Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Prefer for retiree and senior living. Less traffic and simple community. Comment on Smaller Homes again small scale for the same reasons listed Comment on Smaller Homes Must have affordable housing for the poor Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller houses means more people Comment on Smaller Homes Affordability for that population and can personalize Comment on Smaller Homes we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Smaller Homes No homes at all. Comment on Smaller Homes Stop building more houses! Comment on Smaller Homes Style is ok for what it is, but its very crowded. Needs more openness. Comment on Smaller Homes This offers the best of both worlds with both privacy and a sense of community in one. Comment on Smaller Homes encourages higher density, traffic. lack of privacy Comment on Smaller Homes Affordable Comment on Smaller Homes I like this option for the potential shared community amenities like a community pool and clubhouse. Mix of housing styles is best Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Not in keeping with the large equestrian properties on the north side of town and the density has the potential for greater loss in a wildfire zone. No here no more building Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Bad Idea we have room for all of this size below wilson. Stay out of the Estate home and Medium homes that why we have top 10 schools bring smaller home and apartments your not going to have the top schools anymore people don't want to leave by a shopping center lower housing Comment on Smaller Homes Will add more population stretching city resources (schools, traffic, water, etc). Comment on Smaller Homes Too dense and will only add to the traffic issues. Comment on Smaller Homes No—as it would increase the population, more traffic and more crime. Comment on Smaller Homes Not in this area Comment on Smaller Homes Stop overcrowding. Comment on Smaller Homes community already has plenty of that type o housing Comment on Smaller Homes Affordable for young families Comment on Smaller Homes Great! Similar to what I am in now. Easy to manage, compact, one can hear their neighbor breathe next door, how much fun is thatH :) Comment on Smaller Homes Should keep apartments to a minimum. Already too many in RC Comment on Smaller Homes Too dense Page 38 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results – October 2, 2018 Page 518 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Smaller Homes Don't really know what smaller is to you. Average size homes on oversized lots Comment on Smaller Homes would be nice Comment on Smaller Homes I am a retiree Comment on Smaller Homes While RC is an awesome community, it is beyond the financial reach of many younger professionals/families. Adding smaller, more affordable housing options will make RC more accessible. Comment on Smaller Homes Tends to look cookie cutter and does not maintain the character of the north Alta Loma/Etiwanda area As a soon to be first time home owner, I want to be able to afford living in RC. Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Too high density Comment on Smaller Homes this would NOT be a good idea. this would multiply already growing congestion in an area with limited arteries. it will be ashamed to see this area developed at all and to have it with multi family living arrangements would be degrading to both the development and to the surrounding areas. Comment on Smaller Homes Its a beautiful hone with a beautiful scenery Comment on Smaller Homes We need entry level housing. A health city has a range of housing for all income levels. Comment on Smaller Homes I see lower income housing with increased crime rate. Comment on Smaller Homes Too many people in a small area. Comment on Smaller Homes Many of us in this category can't find these types of homes at a reasonable rates Comment on Smaller Homes Too close together. Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller homes would be more ideal for young families trying to purchase their first home. Comment on Smaller Homes No ody can afford nice houses in this city. The housing prices are so unrealistic even for those who have lived here 20 + years Comment on Smaller Homes We don't need more houses there. Comment on Smaller Homes Will negatively impact our investment. We purchased here BECAUSE of homes, exclusivity and green/open space. Now you are threatening that sounds good for Empire Lakes, not in area surrounded by large estate homes. Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes Make smaller homes more affordable Comment on Smaller Homes More homes equal more traffic and create a burden on local services. Comment on Smaller Homes We need this kind of community for the contnued growth of RC, but with minimal impact on traffic and open spaces for wildlife. Comment on Smaller Homes this is not what we bought a million dollar home for Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller homes packed together is too congested and will cause a lot of traffic. Comment on Smaller Homes There is no need for more homes Comment on Smaller Homes There is a desperate need for smaller homes but the cottages are cuter. Comment on Smaller Homes I think there could be a place for a 55+ community such as a Del Webb or Trilogy. Rancho has an aging population and many residents would prefer to stay in the area but do not want the burden of keeping up a large yard or large home. Comment on Smaller Homes although idyllic for creating more homes for the area, Rancho is already super saturated with people. there wouldn't be enough space for parking the 3 or 4 vehicles per home, and the houses would be too close to the street, meaning no privacy, easy package theft, etc. I think the new Annex needs a good mixture of Historic, cottage, Estate, lard front and smaller homes to keep the balance in the community Comment on Smaller Homes Too many houses. Coyotes will live among us Comment on Smaller Homes No new homes Page 39 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 519 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Smaller Homes More houses also means more traffic and school impact Comment on Smaller Homes I like the newer, good sized homes but would still like a larger private lot. Some places to gather together but also have a personal private space Most newer SFHs in RC seem large. We need variety in newer homes. Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes More affordable and family friendly. Comment on Smaller Homes To small looks like condos Comment on Smaller Homes This gives young people a chance to buy a home Comment on Smaller Homes Boring!! Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller housing equals more housing which equals higher population. The city is already overcrowded. Comment on Smaller Homes But no more apartments which tend to be for temporary residents. Comment on Smaller Homes Retirees need cheaper homes with less work Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller homes are ok, but the lots should be larger in order for homes to be farther apart. Comment on Smaller Homes Empty nesters. Comment on Smaller Homes Too close. Too mich traffic. What about the drought? Comment on Smaller Homes It is nice to have smaller homes for young families to enjoy Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller homes are fine as long as they are on 1/2 acre or more size plots. Comment on Smaller Homes This type of development allows for a more variety of people to live in the area Comment on Smaller Homes Current development only squeezes the most houses out of open space creating over dense populated communities. Comment on Smaller Homes Many middle class families can afford a smaller home, they give more of a neighborhood community feel. Comment on Smaller Homes House should be farther apart. Comment on Smaller Homes affordable for working class families Comment on Smaller Homes Small houses = more people, more cars per square acre Comment on Smaller Homes Have no business in thus area Comment on Smaller Homes Need for more affordable housing do young people. Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller homes are more affordable for single families Comment on Smaller Homes Too many houses too much traffic too much congestion not good Comment on Smaller Homes We don't want more housing of any type! Comment on Smaller Homes I like the fact of homes people can afford, but these communities are crowded and congested. Comment on Smaller Homes Too many peopl. Too much traffic!!!!! Comment on Smaller Homes Less people & less homes! Comment on Smaller Homes Practical to have these type of homes assumming the location/view won't be priced too high. Comment on Smaller Homes L No! If people can't afford to live here, they need to go to another city Comment on Smaller Homes no more dense housing in RC, the increase in traffic would be bad for city quality of life Comment on Smaller Homes Fire can jump from house to house with smaller homes. Larger homes have defendable areas Comment on Smaller Homes Too crowded already. Comment on Smaller Homes Too close together. Comment on Smaller Homes Lots of houses very bad. Comment on Smaller Homes First time buyers, singles and families are always welcome here. Comment on Smaller Homes No condos or townhouses Page 40 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 520 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Smaller Homes More families will add congestion to our schools which are taking in interdistrict transfers, as well. Comment on Smaller Homes Need over 55 community in RC with amenties Comment on Smaller Homes I lived in a smaller community and the lower price housing brings in a lower class style which brings down the neighborhood in general. Sad to say but true. Comment on Smaller Homes There's no good senior housing in Rancho besides apartments or assisted living Comment on Smaller Homes the cost of housing is out of control. Making it difficult for new families or singles to purchase. Most families don't have the time or the money to manage yards and larger properties. But just squishing homes together like PUDs is not the answer. Creating charming communities with local areas to get together is a far better plan. Comment on Smaller Homes Affordable (if that's even possible anymore), low maintenance, low HOA or no fees. Low cost on property taxes, specially for medium income families like mine. We moved from San Bernardino for a better life for my two boys & by far it was the best decision ever. However, since there's no Rent Control, we would LOVE to buy a place of our. Affordable house is needed for a good balance in the community. Comment on Smaller Homes Comment on Smaller Homes I've never loved somewhere like this so it's unusual to me. We are interested though because it's something we might be able to afford in order to live closer to my in-laws and might have amenities like a pool where we could swim. Comment on Smaller Homes Smaller homes provide options for young families and retirees. Comment on Large Front Yards Good curb appeal and provides a sense of openness. My concern would be for drought tolerant landscaping options. I I don't like the driveways taking up so much real estate in the front yard. Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Looks like a tract home. Comment on Large Front Yards Most from yards are not used. They are just decorative and most are not well maintained. Grass is not water wise either. Just too much wasted space. Unless we grew food on them instead. Comment on Large Front Yards OK in some areas but not needed thru out, some diversity in housing would be good Comment on Large Front Yards When possible, it keeps a community safe abd attractive. Comment on Large Front Yards How about no houses Comment on Large Front Yards Looks like concrete, not yards. Comment on Large Front Yards Large front yards allow for half acre property and keeping original plan. Three of your options are out if alignment with general plan(too small). One is unrealistic (large estate homes). You have no category for 1/2 parcels! Comment on Large Front Yards T More defendible space with watered yards or drought tolerant landscape Comment on Large Front Yards Because green lawn for mere aesthetics makes sense, right? Comment on Large Front Yards Because tall walls make god's neighbors. Too close is never a good recipe for happy neighbors. Comment on Large Front Yards b/c Lewis homes and many elements of track housing cheapen the city Comment on Large Front Yards Usually associated with large properties that dominate the area. Comment on Large Front Yards minimize number of homes (i.e., people) per square mile Comment on Large Front Yards Keeps consistent with existing housing Comment on Large Front Yards New homes should be built with water accessibility and cost in mind. Large yards in general should be a thing of the past; safe drinking water should not compete with lawn water. Comment on Large Front Yards More space. Less people. Wheres the quantness? Comment on Large Front Yards Page 41 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 521 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Large Front Yards We don't want more housing of any type! Comment on Large Front Yards still not great but better it's better than the small houses Comment on Large Front Yards While front yards can be beautiful moat families spent more time in their Comment on Large Front Yards backyard Comment on Large Front Yards Open feel Comment on Large Front Yards Makes it more rural Comment on Large Front Yards Too much water usage Comment on Large Front Yards wasted space Comment on Large Front Yards Water costs too extreme Comment on Large Front Yards Large lots Comment on Large Front Yards Consumes too much water. Okay if water wise plantings/landscaping are Comment on Large Front Yards mandated. Comment on Large Front Yards Large front yards equal small back yards, and large, modern looking homes, Comment on Large Front Yards which lend nothing to preserving to original aesthetics of the area. Comment on Large Front Yards The bigger the house the less affordable. MORE SINGLE LEVEL HOUSES are Comment on Large Front Yards needed. Comment on Large Front Yards This would allow for ample housing development without creating too dense a Comment on Large Front Yards population for a community. This is ideal. Most people don't take care of their yards and it makes the whole area look Comment on Large Front Yards Waste of space and increased maintenance costs. junky, Comment on Large Front Yards Not needed, but homes set back from the street are visually appealing. Most Page 42 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 522 people wanting to live higher up want space around them. 1/2 acre or larger pial size per general plan. Comment on Large Front Yards We either have very high density apartments, townhomes, or condos or million dollar homes. We need some smaller, moderate, middle class homes. Comment on Large Front Yards Historic homes need to be preserved since there is so little historical evidence in this area. Plus, there aren't any up there, so there is no need to build at all. Spread out. Not like that p.o.s in foothill and hermosa No much negative space. Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Large front yards equate to larger driveways. Todays families have multiple vehicles. So in my case a person living in a house with a small driveway that owns 4 larger worktype trucks takes all the parking in front of 3 homes creating a lot of animosity. I also think that home run businesses should be very limited to the amount of vehicles and trailers that can be in front of property Comment on Large Front Yards Home ownership pride maintaining yards Comment on Large Front Yards Love hate but with proper landscape, provides a beautiful view. Comment on Large Front Yards Boring!! Comment on Large Front Yards These remind me of Alta Loma and the west side of town Comment on Large Front Yards we need more open space and to preserve views. It adds to quality of life and value of the community. Comment on Large Front Yards It needs to keep a rural look. NO typical subdivisions. Think Rancho Santa Fe Comment on Large Front Yards Waste of space and increased maintenance costs. Comment on Large Front Yards Too many McMansions! Comment on Large Front Yards Large front yards are nice but most important is a large or decent size backyard. That is very hard to find in Rancho without being outpriced by the million dollar homes. And most homes with larger back yards have smaller homes on them . Hard to find a good size house AND a good size yard Comment on Large Front Yards More visible green/nature. Less cars on the streets. Page 42 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 522 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Large Front Yards No new homes Comment on Large Front Yards Too many houses Comment on Large Front Yards Too much water needed to maintain a large front yard that is just for show. Comment on Large Front Yards In our state it is a waste of land, waste of water only wealthy can afford so no! Comment on Large Front Yards There is no need for more homes Comment on Large Front Yards If there was an option for large backyards, that would have been my number one. So many homes hold many family members. Parking is needed! Fewer homes, with larger yards, will impact habitat of wildlife less. Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards It serves as a gathering space for families which leads to upkeep of property, better citizens and neighborhoods Preserve it all as open space/conservation. If you fail at that, 1/2 acre lots minimum, but square lots, with lots of distance between homes. We don't need water using landdcaping. Comment on Large Front Yards Actually, large yards front + back. Comment on Large Front Yards I would rather have more space in my backyard for privacy. Comment on Large Front Yards With the current drought situation this type of yard isn't feasible Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Just beautiful because theres alot of homeless people tht dont have a home and theres alot more moving out of the country because they cant afford a home here It's all driveway. It's all driveway. Larger rear yards also provides the wider barrier for wildland interface. I value open play space for my family Provides for privacy for the homeowner... but must be balanced with water usage on the larger lots Water conservation efforts I prefer a larger back yard vs front yard Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards I like them, but too many people do not take care of them. Comment on Large Front Yards Wow,.... wish I had something like thisH Comment on Large Front Yards Wasted space. Make larger back yards for useable space. Comment on Large Front Yards If house is on a plot with both a large front and large back yard Comment on Large Front Yards Stop over -building. Comment on Large Front Yards No sense Comment on Large Front Yards 1/2 acre or more is preferable Comment on Large Front Yards With large front yards you could hang out in the front and get to know your neighbors Comment on Large Front Yards Horse trails Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards We are in a drought no water no more building More in keeping with the current character of North RC. Minimize water usage Too much grass in front yards results in too much water usage for a drought prone area. Too much space taken up by a very few. Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards encourages more impervious surfaces... long driveways... RV storage Comment on Large Front Yards This is still a favorable option but the sense of community is noticeably reduced from the first time homebuyer and retirement option provided earlier. Also, I think your buying audience will be reduced. Page 43 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 523 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Large Front Yards Stop building more houses! Comment on Large Front Yards No homes at all. Comment on Large Front Yards we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Looks balanced especially it reduces cars parked on the streets Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Perfect size lot for at least the front, obviously cant see the back, but ugly house. Like the 1st house I chose better. Comment on Large Front Yards The homes need to have a half acre lots to be compliant with the rest of the homes north of Wilson. Many of us have spent million dollars on homes in this area because we want to live in nice open spaces without a lot of crowd s. That has always been the standard for building above Wilson and Rancho so why would it change now? You were going to bring down the property value of the other homes in the area and also create thousands of unhappy residence who paid a lot of money to live where we live. Comment on Large Front Yards This neighborhood will accommodate growth and mature family and will give city more vibrant. Comment on Large Front Yards With water a concern always, drought tolerant yards would be preferred. Large ■ driveways are fine - it offers more space for residents so it doesn't look so crowded. Comment on Large Front Yards Compatible with area. Our climate is and always will be arid and water supplies can't sustain large I prefer no homes to be built Comment on Large Front Yards lawns. Comment on Large Front Yards Too cookie cutter Water restrictions imposed at various times due to climate changes. look at the No one needs a driveway that big! More homes or more back yard is better. Comment on Large Front Yards one in the picture. Comment on Large Front Yards If there is houses. Yes. But let's not consider these answers as "See -people want houses". People DO NOT want to see a population drastic increase these projects will More space for each family. The way homes had been built in America for generations which sustained a high quality of life for citizens. Comment on Large Front Yards Great for families and play Comment on Large Front Yards Concern about traffic, school impacts as well as wild fire and overcrowding of city. Comment on Large Front Yards Large front yards are nice, but have the potential to turn into parking lots. Comment on Large Front Yards Yes friendly homes with horse property Comment on Large Front Yards Homes with large front yards seem to encourage a lower density than giant homes extended across a lot with little landscaping in front. Comment on Large Front Yards Compatible with area. Comment on Large Front Yards I prefer no homes to be built Comment on Large Front Yards too much upkeep/cost Comment on Large Front Yards Too cookie cutter Comment on Large Front Yards No one needs a driveway that big! More homes or more back yard is better. Comment on Large Front Yards Looks better! Comment on Large Front Yards If there is houses. Yes. But let's not consider these answers as "See -people want houses". People DO NOT want to see a population drastic increase these projects will Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Comment on Large Front Yards Page 44 Etiwanda Heights Plan invoke. People don't tend to use front yards. I'd rather a large back yard for dogs or kids to play in. Backyards are safer and tend to be fenced in rather than a large unused front yard. Prefer bigger back yard to bigger front yard for personal enjoyment. Larger lots with beautiful sized yards resemble that of the Deer Creek established communities. Larger lots much more appealing. don't wish to see any homes in the area in question Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 524 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Large Front Yards Looks good. Comment on Large Front Yards This is closest to our current housing and would create the least change from why we moved here. Comment on Large Front Yards This is very nice, but with our drought situation with our state, how will these lots look like when we will have to conserve if we don't get enough rain this winter.... we'll see dirt. Rather see smaller front yards and/or hardscape to these developments. It's going to look beautiful when first development, but think of what it will look like if we have to conserve. Reality.... that will happen because the building continues. Not trying to be negative, but have seen many homes in our residential development look awful because they stop watering. It really has an affect in our property values. It would be nice if our planners and city staff will seriously take this into consideration. Comment on Large Front Yards Not enough water to support a nice looking area Comment on Large Front Yards Need more single story homes Comment on Large Front Yards Large FRONT yards are a complete waste of space. The first picture could otherwise fit a tennis court or swimming pool or ham radio tower or ... on the property. Comment on Large Front Yards Do not want homes or commerce J* Comment on Large Front Yards Rancho does a great job of providing parks and gathering spaces. A front yard with ample parking would be nice, but very resdinent doesn't need a park in their front yard. Give us driveways so we can protect our things and keep the streets open. Comment on Large Front Yards Large driveways and deep lawns encourage parking off the street. They are both aesthetically pleasing Comment on Large Front Yards low density, 1/2 acre of larger, tree lined streets, no commercial or parks Comment on Large Front Yards No development... preserve the land Comment on Large Homes No development Comment on Large Homes Aesthetically pleasing. Keeps pace with existing foothill neighborhoods. Comment on Large Homes Large homes along the mountainside are OK with me so long as the property taxes are jacked way up high. A few large houses can subsidize the property taxes for small houses and apartments. Comment on Large Homes Great yards, but lots of grass. Are water rates going down? Probably not. Comment on Large Homes As long as most of the homes are single story (which are difficult to find). Comment on Large Homes From my previous comments... please don't make these home for just the rich. Large front lots are beautiful, but in reality with our drought situation, those lots may not remain when we are required to conserve. don't wish to see any homes in the area in question Not enough water to sustain beauty Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Will help maintain the value of homes located in the foothills. Do not want "affordable" housing adjacent to the Deer Creek communities. Comment on Large Homes Gol'd for property value .... but please don't consider this a "I want houses answer". Shows that the city has money! Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes I don't understand why in 1st question I said keep is open space and all the questions want me to rate houses. I remember when rancho was a nice family town. This looks like LA Comment on Large Homes Pretty, but 3-4 bedroom is a good size. Comment on Large Homes This area does not need any more homes built. Page 45 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 525 Comment Focus Comment Keep it the way it is. stop ruining our city please Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes need to conserve water Comment on Large Homes Already have these. Comment on Large Homes Compatible with area. Comment on Large Homes Love the look, but where's the water coming from? Comment on Large Homes No water waste mw Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Very nice to admire but who has money and time Larger Homes are Preferred over smaller ones. The water usage of larger homes alone is a reason to scale down t manageable home size. Add to that the cost of sustaining any lanc remembering that we are still in a water crisis in California. 1-ommem on Large homes D a more scaping and again the drought and water uses will impact this in the future, and maintenance will be an issue- unless a mandatory HOA $$ Comment on Large Homes Water is a concern. Large yards must reflect the area in which we live. Don't want RC to be known as the Beverly Hills of the Rast fit a few who want lush gardens and can afford the water fees Comment on Large Homes we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Large Homes These neighborhoods must be imposed a HOA to maintain the community. Comment on Large Homes Definitely no expensive estates. Comment on Large Homes Stop building more houses Comment on Large Homes Like the house, but we do live in the desert, do why so much grass. Use desert or Comment on Large Homes drought tolerant landscape and stop fighting who we are and the fact that we are in a constant drought. Comment on Large Homes Like the house, but we do live in the desert, do why so much grass. Use desert or drought tolerant landscape and stop fighting who we are and the fact that we are in a constant drought. Also, why so narrow? need more property to the right and left looks like a lot of frontage, but no sides... strange. Comment on Large Homes This is going to limit your buying audience as well as members of the community. It isn't as inviting as a smaller home or home with a smaller yard would be to the local community. Comment on Large Homes Too much wasted space. Too few homes for a select few. Comment on Large Homes Exclude the neighbors Comment on Large Homes Fits neighborhood Comment on Large Homes no more building Comment on Large Homes We live in a desert, we need to stop wasting water on landscaping Comment on Large Homes Horse trails Comment on Large Homes Compliments the size of homes and lots already in existence north of Wilson Comment on Large Homes Conserve. Stop over building. Comment on Large Homes As long it is stipulated that maintenance and upkeep are an agreed upon task for all potential homeowners _ Looks fabulous.... _ There is a traffic and speed problem on Miller Ave. Housing is of least Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes importance. The noise and smell are unbearable as are the drag races and spinning in circles on Miller and Etiwanda Avenues. Too many houses and coneestion alone with freewav noise is creatine health issues for all of us. Page 46 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results - October 2, 2018 Page 526 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Large Homes Like large homes but smaller front yards as too many people do not take care of their front yard. Comment on Large Homes Essted space in most areas. Comment on Large Homes Looks prestigious however the water bill could be outrageous Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Too large and not appealing! The historic feel of North Etiwanda/Alta Loma is maintained with this type of housing Beautiful Water intensive landscaping is not needed in Rancho Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes same as last one only wealthy can afford. We have enough of this!! They don't have to be large homes, but again I like to see no garages, no street parking, or trash cans. Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Large home are beautiful but extensive landscaping screams, too many eardeners in the area and too much water waste. Aeain the new area needs a balance of all types of homes Comment on Large Homes We have enough houses now. Coyotes need a place to live Comment on Large Homes No new homes Comment on Large Homes will be a last resort option Comment on Large Homes keep it rural. no stack and/pack Comment on Large Homes To big Comment on Large Homes You aren't giving the option for any size home but on large land. I don't care that the home be large, I care that they be few and far between. NO HIGH DENSITY HOUSING! You aren't asking the right questions! Comment on Large Homes Too big and expensive Comment on Large Homes Neighbor stays inside home Comment on Large Homes Cute but not charming enough to bring back the old charm. Claremont village has the right idea by keeping the charm. Let's bring it too RC! Same reasons. Don't change zoning Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Extensive local planting with no or little grass or watering needed. Comment on Large Homes Un -utilized space. Comment on Large Homes These add value to the entire city. Comment on Large Homes A large home under 4,OOOsq feet is ok. A yard double this size is ideal. Nothing larger. Comment on Large Homes Large homes IF on Large lots. less people, less traffic Comment on Large Homes Large lots Not environmentally friendly. Larger neighborhoods with fewer homes. Prevent so much traffic Gaudy, no one really can take care of this much yard ... too much water.... exclusive Large front yards are a waste of space. We don't want more housing of any type! Private and spacious! M Consistent with large homes up here See previous comments. On how many acres? None. Just as i thought. Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Page 47 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 527 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Large Homes Last thing we need are large homes. Too much resources for too few of people. They might even be a fire hazard, because they tend to be abandoned when people can't pay or go on vacation and it's in the mountains. So people are not there watching for fires. potentially not sustainable in drought conditions Not much better than the previous ones. Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Very few large homes is better for not increasing population and traffic Comment on Large Homes Falls in line with the style of homes already above Banyan, near Deer Creek. Fewer of these, but on a larger properties. Unique design is good Comment on Large Homes Comment on Large Homes Only the wealthy are able to live in this type of housing. Low income families should a foot in the door. Comment on Large Homes These are beautiful homes, but even if I could afford them I don't have interest in living in such a big house. I prefer experiences and adventures. Comment on Large Homes Not the best option when considering water restrictions for potential future drought situation. Comment on Townhomes Provides a variety for those that want to be a part of a neighborhood without the up keep of a yard. Comment on Townhomes Size is good and amenities would be great. Comment on Townhomes Townhomes are good for 55 plus ,but single story with small patio type backyards Comment on Townhomes Too much ... crowded and increase traffic Comment on Townhomes This type of living is just too close for comfort. You hear the noises from neighbors and it's not a very private way to live. Comment on Townhomes Create too much traffic No more townhouses!!! Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes Too many people, and increased traffic is a major disadvantage to those who live in the area. Towering complexes obscure the foothills. Comment on Townhomes T too many people crammed into a small area. Increased traffic Comment on Townhomes Keep lower income OUT! Comment on Townhomes This allows for more people in less space with luxury benefits and niceness of large homes. Win -win-win Comment on Townhomes Crowding At least some of these are practical for the area. No! Will only be inhabited by renters! No pride of ownership!! Will add to Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes existence by overcrowded schools! Comment on Townhomes There are already too many people here. We don't need more people crammed into already tight spaces. Comment on Townhomes We already got rid of the golf course to add apartments and townhomes we do not need to add more above the freeway. This adds to traffic vs adding less bigger homes. Too many people. No privacy! We don't want more housing of any type! Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes I don't want high density housing or lower priced housing. That is not the grass roots of our community heritage. Comment on Townhomes too many people in too small of an area leading to noise and traffic Comment on Townhomes Save these for below the 210 Comment on Townhomes Too many people too much traffic Page 48 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 528 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Townhomes Already too much of this in Rancho. Aging populations need single story homes Comment on Townhomes of this type. No dense housing. Absolutely not! Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes No to any dense housing. Plenty of that exists elsewhere in the city. Comment on Townhomes I did not move here to see further dense housing being established. Comment on Townhomes They are good for retirees and young people just starting out. Comment on Townhomes Practical for single and couples. People in transition. Comment on Townhomes Homes need to be on 1/2 acre or larger plats per general plan. Dense housing would cause too much traffic on already busy streets. If people want Comment on Townhomes townhomes, build them in the valley. Too many people. Too much traffic. We are not Irvine. Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes Worker commuter never home Comment on Townhomes Rancho is way too crowded. No more apartments/townhomes/condos. Comment on Townhomes Too close together and too many people. Creates more traffic Comment on Townhomes Too many people, no infrastructure. Comment on Townhomes No will overwhelm schools Comment on Townhomes will create to much congestion. Parking on streets. Not an option Comment on Townhomes will create to much congestion. Parking on streets. Maybe along the 210 Comment on Townhomes freeway. Nothing higher then Banyan Comment on Townhomes No new homes Comment on Townhomes this will destroy our property value Comment on Townhomes Too many houses now Comment on Townhomes Great for small familes, retirees or first time buyers, but parking would be an Comment on Townhomes issue. most home have 3+ vehicles so as long as that is address, few town homes Comment on Townhomes are ok. Not a fan of too many town homes and NO NEW APARTMENTS in the Comment on Townhomes new Annex because the turn over the type of families living in these areas would be too high. No on likes new neighbors every year. We strive for consistency and Comment on Townhomes good people in our nieghbors Comment on Townhomes Townhome communities can be built anywhere. This area is prime for larger _ lots. Peace and a little distance from neighbors often go hand in hand. Comment on Townhomes Too much traffic and congestion going up the hill. We should preserve the land as much as possible with minimal residential impact. Comment on Townhomes Nice for young couples and retirees but not family. Ok but not too much of this. Comment on Townhomes anyone still promoting townhomes after the workshops didn't have their listening ears on. No high desnity, single residences only on minimum 1/2 acre lots. This is an indication the City is just waiting to do what they directed STP to plan to begin with. Comment on Townhomes Overcrowding which leads to conflict w/ traffic, parking, resources of all kinds. Comment on Townhomes No new housing Comment on Townhomes There needs to be more of these in every community Comment on Townhomes Not a fan of high density housing. One eye sore on the corner of Hermosa and Foothill is one too many for our community. Not a fan of this idea. Comment on Townhomes No townhomes and apartments, high density housing for the area. Comment on Townhomes In small quantities, town homes are good, but lend easily to making a city too _ crowded. Comment on Townhomes The density of housing is too much for the area. These should be limited or not Page 49 Etiwanda Heights Plan i used at all in the Etiwanda Preserve area Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 529 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Townhomes again- this would be a slap in the face for this area and the surrounding Comment on Townhomes communities due to congestion and carbon foot printing Comment on Townhomes Too many people confined to small spaces increases danger in the event of flood Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes or fire. It also increases traffic and school crowding. No curb appeal looks like apartments . Ugly Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes Good compromise between small house and apartment Comment on Townhomes The areas in the city with townhomes and apartments are so jammed in and mixed use and apartments/townhomes are better to conserve more open space unattractive. These areas I avoid. Comment on Townhomes High density. More traffic Comment on Townhomes Too dense Comment on Townhomes Too crowded Comment on Townhomes Nice, but too compact for me.... Comment on Townhomes Rancho Cucamonga already has plenty of that type of housing Comment on Townhomes Are you on drugs? Comment on Townhomes Will bring more people. Rancho is already feeling congested with all of the development. Need some "breathing room." _ Comment on Townhomes no more building Comment on Townhomes No as population would increase, traffic and crime Comment on Townhomes Would rate lower than 1, getting plenty of these in other areas of rc Comment on Townhomes No more townhouses they're everywhere yuck Comment on Townhomes To many of these places going up everywhere. Need to have less people moving into the area. Traffic is a nightmare. Can't leave home after 4pm Because of gridlock. Comment on Townhomes Easy to maintain Comment on Townhomes Although affordable, too many clustered together can really make the area feel small and crowded. Comment on Townhomes This is a more appealing option especially when it is adjacent to a community park, definitely more inviting and appealing to a much wider purchasing audience. Comment on Townhomes These are nice and nit bad looking and fit fairly well. Nice job Comment on Townhomes Definitely no high density housing. Comment on Townhomes For 55 or older. Keep traffic low. Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes Seriously?? You ruined, i mean RUINED what RC was with crappy looking high density units already! Nothing cohesive looking, just cram them into a small space and bring more people. we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Townhomes This will not conform to the 1/2 acre minimum lot size Comment on Townhomes looks crowded Comment on Townhomes mixed use and apartments/townhomes are better to conserve more open space Comment on Townhomes Must have affordable housing Comment on Townhomes Cause too much congestion Townhomes in this new section would feel like high density and not compliment the unique location of the foothills. Consider bungalows that are one story and more attractive so that first time homeowners or seniors won't have to navigate stairs. Too many people. NO NO NO!!! Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes Comment on Townhomes Page 50 Etiwanda Heights Plan Page 530 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Townhomes Nice but small, unable to personalize Comment on Townhomes No condos Comment on Townhomes Too many people in one area makes everything more crowded Comment on Townhomes Don't want a lot of homes there, too much building in our city, too much traffic Comment on Townhomes Density is too high, crime rates seem to increase. Costs of association fees sometimes escalate beyond capacity for owners to pay --more renters than owners possible. Comment on Townhomes Crowded. Incompatible with fine area. Comment on Townhomes Less maintenance hooray, and I like the park/grass areas when I need it. Helps create neighbors who share with each other. Comment on Townhomes seniors need single story Comment on Townhomes This area does not need any homes built and no high density at all. Comment on Townhomes _ Huge increase in traffic! More renters. Comment on Townhomes Only if detached townhomes with decent yards. Comment on Townhomes Too condensed. Much more traffic Comment on Townhomes I live in a town home near foothill. Don't build condos/townhomes up there. For one thing .... we don't have any water. Any when we do get some (in the form of rain) anything up there will get washed out. Comment on Townhomes Not fond of apartments or condos. Comment on Townhomes Absolutely not. No no no Comment on Townhomes Do not want increased density resulting in even more traffic. Comment on Townhomes Looks too crowded and boring Comment on Townhomes don't wish to see any homes in the area in question Comment on Townhomes No. Slow down/ stop the high density development. The city has. Lot of beautiful high density townhomes. They are not that cheap either. Comment on Townhomes Need unique style homes single story. Not 2 story Comment on Townhomes Too transient - need residents that want to stay in one place. Townhomes do not belong in the foothills. Comment on Townhomes We do NOT need more high-density housing. We have plenty of that south of the 210. Comment on Townhomes No way!!! Our kids need space to play and run. That's why kids end up gaining weight because they do not have big yards Comment on Townhomes Absolutely not! Do NOT DEVALUE the surrounding homes and neighborhoods with townhomes or condos. There is a reason people choose to live in that area. You would be devaluing homes of EXISTING ALTA LOMA RESIDENTS like myself in Deer Creek. Comment on Townhomes No development Comment on SemiRural Preserve the land. No commercial Comment on SemiRural No housing that does not match homes north of Wilson adjacent to the lot. These surrounding rancho residential neighborhoods bought and invested in homes because we were told that land by law could not be developed so the large million dollar homes we bought were an investment. It is not fair to devalue our properties with anything sub par. Comment on SemiRural This project is in the Equestrian Rural Overlay, and should be maintained for horses Comment on SemiRural Larger homes with larger yards is the right fit for this area. Comment on SemiRural residential walkways non-essential; small yards front/larger backyards space; NO porches Page 51 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 531 Comment Focus Comment Comment on SemiRural Aesthetically pleasing. Fits well with the existing development! Comment on SemiRural Less density is good, has more charm then tract type housing Comment on SemiRural Keeps the heritage of the area. Comment on SemiRural No high density please. Comment on SemiRural don't wish to see any homes in the area in question Comment on SemiRural Keeps with the theme of our Deer Creek communities. Comment on SemiRural Looks better without houses Comment on SemiRural Beautiful! Comment on SemiRural These are all lovely homes. Just don't put them up there. Comment on SemiRural Gives character to the community No homes is best. flat property is best, not hillside Need to maintain high quality of area Like the historic look, the attractive curbs and the vegetation. Density still seems too high. Not cookie cutter = good Comment on SemiRural Comment on SemiRural Comment on SemiRural Comment on SemiRural Comment on SemiRural Comment on SemiRural I prefer anything that will keep the green space. GREEN! Comment on SemiRural Walking paths VS sidewalks can be achieved Comment on SemiRural like the look, fits portions already existing in E. can be part of a mixed use look Comment on SemiRural These types of homes are consistent with the current standards and continue the feel of the Foothill communities from west to east Comment on SemiRural we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( No building at all. Stop building more houses Comment on SemiRural Comment on SemiRural Comment on SemiRural Rural and undeveloped is most important. We have electrical black outs, water rationing and out of control commuters. Quality of life is diminishing. Only when houses are at the top of the hill not the bottom. Don't need a car plowing through my bedroom when they lose control. Comment on SemiRural Comment on SemiRural This option would be good if it were sprinkled in between every few townhomes ur Possibly a uiL iuruier uiunneangeieSL-vuuvvK.cvrn HUM uie Pd[K. Maybe this option of home could be a bit further of a walk to the community park or have a bike / hiking trail as an ammenity. Comment on SemiRural Is a mix of city and wildlife Comment on SemiRural no more building Comment on SemiRural Historic feel Comment on SemiRural Similar to current area Comment on SemiRural No more over building. Comment on SemiRural That would be excellent if pride of ownership and upkeep is stressed Comment on SemiRural okay, but how far apart is my neighbor? Comment on SemiRural Please maintaining old character Comment on SemiRural Less density makes for a relaxing area. Comment on SemiRural I am not a rural type person but semi -rural feels more comfortable. And less confining Comment on SemiRural Semi rural goes with the community however not if their going to be a million dollars Comment on SemiRural Ensures that fewer people will occupy the space. Page 52 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 532 Comment Focus Comment Comment on SemiRural it will be ashamed to see any sort of development in this area what so ever- but to keep it some what rural with the smallest carbon footprint possible would be the best for the existing area and also for the surrounding sub -communities Comment on SemiRural Again, Maintains the character of the Etiwanda/North Alta Loma communities. These pictures do not have the large front yards, but would seem to maintain h 1 d d; f h Page 53 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 533 t o ower ensity an privacy o t e current communities. Comment on SemiRural No new houses Comment on SemiRural Too big big, not amenable to walking (dogs, strollers, elderly, anybody who wants to walk! Comment on SemiRural Any development should be zoned for Equestrians and agriculture , that is Rancho Heritage Comment on SemiRural looks ok and makes sense in hillside street, but also has an unfinished and undermaintained feel to it Comment on SemiRural Too many houses Comment on SemiRural No new homes Comment on SemiRural Looks safe family oriented Comment on SemiRural Looks like the old Cucamonga, welcoming and homey. Comment on SemiRural Keep the rural heritage Comment on SemiRural Brings looky loos and tourist Comment on SemiRural Very pretty. This would bring charm but in a bigger home. Comment on SemiRural Would like better if rural, not semi rural Comment on SemiRural On 1/2 acre or larger size plots, no sidewalks. Leave land as natural as possible Comment on SemiRural Rustic feel. Nice for some. Comment on SemiRural this style fits in with the natural environment Comment on SemiRural As long as the houses are smaller than 4-5,OOOsq feet. Comment on SemiRural If we HAVE to have houses, keep it as rural as possible Comment on SemiRural Large lots and houses with character. Comment on SemiRural Keeps more of the natural habitat and good for the environment. Comment on SemiRural This will help minimize traffic somewhat because of the large lot size Comment on SemiRural Appropriate use for the area Comment on SemiRural large properties are expensive to maintain and often are unattractive Comment on SemiRural We don't want more housing of any type! Comment on SemiRural This was a rural and horse property with large lots. Historical wineries until you ruined it and ripped it all out! We bought here because I grew up here and loved it. We are looking to move as you are ruining everything and brining too much low income! Comment on SemiRural These are attractive and suitable for this area. Comment on SemiRural These just look like they're not meant for pedestrians, with trip hazards everywhere (like the low walls/plants in the walking paths) Comment on SemiRural Nice idea. But still. ...not allot of homes please. All these questions of which house you like is leading to a pre desired outcome. look people like houses. Where's the questions about ..how does this preserved open field look. That's what the people really want. Stop stuffing the ballot box with leading questions Comment on SemiRural Not necessary Comment on SemiRural Would not like to see hills "littered" with homes, taking away from the aesthetics of the mountains. Comment on SemiRural I like neighborhoods that with with topography instead of flattening it. This style will provide character and rural charm to the neighborhood. Comment on SemiRural Page 53 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 533 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Porches Front Yards Love the look of homes with porches. Comment on Porches Front Yards I've heard other people they are afraid of letting their kids walk around the neighborhood and play, but I believe in giving kids freedom appropriate for their age. I picture sitting on the porch watching my son throwing a baseball or playing street hockey with his friends. Comment on Porches Front Yards Rancho is a Suburban area NOT a metropolitan, high density city (although it d;; t t t t h th; d tN h; ; NOT h I b ht s our a minis ra ors wan o c ange is an is is w y oug i seemn Rancho Cucamonga) Comment on Porches Front Yards Terrible. Where's the preserved nature. Comment on Porches Front Yards Home town feel as long as they don't park motorcycles on the porch Comment on Porches Front Yards _ Too cookie-cutterish, lacking character. Comment on Porches Front Yards Having a sense of community and knowing who your neighbors are. Comment on Porches Front Yards Very nice if not overdone. Comment on Porches Front Yards This is an east coast style that is really needed in California to keep crime down Comment on Porches Front Yards No! These houses are too close together and way too smallM Porches not need, privacy is needed for estate sized homes We don't want more housing of any type! Comment on Porches Front Yards Comment on Porches Front Yards It's nice to see your neighbors and get together out front for some tea. More citizen visibility means less crime, which has gotten way out of control! Comment on Porches Front Yards Yes but it like this picture showing dense housing. These homes are stacked right next to one another, not ideal. Comment on Porches Front Yards I Patches and front yards invite neighbor interaction. Comment on Porches Front Yards Great for community building, but must be water wise and environmentally friendly. Comment on Porches Front Yards The right design could work Comment on Porches Front Yards Gives a sense of community Comment on Porches Front Yards Yes on front yards - the bigger the better. Porches are nice, but not everyone may need to have one All pictures shown always have two or more story homes. Where are the single Comment on Porches Front Yards levels? Stop the insanity. I hope mark G becomes mayor Comment on Porches Front Yards Comment on Porches Front Yards Porches are a great way to enjoy the views and nature. Keep homes cooler inside. Comment on Porches Front Yards This is very cultural. Many family love to sit out doors, including the elderly. Comment on Porches Front Yards This is a good idea for children to play Comment on Porches Front Yards Sitting on porch is best way to watch and participate with your neighbors Comment on Porches Front Yards these need to be in the setting of deep setbacks, large front yards Comment on Porches Front Yards Who has time to sit on a porch Comment on Porches Front Yards Stacked Housing. Will be too congested. Comment on Porches Front Yards No new homes Comment on Porches Front Yards Stacked Housing. Will be to congested. Comment on Porches Front Yards ABSOLUTE MUST! great place to socialize, keeps the feeling of family and helps hide packages from theft! Too many houses. It didn't work in Moreno Valley and won't work here Comment on Porches Front Yards Comment on Porches Front Yards Homes look too close together in this picture. Comment on Porches Front Yards At least these are less water intensive Comment on Porches Front Yards Porches are fantastic --brings people together --should be on every house.Small yards fine. please give us single story!!!! Page 54 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 534 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Porches Front Yards I love the porches, but the houses in the picture seem too close together. Comment on Porches Front Yards Keep a eye on your kids on a busy street! Really? Porches are cute but rarely used. Comment on Porches Front Yards These look like high density homes with porches and sidewalks. There is not the feel of the historic communities that have been in North Etiwanda and Alta Comment on Porches Front Yards Loma. Comment on Porches Front Yards Because it makes u feel like ur home like safe to be u Comment on Porches Front Yards Small front yards for water conservation. Porches allow watchin kids. Cooler air at night for those very hot days. Comment on Porches Front Yards Community atmosphere Comment on Porches Front Yards Welcoming feeling Comment on Porches Front Yards We can't sit on our porches or patios anymore because of the smell of exhaust, noise levels which has been measured and exceed 88 decibels in my front yard and porch. We can not sleep with open windows, and no one will listen. Comment on Porches Front Yards These were houses a few down the block.... Comment on Porches Front Yards No Comment on Porches Front Yards Not in line with the homes already in existence within the area Comment on Porches Front Yards Stop overcrowding the city. Comment on Porches Front Yards Front porches are a quaint reminder of days gone by Comment on Porches Front Yards No. Too many people. No high density housing. Comment on Porches Front Yards No Comment on Porches Front Yards Love it. Homeowners and their children can enjoy the outdoors. Get to know their neighbors. A sense of community. Comment on Porches Front Yards no more building Comment on Porches Front Yards Families like the idea of a front porch but do not tend to use them these days. They tend to spend more time indoors. The front yard does not get used like families once did. Comment on Porches Front Yards Look nice. Comment on Porches Front Yards No homes at all. Comment on Porches Front Yards Stop building more houses Comment on Porches Front Yards Absolutely not! What are you thinking! Comment on Porches Front Yards Absolutely not! What are you thinking! Porches and front yards are great, but these houses are hideous! Comment on Porches Front Yards Agree this promotes a sense of community Comment on Porches Front Yards we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to Page 55 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 535 what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Porches Front Yards Porches and smaller front yards yes. again watch the parkway grass- we need to change our landscaping standards away from just grass due to water consumption. Also, it fits with existing areas in E, which again means it is able to be integrated into this overall project as well as the semi rural and treelined/large homes Comment on Porches Front Yards Too close together. Comment on Porches Front Yards Porches yes, small front yards that incorporate courtyards reduce water needed to sustain lawns and invite neighborhoods to socialize by high visibility and are more welcoming. Comment on Porches Front Yards This brings a sense of community and allows children who are in class together still create bonds within the community and parents intermingle Comment on Porches Front Yards No body uses porches to keep an eye on the kids. Who are you trying to kid? Page 55 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 535 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Porches Front Yards Events, block parties, or disaster bring neighbors together. It's too hot to play Comment on Learn outside most of the time. Crowded. Incompatible with area. While I like the porches and front yards concept, the density in the picture Comment on Porches Front Yards Comment on Porches Front Yards Comment on Learn seems way too high to me. Comment on Porches Front Yards No more building homes! Comment on Porches Front Yards prefer large front windows to porches and front yards Comment on Porches Front Yards No front yard in these pictures. Comment on Porches Front Yards More family n community oriented Comment on Porches Front Yards That says Etiwanda! Comment on Porches Front Yards Shows that families are proud and love spending time outdoors. Comment on Porches Front Yards Same as all of the above. Comment on Porches Front Yards Nice if homes are large with large lots. Not the high density resulting from patio homes, condos and townhouses. Comment on Porches Front Yards It gives you a chance to see and maybe talk with your neighbors, helps build a community. No houses Comment on Porches Front Yards Comment on Porches Front Yards Porches are beautiful. But it doesn't need to be small lot subdivision for residents to interact. I know that was a reason developers started this small lot subdivision. Add more hardscape design to address water conservation and minimal maintenance work for residents who don't have time to maintain their lots. don't wish to see any homes in the area in question Comment on Porches Front Yards Comment on Porches Front Yards Houses look to close to each other,to crowded Comment on Porches Front Yards Gives the area a neighborhood feeling and goes back to a time when most homes had porches and front yards. Comment on Porches Front Yards Preserve the land ... stop paying city workers high wages... Comment on Porches Front Yards As long as the homes aren't too close together this is fantastic. Comment on Porches Front Yards Too dense housing, Equestrian Rural Overlay Comment on Porches Front Yards Rancho is not a "front porch" community. BUT I bet 3 or 4 car garages would get my neighbors excited. All the men in my neighborhood love their garages. Comment on Porches Front Yards Yes please!!!! Comment on Porches Front Yards This style of housing would be better if the lots were bigger and the Houses had a bigger set back from the street. Front porches are great! Comment on Learn The concept is nice but will increase taxes. We have the Etiwanda Preserve. We can improve that before adding another. Comment on Learn I have no idea what this image represents. Is it a commercial development? Way to modern for existing developments - does not compliment! Page 56 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 536 Comment on Learn Keep it the way it is. stop ruining our city please Comment on Learn Great area to meet your neighbors and friends Comment on Learn Residents do not want this Comment on Learn We already have two libraries. Comment on Learn Don't need anything in this area Comment on Learn We have enough libraries Comment on Learn Central park ideas Comment on Learn I'm fine driving across town. Keep wild. Comment on Learn This promotes education and family activities. Page 56 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 536 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Learn ---5 Comment on Learn Yes more libraries. Comment on Learn The nature center is the big winner here. Comment on Learn Public spaces line a library or nature center is a must to support the community Comment on Learn Stop trying to develop the land!! Comment on Learn This is a great option for families to have and encourages community involvement. Comment on Learn No building at all. Library and nature center are services to be considered Comment on Learn Comment on Learn we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Learn we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to Comment on Learn what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( we want it left as Comment on Learn is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do Comment on Learn the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Learn outdoor education areas are awesome. but how maintained? would you have a The library in Victoria Gardens is close. A nature center would be nice to learn small community center or mini- electronic library attached? Certainly need to incorporate some community/civics centers. This should not Comment on Learn Comment on Learn be overwhelming. Comment on Learn These are great - however - refurbish existing dwellings instead of building new using our now limited greenspace. Comment on Learn I love the concept of combining learning experiences for both children and Page 57 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 537 adults. The idea of combining nature exhibits with library type materials and interactive displays (like VG library) seem excellent to us. Comment on Learn Shouldn't have any commercial up there. Comment on Learn that is great but not just housing but a place for farmers market and small business Comment on Learn Since there should be no homes, there's no need for city services or commercial building Comment on Learn Nature I have a library. Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Nice ...but don't bulldoze a bunch of nature then put a learning center showing "Look ..here's what it was like here before we bulldozed it to build this center" Comment on Learn I feel that the area should be have a low impact on the environment. Comment on Learn We need to be better educated, aduts and children Comment on Learn Very attractive and adds to a community. I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question, but a nature center might Comment on Learn be okay Comment on Learn The library in Victoria Gardens is close. A nature center would be nice to learn about and maintain a rural type area. Yes yes yes!! Not something I would use on a daily or even weekly basis. Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Comment on Learn These spaces are great for all ages! Great idea, great resource for the community Comment on Learn Comment on Learn We have 2 libraries already. Nature center sounds "nice", but not sure we need one. Comment on Learn I love driving to vg its fine Page 57 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 537 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Learn A nice concept. As long as it's not a bunch of picture explaining how the area Comment on Learn looked before it was bulldozed. Howe about a nature center with walking trails and open spaces Comment on Learn How about a zoo or botanical garden? Comment on Learn I But without houses. Comment on Learn This is nice. Nature center should be the emphasis and library amenities like Although it is nice to have close by, it can bring in an undesireable element. reading/quiet areas and for study Comment on Learn I believe this is very nice. Comment on Learn Arboretum dedicated to the surrounding landscape and species in the area! We In keeping with RC heritage of healthy living a fabulous place to live work and need a place for families and children to learn, no more shopping centers ' pleaseM Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Too much traffic to get across town and you are adding more high density apartments! WTF!!!!????!!! The less you do the better We have 2 lovely libraries. Don't need another No library... interpretive center, yes Reduces pollution. Comment on Learn Nature centers provide a place to take kids to learn about things they don't necessarily learn in school. Comment on Learn A new community benefits from resources like a library. Not a nature center or water reclamation learning center. Stop that! Comment on Learn Having a place to learn about how to live with native wildlife is imperative. We Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Page 58 Etiwanda Heights Plan activities and I love taking part in them. If it's a two minute drive is awesome . Even more would be if my kids could walk there or meet friends there Nature center would be perfect!! No new homes great for the Annex area. only people willing to learn of expand their minds will enjoy this and more likely than not, also keep up the area with vandalizing it Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 538 habitat, not making this another typical suburban area. Comment on Learn You can incorporate both. With the nature or garden in the center and the library around it. Do people still go to the library? That's what google is for Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Yes to a nature center, preferably near a hiking trail. The existing libraries are already close enough. Comment on Learn Although it is nice to have close by, it can bring in an undesireable element. Comment on Learn Must have for strong educated community Comment on Learn Free educational activities are good Comment on Learn In keeping with RC heritage of healthy living a fabulous place to live work and play Eb Comment on Learn Commercial/public place - this is a rural area & library/nature center need to be centralized for all citizens of RC. There are multiple centers existing and this will not be needed. Comment on Learn Nature center and library are two very different things. We have a great library already. A nature center with hiking trails in the planned area would be nice. Comment on Learn City abandoned original library master plan and are managing with 2 relatively small libraries for our population. Need to expand libraries near residents. Comment on Learn I visit Bianca library at least once a week. With children there are so manv Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Comment on Learn Page 58 Etiwanda Heights Plan activities and I love taking part in them. If it's a two minute drive is awesome . Even more would be if my kids could walk there or meet friends there Nature center would be perfect!! No new homes great for the Annex area. only people willing to learn of expand their minds will enjoy this and more likely than not, also keep up the area with vandalizing it Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 538 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Learn Beautiful and fabulous!! We need learning and culture to enrich our live!! Comment on Learn These amenities are great but they have to be funded in some way. I'm not sure how much use our existing libraries are getting so adding more locations may not be the answer. Comment on Learn Nature center yes. Library no. Comment on Learn No car. Not on bus route. Can't use there places. Comment on Learn A nature center would be great for families with young children so that families have quality time with their children without driving long distances Comment on Learn A nature center would be nice. But who's gonna pay for it? Comment on Learn Looks like a dream Comment on Learn _ A place to learn about nature, the world, other cultures, or all of the above would be a fabulous addition to our city!! Comment on Learn Please consider adding another library branch! Our libraries are amazing, but are often extremely crowded. Our community needs these resources, especially within easy distance. Comment on Learn libraries are beneficial to all ages and ethnicities of people. this would make any sub community a more desirable place to live for everyone who raise children to those who are retired Comment on Learn A nature center with a small footprint is a great way to encourage families to enjoy outdoor space. Comment on Learn The Etiwanda Preserve has historical and cultural significance. The ability to tell our future generations what has been here for so long would be outstanding. Nature trails and information on the wildlife and vegetation would be a unique aspect of the development Comment on Learn Educational! Comment on Learn Educational and social opportunities Comment on Learn I don't use them too often but it is nice for the children. Comment on Learn Important part of a community Comment on Learn No more overcrowding. Comment on Ride We have enough riding trails. Comment on Ride continuation of what is already there Comment on Ride I lived on a farm so I had 2 horses. Until the riding areas were closed off, I rode everyday. Horse didn't care for it much... Comment on Ride Ok for this type of activity. Housing is not necessary Comment on Ride I don't ride horses Comment on Ride Keep riding trails as they are. Don't need more unless in semi -rural area Comment on Ride Keep the heritage of Alta Loma Comment on Ride Keep the horse community Comment on Ride Horse back riding has been moved further and further away from what is available to families. An equestrian Center located in the new development with riding, hiking and biking trails connecting to the preserve open space would be ideal. Comment on Ride I Our community was established as an equestrian destination. We should Page 59 Etiwanda Heights Plan preserve that unique quality of our town. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 539 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Ride horse property makes for desirable communities. City of RC was built around horse properties, and as this slowly dissolves and diminishes our population of "less than desirable" genres of people and crime rise. One could say this is coincidence and it may be to an extent. But lets face it- horse communities are most associated with wholesome people and helping neighbors. Horse orientated families help growing children and young adults understand strong work ethics, help them understand what its like to be depended upon and responsibility. Horse communities help create a setting in which humans are outsde and being a part of nature resulting in stronger mental and emotional health than alternative types of inner city communities. The geographical placement of this becoming a horse community couldn't be better with foothills and rural trail riding access. Comment on Ride I would love to ride horses Comment on Ride There are so few horses in the community. It may have been important years ago but not now. Comment on Ride Allergic to horses and hay Comment on Ride i Would have to say YES! I would love to have a full service facility in our community. Comment on Ride Only a tiny percentage of residents own horses. They are already accommodated in this city. Make room for people and their dogs! Comment on Ride Because the options were poor. I choose ride, I will never support shop in this North Community. Comment on Ride that would be amazing to have an equestrian center up there, keep the old fashion feel for Rancho, with the opportunity to learn something and appreciate it Comment on Ride If there are options for people who dindo own horses to ride, great. But if this is just serving the limited horse -owning community, it's not as important. Comment on Ride flies/manure ... very little utilization benefits a few people. Comment on Ride flies/manure ... very little utilization benefits a few people. horsetrails are places for drug deals/crime. Comment on Ride I would agree to but, need a map on where it would be located to make an educated choice. Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Page 60 Etiwanda Heights Plan Very few own horses where the trails are on Throughbred Everyone wont be able to use horse areas. Keep land open and natural RC is a horse community, currently I'm the only horse owner on my street, but my neighbors love my horses The equestrian vibe is traditional Etiwanda We have horse trails throughout the city, already, it should continue Don't have a horse. But that's what Alta Loma and etiwanda are all about, right? Don't build another Independence If possible would be a nice touch for the community. Because it nature. Animals bring & give life to the living. The love they bring. Homes on these lots should be zoned for horses. This is what are City is supposed to embrace and encourage. Stop trying to supplement it with condos! Riding is relaxing, fun, and a great activity for kids. I give it a 3 star because normally it's not an affordable option for many families. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 540 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Ride There really are not that many horse users in town any more ... they leave a mess and can be rude ... but having some accessibility for equestrian use is appropriate Preserve horse property Rancho was an equestrian town! Should be again!!!!!! Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Comment on Ride ALRC is supposed to have another equestrian center in Etiwanda. Another is needed! Comment on Ride Good idea for this area. Comment on Ride These are large spaces with little use for any except for a small group of people. Even though it is part of Rancho's heritage, it's not really important to keep (except maybe for volunteering/special needs). Comment on Ride Who will pay the maintenance and up keep? How many horses are there in RC now and then in 2028 Comment on Ride I don't own a horse. I have a dirt bike. How about a motocross course. A little equality please Comment on Ride Nice for those who already own horses. This would lend itself to a more natural setting, then home after home being built againt the foothills. Comment on Ride L Not needed, horse areas have been built and there's no horses Comment on Ride I couldn't afford to keep my house at home and I'd love to keep him somewhere that also accommodates clinics or events a few times a year. Comment on Ride I don't own a horse, don't plan on it in 10 years from now. Comment on Ride This is an area which is zoned for different types of live stock or animals. It would seem important to maintain that factor as an important part of this area. Comment on Ride I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question but an equestrian center might be okay Comment on Ride Consistent with a rural environment not crammed with excessive high density housing. horse lover Comment on Ride Comment on Ride I don't have a horse. I have a dirt bike. How bout a motocross park. Comment on Ride I don't ride, but love horses. Comment on Ride No need for horse trails and bridle paths. Horse riders can navigate the wilderness just fine in their own since there won't be any building. I would like to ride, but you really can't go anywhere on a horse around here. Comment on Ride Comment on Ride A riding facility would stay true to the area without compromising the natural habitats. Comment on Ride I would like to ride, but you really can't go anywhere on a horse around here. I And it's too hot. Maybe water sports or events instead. Comment on Ride That would be compatible. Comment on Ride While we have been horse owners for the last 25 years, we sense the horse population is declining. I would like to see it revive -- Comment on Ride I Love horses! Comment on Ride This provides safe walking/riding areas as people are so wreckless with their vehicles these days. If drivers aren't going to value life, and cops are too overwhelmed to catch more violators, we need more safe trails. Comment on Ride again, who will maintain it? There is one in the E Estates as a part of their HOA (?) it is under utilized last time I checked. ALRC does not have the financial where -with -all to support it and Heritage Park. Perhaps there are equestrian grants out there - and we can outsource it to a riding ranch operator who can Page 61 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 541 Comment Focus I Comment charge for horse rentals, boarding fees, lessons, competitions. This is NOT a core function of this City. Comment on Ride we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Ride The City has funds to build an equestrian center for the East side. If included in the lans now it would et built If added later it will continue as is - not built Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Page 62 Etiwanda Heights Plan Absolutely NO commercial.... no, no, no, no We already have Victoria Gardens, and tons of other restaurants. Do not desire this atmosphere near my home. Potential for crime. Tons of restaurants on foothill, Victoria gardens etc Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 542 p g I These funds should be used as intended for an equestrian center. There are some in the City who may try and divert these funds ($600,000) for other purposes? Your audience is limited to families that have horses or at least can afford Comment on Ride horses. Comment on Ride Rural, open land (what little is left) and a moratorium on all residential building for ten years. Very important activity for those that have a horse. Comment on Ride Comment on Ride Because I hATE the other choices, but how about concentrating on the west city for a change? Comment on Ride Fits area Creates more open space Comment on Ride Comment on Ride We have a nice large one already. Comment on Ride Nice more rural Comment on Ride I like the rustic/naturey aspect of this, but not 100 percent on the idea. More horses=more flies? Comment on Ride Leave the land alone... preserve it Comment on Ride I live near horse trails, and I never see it utilized Comment on Ride Activity for the 1% Comment on Ride I support allowing horses on 3/8+ acre lots with attached horse trails to the lot. Horses should not walks on hard surfaces; they need dirt trails. Comment on Ride I am neutral on equestrian centers but many people in Rancho love their horses. As a result, I believe we should include trails in any of the developments Comment on Ride Perfect for the East Side of the city, Comment on Socialize I think our city has already done a great job at offering more than enough opportunities for these establishments. Comment on Socialize Do not want commerce in that area Comment on Socialize Outdoor eating facilities, coffee houses would enhance the neighborhood. Large commercial developments would not!!!! Comment on Socialize I don't see this area as a good commercial area. It is too close to the high school and nice homes. We have other areas for this. Improve some of the older commercial areas before adding new ones. Comment on Socialize We have that for Victoria gardens. We don't need anymore. We have every Comment on Socialize Nice local and small places to shop Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Page 62 Etiwanda Heights Plan Absolutely NO commercial.... no, no, no, no We already have Victoria Gardens, and tons of other restaurants. Do not desire this atmosphere near my home. Potential for crime. Tons of restaurants on foothill, Victoria gardens etc Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 542 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Socialize We have enough of those. Comment on Socialize No—We have enough in the area Comment on Socialize We want privacy, Victoria gardens for socializing Comment on Socialize No business' in this area. Keep rural. NO Comment on Socialize I think we have an over abundant amount of social gathering places. Way to community wants to go to. I suggest Daybreak Utah -that is a great community many that serve alcohol. Takes up space for nice parks or possibly a book store. We should socialize with our families and neighbors, we don't need disneyland Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize in RC Comment on Socialize I must to stay in your area and not cause more traffic. ---5 Definitely no retail. Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Small strip mall developments would be fine. A huge mixed retail/housing will Comment on Socialize bring outside traffic to the neighborhood. NO COMMERICAL AT ALL! Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to Works only if it is cell phone free what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Socialize smaller boutique shops and restaurants/cafe's are always fun. But the residents must support them or you'll have blighted vacancies, which is way worse than none at all. Comment on Socialize Keep it centralized. Look at Claremonts attractive, charming, and eclectic downtown. We need that in the new development. No big chains. The charm should be the "anchor store" Comment on Socialize Seriously? Isn't there plenty of small cafes and restaurants - we don't need more. Comment on Socialize When we first came to RC, the choice of eating was pizza --or pizza. So nice now to find a variety of restaurants. Would like to see that continue --especially small restaurants like Claremont village. Comment on Socialize No commercial. It's to high up for commercial ventures. Comment on Socialize Please Include a Pool. Comment on Socialize those smaller businesses allow for fewer driving trips if they are local. there should be a diverse amount of shops to make it a place where the local community wants to go to. I suggest Daybreak Utah -that is a great community model Comment on Socialize Nope. No need to socialize on wilderness land. Comment on Socialize I work in Etiwanda and I would like to be able to go somewhere close to eat or grab a drink with coworkers. Comment on Socialize We have Victoria Gardens. If you divert people to other places, VG will go down hill Comment on Socialize No stores should be up this far North! These are homes, keep traffic down. Comment on Socialize Looks out of place ...not so cal Comment on Socialize Works only if it is cell phone free Comment on Socialize We already have many places nearby to socialize --no need to increase density/traffic. Comment on Socialize I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question, so cafes or restaurants are not needed there, There are many fine cafes ad restaurants in town already, some of them even (gasp) west of Haven Comment on Socialize Since we are in a somewhat remote area, it would provide a place where people can gather and meet your neighbors. Yes. Comment on Socialize Page 63 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results – October 2, 2018 Page 543 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Socialize Areas like this would promote an active lifestyle. I would envision myself and Family walking here after dinner for a dessert treat. Comment on Socialize This is something I've longed for since I was a kid. In many places, the closest thing I've found is Starbucks or Barnes & Noble, but I dream about being able to walk to the coffee shop I walked to after class in college. OK, but we don't need more retail The area could use this Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize We need more areas for families in Rancho, not just parks and the mall. Temecula has a lot of spots to gather at and we should try to add some similar to it. We need more outdoor patio restaurants that are not big chains. Comment on Socialize This should be 0 stars. Cafe's and restaurants should not be in the mountains. Anything involving cooking, food, trash, and people is a fire hazard. Not to mention people driving up to these places will cause more air pollution. Nope! Comment on Socialize Just no. Drive back down the hill. Comment on Socialize Increases traffic and crime. Comment on Socialize Yes. Great community gathering place. Comment on Socialize NO NO NO!!!! NO COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL UP HERE!!! We've said it loud and clear!!! When will the city listen???!!!! Comment on Socialize Walking to a restaurant would be lovely as long as it not another chain! We need more of a small town feel and less garbage! .99 cent stores, dollar tree, 5 below and StatersHH! Where is Whole Foods or Mother's or Lazy Acres??? The previously mentioned stores bring trash to the parking lots, and drive the neighborhoods down! Comment on Socialize Not needed. Plenty just a few blocks south, or on Haven Comment on Socialize would draw too many people Comment on Socialize No. No more businesses and traffic. You might plan something nice, but it seems to always end up a 99 cent store. Comment on Socialize It's nice to get out and have small neighborhood places to have a bite to eat or a cup of coffee without having to go to large shopping centers. Comment on Socialize Convenient Comment on Socialize Not needed. Plenty just a few blocks south, or on Haven. Would give zero stars to this if I could Comment on Socialize We already have the Gardens, no more shopping centers are needed. Comment on Socialize The people in these areas are often commuters. Have gathering areas in parks not commercial areas. Comment on Socialize Yes, however, limit the social areas, the focus is on family and family life. Some night life fine, but limited. Comment on Socialize Plenty of socializing on Foothill Boulevard. That's also where the crime is Comment on Socialize Small cozy. NO shotptpiniz ctr or strip malls. Comment on Socialize Prefer parking lots and retails as a trip away _Comment on Socialize Like Starbucks but more upscale Comment on Socialize NOT AN OPTION. There are multiple stores for future/current residence existing. Why was a shopping center never built at the top of Day Creek??? Reason, its community and will cause congestion, noise, lights -night, deliver trucks all hours, crime ... Stores need to stay along the 210 corridor. I realize your need this for developers to finish Wilson... Well, you need to find another option. Page 64 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 544 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Socialize This is not an Option. No shops of any kind above Banyan. This is a community Places such as those in the photo increase the cultural charm of a city. They not retail center area. This will disrupt current lifestyle in the area. Cause promote happiness of residents and can be profitable as well. congestion, noise, pollution, lights - night, crime, & more. The area should There were hardly any kids my age at the time, plus I had chores in the 60's and remain as a community and leave the stores/public centers 210 corridor and 70's. No time for play. Then schoolwork. College --- below. Finally, why wasn't anything like this built when developing Day Creek??? Now retired! Very important for the culture of the community Reason, its a community. Comment on Socialize too much traffic Comment on Socialize It's great to get out and socialize and have so many options to do that right in Play my own city Comment on Socialize ok as long as they are small or mom and pop shops. DO NOT PUT A STARBUCKS _Play IN. you will destroy the new neighborhood No commercial. No Retail. Fabulous!!! Can't get enough of this! Everybody wants to eat out and socialize. Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Victoria Gardens is close by. Not needed and would increase traffic. We have Comment on Live Work Shop or more than ample stores and restaurants in our community. Keep them all below Play baseline PLEASE! Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize ON Comment on Socialize No commercial in the area. Residence only above Wilson We don't need more commercial—particularly in that area Prefer to socialize with common interest groups We don't need more restaurants, Starbucks or grocery stores!! Not in the area you're proposing. keep these amenities "in town" to help minimize outside traffic, crime, and not promote any future homeless issues. Only if located within the development and NOT at the highly congested Wilson/ Milliken site. I'll socialize at the mall I'm tired of all the shopping centers star bucks we hav enough... just stop Opportuniy to meet with frinds. Maybe interact with those with different background than me. We are different and can alwaysblearn Comment on Socialize Adds charm to a neighborhood Just bring to much traffic Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize Places such as those in the photo increase the cultural charm of a city. They promote happiness of residents and can be profitable as well. Comment on Socialize There were hardly any kids my age at the time, plus I had chores in the 60's and 70's. No time for play. Then schoolwork. College --- Now retired! Very important for the culture of the community Comment on Socialize Comment on Socialize There are currently plenty of places to socialize. Comment on Live Work Shop or We don't need anymore building. There is sl ready too much. Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Brings revenue to the community _Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Now everything is easy access, yeah! _Play _ Comment on Live Work Shop or We already have enough strip mall- type centers. They don't have the small Play cables appeal as small business and parks. Comment on Live Work Shop or No way. Way to much traffic Play Page 65 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results – October 2, 2018 Page 545 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Live Work Shop or Best use of commercial land. I call it one stop shopping. Would work with having Play several agencies together for one place to apply for services. In frint of bus stop. Many have no transportation to services,. Comment on Live Work Shop or Ugh... too noisy. When your home you need some kind of quiet. Too many Play trucks delivering. The city has NO designated trucking routes the trucks use every street as it is. Every north south east west street. It's sad Comment on Live Work Shop or Absolutely NOT at a nigh impact location such as Milliken and Wilson Avenues. Play Mixed use centers are the high density, maximum traffic patterns and congestion and potential for more crime. Comment on Live Work Shop or again- keep all this "in town" to help minimize outside traffic, crime, and Play homeless issues as well as a number of other negative environmental impacts these environments attract. Comment on Live Work Shopor Mixed-use shops, restaurantes and retail would be fine as long as it is not Play attached or mixed with housing. Comment on Live Work Shop or No more malls! Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Not in the area you're proposing. Play Comment on Live Work Shop or We don't need more of these Play Comment on Live Work Shop or No mixed used for this area Play Comment on Live Work Shop or NO Commercial _Play Comment on Live Work Shop or These things are already everywhere. Bring us something charming we can walk Play to and hand out in like small towns and European cities. Comment on Live Work Shop or No commercial no retail Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Page 66 Etiwanda Heights Plan small local shops to support grocery and other are ok, but please DO NOT build a Stater Bros like on Day Creek/Baseline. It brought in people from Fontana to our area and not the good kind. When you live in a certain area, you expect a certain type of living. Stater Bros is not it. Sprouts, Trader Joe, and farmers markets are great. We don't random people driving from far away to check out the new stores and generate unnecessary traffic because of it why no planned churches There are plenty of stores down the hill that are thinking of closing. We should never open any new retail until we are over capacity down on Foothill and now Baseline. we already have many options for this in the City, we don't need more 7 way too much traffic This is not an Option. No shops of any kind above Banyan. This is a community not retail center area. This will disrupt current lifestyle in the area. Cause congestion, noise, pollution, lights - night, crime, & more. The area should remain as a community and leave the stores/public centers 210 corridor and below. Finally, why wasn't anything like this built when developing Day Creek??? Reason, its a community. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 546 Comment Focus Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play _ Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Page 67 Etiwanda Heights Plan Comment 600 households per grocery store is what I know None of this! Keep open land! No big shopping, only small cozy neighborhood stores. It's fine on Baseline or Foothill. Don't want in my neighborhood though Henry or Sprouts is great addition for any community. Minimal commercial needed if homes are on large lots. Keep commercial on outer fringes where it is already developed. Minimal commercial needed if homes are on large lots. Keep commercial on outer fringes where it is already developed. This far north is not the place to have a "walking" community. _ We do not need more shopping centers. The Gardens is close enough. Not needed. Plenty of shopping to the south. Or on Haven. Would give zero stars to this if I could Promotes small business No. No more retail. We can no longer trust our local leaders to do what is in our interests. No need, lights and traffic would be an issue Not needed. Plenty of shopping to the south. Or on Haven. Too much traffic and you let in crappy stores like Staters Bros and 5 below. Look at Claremont. They do a much betterjob. We are looking to leave and discourage people from moving here. It is sad. Rancho used to be so nice!!!! NO NO NOM! Too much traffic and noise for the existing residential areaM We didn't sign up for this when we bought our homes!!! Start listening to residents for onceM We have this already To have conservation, these stores should not be in the mountains. While I don't want to starve, the grocery prices would be too expensive anyway, hauled up the mountain. I suggest community gardens and that people can grocery shop and buy downhill (where there's many options). This brings money to the city by having more shopping areas. This is a great thing but we need to add more local and not so much chain retailers. I think we have enough of those already Seems like any piece of vacant land left in RC is used up for homes and more retail centers. RC seems like the capitol of retail centers. I'd rather drive to shop, then increase traffic and crime with the proposed EHN and Conservation Plan. Not needd This would get another star if I could see more people and fewer cars in the picture. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 547 Comment Focus Comment Being able to run errands locally is convenient. Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Yes. Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or This would be great as long as it is small, much like the shopping center at Play Milliken and Kenyon (only without the gas station). Comment on Live Work Shop or I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question, so mixed-use retail is not Play needed Comment on Live Work Shop or need conveniences close by Play Already have too much of that Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or No stores should be up this far North! These are homes, keep traffic down. Play Comment on Live Work Shop or We have strip malls in every corner already Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Not in this area Play Comment on Live Work Shop or No homes/no retail. Leave it alone. Play Comment on Live Work Shop or https://www.walkscore.com Play Comment on Live Work Shop or No commercial. It's too high up for commercial ventures. Play Comment on Live Work Shop or I like the tax base that comes from a mixed use development as opposed to Play simply residential. We need the tax base to support the costs of other amenities like trails, educ. centers, parks. A business base seems more stable than property tax. Comment on Live Work Shop or No, there is no reason to build more shops etc. Leave the greenspace ALONE! Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Necessary, but no Costco's/Walmarts please. Play Comment on Live Work Shop or I think residents need one smaller center. with unique smaller shops and a Play smaller grocery type store Comment on Live Work Shop or we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to Play what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( NO COMMERCIAL AT ALL! Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or This type of development will bring in more traffic and not blend well with a Play semi -rural open space concept. Comment on Live Work Shop or Definitely no retail. I Play Comment on Live Work Shop or ---5 Play _ Comment on Live Work Shop or Affordable living within walking distance to food and shopping. Provide local Play jobs. Comment on Live Work Shop or Our stores are barely crowded as it is, so adding more to the mix is unnecessary. Play The stores have a short life span and the city isn't necessarily friendly to Page 68 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 548 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Live Work Shop or Is this possible? Not that I have seen. We need better affordable public Play transportation. Comment on Live Work Shop or No! No businesses! No mixed housing. STOP building in Alta Loma. Play Comment on Live Work Shop or No more especially not above 19th Play Comment on Live Work Shop or No—we have enough already Play Comment on Live Work Shop or increase value to the town (jobs , and tax dollars) and the town is always on Play display We have enough of those. Comment on Live Work Shop or Play No more stores Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Live Work Shop or We have this on every corner (think up and down Haven, Milliken, Day Creek). Play There is an overabundance of these centers. Comment on Live Work Shop or Absolutely no commercial... no, no, no, no Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Great for retirees able to walk for shoppng Play Comment on Live Work Shop or Only adds to congestion and we already have many shopping/eating places Play nearby --within 10 minutes. It might be neat to have a restaurant next to the mountain with a view. Rancho Comment on Live Work Shop or Play does not have one of those. Upland does. Or a plot of land zoned for a theater like Claremont against the mountainside. Comment on Live Work Shop or We do not need more commercial north of the 210 in this area. This ought to be Play a peaceful, low traffic area. Comment on Live Work Shop or Mixed use development could enhance the neighborhood if it was done Play correctly. Think Trader Joe's, Sprouts, Starbucks. NOT large commercial developments like Sams, Costco, etc. Absolutely not! Do not want any retail up there. Comment on Live Work Shop or Play Comment on Shop No way! Residents north of Wilson bought these properties to be away from all that. That's why we bought our home above Wilson. Comment on Shop keep residential, keep all commercial below 210 freeway Comment on Shop Development needs to enhance neighborhoods; not distract. Many people would enjoy small eateries, coffee houses to walk and/or bike to. No need for development of large stores requiring heavy trucks (semis) for deliveries. Comment on Shop Same comment made for socialize. We have every chain store there is from food to clothing etc. Don't need more. Would love, love, LOVE another small shopping plaza north of the 210. Comment on Shop Comment on Shop NO COMMERCIAL. There are plenty of stores. Will bring 24/7 traffic. NO COMMERCIAL Comment on Shop I think this is something that Rancho is lacking. I wish we had a cute little downtown area like the Claremont Village. Someplace with local shops and non - chain restaurants where locals go to enjoy local culture. Movies, music and activities within the community. Keep it at small ideally at one story Comment on Shop Absolutely not, no commercial Comment on Shop Page 69 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results – October 2, 2018 Page 549 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Shop No thank you. We have multiple markets already at our disposal (1 Albertsons, 2 Sprouts, 2 Staters, 2 Ralphs, 2 Vons) No more especially not above 19th. Stick to guidelines we've had for years Comment on Shop Comment on Shop No we have enough already Comment on Shop Zero no no Comment on Shop No! No businesses! Stop building! In atla loma Comment on Shop We have way too many stores and shopping centers and malls. Why does every single corner need all of this. Makes traffic a nightmare. Comment on Shop ---5 Comment on Shop We have enough of these already. Comment on Shop Everyone walks around Victoria Gardens and hardly anyone is buying. The cost of living here, ie utilities is extremely costly not to mention our property taxes that continue to climb and we are told to conserve energy. Yet more stores coming and the ones we have are doing financially poorly. Comment on Shop As long as we are not talking about a liquor store or am/pm, 7/11 type mass market store. Comment on Shop Definitely no retail. Comment on Shop Local groceries/retail services are needed in the community. Smaller footprints for these types of developments preferred. NO COMMERCIAL AT ALL! Comment on Shop Comment on Shop we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Shop not sure what I'm seeing. looks ok, like the outdoor seating. Comment on Shop Should be part of the downtown area. Comment on Shop No more shops! Having more local shopping encourages residents to stay within their Comment on Shop neighborhoods --which contribute to easing traffic congestion. Etiwanda Blv. is simply not equipped to handle massive cars added to it. No. Just no. Sad to see sport Chalet leave for the scuba diving. Comment on Shop Comment on Shop Comment on Shop No need for stores since no one will be living there since the City of RC is going to listen to it's residents and not build on this land. There's already too much traffic up there with all of the schools! Comment on Shop Comment on Shop We have stores on every corner Comment on Shop No stores should be up this far North! These are homes, keep traffic down. Comment on Shop Need to keep traffic out of the southern part of the city. Comment on Shop No more shopping please Comment on Shop Too many closed or vacant shopping areas already, need to fill those areas before adding new. Comment on Shop I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question, so a neighborhood market is not needed. Comment on Shop We already have Albertsons and Ralphs on Miliken @ 3 miles away. No need for increased traffic. Comment on Shop This would be great as long as it is small, much like the shopping center at Milliken and Kenyon (only without the gas station). Page 70 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 550 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Shop As long as studies are done to proximity of other stores nearby and that it won't have a negative effect to existing centers. It is sad when store shut down in centers. I know the city has somewhat control of what stores who come to the city. Please carefully look at the competition where it may not have similar Comment on Shop scores, even mom ana pop scores close aown. i nere neeas io De care Tor inai. Having Neighborhood options would reduce the need to leave the Neighborhood. Comment on Shop I like the scale of these buildings, but prefer the mixture of uses in the prior selection instead. Not needed Comment on Shop Comment on Shop We have more than enough neighborhood markets and stores. Albertsons, Ralphs, Vons, Trader Joes, Stater Bros .... the list goes on. Too many already We need more outdoor area patios stir sitting that are not chain restaurants. Comment on Shop Comment on Shop Comment on Shop Same issue as restaurants, anything involving cooking/food/trash is a fire hazard. If these don't pose fire hazards, one small store is okay for emergencies, but it's better for people to shop downhill We have plenty Too much already. Comment on Shop Comment on Shop Comment on Shop NO COMMERCIAL OR RETAIL UP HEREM! Too much traffic and noise!!!! Comment on Shop Yes for obvious reasons. Comment on Shop Because you will just keep putting in low brow stores! Stater Bros... REALLY????? Comment on Shop Not needed. Plenty to the south or on Haven. Just brings more traffic and crime Comment on Shop Plenty of this elsewhere ... we don't need another shoe store in town Comment on Shop No. More businesses mean more traffic coming through our neighborhoods. Stop it. Comment on Shop Not needed. Plenty to the south or on Haven. Just brings more traffic and crime. Would give zero stars to this if I could Would love to not have to drive to the store Comment on Shop Comment on Shop A local store or market is fine. Just not a large multi unit shopping center. There is plenty off Day Creek. Comment on Shop Let them shop where stores exist, on their way home, rather than build up all the same stores again. Small and local. _ It's fine on baseline. Not north of 210 Comment on Shop Comment on Shop Comment on Shop Same as last one Comment on Shop Keep it rural! Comment on Shop This is not an Option. No shops of any kind above Banyan. This is a community not retail center area. This will disrupt current lifestyle in the area. Cause congestion, noise, pollution, lights - night, crime, & more. The area should remain as a community and leave the stores/public centers 210 corridor and below. Finally, why wasn't anything like this built when developing Day Creek??? Reason, its a community. Comment on Shop ill go down to existing stores at the freeway. Comment on Shop we have plenty of neighborhood markets around Comment on Shop we already have enough opportunities for this in the City, we don't need more Comment on Shop We should not have retail since this will impact preservation of the land. There Page 71 Etiwanda Heights Plan are plenty of empty building on Foothill that can open and accommodate the influx of larger estate homes to support the beauty of the land. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 551 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Shop see comment in Live, Work, Shop, Play Comment on Shop No commercial No retail. 0 Comment on Get Outdoors It brings more traffic, congestion, undesirables, and crime. Comment on Shop No more retail stores. We do not need another Starbucks or cvs on every corner!! Comment on Shop Nearby grocery stores are a must!!!!! Comment on Shop No shopping. Keep that by the freeways. Comment on Shop No Commercial businesses at all Comment on Shop Small shops are more expensive Comment on Shop Not in the area you're proposing! Comment on Shop I would only rate this highly if it were a local shop, and not part of a big chain. Comment on Shop A shop would be fine as long as it has MORE than adequate vehicle parking spaces. Comment on Shop same as above two Comment on Shop A neighbborhood market or store would not be located at a highly congested traffic area such as the corner of Milliken and Wilson. In addition to the traffic and congestion, current residents at the proposed location do NOT want any type of commercial activities in their backyard. This should be relocated to the center of the new proposed development or left out completely Comment on Shop We dont need another supermarket we have one on every corner and then some Comment on Shop Love pic. Would want smaller mini malls are cleaned up( refresh look.) can use Federal or Star monev?? Comment on Shop A market is always nice to have nearby. Comment on Shop Pretty much able to get around to where I can .... Comment on Shop good for business to have a commercial center Comment on Get Outdoors A pocket park seems like a better option for within the Neighborhoods. We have over 30 parks within the City already. Perhaps more baseball fields on the perimeter, north/west area. Comment on Get Outdoors Finish Central Park first Comment on Get Outdoors Walk or ride a bike in a nice park setting with trees to shade the pathway Comment on Get Outdoors There are is no beauty to this entire city. There are only apartments with minimal greenbelts, mixed with lots and lots commercial buildings, or tracts of homes big and small. Nice and not so nice. The streets are badly in need of striping and nice greenery. Let nature do the rest. Comment on Get Outdoors These are okay in terms of greenery, but require lots of maintenance and cause the conservation to go down. Instead of lawn fields, it should just be conservation area with playgrounds and walking paths at most. That'll allow for the most native foliage. Trees are acceptable to add for shade. Comment on Get Outdoors No houses. Comment on Get Outdoors Too many parks and not used enough Comment on Get Outdoors Greet idea. But must be controlled at night so it doesn't turn into another etiwanda preserve Comment on Get Outdoors Rather see green fields, than homes blocking views of the hills/mountains. Comment on Get Outdoors Open green spaces are a necessity Comment on Get Outdoors Healthy, family oriented I would love parks and recreation if you maintained them better and had more Comment on Get Outdoors police presence. But alas, our parks are becoming more and more ghetto. I do not lot mn I-irlc an to tkom Page 72 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 552 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Get Outdoors Finish Central Park before starting another project you don't have funds for. Comment on Get Outdoors We have a lot of parks already maybe only a few depending on how many homes are built Comment on Get Outdoors The city already has a hard time maintain our parks and they attract illegal activity after sundown Comment on Get Outdoors An aquatics center or some type of water area to cool off would be nice. Comment on Get Outdoors Rancho has enough parks all over the city. Central Park. Finish it before you start visualizing more parks and playgrounds. Comment on Get Outdoors Swimming Pool to cool off Comment on Get Outdoors Open space enhances quality of life, however, spaces need to be well maintained and developed. No need for another Central Park that was never finished. Comment on Get Outdoors Preserve the land Comment on Get Outdoors We need more recreation areas for our kids. They need to learn to be outdoors Comment on Get Outdoors Open space and well Designed Comment on Get Outdoors Yes! Comment on Get Outdoors I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question, and there are plenty of fine parks in the city without enough resources to always properly maintain them, so creating additional parks would be wasteful. Promotes the environment and provides families with a recreational area. Comment on Get Outdoors Comment on Get Outdoors Place for young children. Comment on Get Outdoors Looks nice Comment on Get Outdoors Finish Central Park before proposing more parks The area is already open area. You don't need a freaking park since no homes Comment on Get Outdoors are going to be built. Keep it the way it is. Comment on Get Outdoors stop ruining our city please too many outdoor allergies Comment on Get Outdoors Comment on Get Outdoors MUST HAVE POOL. Too hot outside. Comment on Get Outdoors Compatible with good life. Comment on Get Outdoors While getting outdoors sounds great, the wind in this corridor is horrendous. Planning would have to include wind protection. Nice to have, but not so great if your planning on leveling greenspace to put in a Comment on Get Outdoors parking lot at a park! Comment on Get Outdoors I believe there is space for some little pocket parks, low maintenance as well. Comment on Get Outdoors At the base of the foothills so children can remember what OPEN SPACE looks like! Comment on Get Outdoors we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Get Outdoors This is in line with the open space concepts. Comment on Get Outdoors Open parks, yes. Sports fields, no. Comment on Get Outdoors We have plenty of parks. any of which are empty most of the time. Plus we have a drought. Parks require a lot of water, it's silly to ignore the obvious. We have more parks than we need. Comment on Get Outdoors Parks are fun, but might be costly to maintain. Comment on Get Outdoors All people need to get out and enjoy the day. Parks are good for everyone. Walking or having picnics with friends and families. Comment on Get Outdoors I Stop developing! Page 73 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 553 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Get Outdoors Ok Comment on Get Outdoors We have a great plan already for a big park. Let's build that one first! Comment on Get Outdoors Yes more open space Comment on Get Outdoors Got those Comment on Get Outdoors Enough building. Stop. Comment on Get Outdoors Develop Central park Comment on Get Outdoors It is a big factor for buyers of homes to have these features for their families Comment on Get Outdoors Comment on Get Outdoors Comment on Get Outdoors Whenever with family and time... All people need to get outdoors and be more active. I feel there is a shortage of nice open space in this city. Outdoors calms me. Cleans air and less water use( i think?) Comment on Get Outdoors Parks are always nice until.... the homeless start moving in and sadly that's happening here in our parks Outdoors is best! Safe and maintained parks! Comment on Get Outdoors Comment on Get Outdoors Comment on Get Outdoors If the open bike/hiking paths and open spaces are available, the need to always having set spaces is diminished. Parks attached to the schools to enhance to openness around them should be considered. open space and areas promote positive mental and emotional health Comment on Get Outdoors Dont need more landscape that uses water. Comment on Get Outdoors No way to get there plus they will be taken over for kids sports Comment on Get Outdoors preserve it all as open space Comment on Get Outdoors Beautiful space for all to enjoy. Need sidewalks for all to use. Comment on Get Outdoors Nice, but I'd prefer something different. We have lots of parks and playgrounds already Comment on Get Outdoors attracts homeless, area for kids to smoke drugs Comment on Get Outdoors Super important to have a nice clean open space for kids or to go for a run to promote health and socialization Comment on Get Outdoors small pocket parks that can be walked to not have to drive there, so sprinkle them around. Build at Central Park First. Propose another vote, may have different response. Comment on Get Outdoors Comment on Get Outdoors Keep with current ratio of people per acre Comment on Get Outdoors Nothing wrong with a park. But the city will threaten to not fund maintenance again, I'm sure Comment on Get Outdoors Necessary for life. Walking, breathing and caring about fellowman. Comment on Get Outdoors This area needs its own park areas as buffers from main streets. They should be parks with playgrounds and landscaped geared to preserving nature, not replacing it with grass. Comment on Gather Grow People can gather in parks and grow produce and gardens in their own half acre lots. Comment on Gather Grow A community garden would be an amazing way to teach children about the foods they eat, and to get them involved in making good food choices. Comment on Gather Grow Make an original mark on the community with a gazebo. Comment on Gather Grow If zoned 1/2 acre parcels, why would anyone need a community garden Comment on Gather Grow Would query the residence during initial phase of development Comment on Gather Grow why no planned churches Comment on Gather Grow Build at Central Park First. Propose another vote, may have different response. Comment on Gather Grow Communitv Barden is a Rreat idea. Page 74 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 554 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Gather Grow Awesome idea! Think it is one of the things Rancho is missing. Such a great learning opportunity for the community and it bridges the heathy Rancho concept with sustainability Comment on Gather Grow Beautiful place for all ages to gather. Build community spirit. Comment on Gather Grow Same comments related to the open space to ensure the historical and natural character of the Etiwanda Preserve is essential. Comment on Gather Grow Why? Who's got time for that Comment on Gather Grow Garden gets more involvement with fatmers garden, good learning opportunity for kids and adults who have never gardened or gardened years ago. Comment on Gather Grow Yes! If the givernment (spelling, yes correct) does not interfer with the growing and functioning process. Remember, I am from a farmer's family. Where does food come from? EH, NOT OUTER SPACE...! :) Comment on Gather Grow A way for the community to practice pride of ownership Comment on Gather Grow No more building. Comment on Gather Grow Build central park Comment on Gather Grow I don't believe that we have a community garden in Rancho yet. It might be a nice addition to our city. Comment on Gather Grow More info needed. Comment on Gather Grow Not necessary Comment on Gather Grow Ok Comment on Gather Grow No the developers! Comment on Gather Grow Great idea Comment on Gather Grow Lower ongoing costs, community can help with upkeep. Comment on Gather Grow We can gather in our neighborhoods and at existing parks and grow in our gardens at home. Anything more is going to cost the residents big time. Comment on Gather Grow Parks, yes. Comment on Gather Grow Great idea we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to Comment on Gather Grow what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Gather Grow A community garden that could help feed the city. We're going to have to learn how to do this, you are killing the city. Comment on Gather Grow there's room for this as well. perhaps tied into the trail system... include places to tie up a horse ;) Comment on Gather Grow Make it pay of a downtown area. Comment on Gather Grow Preserve nature Comment on Gather Grow So where is everyone going to park?! Comment on Gather Grow Gardening is extremely difficult in the wind corridor. I like the concept of central greenspace, but again, the wind has to be accepted as a major component of any planning for this area. Comment on Gather Grow No high minded or new age ideas. Comment on Gather Grow Co-op farms are difficult, but I seek them out. Best model nearby Kellogg Ranch w/ Cal -Poly Farm http://www.cpp.edu/—farmstore/ Comment on Gather Grow Keep it the way it is. stop ruining our city please Comment on Gather Grow No building. Period Comment on Gather Grow Finish Central Park before proposing more parks Comment on Gather Grow Good idea Comment on Gather Grow It will hopefully keep the trouble makes out if it has families. Page 75 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 555 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Gather Grow Provides a community gathering area. Comment on Gather Grow I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question. I support the idea of community gardens in populated areas of the city. OrganicM I would LOVE a community garden! Comment on Gather Grow Comment on Gather Grow Comment on Gather Grow Yes. Nice outdoor space Great for family activities Preserve the land Communal gardens tend to fizzle out after a few years and then become eyesores. Not needed. When large homes are built, residents don't need the extra space be they have large yards Comment on Gather Grow Comment on Gather Grow Comment on Gather Grow Comment on Gather Grow Comment on Gather Grow Comment on Gather Grow Maybe we can add a community pool and play area like Fontana Comment on Gather Grow It's a lot better than grocery stores and shops. People growing their own food makes sense in a conservation area. However, the central greenspaces do not 1-1, -A -;A, -,11 +1,,+ .- .,+., D-.,.,-,11., +4,.,.,111 h., ; , +1 - when it gets hot and be unsightly. I'd say something like a gazebo and a bench is alright, but not large courtyards like the 2nd picture. Comment on Gather Grow Who is paying for this? Who is maintaining it? I would love these things if I +I.I.+ +4, ,. ;+.. -4:4:;-;- 1, -.1A 4,.. +. +.,.41111 1 P-- +4,.,. +; - ...... SIA P - II L.ommeni on rracuce riay Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play Page 76 Etiwanda Heights Plan i nese are way too pig ana resource -intensive Tor Tne mountains. reopie can play sports at Red Hill Park, watch at the Quakes, and there are enough sports centers (already 3, which some are just vacant, like on Arrow Rte). No more of this please. It'll take away from the locations we already have. Too ouch maintenance and already have enough Could bring in more crime, over it's intended use. Finish Central Park before creating these spaces!! Too much traffic and congestion to local streets We have needed a soccer park in Rancho for 20+ years. It would be a project long past due that would benefit the community. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 556 into disrepair as our parks have or you will allow the top of Thouroughbred, the top of Sapphire and the like to dictate usage. Comment on Gather Grow It would be hokey, keep things natural Comment on Gather Grow Put this in Central Park. More centrally located. I know no one asking for a community garden. We have Red Hill park for concerts Comment on Gather Grow LOVE the community garden idea ... everyone needs to know where their food comes from and understand the work it takes to produce it. Concept is nice, but what will this look like down the road, in say 15 years? Comment on Gather Grow Comment on Gather Grow Very nice Comment on Gather Grow We need bees and pollinators Comment on Gather Grow Community garden is a good idea, eat what you grow, could be a good school project Comment on Gather Grow I would use this type of space more often. More passive recreation amenities. Comment on Practice Play I wouldn't use this space, however there seems to be a need and desire for more playing fields. Do it at Central park Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play We have enough L.ommeni on rracuce riay Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play Page 76 Etiwanda Heights Plan i nese are way too pig ana resource -intensive Tor Tne mountains. reopie can play sports at Red Hill Park, watch at the Quakes, and there are enough sports centers (already 3, which some are just vacant, like on Arrow Rte). No more of this please. It'll take away from the locations we already have. Too ouch maintenance and already have enough Could bring in more crime, over it's intended use. Finish Central Park before creating these spaces!! Too much traffic and congestion to local streets We have needed a soccer park in Rancho for 20+ years. It would be a project long past due that would benefit the community. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 556 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Practice Play Build these elsewhere, lights would be very intrusive Comment on Practice Play Again. Who is paying for and maintaining??? Comment on Practice Play Is this part of the Central Park plan?? Finish it first. Comment on Practice Play Brings money into the community. Comment on Practice Play Yes, this is what our children need. Comment on Practice Play I support a sports park for others, but would prefer a community center where there are more diverse activities for fitness, including a swimming pool. Absolutely will need additional recreational areas with increased development. Comment on Practice Play Currently, existing spaces are over crowded on high demand days (practice days and actual game days). Comment on Practice Play This would work well between the high school and residential. Our community lacks recreational fields for our kids to play sports. Comment on Practice Play No ... preserve the land IF there were to be sports a complex would be outstanding and generate Comment on Practice Play revenue if it's not tied up with little league. As a travel baseball mom, we can never rent or secure a field practice because little league has them reserved for them and there's not enough. Plenty of "sports complexes" exist in other towns like fountain valley CA, Peoria AZ, Reno NV ... and surrounding neighborhoods that are laid out beautifully and are always available for "rent" on first come first serve with nice snack bars that generate a constant flow of revenue. We need more of that and it would help the city by providing nice fields and charging whatever price necessary. Great for our youth Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question, so additional recreation fields are not need I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question, so additional recreation Comment on Practice Play _ fields are not needed Comment on Practice Play Would detract from the rural atmosphere. Also, there are many other places like this throughout the city. Comment on Practice Play Already have plenty Comment on Practice Play Keep the homeless, druggies and pedos out of our existing parks Comment on Practice Play No parks, no ball fields, nothing. Comment on Practice Play Keep it the way it is. stop ruining our city please Comment on Practice Play empty nesting and prefer similar senior age people Comment on Practice Play Limit shopping to groceries types essentials; NO GAS stations, Big Box stores Comment on Practice Play Need more competitive swim areas. Comment on Practice Play Maybe, if done right. Comment on Practice Play Central Park should be designed to support the community sports events, along with the sports center on Rochester. Traffic congestion, noise and lights at night as well as the difficulty in playing ball in extremely high wind conditions make me question this use. Comment on Practice Play I don't see a need for more sports parks - there's plenty of parks for all. Comment on Practice Play We have plenty of parks and schools in the area. We do not need any more. Comment on Practice Play More tennis courts are needed. There are always long waits at the few courts that Rancho has. School courts are locked and there is no where to guarantee a court except the Claremont Club. Obviously need to be incorporated into any park. Comment on Practice Play Page 77 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 557 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Practice Play fields are covered... if anything fitness equipment like Los Amigos in the pocket park areas tied to trails. Rancho has a lot of playfields that require a lot of irrigation, unless artificial turf Comment on Practice Play is used, I would not recommend Anything that gets kids and families back outside! Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Practice Play Kids need local playgrounds with soccer/baseball fields. However anyone can reserve the space without living in the neighborhood bringing in more traffic. Comment on Practice Play Definitely no sports parks/fields. Comment on Practice Play Use our present parks, we have plenty. No more expenditures, or millions of dollars spent recklessly. Comment on Practice Play I would not use these, but if others are calling for them, I'd support it. Comment on Practice Play More sports parks separate from regular parks. Parking is an issue. People driving in a hurry to get to games thru parking lot is very unsafe. Stop the developers! No development! No not in this area traffic issues for quiet community there now Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play Comment on Practice Play We have ample areas already Comment on Practice Play I don't believe this city has enough playing field for children and adolescents sports programs. Comment on Practice Play Increases traffic, takes too much mixed use space. Comment on Practice Play Potential for "crime" spots at night and on weekends. Comment on Practice Play We have plenty already. Comment on Practice Play No Comment on Practice Play No more building. Comment on Practice Play much needed for growing families Comment on Practice Play We could use more fields. Again no housing necessary. Football and soccer fields are desperately needed. But we have an undeveloped Central Park. Let's start there Comment on Practice Play It keeps people active, energized and social! Comment on Practice Play I rated a three because a little less organized sport and more family fun should be encouraged. Comment on Practice Play The city needs an aquadic center, like was originally proposed for the Central Park Comment on Practice Play My grandkids are totally into sports. Need more space. Hard sometimes with schefuling all sports. Maybe add a few sports. If we had area Comment on Practice Play We need more fields for the kids yes! NOT soccer... baseball and softball please Comment on Practice Play Not for this area. For Central Park, YES!!!! Comment on Practice Play Only if the fields can be self-funded and maintained. Comment on Practice Play Rancho Cucamonga has many places to practice and play sports. All face the congestion of the practices and the games. If this is included, it should take into consideration the homes and areas surrounding. Possibly add the practice field to a school site location if there is adequate parking and access. Comment on Practice Play We have so many standard parks and sports facilities already. I want som _ different offerings for public spaces. Comment on Practice Play There are plenty of sports fields located in the Epicenter that can accommodate this kind of recreation. Page 78 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 558 Comment Focus keep sub -community local traffic to a minimum. there are plenty of community Comment Comment on Practice Play No! We have enough already! Only some people have kid in soccer --the majority challenges for the community. this woul also mean higher taxes to maintain of us don't. It's noisy, crowded and prevents trees. Yuck! Comment on Practice Play Kids play lots of sports. Always a plus to have all the activities right in your We don't need another sports park. neighborhood.. get to meet families in your area and promote a sense of The city needs more sporting facilities to support families with children. There community Comment on Practice Play we have enough Comment on Practice Play This City is lacking in all Sports Fields and we miss our Golf Course. If you add No just built new soccer ® field and have quakes and red hill and heritage and more children or are really stressing the fields. Comment on Practice Play Any new sports parks should be maintained & large enough to accomadate for A soccer park in Rancho is LONG past due. It's really a necessity in the youth 3-1. You can't hit or throw baseballs/softballs at soccerfield safely. Comment on Practice Play No more lighting to continue obscuring the night sky. And th traffic around these area. Put it on the edge of already developed space. Finish Central Park first. facilities just to satisfy pro sports desires. Comment on Practice Play keep sub -community local traffic to a minimum. there are plenty of community sports programs that need attention and are tough to run and keep operating already. lets focus on imporving and growing existing before creating more challenges for the community. this woul also mean higher taxes to maintain fields, facilities, and parking areas to this new community. Comment on Practice Play We don't need another sports park. Comment on Practice Play The city needs more sporting facilities to support families with children. There are not enough soccer fields or softball fields to sport out children. Comment on Practice Play Build at Central Park First. Propose another vote, may have different response. Comment on Practice Play No just built new soccer ® field and have quakes and red hill and heritage and Comment on Practice Play Nothing wrong with a park. But again, city will threaten to not find maintenance Comment on Practice Play A soccer park in Rancho is LONG past due. It's really a necessity in the community. Comment on Practice Play A sports facility does not go with the idea of keeping this a naturally landscaped area. Put it on the edge of already developed space. Finish Central Park first. Comment on Walk Ride Good idea to have trails as in Alta Loma. Comment on Walk Ride A dirt walking trail would be my preference. A dirt trail is less impact on joints when walking or running. I personally cannot walk the trails that are cement. I am currently searching for a dirt track to walk on. It would be wonderful Central Park had a dirt track that ran all the way around the park. Comment on Walk Ride I really like this idea... 100!! Comment on Walk Ride Now we're talking. Like the path in the foothills in Claremont. That will increase property values Comment on Walk Ride Healthy RC Comment on Walk Ride This is the best idea. No stores or condos!! Comment on Walk Ride beneficial to both residents and to existing area. again- outdoor use promotes a number of different types of health in humans. I have enjoyed the bicycle paths Comment on Walk Ride Comment on Walk Ride we already have the pacific electric Comment on Walk Ride Wonderful as long as there are enough trees to provide shade. Comment on Walk Ride Taking advantage of the open space with trails for hikes, walks and biking through the open preserve would be a benefit of the development Comment on Walk Ride Crime. We have the rails to trails and there's some problems at times on those trails _ Comment on Walk Ride I Not sure need more walk and ride opportunities. Page 79 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 559 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Walk Ride Good for air, people, animals, etc, and heart... Need much more of this!! Comment on Walk Ride Stop overcrowding. Comment on Walk Ride Ok minimal development is best Comment on Walk Ride This encourages people to get outside and enjoy nature! Comment on Walk Ride I've lived here for 17 years and have never seen anyone riding a horse Comment on Walk Ride Yes creates more open space Comment on Walk Ride Good Love it! Biking trails are a must. Walking/biking trails OK too. Comment on Walk Ride Comment on Walk Ride Comment on Walk Ride Leave it rural. It's best we stop developing, the roads are too crowded and getting across the city takes three times the time it took in 1990. Comment on Walk Ride Hiking, biking, running paths, yes. Comment on Walk Ride Maintains the current equestrian and walking trails is important. It must be contiguous from West to East. Comment on Walk Ride we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Walk Ride There's room for this and needed to an extent. as with all things -- balance Comment on Walk Ride Dirt trails. Think "Claremont Wilderness Loop. People come for the the nature and exercise and hit the downtown for lunch/dinner. Comment on Walk Ride I like it ... but will repeat DO NOT wipe out the exiting greenspace for a trail. Comment on Walk Ride I would like the bike and horse trails continued into the new area. In spite of my constant concerns about wind, trails seem a relatively low cost way to increase fitness in the community. Comment on Walk Ride Comfortable use of open spaces. Comment on Walk Ride Do not remove Etiwanda hiking trail, just add parking. https://www.yelp.com/biz/north-etiwanda-preserve-rancho-cucamonga-2 Comment on Walk Ride The current horse trails do not get maintained now. I do not believe that we need more trails that will make the neighborhood look bad. Comment on Walk Ride Keep it the way it is. stop ruining our city please Comment on Walk Ride Just more ridiculous development in an area that needs so stay natural. Comment on Walk Ride Dirt trails, but first finish Central Park Comment on Walk Ride There's tails there already Comment on Walk Ride I don't wish to see any homes in the area in question. I possibly might not object to trails through non -ecologically sensitive areas of open space, that are near areas aleady developed. Comment on Walk Ride This is consistent with a more rural environment against our gorgeous foothills. Comment on Walk Ride Open space is always preferred Comment on Walk Ride Yes. City promotes healthy communities. Comment on Walk Ride Preserve the land Comment on Walk Ride This element is very Important to stay a healthy community! It also maintains the current development style. Comment on Walk Ride People need a space to enjoy life after spending so much to live in the area Comment on Walk Ride Keep it rural. We don't need more trails to maintain with no money to do so. Page 80 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 560 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Walk Ride Rails to trails is joke! The drug use and homeless on it is ridiculous. You put gates in certain neighborhoods and the amount of people rummaging thru cars and break ins is crazy. Come sit on my street any given night and see what goes on. Comment on Walk Ride Bingo! Comment on Walk Ride Horse trails yes. People and bike trails NO! Comment on Walk Ride walking and hiking trails contribute to a healthy lifestyle for the whole family Comment on Walk Ride We have a gorgeous city and amazing views Decomposed granite and dirt Comment on Walk Ride Comment on Walk Ride Keeps the area "natural" and views unobstructed. RC is building so many structures, leaving very little open areas, taking away from its charm. Comment on Walk Ride Great Comment on Walk Ride Walking through open public spaces is amazing, especially in preventing people from making them private. Walk paths are great to enjoy lands we have while protecting people from damaging them when they walk. Comment on Walk Ride Great for people of all ages Comment on Walk Ride Love having the path within walking distance from my home. Easier to get motivated to exercise. Comment on Walk Ride My family and I would use a bike or walking trail. An equestrian trail will help connect the west and east side communities and maintain the rural charm. Comment on Enjoy Protect I understand the importance, and would enjoy other options to hike in a rural setting so close to home. Comment on Enjoy Protect Love hiking the Claremont Loop or Etiwanda Preserve. Comment on Enjoy Protect I'd like to add more stars here. As a 40 year resident we are extremely irritated & disappointed with the McMansions & all their light pollution up in our once pristine hills. We don't need another "Hollywood Hills" in our community. Not to mention the negative environmental impact re: fire, wildlife, watershed, runoff, traffic, noise, infrastructure ... The need for continued sustaining revenue is understood but it feels like our city management is selling out to the highest bidders. This communique is appreciated, but better user-friendly access to ALL pertinent city information is a must!! We the citizens, are feeling blocked and intentionally hindered when trying to access the public information that is due us. There is a wave building of disgruntled voters due to lack of transparency, respect, and an arrogance towards the residents of Rancho Cucamonga. Comment on Enjoy Protect Keep it open because they don't make it anymore Comment on Enjoy Protect Please, we don't need to build more houses here, just protect what we already have. Too many wildfires to increase the risk due to more people living in nature!!!!!! Comment on Enjoy Protect Most preferred! Stop being greedy! Save this city! You are ruining it! It has nothing left! Comment on Enjoy Protect Here's what makes an area desirable to live near Comment on Enjoy Protect There us already too many houses and way too much overcrowding. Leave the land as is. Comment on Enjoy Protect Our city is becoming congested with homes, and I think it is also important to refrain from encroaching further upon the natural habitats and wildlife left. Comment on Enjoy Protect Mandatory!!! Comment on Enjoy Protect Protect the environment for the animal habitats Comment on Enjoy Protect fire danger Page 81 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 561 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Enjoy Protect We on the west side of the Deer Creek Channel and want to protect our view. Comment on Enjoy Protect Having homes or structures built there would cost us tens of thousands of Comment on Enjoy Protect dollars in market value. Comment on Enjoy Protect This space was always designated as a preserve this would preserve it Comment on Enjoy Protect developing is is not in the interest of Cucamonga Comment on Enjoy Protect Once it's gone, it's gone forever .... to lose this would be a real shame. Comment on Enjoy Protect Protect habitat, keep part of city rural, allow fire break between windy fire areas and homes, these open spaces are part of the charm and history of our city. Comment on Enjoy Protect Don't turn it all into houses, streets, and commercial. Comment on Enjoy Protect Stop building!!!!! Leave it alone and let the resident use it with out fear of Comment on Enjoy Protect parking tickets! M! Comment on Enjoy Protect" enjoy" implies the possibility of "walking and riding" - the previous answer Comment on Enjoy Protect option. Comment on Enjoy Protect Leave Rancho Cucamonga the way it is. Stop developing every single piece of open land. I love hiking through the open spaces and just being in nature that is 6 undisturbed by our greedy politicians and the corrupt developers that own them. Comment on Enjoy Protect This city is already too overcrowded. Not to mention it is in a fire danger zone and a flood control zone. Mo more building! Comment on Enjoy Protect Open space should not be destroyed at all!M Leave the area as is!!!!! Comment on Enjoy Protect We need to not build on all of the land. This will only push animals out with no where to go. This is why we have a coyote issue because we continue to build and they have no where t g. And then they kill our animals because we built there. It's a cycle and we are asking for it to continue to build with no reference to the impact of the animals. Comment on Enjoy Protect Open spaces maintain and support the beauty of Rancho Cucamonga's rural foothill communities Comment on Enjoy Protect So nice to have open space instead of everything being built on. Comment on Enjoy Protect Preserve the land... Comment on Enjoy Protect This is my NUMBER ONE option Comment on Enjoy Protect YesM Please preserve our natural wildlife! Comment on Enjoy Protect Open space is always great Comment on Enjoy Protect Small parks ok. Should finish Central park as it is centered in the city for larger group to walk to and enjoy. Comment on Enjoy Protect Once again, consistent with our beautiful foothills allowing our wildlife to co- exist. Comment on Enjoy Protect Absolutely!!M Comment on Enjoy Protect because Rancho Cucamonga is already more built -out than it ideally should be. Comment on Enjoy Protect California is a unique and beautiful state, don't screw it up by building on every square inch of it. Comment on Enjoy Protect Beutiful for spacious skies Comment on Enjoy Protect Protect to space as it is and finish Central Park. I've been here since 1980 and I'm now 65. Doubt I'll ever see Central Park. Hope my grandkids will. Still not over not getting the 9/11 memorial that I made donations for with the beams from WTC and NYC firetruck. Comment on Enjoy Protect Comment on Enjoy Protect Comment on Enjoy Protect Page 82 Etiwanda Heights Plan The entire area needs to stay this way. No building at all. Keep it the way it is. stop ruining our city please Good. Thumbs up. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 562 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Enjoy Protect I love the natural feel of the area and the wild life that exists in it (in spite of the constant diligence it requires in caring for our pets). As much open space as can be preserved is a goal for us. But having trails for people to enjoy nature (NOT abuse it) seems like a natural plan. Perhaps, human nature being what it is, that is not possible --but it is ideal. Comment on Enjoy Protect YES! YES! YES! Leave the natural land natural!! Comment on Enjoy Protect Because that's why I I moved to Rancho Cucamonga, and now it's mostly gone or vanishing. Preserves must be incorporated! Comment on Enjoy Protect Once you lose natural open space, you can't get it back. Comment on Enjoy Protect We will need to have lands preserved to accomplish the build out. It must be managed and left pristine - well as pristine as it can be considering what activities have taken place on the land over the years! it must be managed to prevent illegal activities etc. Comment on Enjoy Protect Leave the space alone! Comment on Enjoy Protect we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( This area should be protected and enjoyed by all. YES. Leave this land alone. Comment on Enjoy Protect Comment on Enjoy Protect Comment on Enjoy Protect Stop building residences and shopping. We need open land and we need to leave what we have left alone. Comment on Enjoy Protect _ Provide some open beauty. Would be nice to have bike/walking/riding trails through this open space. Comment on Enjoy Protect You will never be able to a second chance at protecting the natural beauty of the area. Comment on Enjoy Protect You will never have a second chance at protecting the natural beauty of the area. _ Comment on Enjoy Protect YES let some animals have a home and stop building huge businesses that have such an impact on the environment. Comment on Enjoy Protect Nice if we can afford to buy & keep Comment on Enjoy Protect All of our Developement has reduced the animal habitat around here. Comment on Enjoy Protect Yes! It's why we moved here! It's what was agreed to in Alta Loma! Comment on Enjoy Protect Yes preserve and don't build Comment on Enjoy Protect Best !!!! we need to leave open space, wildlife is already severely impacted by us Comment on Enjoy Protect I would like to see open space. RC is congested and tall buildings are starting to obstruct the once spacious views of the mountains. As per the general plan, leave the land as is. Comment on Enjoy Protect Comment on Enjoy Protect This is the best option for this land. Leave it open space. All of it. It can't cost that much to maintain. Way less than streets and landscaping. We need to have that huffar hatUiaan tha alraadv davalnnad land and tha fnnthill- Comment on Enjoy Protect T A 10 REALLY! We need more of this, less people. t0000 many people.... Why, cuz we've abused the land and plus people to the point of scared. Think about it. Locking doors and they still get in... Comment on Enjoy Protect Don't use it much but it is nice to look at Comment on Enjoy Protect i believe a city the size of Rancho Cucamonga needs more untouched space. People need to enjoy nature and slow down. It is our duty to respect and protect nature. Comment on Enjoy Protect Need open space get away from the city crowds Page 83 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 563 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Enjoy Protect Yes! No more growth with homes, stores. This is not what Rancho Cucamonga was supposed to be. It userd to be a gem.. it's still nice but super busy and more crime with the growth Comment on Enjoy Protect The Etiwanda Preserve is a natural beauty and an asset we should want to leave to our children and grandchildren The conservation priority area should be expanded to ensure this asset is not lost to those that come after us. Comment on Enjoy Protect We need to keep space for the animals who are native, and stop displacing them and removing their habitats for expansion we don't need. Comment on Enjoy Protect We need open space too. Comment on Enjoy Protect We should try to maintain as much natural open space or low impact recreation to maintain the beauty of the land. Comment on Enjoy Protect we are destroying the habitat of cougars, coyotes, and other animals Comment on Enjoy Protect All of these things are great but NOT for this area Comment on Enjoy Protect if we don't who will???? Comment on Enjoy Protect this would be the most ideal for this area- to leave it as it is with open space and natural Because this city is already too overcrowded. The streets are unbearably Comment on Enjoy Protect congested, the schools are full and we cannot support any more strain on resources. You are imposing a very dangerous situation on the residents if this community by building on a fire and flood risk area. STOP the building. Comment on Enjoy Protect Don't over build Comment on Enjoy Protect refreshing, beautiful, free, a breath of fresh air. Comment on Enjoy Protect Don't change anything Comment on Enjoy Protect Preserve the wildlife! Comment on Enjoy Protect No more buildings!! We moved here for the open spaces so leave everything alone. Comment on Enjoy Protect We moved here to enjoy the open land, night sky, less traffic Comment on Enjoy Protect Keep open natural land or else children aren't going to have an opportunity to appreciate nature. 1001111 would rather keep it like this!! Comment on Enjoy Protect Comment on Enjoy Protect especially to protect the views of mountains and city lights. this is a huge asset that has been ignored in other areas of Alta Loma and Rancho Comment on Enjoy Protect Closest to mountains Comment on Enjoy Protect Best Option. now Do NOT Annex this Land. Leave it all Habitat, Defensible Space against Wildfires Comment on Enjoy Protect and Local Source for Canyon Water Supply and Management. Comment on Enjoy Protect There's a drought. It's a high fire risk area. It's a fault zone. Just leave it alone. And yes, I know there's money to buy land and not change zoning. I will look at the books and make it happen Comment on Enjoy Protect It's important to keep some land undeveloped. We continue to encroach upon wildlife areas, then get upset when wild animals kill our pets. Comment on Enjoy Protect Natural habitat is always best Comment on Enjoy Protect Leave nature to the local habitat. Minimize impact of building in the area. Comment on Treelined Streets Leave the land alone... preserve it...residents do not want this ... city greed. Comment on Treelined Streets Yes please we need more oxigen and shades Comment on Treelined Streets Perfect compliment to existing neighborhoods specifically Deer Creek. Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Page 84 Etiwanda Heights Plan Adds to the beauty and environment. Gives a great rural feel Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 564 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Treelined Streets don't wish to see any homes in the area in question Comment on Treelined Streets This would be beautiful. Comment on Treelined Streets Beautiful and maintains the beauty of the Deer Creek area providing the homes are larger. Comment on Treelined Streets Go to a neighborhood without trees and you will see how depressing it looks. Comment on Treelined Streets IF..IF there were streets. yes to trees But I find it silly to bulldoze all the existing trees ...then plant trees and say..."look how nice we made it " Love it, but must be wind friendly up there. Marked it tree lined parks instead of streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Beautiful like Claremont and Glendora! Comment on Treelined Streets Trees look good and help the environment. Cars need to be slowing down. NO STORES! Comment on Treelined Streets No streets, tree lined or not would be best. No homes/no streets. Comment on Treelined Streets Would be 5 stars, but I want more solar on rooftops and parking structures. But trees (especially fruit or avocado) are awesome. too much upkeep and mess when leaves drop Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Very ideal for long walks with the family Comment on Treelined Streets Love the look. Only concern would be the amount of water necessary to maintain. That's nice. I've ALWAYS LOVED treelined streets and one of the reasons I love living in Rancho. The planning of this community should be modeled after the highly successful Claremont township. Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets /�.......... ,....+ .... T......I:... ,..J C+..,. ,.+.. T..,. ,....... ..+ L. ,. ....+:..,. +.. C.. /`.,I ,. .,II..:... +I..:,...I:.....,+,. -. T.... ,. ,. +.. .......��.��.... �.. ...� ...... �.��..... ....�......., ......., .��...,.. ...... .�....�... .... ..... ......� ..., p......w.. y ... -- ..........p. ...... ... .... plant the wrong species and then have to replace with correct. Comment on Treelined Streets again fits the look of E. can be part of an integrated look. grass parkways are a concern for water consumption purposes, not realistic, trees yes! Comment on Treelined Streets we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Page 85 Etiwanda Heights Plan Trees promote a sense of community. Must plant drought tolerant trees to reflect the region and water issues. Planting of trees, yes. Building of homes, no. Love everything about the tree lined streets! And no development. We maxed out ten years ago and our services are costing the residents a fortune. Plus water is expensive and we are told we are in a drought. Stop building more houses Actually this option seems ideal in the planning stages but when the trees grow up they are nothing but problems that the homeowner now has to get rid of. People see these tree lined streets as a nuisance that they do not want to have to deal with down the line. Trees are a must Yes slow traffic speeds down. To many accidents and deaths in our area. Normal I love the look and the shade that the tres provide. Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 565 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Treelined Streets Nice but take time Comment on Treelined Streets Needed in this hot climate Comment on Treelined Streets What don't you understand. The city is severely overcrowded and can't support any more building. Comment on Treelined Streets In line with what is already established in the neighboring area Comment on Treelined Streets All the eucalyptus trees were removed along Miller Ave in 2000. Trees which provided protection from cars and trucks overturning onto our properties from the 15 fwy were removed as well. Cal Trans blamed the city for the increased noise due to traffic and more housing and walls. They won't build a soundwall next to my property because they state it's a city issue due to the new construction of houses and increased traffic. Getting close, yet .... Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Trees make a neighborhood and shade canopies bring the temperature down. Comment on Treelined Streets Love tree lines and promote greenery Comment on Treelined Streets Gives the area character Comment on Treelined Streets Brings back the atmosphere of the time there were lots of Eucalyptus trees. Comment on Treelined Streets Shade, reminiscient of an earler life. Pre -70's Comment on Treelined Streets Improves air quality and home values. Comment on Treelined Streets Depends on the trees you choose. No More Pine trees butting up to homeowners property they destroy and make a mess and the city couldn't care less. The city is almost a year waiting list to take care of trees you better hire more tree people if your planning a lot of trees. But NO yo the PINE comment on I reelineci Streets Always a beautiful IooK and appears to compliment the current neignbornoods more trees equal more oxygen, cooler environment and much easier on the eye than a bunch of concrete. Trees planted to close to curbs & sidewalks in 20-30 years are buckled requires expensive repairs in the area. Comment on Treelined Streets Greenery is always a plus! all of the streets in RC should be tree lined for NUMBERS of beneficial reasons. Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Plant life is such a necessity for us, for so many reasons, from the more inviting Comment on Treelined Streets feel, to the benefit to our air quality. Comment on Treelined Streets I We have enough of this type of jousing Comment on Treelined Streets Gorgeous! Who doesn't love this????? Comment on Treelined Streets because it will streamline the look with adjacent deer creek estate and haven view estate Comment on Treelined Streets No new homes Comment on Treelined Streets Too many houses Comment on Treelined Streets beautiful and provides shade, just make sure they are planted in such a way as to minimize sidewalk damage. also use trees that don't drip sap Comment on Treelined Streets trees interfere with the beautiful views of mountains and city lights Comment on Treelined Streets It seems like many trees in town are sick or dying. We need to replenish trees. Neighborhoods need shade and animal habitat. Comment on Treelined Streets more trees equal more oxygen, cooler environment and much easier on the eye than a bunch of concrete. Trees planted to close to curbs & sidewalks in 20-30 years are buckled requires expensive repairs Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Greenery is always a plus! Comment on Treelined Streets Neighborhood block party Comment on Treelined Streets Safer is good and a neighborhood feel Need more trees, and not destroyed by ropping Need more trees, and not destroyed by topping Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets I Pretty view Page 86 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 566 Comment Focus Comment Comment on Treelined Streets Love trees. A variety. Oak, white bark trees. Red trees. Comment on Treelined Streets Too much water needed to maintain trees in an area not suitable for them. Build around any trees already present. Comment on Treelined Streets Too many houses Comment on Treelined Streets Nice, but must be trees that tolerate Santa Ana winds in that area Comment on Treelined Streets This is the BEST option to create a ideal community. Full of green landscape and not dense housing. Comment on Treelined Streets Treelined streets look so nice and make the neighborhood look more inviting even if people don't take good care of their yards Comment on Treelined Streets Fire and wind hazard Comment on Treelined Streets If you have to have the houses it's better to have the streets lined with trees Comment on Treelined Streets Great for the environment. Require that developers plant mature trees, instead of saplings that take 20 years to mature. Comment on Treelined Streets Trees and plants help with air quality and keeping the area cool, not to mention the beauty and small town feel tree lined streets give. Comment on Treelined Streets Trees provide shade and give an established feel to neighborhoods. The tiny trees you plant now are ugly! We don't want more housing of any type! Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Trees should be large and mature. Not take 25 years to mature! Comment on Treelined Streets This is important for the old Rancho Alta Loma look and feel of the community. With out this it will look like the bigctoria gardens home area. Comment on Treelined Streets This keeps the CO2 down from what cars create, creates shade, and has a nice, aesthetic look to it Always attractive. I like the trees. Now remove the houses and concrete Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Comment on Treelined Streets Adds to he charm and environment friendly Page 87 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 567 Question 3. What's worth consideration? Comment Focus Comment Scenario A I like the idea of a island of open space in the middle of the neighborhoods if wildfire pretention doesn't cost too much. I would especially like this more if trails can run through the open space. Secluded living islands do not promote a community feeling Natural habitats are necessaty Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A I don't like the idea of habitat between homes or neighborhoods. This would be an unusual choice for Rancho and there are no other neighborhoods with this scenario. Scenario A Too many housing projects, not enough resources (water etc...). actually buidling homes in this area does raise the fire hazard for the homes so DO NOT build there! Scenario A I know the city just wants to develop this area as much as possible for Fiscal reasons. I don't like any of these scenarios personally. It's not worth it to have a wildfire hazard. Scenario A Scenario A Less homes and less congestion and less infrastructure abuse. We already have over abundant housing and infrastructure is starting to show the effects. Scenario A This area should be improved. Scenario A Why the need to build more communities when RC has an abundance of homes on the market. I say leave land as -is and keep existing wild habitat. Neighborhoods need to be connected Because it's beautiful and cheaper Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Just look. Its bullshit multiple homes with a token patch of lawn called a park. Its greed personified. Scenario A Preserving an area with an abandoned rock quarry is hardly desirable No more building. Scenario A Scenario A Small houses or condos bring too many people into a small area creating much more traffic No more building. Leave the land as is. Scenario A Scenario A Against separated habitat and housing. Keep each contiguous and habitat to north. Scenario A I would need to know more about the types of housing. Would Milliken and Rochester connect to Wilson? Didn't mean to hit the stars and can't remove. No homes if taxes go up. do not develope. We have water restrictions increasing, and trafffic is a nightmare. Stop planning Scenario A Scenario A to develop this land. We don't want it. Please STOP building and ruining our small city. Scenario A Scenario A No more high density developement. 1/2 acre lots only. Our streets cannot handle any more traffic. Scenario A I like how it has the most open space, but it's not that great to have an isolated neighborhood in the middle, as it increases the wildfire risk. However, I really how it has so much natural open space! Less homes, less people Scenario A Scenario A Not enough open space. Why must you insist on filling every open space of land? We don't need more people and businesses. And we definitely do not need more apartments. Scenario A Building on the areas will not prevent the fires just new homes will be closer faster to the fires. Also, coyotes will continue to kill small animals because we are continuing to build with no where for them to go. Page 88 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 568 Comment Focus Comment Scenario A Too much traffic with smaller homes!! Scenario A Smaller lots don't need to be built! The city is just being greedy!!! Large lots onlyM Scenario A Smaller lots don't need to be built! The city is just being greedy!!! Large lots onlyM Also poorly worded question-it's two fold and should be two separate questions I prefer this scenario because there is more open land that is preserved, but concerned about the increased wildfire risk. We want to protect our views, and building in the area west of Miliken, east of Deer Creek Channel and south of Wilson would create a huge traffic problem with 2 schools and a college bordering this area. We don't want more building of any type! I don't trust you. Stop building! No high density housing!!!!! Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Should this area should be preserved I don't think the city needs to do anything Scenario A All negatives for us humans living here. Scenario A Too much fuel for a wildfire near homes Scenario A Preserves the most habitat What part of NO do you not understand Creates an exposed island for fire scenarios... development too high ... keep most of it below Wilson Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Don't like small lot sizes=more people, more traffic. Like this WITHOUT the neighborhood north of Wilson. Keep all of that open space Scenario A Don't like small lot sizes=more people, more traffic. Like this WITHOUT the neighborhood north of Wilson. Keep all of that open space. Do not like the Commercial part at all. Could leave the one community isolated in a fire. No small lots and increased fire danger. No small lots are needed here, and increased fire danger is bad. Larger lots The makes the most sense with smaller lots. Consider a larger Senior living community with smaller homes and condos. I think we should try to perserve as much last as we can. I think we have enough commercial and housing in this aea. I believe that as much california continues to grow we need to make a stand as a community that we will be about perserve as much as we can. Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Mandatory natural habitat and no greater fire danger than is currently in that area. Scenario A A isn't perfect but better than B & C. Please present more scenarios. Scenario A increase walking and biking Scenario A Smaller lots, wildfire hazard. Scenario A Scenario A Separate built up area is too open to fire hazard. Eliminate this area completely. No building, keep Wilson as straight as possible or dip south. Good access to eastern built up area. Separate built up area is too open to fire hazard. Eliminate this area completely. No building, keep Wilson as straight as possible or dip south. Good access to eastern built up area. Scenario A Smaller lots are rediculous. Stop changing Rancho Cucamonga. We are not LA Scenario A No houses whatsoever. Only want Wilson extended to Milliken Scenario A The neighborhoods are too broken up. Scenario A More habitat is better than very large house lots. Two more fire stations? There are fire stations at nearly every corner in this city. It's abundantly clear that rancho loves it's fire stations, while we still use county services for police. Secondly, placing parks by schools is just another opportunity for "hangout and smoke out." Well placed Scenario A parks are great, but I'm sure if you check your calls for police service at parks directly connected to a high school in surrounding cities, it's significantly higher than your average park. Page 89 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 569 Comment Focus Comment Scenario A I oppose any further development. Let's preserve the area in its current state. Scenario A Don't agree with lots of housing or commercial use. Leave open space and walking trails and equestrian Scenario A not appealing Scenario A No buildings, commercial, town homes or condos. Traffic will be horrendos and crime will increase. Scenario A too many homes. the State is rationing water in 2020 for all people. why are we building more homes? No churches included Shopping center needs to be removed on Wilson & Millikan. Will cause enormous congestion, noise pollution, lights night, crime, truck deliveries at all hours, and much more. Scenario B would be better with out shopping center. Wild fire safety Too many homes can be built While this scenario does help, I do not understand why there is a need for the neighborhood area to the west of Eagle Drive North of Wilson. That just seems out of place and linked to a community that is already completed. It just doesn't fi. Without it, you have considerable more open space available natural habitat and flood control. In addition, I also do not understand the need for the neighborhood commercial, especially without identifying what type of commercial. Because of its close proximity to Los Osos High and Chaffey CC, it is very likely that it will become a place for a much younger population of consumers and not likely to cater to the higher income population living in the area. In addition, a commercial/consumer place right there would considerably increase traffic in the area unless you redo the streets to allow for walking West of Milliken on Wilson all the way to Haven. Right now, you can't walk there so the desire to make a walkable community in that area and have commercial suited to that just doesn't make sense. It just doesn't work unless you change the area in much of that area that you are trying to cater to. Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Isolating neighborhoods with unused open space in the middle has no purpose. Scenario A Isolating neighborhoods with unused open space in the middle has no purpose. Still too many new houses though and too few schools. The space should be left alone. No more housing! Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A we need larger lots, neighbors further apart not crammed together. Scenario A no commercial Scenario A I don't want small lots, townhomes, apartments etc. Scenario A The fire hazard issue is a safety concern that overrides the need to conserve it Scenario A Test Scenario A No new houses. More coyotes will love this Scenario A We don't want any commercial anywhere near Deer Creek estates! Scenario A I don't like the separation of housing Bigger park Location of planned commerical development at Wilson/Miliken is a horrible idea. Small lots is not appealing at all. Too much congestion and riff-raff Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Don't like open space in middle because of fire hazard and lack of home and trails. Scenario A leave it alone no need to over populate the area Scenario A I don't like the smaller lots. Lots here are supposed to be larger like 1/2 acre Scenario A decrease wildfire hazards & still have access for walking & biking. Scenario A More onen space should always be there for the future Page 90 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 570 Comment Focus Comment Scenario A Most preserved land but the negative is more smaller homes. This highlights that this is a bad overall idea. Pack in people to pay for development. This would be the preferred option if not for the small homes, Fires spread easily in our community and traffic is an issue. Adding to either problem is not Scenario A appealing or wise. Scenario A We have two many schools on Wilson, is this a new school? Scenario A Zero building. None. Leave the land as it is. No commercial No retail. Too much development Way too much of a fire hazard No commercial in the residential area Smaller homes up there would not fit in with the large homes that are there now. Residents Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A would not be happy with this scenario. No neighbor hood store. Fire hazard for homes in the middle & boarders homes. Scenario A Scenario A We already deal with enough traffic especially during school time and adding more homes will make it difficult Lots of natural open space is good Scenario A Scenario A With the amount of crime we already endure in our neighborhoods, we do not need commercial shopping centers which will draw more traffic and crime. Traffic will will a disaster and we will be forced to move out of out quite community that we Scenario A currently live. Scenario A This is a very high fire danger to planned/existing communities and defeats the purpose of having open space for habitat-- would wildlife even use open space nestled between neighborhoods? Scenario A Less commercial. Scenario A Although it has a lot of open space there is a disconnect with the north neighborhood. Realistically it will only be reached by car and it also fragments habitat which is bad in my opinion. Too segregated. Dense populated community is not desirable already too much congestion in this once rural city. leave as much inner city "wildlife" areas Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A within the city boundaries to help keep the city more unique than just another suburban outland of greater LA. there is already plenty of congestion and "heat islands" in this city- leave wildlife habitat and wild areas. Scenario A There should not be a shopping center directly behind the existing homes. This should be moved to an area basically next to the high school. There should be no impact to existing home ownres. This is a huge penaltyn to those who have invested in the area is not fair to anyone that lives along trhe wash. NO Neighborhood Commercial development should be build above the 210 Freeway! A Scenario A commercial space next to the LOHS will create more traffic problems. Commercial should not mix with the houses above freeway. This is ideal because it has the smallest housing footprint. Scenario A Scenario A Commercial area at Milliken and Wilson create unimaginable congestion to an already congested intersection, While the open space appears to be preserved.... is this for future development and would be lost to our future generations> The additional homes bordering the existing neighborhoods Will result in devaluation, higher density and hardship for those that have purchased in the area with the understanding that the Cucamonga Water District would preserve the open spaces. this will reduce the views that have already been established in the area. Page 91 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 571 Comment Focus Comment Scenario A Commercial area at Milliken and Wilson will create unimaginable congestion to an already congested intersection, While the open space appears to be preserved.... is this for future development and would then be lost to our future generations? The additional homes bordering the existing neighborhoods Will result in devaluation, higher density and hardship for those that have purchased in the area with the understanding that the Cucamonga Water District would preserve the open spaces. This will reduce the views and values that have already been established in the area. Don't build Need to lower the chance of fire. Already have a good start on Wilson Ave. Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Commercial area at Milliken and Wilson will create unimaginable congestion to an already congested intersection, Suggest moving to Banyan and Milliken or Banyan and Rochester. While the open space appears to be preserved .... is this for future development and would then be lost to our future generations? The additional homes bordering the existing neighborhoods will result in devaluation, higher density and hardship for those that have purchased in the area with the understanding that the Cucamonga Water District would preserve the open spaces and beauty of the Etiwanda Preserve. This will reduce the views and values that have already been established in the area. _ No housing. Leave as God created the land. Leave it be. More habitat will likely mean smaller lots to achieve economic feasibility. Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Cant tell by small map Scenario A Looking at this Map, it gives this an idea of a wildfire chase/risk possibility for the firefighters that that really don't need(not that they haven't had this too many times already), I'm just thinking outside the weird box here.... Nice secluded area, but ..... what if.... Scenario A Protecting some obscure kangaroo rat is dumb, build the place out for families to enjoy Scenario A Rancho Cucamonga already has an abundance of housing and is currently building more. Leaving the majority of this land preserved while adding trails would create a unique and attractive feature in the city. Scenario A Too much traffic by LOHS Scenario A I do not like increasing fire hazard No more building and overcrowding. Preserve open space Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A That sagebrush area needs conserving! I don't like the rectangular parks in this plan, though. I like the long, narrow park in the other two scenarios. Maintain habitat but why small lots? No! Stop the developers! That seems like a leading question. Of course no one wants the risk of wildfires or smaller homes. Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A How about neither of those choices? Dumb to have a neighborhood island. Will not be economically feasible. Would not be good to risk anyone with wildlifes Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Screw you. No more building. Vote the bums out in November. Scenario A Habitat zones, especially with native plants, increase fire danger. Prefer larger lots. Scenario A I might be OK with this. When you say "smaller housing" what exactly does that mean? Smaller houses? Condos? Apt? increased fire hazard, decreased walking/biking path connectivity Scenario A Scenario A need to keep density low Page 92 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 572 Comment Focus Comment Scenario A No more building. Our population is maxed out. Open spaces are needed to left that way. Scenario A Why are we preserving this are and not building it out! Scenario A How about no more homes at all. We are too full already. The animals in the hills need their land. Scenario A NO COMMERICAL AND NO SMALL LOTS! Scenario A we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Scenario A Banyan CAN NOT take anymore traffic!!!! we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Scenario A How much smaller lots? It sounds like you are leveraging open space hostage to achieve higher density, Scenario A Yes, since you're going to do this anyway, this survey is a farce, let the new folks who move there consider how much of a fire hazard they're in. Buyer beware? Scenario A I believe most of the people attending meeting are planning for themselves not a community. They often want to exclude others from this area.ie: don't want people on the streets, no condo or town homes etc.. No more buildings. Scenario A Scenario A We do not want commercial development placed next to existing homes. All three models place commercial development directly behind existing properties which will change the existing views and private feel of the existing home. I recommend moving the commercial areas next to the fire station and police. More park and larger ones No more development the neighbor hoods surrounded by open space are subject to wildfires Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A It will not be economically feasible to save all that habitat. I agree with the fire issues, cuts off an entire neighborhood. that are is already compromised for habitat conservation. K Rats have not been found there is years.. Scenario A WHy not limit everything to below Wilson Avenue? making affordable housing not more rich to super rich housing with views.keep away from the flood control and the national forest and save some of the real RC. Ive been here since 1968 and preserving nature or creating parks have always given way to developers huge projects for their profit mostly. No commercial! Scenario A Scenario A Why mess with traffic circulation at the disconnected and very close intersections of Rochester and Banyan/Edge Drive? Edge Drive cost less to build and maintain if it were to intersect at Banyan closer to the east side of Los Osos HS. Scenario A I don't like this scenario because you can have your cake and eat it too, but this makes you choose. Claremont has large homes, and a nature preserve that connects to Marshall Canyon, Mount Baldy, Upland, and Rancho Cucamonga. You can bike, hike, or horseback through all of it. Scenario A Frankly, the question is phrased in a way that deliberately seeks a rejection of this idea. There's no reason even with the preserved space that smaller lots and less access is necessary. A compromise that does not involve paving over or building the entire center section is possible. Ditto for view lots. Let's not play games with the questions when seeking community input. The demand for the land is high. The city is in a position to dictate what kind of development it prefers, and profits will be made no matter what the configuration. Scenario A 1. This Scenario presents a false premise in calling the habitat degraded. The habitat is very pristine over the majority of the Neighborhood Priority Area. Please correct. This question also begs the question in working in false biases into the Scenario. 10Lci iai iu r i i is aagc ui uai i wi iaci vauvi i i iaa i iu uaca ai iu n iu caacu iii c uai igcr . Page 93 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 573 Comment Focus Comment Scenario A No small lots. Preserve sage areas AND our quality of life. Scenario A Best option: More access and flexibility for later use. Your statements of wildfire hazard is over blown. And your statement about "decreasing walking and biking connectivity" who wrote this, the playwright for Titanic 2. (Terrible ideas). Your statement is incorrect. Most people want wilderness areas to walk and bike thru. You are assuming building is taking place. It is not. Listen to the residents! Scenario A Scenario A Keep it the way it is. wo stop ruining our city please Too much crowding and traffic Scenario A Scenario A This scenario puts commercial buildings directly adjacent to my backyard and will have a huge impact to my property value and way of life. I moved up here to have a large yard, little noise and my animals. You want to put a shopping center in my backyard! Scenario A I am all for preserving nice - oxygen producing habitat but those shrubs are ugly and dry and don't seem to do much for anyone. If it creates hazards, that's not desirable. Scenario A Scenario A Please finish Central Park before moving on to what you seem hell bent on developing for rich people. Scenario A The verbiage that you have included is terribly slanted towards how you want to design the project. Scenario A Prefer slow growth policies (see "Malibu" vs....) More tax dollars for the city. Minimal housing Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Building homes where there is increased wildfire danger is not good planning. Scenario A Smaller lots with increased housing totally undesirable. Scenario A I think the human impact on this land will be awful to the wild life,and we the humans will be the illegals here, the life there has no say. The home owners will complain about the wild life later, again with no voice, but still the original owners. Scenario A The wording of your surveys are very confusing which would very likely lead people to give you the answers YOU want. don't wish to see any new homes in the area in question Please consider congestion in the city. No commercial development needed or wanted. Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A NO commercial!!! Grandfather water rates!!! Scenario A The area below Wilson would be separated from the area to the north by the street and the development there. This defeats the benefits of the natural area. It seems pretty horrible for the existing neighborhood to add a commercial area next to it. They Scenario A moved to a residential area not a commercial- high traffic, high noise area. Conserving the habitat does not mean you have to build small lots to be affordable. I am for Scenario A affordable housing. The lots need to be wider. We need space. Maybe smaller homes. Many new homes have 5+ bedrooms. Why?? Scenario A Proposed commercial development backs to my community. When I purchased here, no development proposed. This should be eliminated as commercial is not needed. This will cause loss of my value and unwanted traffic. NO COMMERICAL. This will cause a law suite to the city from the residence for allowing unwanted commercial development. Fire danger Scenario A Scenario A May cause congested streets within the cmmunties Scenario A I wouldn't want that field as my backyard... too much concern for crime and natural disaster Page 94 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 574 Comment Focus Comment Scenario A Prefer scenario B. The island of residential units in the center is awkward. Prefer residential lower and closer to Banyan. Similar to all the scenarios I do not think it wise to back home immediately north of the HS Stadium No homes no commercial Want no commercial above Banyan Scenario A Scenario A Scenario A no commercial, no schools, no parks ...just residential and wilson straight through Scenario A Below Wilson to be good size homes with good size lots Scenario A The noise and activity from the stadium may be loud for a neighborhood. There needs to be a buffer. Smaller lots and homes would not compliment existing developments! Scenario A Scenario A Development surrounded by natural areas doesn't make sense - develop south of Wilson, not north Scenario A Best wilderness area Mirror whats up there now ... preserve the land B scenario preferred for gradual impact to southern communities; C scenario could be subsequent option depending on feasibility/cost/infrastruce/fire/water safety containment!! Scenario A Scenario B Scenario B Too congested Scenario B Housing location makes sense, but commercial near Los Altos Hi & Chaffey makes traffic and risk ridiculous - move it east into the area being developed - it is not needed near existing housing. Scenario B There should be more green space between the school and the residential. Scenario B no commercial, no parks, no schools just 1/2 acre homes with tree lined trees Scenario B Want no commercial above Banyan Scenario B No homes NO COMMERCIAL Scenario B I do not support any commercial use in this plan. Like neighborhood park for each residential area. Like the long linear park. concerned with the relationship of the residential homes just north of HS stadium. Area just north of HS stadium would be a great site for more youth sports parkland. Scenario B Looks like more open space is protected Scenario B conserves more land and decreases fire hazard Scenario B Why can't there be wildlife between? Scenario B Contiguous space is good but no need use it for large lots. Scenario B He placement of the commercial area is horrible. Stick it in the middle of the new homes, not next to existing homes. NO commercial!!!! Scenario B Scenario B Best balance between conservation and development. Reduced fire hazard. Best opportunity for affordable higher density neighborhood options (not apts) along with commercial and recreational options. The commercial area should be in the center area of the development (near Rochester, not near the existing residential area and high school (we already have sufficient commercial on Haven, Milliken & Day Creek. NO commercialM! Grandfather water rates!!! No commercial development needed or wanted. I don't wish to see any new homes in the area in question. Too many housing tracks in this scenario. Larger homes and wildlife conditions preserved. This is much more consistent with the Deer Creek community environment. L__ Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B JLCI ILII IV D LESS I10iIICJ - Page 95 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 575 Comment Focus Comment Scenario B This idea seems to have the best use of the land, natural area, less impact on wild life, hopefully. The park is large and available to more people. Scenario B I like this idea because it seems to be a good balance between the two. Scenario B This scenario puts commercial buildings directly adjacent to my backyard and will have a huge impact to my property value and way of life. I moved up here to have a large yard, little noise and my animals. You want to put a shopping center in my backyard! Scenario B Keep it the way it is. stop ruining our city please Scenario B I like the large green area, but I need to see a pool for community use and more pathways to see the wilderness. Scenario B Having larger lots would enable single story homes (not condos) up to 1800 sq ft and permit active seniors to have privacy while having space to do some gardening and entertaining family and friends. Scenario B This makes the most sense to me. All three seem to provide expensive "estate" home size lots t the North end which I thought would remain undeveloped. Of course I remember when the city said Milliken Ave would never be open across Foothill Blvd. The city never says never. Just keep our city beautiful. No development Scenario B Scenario B Just leave the land alone - we don't need anymore people moving to this area. Scenario B I do not seed a need for 8 parks and related maintenance costs when there is a 600 acre open space nearby. No commercial! Scenario B Scenario B get rid of everything above Wilson. Earthworks fail, flood control fails, wind whipped fires go were it wants to go so consolidate the farthest from the imminent hazards. Scenario B I do not seed a need for 8 parks and related maintenance costs near a 600 acre open space. Scenario B conservation land is kept together which affords more successful management. at issue will be cross front country connectivity for trails and county trails system No more development Larger lots is nice We do not want commercial development placed next to existing homes. All three models place Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B commercial development directly behind existing properties which will change the existing views and private feel of the existing home. I recommend moving the commercial areas next to the fire station and police. Banyan CAN NOT take anymore traffic!!!! Scenario B we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( NO COMMERICAL! No more homes. This city is packed already. The beauty of what Rancho Cucamonga used to be is Scenario B Scenario B close to gone. Leave the land alone. If you need to have an open space this is my favorite! Scenario B Scenario B No more residential housing. Period. Scenario B wildfires less. more park areas, less commerical. Scenario B like this scenario only if the density is kept low. 1/3 acre lot or larger Scenario B I like the continuity of neighborhoods and the idea of more modest homes Scenario B This looks good. I wonder if it would concentrate traffic though? Page 96 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 576 Comment Focus Comment Scenario B They put to many 3 level condos, townhomes in our area. To many people moving into the area. Feels suffacating Scenario B Please don't put commercial neighborhood behind Deer creek Estate homes? put it EAST of los Osos school not by Estate homes Larger lots and still has neighborhood shopping amenities. Scenario B Scenario B Balanced approach but needs to be sure hiking/biking is accessible to all residents not like it is in older western sections of Alta Lora that are not contiguous or connected or that end in dead ends, fences, private property or signs posted that discourage passage like the so called trails in north Alta loma Screw you. No more building. Vote the bums out in November. Best of the 3, but why does there need to be development above Wilson? Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B No! Stop the developers. No businesses! Stop. Scenario B Ok I don't like rectangular parks, nor see a need for stores or restaurants in this area. I like the long Scenario B narrow park! Scenario B I think we should leave more of the space above Wilson vacant for habitat and wildlife as well as mitigate the risk of wildfire damage to homes. larger lots and less chance of wildfire Scenario B Scenario B Just my opinion, yet the way it appears the wildlife has a chance to survive in this scenario a bit more than in the other 2 because they will have a lot more room to roam around in and not so many humans to contend with as much as with the other 2 scenarios. Yes, there will be some fence issues, maybe to consider or a few swimmers at midnight but who doesn't like a natural nudist once in a while in their backyard? This option leaves the most National Forest. Least amount of traffic near LOHS Scenario B Scenario B Much too crowded and too much traffic added to an already problematic traffic area. Scenario B I really don't like any but this is the best of the worst. To crowded and no more open space. Scenario B Wildfire hazard is decreased as fewer homes would be adjacent to natural open space. Scenario B Leave the land as is. Scenario B Commercial area at Milliken and Wilson will create unimaginable congestion to an already congested intersection. The direct impact to the homes already in place to have this in their back yard seems to not even be a consideration here. This is not a "neighborhood serving" shopping center as it is at the most far end of the neighborhood. The commercial area should be moved to provide the most accessibility to the new neighborhoods and reduce the impact. The homes being built in the same general area would provide for the most open space and preservation of the natural animal habitat and vegetation. No commercial wanted still need wild life Best solution to forest and open area Commercial area at Milliken and Wilson will create unimaginable congestion to an already Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B congested intersection. The direct impact to the homes already in place to have this in their back yard seems to not even be a consideration here. The commercial area should be moved to provide the most accessibility to the new neighborhoods and reduce the impact. The homes being build in the same general area would provide for the most open space and preservation of the natural animal habitat and vegetation. Scenario B NO COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS SHOULD BE BUILT ABOVE THE 210 FREEWAY! Will detract from neighborhood character. Page 97 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 577 Comment Focus Comment Scenario B Better neighborhood connectivity also allows for teenagers to walk to school. Large strip of park is central to community. good number of small local parks Look at all the commercial area. Again, we do not want commercial property in our area. There are enough shopping centers near Scenario B Scenario B our homes. Scenario B Like the layout of the open space and idea of larger homes. Not a fan Of commercial space up here Scenario B Better option. No Shopping Center Scenario B What is considered a larger average size lot? Half acre? No commercial. No retail. Preserve all as open space/conservation no commercial Are these new Fire Stations being built? Then Hell No. Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Most balanced choice of the three but uses more land for homes. Still would prefer more open nature without a high home count but this is the middle-ground choice. Scenario B Need to have the same sized lots in this area that other homes have. Nothing should be any smaller Leave it alone no need to over populate the area Scenario B Scenario B Perfect balance of residential and open space outside development. Scenario B I like the park in the middle. Don't like the extra commercial at Wilson. I like everything being closer to Banyan We don't want any commercial near Deer Creek Estates! More open space. Should be all open space. Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B I like the bigger lots. And the decreased risks of fires is a plus Scenario B Decreases wildfire hazard. Scenario B Better neighborhood connectivity, but these areas are already highly crowded with people. This looks like it would add to that. However, more park space is nice, but too few schools though. Scenario B Better neighborhood connectivity, but these areas are already highly crowded with people. This looks like it would add to that. However, more park space is nice. Scenario B My concern for this one falls in between my comment for Scenario A and Scenario C. This does seem more feasible than either A or C, but without more information on the commercial businesses that would come in, the impact to Los Osos High and the traffic to the community addressed, and the integration of the existing community with it, I do not feel comfortable speaking to how much I like it. There are just too many unknowns that over the last year or more have not been cleared up. Changing the name from NESAP to Etiwanda Heights in the dissemination of information about the entire project does not change that. Scenario B Overcrowding Scenario B Shopping center needs to be removed on Wilson & Millikan. Will cause enormous congestion, noise pollution, lights night, crime, truck deliveries at all hours, and much more. Scenario B would be better with out shopping center. Shopping center on Wilson/Millikan needs to be removed. why no planned churches _ No churches included Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B only if the lots are 1 acre or more. the State is rationing water in 2020. Scenario B No buildings, commercial, town homes or condos. Traffic will be horrendos and crime will increase. Don't want to look at houses while looking at the mountains MINNEw— seems like a compromise Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Just makes sense to me Page 98 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results – October 2, 2018 Page 578 Comment Focus Comment Scenario B This area is already too crowded Scenario B Oppose development entirely. Our city is already becoming overcrowded when the recent additions of high density residential. Map too small and won't open up. Scenario B Scenario B Smaller lots are not how area is zoned. Stop the madness Scenario B If the area must be developed it's better to keep the area down with other built up areas to mitigate fire areas. Homes should be on 1/2 acre plots as specified in general plan. Scenario B Need to see more scenarios than these three. Scenario B Way more traffic/congestion in this scenario Scenario B Don't like that it surrounds the school like that with so much risk of tragedy in the world. Scenario B Better WUI scenario Scenario B Good scenario if there are sufficient roads to alleviate traffic and fire safety. Scenario B again larger houses. Where are the smaller single levels? With nice size lots too? Scenario B Like that it preserves more open space contiguously. Do not like the Commercial part. Would like this to be larger lots like in Scenario C No Commercial, don't build. Scenario B Scenario B Large lot sizes for horse property and an equestrian center which the city promised to the residents Scenario B We don't want more building of any type! Scenario B While this scenario increases density of neighborhoods, the fact that the preserved open land is generally together instead of splitting the neighborhoods. We should maximize parks and open public areas over residential. Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Traffic is horrid!! Another school and I will never be able to get out of my neighborhood on Banyan and Milliken Not enough open space. Why must you insist on filling every open space of land. We don't need more people and businesses. And we definitely do not need more apartments. Scenario B North of Banyon, 1/2 acre lots only. Scenario B Scenario B This is best, because it keeps people away from the tops of the mountain. The further south we can keep the population, the better! This is best, because it keeps people away from the tops of the mountain. The further south and together we can keep the population, the better! No more overcrowding. Trade-offs seem fair in order to conserve space. Does not maximize housing. Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B This is more in keeping with existing housing Scenario B Too maNY houses Scenario B Same answer only a little better. Scenario B I love the idea of keeping the habitat area to the north and making homes connect to neighborhoods in the south. This seems most realistic for encouraging community interaction and connectivity. This scenario seems to afford the appearance of "openness", and undisturbed habitat, while consolidating the homes to one major area. Larger lots are good Why the need to build more communities when RC has an abundance of homes on the market. I say leave land as -is and keep existing wild habitat. Scenario B Scenario B Scenario B Page 99 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 579 Comment Focus Comment Scenario B no more housing! Schools are overcrowded, traffic is bad, pollution is off the charts, electricity is so expensive and water is scarce. Also the housing market is softening, it would hurt the housing market to build new homes. I like the decreased wildfire hazard abd the large park that is centrally located. Scenario B Scenario B Connection with communities promote a community feeling and better attitudes. Scenario B This is a fine footprint, but I like the idea of nature being interwoven in and around the residential areas if that is feasible. Perhaps the linear green space can have areas left more natural. Too many homes. I do like the larger park area Too many homes Scenario B Scenario C Scenario C I'm fine with this scenario if better and more parks and trails are the result of the additional large homes. Otherwise, I don't feel the large homes continue a whole lot of added value. There are already a lot of stately homes near this area. Scenario C more housing & less open space tends to use mote resources. We have enough problem with trash & water issues Scenario C This is my least preferred scenario. Rancho already has too many large "estates" and overpriced homes. It needs more smaller, affordable homes. Large view lot taxes could help with expenses of better park facilities. Scenario C Scenario C all of these scenarios will create a traffic nightmare. Scenario C Why the need to build more communities when RC has an abundance of homes on the market. I say leave land as -is and keep existing wild habitat. Sounds like homes for a "select few" Less people coming in, therefore less traffic. Provides access to wild areas and emergency roads Scenario C Scenario C to forests when needed. Maximizes housing opportunities. Why have open space N of Wilson and E of Eagle Dr? Scenario C Scenario C there is plenty of commercial buildings south of the 210 freeway. Don't need more up there Scenario C Mo more building and overcrowding. 1/2 acre minimum lots north of Banyon, not just Wilson. Scenario C Scenario C Economic feasibility is not my top priority, as people should not be in natural open spaces to begin with. Scenario C Not enough open space. Why must you insist on filling every open space of land? We don't need more people and businesses. And we definitely do not need more apartments. Go back to the drawing board. All of these proposals are a terrible choice. It would be nice if you would actually listen to all of the current Rancho Cucamonga residents who keep screaming at you to stop building! Scenario C Why does there have to be so many dwellings this citys is already overcrowded and we pay enough in damn taxes that there should already be enough revenue! Stop wasteful spending and there is plenty of money already ! Traffic near Is horrible on Banyan/Rochester/Milliken. Due school morning/afternoon I have Scenario C trouble getting out of area. Too much development, not enough land preserved. Rancho has a vivid and diverse ecosystem. I Scenario C would like to keep it. Scenario C We don't want more building of any type! Scenario C Contiguous. Like the large view lots Why do you keep pushing to build. Stop and listen. Bring commericial area down to Milliken and Banyan Scenario C Scenario C Page 100 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 580 Comment Focus Comment Scenario C Like that it is larger lots. Do NOT like the Commercial part. Wish it had more open space and less neighborhood Scenario C This is creating too much traffic and fire hazard with unsafe exits. Scenario C At least infrastructure is being considered with this concept. However none of the options gain my full support. Scenario C Too expensive and not affordable to many. NO to this scenario ... way too population dense!! Need to see more scenarios than these three. Scenario C Scenario C Scenario C Don't want to look at houses while looking at the mountains Scenario C Too much building. Where is the water coming from? Homes on 1/2 acre or larger lots per general plan. Best plan, don't develop north of Wilson. Better parkland than scenario #2. Scenario C If the lots are 18000 sf or larger, I'm all for it. Scenario C You have not provided enough information to assess. What are the number of residences, size of lots, and total # of people It is nice to include larger homes on bigger lots. Scenario C Scenario C Preserve the area in its current state. Scenario C Only if the number of houses is extremely limited. This area is already too crowded. Scenario C Good land use Scenario C possibly crowded Scenario C No buildings, commercial, town homes or condos. Traffic will be horrendos and crime will increase. only if the lots are 1 acre or more. the State is rationing water in 2020. No churches included Scenario C Scenario C Scenario C why no planned churches Scenario C Shopping center needs to be removed on Wilson & Millikan. Will cause enormous congestion, noise pollution, lights night, crime, truck deliveries at all hours, and much more. Open space is better with Scenario B would be better with out shopping center. Scenario C This is a no. The increase to the population would severely impact enrollment at the local schools, and you have not accounted for that in any of the scenarios. This would be the worst and would likely contribute to transforming the community and the area around Los Osos High School to a more urban or suburban feel and less of a semi -rural feel. In addition the added traffic would require that Wilson not only be extended Eastward, but would also require that it be expanded to allow for more traffic than the two lane road that it is. This would again increase traffic in the area and decrease the semi -rural feel of the community. Overbuilding of homes Scenario C Scenario C Too many houses encroaching into open spaces and still not enough schools to meet needs. Scenario C Concerned about replacing the edge condition. Although emergency access is important .. there needs to be a balance Large lots with less traffic and increasing the prestige of RC no commercial Scenario C Scenario C Scenario C We need to use the land we have for people. Scenario C Im willing to pay for larger lots with views for less people and traffic. Scenario C At least its larger lot size. Less housing. Should be no more housing. Stop trying to turn Rancho into a Megopolis! Are all those kids going to fit into Los Osos or Rancho? Not a chance. One more school? Not a chance. Our schools are already overcrowded, just as are our streets. We don't want any commercial near Deer Creek Estates! Scenario C Scenario C B and C are both great options. I prefer C because large lots are appropriate along the northwest edge and it would help us afford more public amenities. Win -Win! Page 101 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 581 Comment Focus Comment Scenario C I love the idea of large lots but there will be less population and no need for retail and shopping at the top of the hill. Go down the hill for that. It is 5 minutes away. Scenario C I don't like the extra commercial at Wilson. With it being so close to the high school on both sides of the street. I know we have to pay for stuff. The northern extension on the west should pay for som of the Maintance. All of these scenarios are not acceptable. Start putting something that complies with the general Scenario C plan and the original projected plan that was created by the city planners years ago which was accepted by others the city and residents The addition of expensive homes is ok but probably not necessary. Scenario C Scenario C This seems better as it maintains the larger lot / equisterian character of the neighboring areas to the West. Leave it alone no need to over populate the area. I like the larger lots that should be in the foothills of our community Least land left to nature and homes closer to the foothills. Bigger/fewer homes is better but likely Scenario C Scenario C Scenario C still the worst choice because bigger = more expensive and we'll still end up with too many people since we'll get multi -generational or multi -family to have the means to pay for them. Scenario C We do not need more Fire Stations. Who are you kidding? Who's going to pay for this? Scenario C same as A and B Scenario C No multi family dwellings. minimum 1/2 acre lot _ Scenario C None of the scenarios This whole survey is skewed to give you results that you want in order to develop the land OPTION D NO DEVELOPMENT Scenario C Too many house. No Stores Scenario C What kind of school is being proposed? All the high schools in Rancho are at or near capacity. Scenario C I love the idea of s commercial center at Milliken & Wilson. I could walk to the store. Scenario C Way too many homes bringing more traffic everywhere. Do like the larger homes. Don't like that more land will be built up, RC will start looking like the valley and not what it is known for, the views and beauty. Scenario C We do not want commercial property near our homes. There are enough shopping centers in the area. There is already a large amount of traffic in the area due to the college and high school. It is irresponsible of the city to put a shopping center near a school and homes. We choose to live above the 210 because we enjoy the quiet. Scenario C Large lots do not necessarily build tight -knit communities, and only increase the footprint of the proposed plan. However, replacing the urban/wildland edge condition with an access drive for emergency responders would be a good addition to Scenario B. Even more commercial. These plans all look like a developers idea, no what is best for the city. Scenario C Scenario C more housing, less habitat preservation, but it gives a continuity to the adjacent west neighborhood. Scenario C Commercial property above 210 Freeway will detract from neighborhood character. Build below 210 Freeway. Scenario C Commercial area at Milliken and Wilson will create unimaginable congestion to an already congested intersection. The direct impact to the homes already in place to have this in their back yard seems to not even be a consideration here. The commercial area should be moved to provide the most accessibility to the new neighborhoods and reduce the traffic impact. Suggestion is Banyan and Rochester area or Banyan and Milliken if accessibility to the Freeway is a concern. The addition of the development off of Eagle Drive directly impacts the homes that have already Page 102 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 582 Comment Focus Comment been purchased. These families purchased their homes for the very reason of the open spaces, natural vegetation and the historical beauty of the Etiwanda Preserve. Dollars over the best use of the area should not be the key factor in completing this project. Keep the development to the south side of the Wilson Ave. Extension and do not negatively impact properties that have already been established and enjoy the natural beauty that we love. Scenario C it seems the people making the decisions do not live in this city. The traffic is awful now I can't image it when this is all developed. Scenario C Leave land as created by the Almighty. We do not need more people. We need the land left alone/ Scenario C The third scenario adds large view lots north of a future extension of Wilson Ave, which may contribute to feasibility and fund additional park and trail facilities. Having an access road for emergency responders is a priority certainly. But this plan includes too Scenario C much housing. Too many residents and not enough recreation or free space will ruin the city. Scenario C And I'm sorry, just thinking of the animals,... If one ever sat down with crazy lady, me, ha, to find out how and why I tick, one would find out..... Maybe the same as many others as well... Large park adds aesthetic value. Scenario C Scenario C Too many houses and too much traffic near LOHS Scenario C seems like a viable option would like to know about equestrian and walking trails Scenario C Not enough open land. Large lots make housing too expensive. We need more neighborhoods for young families! Don't need the commercial parts of this plan. STOP the developers! May as well develop the entire plot... Screw you. No more building. Vote the bums out in November. Scenario C Scenario C Scenario C Scenario C A little too exclusive with the "earn your way up the hill" attitude Scenario C Please again commercial are should not be built by Estate home you have 4388 can't your developers figure out that does not make any sense. You have so much to work with and your going to make 55 homes in Deer Creek Estate go way down in VALUE for a shopping center that can go in other place or NOT AT ALL Scenario C I would be OK with this, especially if it added a surplus to the city as a whole which could be used for ALL parks and lower fees/taxes for whole city. Scenario C keep density low Scenario C No more residential housing period. Zip, nothing. Scenario C NO COMMERICAL AND NEIGHBOR HOODS ARE TOO LARGE. TOO MANY HOUSES AND NOT ENOUGH OPEN SPACE. Scenario C Banyan CAN NOT take anymore traffic!!!! we want it left as is just as told at the meetings. These choices are comparable to what parents do the get children to do what the adult wants.:( Scenario C We do not want commercial development placed next to existing homes. All three models place commercial development directly behind existing properties which will change the existing views and private feel of the existing home. I recommend moving the commercial areas next to the fire station and police. More traffic congestion Scenario C Scenario C No more development Scenario C this scenario develops more of the land but the neighborhoods on the edges should had more green belts to act as fuel mods to protect those neighborhoods Scenario C This plan will most likely be the most affordable when it comes to purchasing the mitigation properties. the Edge Drive- will help with fire protection. please be sure to ensure that Page 103 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 583 Comment Focus Comment developers cannot use the conservation land as their'fire breaks' as was missed in plan checks in the past. Also they used power line corridors as well.- lessons learned/missed. Is the land to the right running along the channel conservation or ? RC doesn't need more mansions that regular folk cant afford. These houses would have the best Scenario C views and be away from the freeway and cost a fortune, so only the rich and developers would gain. It also looks to be an alluvial plane subject to flooding so building houses here is ridiculous. Impacts to traffic would be acute as well. I do not seed a need for 9 parks and related maintenance costs near a 500 acre open space. Scenario C Scenario C No commercial! Scenario C Are you kidding?! Just leave the open space open! Stop trying to bring in more people to an already saturated area. Please include Scenario D: This fourth option allows the majority of the area be preserved with Scenario C trail access to the Etiwanda Preserve. Scenario C Piss on me and tell me it's rainingM This option makes me want to move to Arizona. Too much development. Keep it open, keep it natural. Scenario C This option makes me want to move to Arizona. Too much development. Keep it open, keep it natural. Scenario C Keep it the way it is. stop ruining our city please Scenario C This scenario puts commercial buildings directly adjacent to my backyard and will have a huge impact to my property value and way of life. I moved up here to have a large yard, little noise and my animals. You want to put a shopping center in my backyard! Scenario C While I love the outdoors and wildlife areas, the most important thing is the ability to minimize disasters. Scenario C This is my second choice, but could also be first, because of the wild areas keeping it not chopped up so much. Scenario C Large view homes ok Scenario C Too many large homes, big lots, if you want to make it an area for the wealthy, let's build castles for the masters and villages for the peasants... Dilly, dilly! Scenario C Do not like homes so close to the 'wash" but a better Scenario than A. Scenario B far more suitable for the area and caliber of people who have been fortunate enough to reside in the Deer Creek and Haven Estate communities. No housing no commercial businesses. We have a hug population of children that play sports, we really need to invest in creating a Silver Scenario C Scenario C Lakes type of outdoor sportplex to support this needs. Soccer is a growing sport along with softball, baseball and football. We need to create space for this usage. I don't wish to see any new homes in the area in question. NO commercial!!!!!!!!! No commercial development needed or wanted. NO commercial!!!! M! Scenario C Scenario C Scenario C Scenario C Grandfather water rates!!!! This is the best of the 3, but the commercial area should be north along Rochester to serve the Scenario C new community. The existing are well served by existing commercial areas on Haven, Milliken & Day Creek. Scenario C Again, move the commercial area away from exisiting residential neighborhoods. They didn't buy next to that and that's horrible to add that traffic and noise to their area. NO COMMERCIAL -TO MANNY HOMES. Scenario C Scenario C ' increases traffic and less land is conserved Page 104 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 584 Comment Focus Comment Scenario C No more mansions in Rancho!!! Scenario C Need more reasonable priced housing not more million plus Scenario C I've been to all the meetings and every time we have voiced NO COMMERCIAL and all these scenarios include it on the corner of Wilson and Milliken. Do not support any commercial with this project area. Scenario C Caryn Planned Community does not have a park. I would recommend a new neighborhood park on the south side of Banyan. SEC Banyan and Rochester. I am concerned with the apparent extension of Edge Drive to the north Want no commercial above Banyan Scenario C Scenario C better but no commercial, put wilson straight through, no parks, and no schools on wilson Scenario C People purchasing homes in this area will be desiring large lots with a view. Scenario C People purchasing homes in this area will be desiring large lots with a view. The only thing is needing more green space between the school and the neighborhoods. Scenario C Commercial center should be east to serve the new community, not on the west edge serving no one (note we already have adequate at Miliken. Traffic this would cause close to Los Altos and Chaffey, already terrible, would become a nightmare. Scenario C Larger home footprints and large homes complimente existing foothill development. Reservation about Wilson avenue traffic increasing. Need to look closely at awilson as part of it is four lanes and other areas on Wilson are two lanes. We do not need a traffic bottleneck nor do we need vehicles traveling at high rates of speed! Too much development Scenario C Page 105 Etiwanda Heights Plan Online Survey Results — October 2, 2018 Page 585 AAL ETIWANDA HEIGHTS is NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA On September 21, 2018, the City hosted an open house to share concepts and gather input for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. The open house attracted about 200 people. Of those, 92 people shared their name and contact information, 38 people submitted comment cards, and 3 people signed up for a talking session with staff. Open House Stations & Materials The open house was organized around five stations. Snapshots of the posters are included at the end of this document. • Station 1: Background & Overview • Station 2: Neighborhood Framework • Station 3: Conservation & Open Space • Station 4: Housing & Streets • Station 5: Community -Serving Amenities & Activities =k7 'IWANDA HEIGHTS; NEIGHBORHOOD & j CONSERVATION PLAN OPEN HOUSE GUIDE Today you will have an opportunity Ht ig#als f keighborhood and Conserve.._.- .._.., .._.. -.- --.._... -- - under consideration for further analysis, and provide your input. Please use this Open House Guide to find your way through 5 stations. The exhibits at each station are based on input received from community members and subject-maner experts. They are intended to show ways to bolonce priorities we've heard throughout the process. The City plans to move forward with more detailed analysis of the preferred framework, but before we dor we would like to gather your feedback_ Each stolion features displays and information for you to consider. Plataming team mambors, including City staff, design teem and sublet maser experts will be ovaitable to answer your questions_ Before you leave, please use the comment card inside This guide to provide your input. Deposit the completed comment card in Ike comment box of the Welcome Table, This guide provides information about the open house stations and serves 05 you{ 'Passpod Page 1 Etiwanda Heights Plan Participants were given a guide and a comment card and were asked to record their input on the materials at Stations 2 through 4 on the comment card. Their responses are included for each station on subsequent pages. WELCOME TO THE OPEN HOUSE Ask for a stomp an your comment form from each station to enter a gift card raffle! WELCOME Please pick up on Open House Guide and sign ml Drop your comment cards into the comment boa before you leave. STATION T I Plan Overview Watch o slide show about the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, the history and purpose, and the ways communiy engagement }rove influenced the process. STATION 2 1 Neighborhood & Conservation Framework Explore the refined concept for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood. View earlier concepts and see learn how the community responded to those preliminary concepts. STATION 3 1 Rural Area: Conservation & Open Space This station illusiroles the recommended consetvalion and open space areas in the current refined concept, and shows a range of recommended types of open spaces and uses. STATION 4 1 Neighborhood Area: Housing & Streetscopes Take a look at the suggested range of housing and Streetscopes throughout the Eliwcndo Heights neighborhoods. STATION 5 1 Neighborhood Centers, Parks & Amenities Discover the different ideas far community serving ociivitim, parks and gathering spaces shot could be developed as port of neighborhood centers. Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 586 Page 2 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 587 Neighborhood Framework Question and Responses 1. 1lafare lfhe plain Is diu ied anti phc City Coun6l• iakcs ackun, wvhol would you lice Them io ksiaww+ o6Dlii & conceptual plain elan-ros and ntrighbor}kaa'ds all' E6werWc Heighft -cit Sioiicn 2; Jc6r-k 011i ihol upplyj ❑ 146 whop I see repre5anled on the refined roDcept pian and be-lieve it wail 6e a pasffiva cantri 6whon to Flee City ❑ I Mhink fhe rehned concert plan would be o more pasihve co„ tribuhorI. to i1he 0y IF AMilaonal c+ommenis: 0 I INA more Warmahon Is needed. What oddWonal i nhormofiar+ waul,4 you like? ti M M if1 I LIKE WHAT I SEE WOULD BE MORE POSITIVE I THINK MORE DID NOT RESPOND IF SOMETHING CHANGED INFORMATION IS NEEDED Written Comments (as written by participants) think the refined concept plan would be a more positive contribution to the City if: Very little housing, more parks/walking trails/community! Makes smaller lots for 55+ residents We had a nature preserve Removal of commercial - Milliken/Wilson!! Along Deer Creek Estates - walking trail as currently being used. Green belt to buffer any construction - housing. Like Concept B the best What additional information would you like? Cost? Options for annexing unincorporated land How much will taxes be? More specific info about commercial Flood control & lot sizes Flood control Page 3 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results - October 8, 2018 Page 588 Conservation & Open Space Question and Responses I BeFore ?he peon is dra ied and the City auncil tak%s oolian, +hof would you like there la 61 -ow tabour Corse nm ion &fir, Space -as flown al Stolioft 3 P jr-hock till 1hul apply) d 1 dppreciabe SOMIM9 kbw mLrrh Of i)te Oren is dad IctjbLd �0 rLtml eonservuliorw and Q'POF1 "CEI. El I orn wmilhrig 1v valonleer ar contribute 6nding l'o irncreme the iotfll acrense de+dicraled ra cor+servotion and Open space Additional mmmants- © 1 lh+nk more inl'ormaiion is needed_ Wf d addilion.a( inbrrnnfian would you like? N N Written Comments (as written by participants) What additional information would you like? Police coverage, schools, emergency services People in the foothills already mention wildlife pro+con more people push wildlife further up or are a danger or nuisance to some. How will that be dealth with? All the environmental impact reports Page 4 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 589 Ln V 1 LIKE WHAT I SEE WOULD BE MORE POSITIVE IF I THINK MORE INFORMATION DID NOT RESPOND SOMETHING CHANGED IS NEEDED Written Comments (as written by participants) What additional information would you like? Police coverage, schools, emergency services People in the foothills already mention wildlife pro+con more people push wildlife further up or are a danger or nuisance to some. How will that be dealth with? All the environmental impact reports Page 4 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 589 Housing & Streets Question and Responses a. Bel'are lks plat~ Is draf#ad am the City Council takes uc6crm, wkal would you lake +em to know aboul Housing $ Streefscopu or. shown of Station 0 (check all +at appl"A Q 1 Ihink the rori�a of housing Wes I16!fratad will be good for Rancho Cucomono, CJ I Ihink the ron pe alt housing "w would be bow foF Rancho Cucamango if AddNiQnol oamments- I7 I Ihink more i norma hon Is needed. Mat additioml information would you NO 0 0 r-4 ■ I LIKE WHAT I SEE WOULD BE MORE POSITIVE IF I THINK MORE INFORMATION DID NOT RESPOND SOMETHING CHANGED IS NEEDED Written Comments (as written by participants) I think the range of housing types would be better if: I think no housing types would be better. Low density housing is planned Would obviously like it to be large lots (1 ac+) but understand this may not be possible Prefer single family homes only More shaded bike paths and benches More affordable housing types It definitely includes large lot homes, I like the adult living section We need more affordable housing for all & seniors Less housing, consider affordable housing What additional information would you like? How annex land density (population) affect local existing schools (all levels) Page 5 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 590 Community -Serving Amenities & Activities Question and Responses 4. Retire +v plan is droller and t CF y C_ordnciI laItem acrion, w1wt would you Gko thorn � know 41600 Nei9kboAvacni C=Wrs, Porks, & AcNvilies as shown at SIotiqn Sq �chack all 60t aP*l * 1 ?Kink 6E diWiibUhlOn and "s of Neiighborimod CeMars, Parks, & Activilias will be gbad ffr Rancho Cumrinnnge. I t4lnk Phe dislrilsutlbn =8 lypes of NoighlInwhnod Cendars, %,6, & AcliY-46E& would bo 6e1ler For RoncNo Cucomuriga iV- Addih4rQI cornmunic 12 1 bink more informal oo is rweded. Whol additional infofmotion wouW pu 467 N N ■ ■ I LIKE WHAT I SEE WOULD BE MORE POSITIVE I THINK MORE INFORMATION DID NOT RESPOND IF SOMETHING CHANGED IS NEEDED Written Comments (as written by participants) think the distribution and types of Neighborhood Centers, Parks, & Activities would be better for Rancho Cucamonga if: Not so many neighborhood centers with potential commercial areas - fewer commercial spaces I think we should have no commercial The min lot size is 20k sq ft and no commercial Was more thoughtful about home owner input No restaurants, small shops Plenty of parking, any sports fields to be located in new community & not adjacent to existing I believe it would be fine for immediate neighborhood, but there are surrounding areas that need access to parks too. The housing cost was controlled More of this I like the adult community idea Make sure shopping & restaurants are walking distance for the 55+ residents Page 6 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 591 Ate'. - -� Page 7 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 592 Jo F - Ate'. - -� Page 7 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 592 Question 5: Overall Feedback 5. How well rho you feel t# e Etiwonda sleights Neigkhorhood & Conservation Man concept reflects a good storting {point to balance Corn - ting priorities we've heard From the community? Competing priorities include: a e5ire to acquire and maintain large amounts of open space vs a desire to avoid new taxesr- an interest in new places to socializelike restaurants and small shops - vs resistance to "commercial", interest from many in seeing a range of housing opportunities Ys interest by others in ensuring that oil new homes and lois ore quite large. 0�0�0�t.110�0 Poor rct Neutral Goad Great 29% 6% ■ Great ■ Good Neutral Not Great ■ Poor Did not answer Page 8 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 593 Additional Comments (as written by participants) Participants were invited to record additional thoughts. Each comment is listed below. Central Park needs to be top priority! We need to get this done! I feel we need to keep more land undeveloped. Plan B is more condusive to this More affordable housing I am glad to have been informed about this event. It was great!!! Please keep up the good work. Open areas for socializing, splash park for kids, more fountains/landscaping Please include thoughts and plans on parking for Etiwanda Preserve & freeway access for additional traffic. No low density above Wilson Ave. Open space on west side. Would like Central Park finished before this project is started thx. Cat sanctuary - where people could meet future pets in welcoming open spaces I think those plans are all interesting. I'll input my comments online. Mas trabajos para personas mayores Appreciate the outreach and listening to residents TRANSPARENCY Excellent discussions w/ Matt (D. City Mgr) and Tony (Planner) and the San Bernardino County Engineers!! Critical info shared!! Great ideas for the future of Rancho Super excited with the new future of Rancho Cucamonga Page 9 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 594 Overarching Themes All comments received in writing at the open house were compiled and reviewed for common themes. They appear below in order of frequency. i Focus of Comments Number of Comments Received on Topic Parks/open space Limit Resldentlal Overall Posltive Comments 55+ Housing Affordability " 4 Central Park 2 Limit Commercial 2 No Commercial 2 Parking - 2 Freeway access ■ 1 Limit All Development ■ 1 No Residential ■ 1 Page 10 Etiwanda Heights Plan C Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 595 Open House Posters Station 1 D ZE) UU fl lip Page 11 Etiwanda Heights Plan mt —V —'I Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 596 UU lip zI" IL 0 IOL Lml- Page 11 Etiwanda Heights Plan mt —V —'I Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 596 Page 12 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October % 2018 Page 597 � | ) 01- � � //$ m� :@ •&t � k2, )�« z£ 00{7!}!a ,oi| Lor- 13}|| � � ƒ . r&k k !!. &$} I� IIE \{ � 0M #77 « ,! k!| Lr) ■ _ 0/ ) � \ ;. w §{/ ,| z )| «$} \| z LU 00 C B {\} §}\ ` \ � Page 12 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October % 2018 Page 597 Station 2 m 1 CL CC 0 3� LU 1 '� 1 =f 1 V Page 13 Etiwanda Heights Plan .F, M � 7 z' a Q W 4 6 O 2 D 2 C7 Z w D Y Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 598 Station 3 E D v m O a rr� ani o t C 1 c Y m N C$ } o _a o xill w E 'n m w = -11 O i 15 C OF 2 J3Uj C p} 32 16 L E c ate} ❑ m g �a ID 2 W Z vi Q 2 7� C C C p vii SJ U q W 71 •1 y — m 4 •� C W Q N W LC R 7 ❑ 4 C .J C ip 0 m;� - ,l A Page 15 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 600 Station 4 Ln LU n V LO 1— w Uj ,z to 06 0 z Ln D 4 w Q C C, 0 s Of 0 UD z U) D 0 TO 7 a m LLP z z LU U fA LJ fl a u y w a c Q L v E Q, NC 7 £ p N �7 9} Q�1 C N I& C Q 71 h C ,lY N n ii C7 y W C � 9] CM L � _a tq CUC @ C N @ O Q E o dt A p �C a C �iy �a 2m �� a �, d, Sw cu oL 4 Yw Page 16 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 601 x y m ii 2 vii ryD V Z CL 0 VI LU irkU cfi Lil Lif t� V) ,05 u z {17 I LU Li 0 0 r CC 0 00 /i2 V LU z m a "� ry7 N C L Ol a +}L�( �ti � � O V G L L £ m Q`7 uta ]- CP r +� m a ci a !Q a 3 v v A u '� a y E t7 42 S E p� 8 N L a V O L m Z a D ' a C m = w o a° +vv m a` Yn n a o u Y O M F a Page 17 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 602 Station 5 0 0 2 Of 0 m Z V) LL 7 W 05 W z W U V7 d d Q z 0 m z w z uW� 2- 2s a 7 o i/1m}A Ijuv o n a o v E E o c E❑ ow ria IE v v p q 3 aQj bb O 7' A 41 an N ip N a 4 2 Page 18 Etiwanda Heights Plan Open House Results — October 8, 2018 Page 603 STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett. City Planner INITIATED BY: Matt Burris Deputy City Manager Elisa Cox. Deputy City Manager Candyce Burnett, City Planner Mike Smith, Senior Planner TITLE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - REVIEW OF THE ETiWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and discuss the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Specific Plan. THE CITY'S VISION The City's Vision emerged from a planning process that included extensive analyses, a thorough review of the goa4s and policies described in the General Plan, directions from City Council, and, most importantly, the participation and input from the overall community. This vision is to maintain and conserve Targe areas of rural and natural open space in the northern part of what is referred to as the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). This large area of rural and natural open space will be fiscally supported by, and in balance with. high quality residential neighborhood development in the southern part of the SOI that is already surrounded by existing residential neighborhoods. This Specific Plan was developed from the above -noted input to help guide and develop the guiding principles that set the foundation of "the Plan". They balance the primary goal to conserve the large quantities of natural open space in the northern area of the Plan with high-quality neighborhoods in the southerly areas of the Plan where there are existing neighborhoods. Guiding Principles include local control, open space conservation, active healthy living. fiscal responsibility, public safety.. and a unique sense of place. BACKGROUND —ANNEXATION PROPOSALS In 2007. the County of San Bernardino (the County) informed the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) intended to sell up to 1,070 acres of a surplus property on the northern edge of the City. The area had an overall area of 1,212 acres that had previously been needed for flood control purposes. In 2008, the City offered to assist the County and distributed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for developers who wished to be considered for a potential joint venture with the County to entitle the land partially located within D2—Pg 1 Page 604 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 2 the City Limits and partially within the SOI, i.e. the unincorporated area of the County. However, the County discontinued the potential joint venture in 2009 due to the economic downturn that occurred around that time period. City leadership recognized that development on the County's land would occur in the future and wanted to be prepared for the eventual sale of this surplus property by the County. Therefore, in January 2015, the City Council reaffirmed the goal of pre -zoning and annexation the 4,088 -acre portion of the City's SOI. This land is currently regulated by the County's zoning and, therefore, allowed residential and commercial development that would be subject to the County's, and not the City's, development standards. In May 2015, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Sargent Town Planning (STP) to prepare the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP). Between the summer of 2015 and the fall of 2017, the City developed an initial plan for the 4,388 - acre NESAP area. This initial plan included maintaining the northerly 3,176 acres as a Conservation Priority Area (CPA) and focused potential development in the 1,212 -acre Development Priority Area (DPA) in the southerly portion. BACKGROUND — COMMUNITY OUTREACH During the fall of 2017, the City conducted a series of four Community Meetings that were held during a month-long period to provide the public information on the development of the NESAP. It became clear in these meetings that the community wanted to be more involved and to provide more input on the development of the project area. On December 20, 2017, after reviewing the plan to -date and the public's comments, the City Council directed Staff to go back and engage the community to evaluate whether or not to continue the project, and if the recommendation is to continue the project, to revise the density of the project, i.e. the number of dwelling units per acre; the type and character of the residential component of the project; and amount of commercial floor area within the project. Staff paused further development of the NESAP and EIR and embarked on extensive public engagement to grapple with these issues. On May 16, 2018, after extensive outreach (discussed below), the City Council directed Staff to work with the community to develop a community-based plan. Directions from the City Council included 1) incorporating large -lot residential development with a "banded" component that would match adjacent residential densities, 2) incorporating local and Community Trails for consistency with the Equestrian Overlay (as described in the General Plan, Figure LU -2 - Land Use), 3) incorporating a traffic circulation component that connects existing streets (i.e., Wilson Avenue, Milliken Avenue, and Rochester Avenue) and is compatible with the surrounding community; 4) limiting commercial uses; and 5) incorporating any necessary public facilities (e.g. a school and parks). At this time the City also established a name for the future Specific Pian: "Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan" (EHNCP). The name reflects the City's intent to balance the community priorities for conservation in the rural northern portion of the planning area and appropriate development in the southern neighborhood area. After the May 16, 2018 meeting, Staff continued the community engagement process, received and evaluated the community's input, and began to draft the plan. D2—Pg 2 Page 605 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 3 PROJECT STATUS A. Community Outreach: In the fall of 2017, the City conducted four community meetings to solicit comments from interested individuals and community groups on the initial planning concepts. Participants had many questions and concerns about the process, the preliminary concept, including the number and type of residential units proposed, particularly multi -family units, and the amount and type of commercial uses. In addition, there were concerns about fire safety and habitat associated with the configuration of open space in the heart of the neighborhood. Due to the level of concern, the City set aside the preliminary concept and conducted further outreach to better understand the priorities of the Rancho Cucamonga community. During early 2018, the City gathered further input through small group and large community meetings along with online and paper surveys to determine the next steps. These additional community meetings and surveys confirmed that 1) local control of this area was preferred by the community, and 2) some level of development under City zoning standards was acceptable. Respondents overwhelmingly supported local control through annexation and agreed that planning a new neighborhood would be the preferred method of providing local control to set the standard for high-quality development and cover the cost of habitat conservation. On May 16, 2018, the City Council directed staff to continue working with the community on a plan for neighborhoods and conservation in the northeastern area of the City (Exhibit B). B. Community Engagement Summer 2018: In the Summer of 2018, after receiving direction from the City Council to create a community-based plan, the City hosted a community-based planning process to learn more about priorities and how to best balance them. The extensive community engagement process included small group meetings, pop-up events, multiple online surveys, and a large, well -attended public open house where attendees provided feedback on an initial concept pian. The EHNCP was developed in response to the community's feedback received during this period. The following highlights the engagement efforts: • July, August, and September 2018 — Nine (9) pop-up outreach events were held with over 800 members of the community engaged. At each pop-up, participants were provided an opportunity for questions and answers, informational materials, Dot Survey, and children participated in a drawing exercise; • August 21-29, 2018 — Small group meetings were held with four community groups including Campeones para la Comunidad (Community Champions), Healthy Rancho Cucamonga Steering Committee, Healthy RC Youth Leaders, and a small group meeting with a home owners association (HOA) that included residents who live in a residential area located to the west of the project area; September 21, 2018 — An open house was held at the Cultural Center court yard. The open house attracted approximately 200 people and was organized around five (5) stations spotlighting the main planning topics; and D2 --Pg 3 Page 606 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 4 October 2018 - February 2019 — Staff engaged over 200,000 digital impressions and reached nearly 89,000 through various digital survey tools such as Facebook LIVE, Facebook posts, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor, videos, and eNews. C. General Plan: As noted previously, the majority of the project area is designated as Flood Control/Public Utilities, Conservation, Hillside Residential, and Open Space per the General Plan, Figure LU -2 - Land Use. With the exception of a 33 -acre parcel located south of Banyan Avenue and west of the Deer Creek flood control channel, the majority of the proposed Neighborhood Priority Area (NPA) is currently designated as Flood Control/Utility Corridor. An amendment to the General Plan is required to change the land use designations within the NPA (related file: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749). The remaining 3,532 acres of the project area is within the Rural/Conservation Area (RCA) and the EHNCP would rezone this area consistent with the existing Open Space Land Use designations in the General Plan. Other minor clarifying amendments will be required, including a new text amendment to allow the clustering of homes within the RCA. The amendment to the General Plan will be included with the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at a subsequent public hearing. D. Etiwanda North Specific Plan: Most of the project area (approximately 3,494 acres) is within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). This Specific Plan was adopted in April 1992. The project area that is located between the northward "extension" of Milliken Avenue and the existing neighborhoods on the project area's western boundary, are outside the boundary of the ENSP and would, therefore, be regulated by the Development Code (if they were within the City's boundaries). The ENSP was adopted to establish pre -zoning and development standards for the Etiwanda area of the Sphere of Influence (SOI). Doing this was an effort to ensure that when development of properties within the ENSP was proposed, such development would follow the City's standards and, therefore, be in conformance with the pre - zoning document and be consistent with the goals of annexation. However, there are properties within the ENSP that were developed prior to this proposed annexation project and, therefore, were not designed to the standards described in the ENSP. The ENSP permits a significant amount of residential development in the proposed Conservation Priority Area (CPA) and permits a limited amount of residential development in the proposed Development Priority Area (DPA) while maintaining a substantial portion of this area as Flood Control. The ENSP also established two "floating", i.e. approximate, locations for commercial uses. The size and scope of such development would be determined based on a market analysis of the number of households that would support commercial uses. During the preparation of the annexation, it was determined that a new specific plan was necessary as the ENSP does not provide for conservation, does not "pre -zone" the entire project area, permits a significant amount of development where it should not occur, and does not adequately address development where it could occur. Thus, the ENSP needs to be amended to remove the EHNCP from that Specific Plan (related file: Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750). E. Previous Project - NESAP: The 2017 proposal, the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project, or NESAP, was shelved in the winter of 2018 when the City Council directed staff to return to the drawing board and work with the community to determine a vision for the planning area. D2 --Pg 4 Page 607 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 5 F. The Current Project - EHNCP: As directed by the City Council, the EHNCP was developed with direct input from the community to help guide and develop the guiding principles that set the foundation of "the Plan". The Community Vision and Guiding Principles were developed from community input, City Council direction, and policies of the General Plan. They balance the primary goal to conserve the large quantities of natural open space in the northern area of the plan with high-quality neighborhoods in the southerly areas of the Plan where they would complement the existing neighborhoods. Guiding Principles included local control, open space conservation, active healthy living, fiscal responsibility, public safety, and a unique sense of place. Based on the Vision and Guiding Principles site studies were explored that in - turned informed the drafting of the Development Standards in the EHNCP. The .plan establishes two areas: The Rural/Conservation Area (RCA): The primary focal components of this area are. conserving as much open space land as feasible; generating conservation funding; prioritizing the conservation of lands adjacent to the existing North Etiwanda Preserve; permitting limited quantities of rural housing; extending open space corridors and trails from foothill open space down into the neighborhoods; and providing a variety of parks, greenspaces, and playfields adjacent to every neighborhood. The City has had a long-standing vision for the foothills between the City boundary up to the National Forest line and through the implementation of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, set forth specific Open Space Land Use designations devoted to the preservation of the natural resources and open space opportunities. The vision of the EHNCP builds on those Goals and Policies to enhance the efforts of conservation through Chapter 3 - Conservation Plan of the Specific Plan that identifies the value of the biological setting, establishes conservation methods including establishing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program (Section 7.4, page 336), while allowing for appropriate limited rural development on privately owned property. The Rural/Conservation Area's (RCA) primary focus is centered around these conservation efforts. The key strategies in the plan include the continued efforts to conserve additional land and restoration of habitat. This can be achieved through developer incentives in the Neighborhood Area to underwrite conservation as mitigation to offset impacts of that development. Additionally, this can be accomplished with property owner incentives within the RCA through the TDR to the Neighborhood Area, and then setting aside their property for additional mitigation and conservation. Although there are large areas of the RCA that are currently considered Open Space or Conservation, not all properties are actively managed and do not have permanent or adequate funding to continue to maintain and manage the habitat. The plan sets clear conservation objectives for conservation management with appropriate implementation measures. The Plan also creates a set of design and development standards (Section 5.9 - Rural Development Standards, page 236) that will regulate development in the RCA. All new development will be required to comply with the regulation in the Rural Development Standards to maintain the rural feeling of the area including very low density, large lots, minimally improved streets and infrastructure as well as specific design elements (e.g. minimal lighting, massing, and location on the site). Development in the RCA is regulated D2 --Pg 5 Page 608 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24. 2019 Page 6 so as to not impact the natural terrain and habitat or conservation properties while taking into consideration potential site constraints, natural hazards, and limited services. As discussed above, the primary focus of the Plan is to maximize open space and conservation. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) strategy would encourage the preservation of land within the RCA and give priority to land adjacent to the North Etiwanda Preserve to provide larger contiguous conservation areas and habitat linkages without placing new tax burdens on existing residents. As outlined in Section 1.5 Guiding Principles (Topic #4 - Fisca{ Responsibility, page 29) the objectives for conservation of the RCA was that new development must make preservation of natural landscapes feasible and fiscally self-sustaining. The plan has been developed with this in mind to enable enough development in the Neighborhood Area of new residential units, sale tax generating retail and restaurants. and through the process of transferring development rights. The process of transferring development rights would allow for a privately -owned property in the RCA to transfer the residential density to the Neighborhood Area voiuntarily in exchange for financial or other negotiated compensation. The number of residential units would be determined on the maximum density allowed based on the regulating zone, slope, and other environmental constraints. When a parcel is abutting another permanently preserved property (e.g. the North Etiwanda Preserve), a multiplier could be applied to incentivize the transfer of density from the RCA. The multiplier would be determined by the City or a qualified entity established by the City. The total density Mowed for a Neighborhood Area phase/subarea could be allowed to exceed the total as shown in Table 7.3 (below) but the Plan's total density would not be allowed to exceed the maximum permitted density. TABLE 7.3 PHASING SUMMARY PHASE 3 4 Dwelling 117 127 154 567 476 459 281 Units Commercial 14$569 18,277 Square feet Parks Acres 2.25 3.5 8.6 9.3 7.5 8.5 Acres 33 50 155 117 90 87 NA Total RCA Toted GRAND TOTAL 15 701 2,900 100 13,154 180,000 - 4.5 30 11 85.15 46 49 201 828 3,000 180,000 85.15 3,565 4,393 The Neighborhood Area. The primary components of this area are: neighborhoods with beautiful walkable streets; very large lot equestrian homes; homes in walkable neighborhoods; neighborhoods geared toward older individuals; neighborhoods suited to, and attainable by, families; neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants; neighborhoods that include smaller detached and attached single-family homes; and homes that reflect the heritage of Etiwanda and Alta Loma. To ensure this, the Plan is divided into "Regulating Zones". For each zone there are development standards that will regulate development in the Neighborhood Area. These D2—Pg 6 Page 609 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 7 standards will be applied to each project through the "Precise Neighborhood Plan" process (Section 7.7, page 344). The standards for each regulating zone are calibrated to generate the physical form and character in accordance with the Vision described in Chapter 4. They will regulate 1) allowed building types (Table 5.4A, page 1301, 21 primary and secondary setback requirements (Table 5.413, page 130); and 3) allowed uses (Appendix 1, page 1-1). Appendix 1 will be incorporated into the Development Code (related file: Municipal Code Amendment DRC2019-00288). The regulating zones follow a spectrum that is sensitive to the existing context of Rancho Cucamonga. The regulating zones are described as follows (excerpted from the Plan): 1. Neighborhood Estate (NE) Regulating Zone: The Neighborhood Estate regulating zone is for large homes on large lots, with large setbacks and yards, and expansive views of the mountains to the north and/or valley to the south. A semi -rural, equestrian design character is envisioned to provide for opportunities for equestrian living, with curbless streets that lead directly to multipurpose trails to the foothills; 2. Neighborhood General 1 (NG -1) Regulating Zone: This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached homes on a range of lot sizes, knitted together by a connective network of landscaped pedestrian -oriented streets, parks, and trails. Well -landscaped front yards and private rear and side yard areas for family activities surround each home; 3. Neighborhood General 2 (NG -2) Regulating Zone: This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached and attached homes, knitted together by a network of pedestrian -oriented streets and Paseos, and in proximity to neighborhood parks or squares for family; and 4. Shops & Restaurants (SR) Regulating Zone: This two -block area centered on the intersection of Wilson and Rochester Avenues has a classic Southern California small- town "Main Street" character with a distinctly rural twist. Neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants have large shopfronts and wide sidewalks for strolling, dining, and visiting. Parking is provided on the street and in rear parking lots that are accessed by courts and Paseos. The Neighborhood Area is divided into nine (9) sub -areas (Figure 5.3 — Sub -Area Regulating Plan, page 121). The purpose of this is to 1) phase development and 2) ensure the intended distribution of building types. To provide long-term flexibility in the layout and design of each development proposal, the Regulating Plan is conceptual and subject to refinement through the Precise Neighborhood Plan process. The first developer in each sub -area is responsible for securing approval of a Precise Neighborhood Pian through the process described in the Plan (Section 7.7 —Authority, Amendments, and Approvals, page 344). Following the City staff's review of a proposed Precise Neighborhood Plan to verify consistency with the Plan, it will be forwarded for review and action by the Planning Commission. If approved, it will be recorded as a refinement to the Regulating Plan. All subsequent development within each sub -area will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the Precise Neighborhood Plan in place. D2—Pg 7 Page 610 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 8 Additional regulations in the Plan include standards and guidelines for topics such as architecture, commercial storefronts, landscaping, public and private open spaces, street (thoroughfare) design, and parking. The regulations are well -detailed to ensure that City staff can effectively use it, developers can follow,; it, and that the City's design/'technical goals and policies that apply elsewhere in the City are implemented and fulfilled in the EHNCP. The required design and/technical characteristics for, for example, various building typologies, signs, and trails are clearly described in graphic form and demonstrated with imagery of the desired qualities that must be incorporated. Architecture is extensively discussed with emphasis on what elements must be present to reflect an architectural theme of, for example, a house. This will ensure consistency with the City's architectural standards and compatibility with existing residential development in the area surrounding the EHNCP. Regarding the multi-purpose trails, the Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the area. It specifies certain design and technical requirements for them. In instances where it does not, the Trails Implementation Plan adopted in 1991 and the City's standard drawings for features such as trail improvements including surfacing, fencing, gates, and entrances will apply. Open space, views, and access to trails and recreation space was a significant priority during the public engagement process and is a primary focus of the General Plan. The plans overarching goal is to limit the amount of high-quality neighborhood development in order to support the larger goal of conserving large amounts of permanent open space and habitat conservation. The framework of "the Plan" establishes a network of trail connections building off the existing trial network identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan and already in the built environment. It also proposes to improve the trail connections where there is a lack of connection and create unique walkable neighborhoods. A design feature of the plan is that every residence is within a 5- to 7 - minute walk of the Deer Creek Greenway, Day Creek Trail and/or the central greenwal which all lead to the foothill trail network. It is important to note that trails will not only be designed and permitted where they don't impact permanent conservation or habitat mitigation property or any special species that are protected within those conservation areas. Within the Neighborhood Area parks are planned to be the living rooms of the neighborhood with the paseos providing shortcuts to neighborhood parks and smaller green spaces. Special community gathering spaces are also planned in the design to create unique spaces for farmers markets and seasonal activities. With so many active and passive open and gathering spaces for residents, this will discourage these activities in the foothill open spaces where they don't belong. It's anticipated that activities in the Rural open space areas in the RCA will be controlled activities limited to educational uses, hiking on 'designated trails and limited bike and equestrian access on designated trails (Section 4.2, Open Space Framework, page 72). 1 The "central greenway" will be renamed by the community through additional engagement during the DEIR review period. D2—P9 8 Page 611 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 9 Within the Neighborhood Area there is a hierarchy of open spaces and parks including trails, trail heads, greenways, roundabout park, neighborhood parks, play fields, paseos, and a town square. The intent of the open space framework is that every place inside the planning area, including the streets as an extension of your living space to encourage an active healthy lifestyle. The goal of the plan is that every home is in within a 2- to 3 -minute walk of a park or open space. NEXT STEPS: Following the review of the draft Specific Plan by the Planning Commission, staff will incorporate recommended edits made by the Commission and/or the public. The draft Specific Plan is substantially complete, staff may also continue to minimally refine and enhance it where necessary for content, clarity, and/or structure. In the meantime, staff will prepare a Director's Report for the Planning Commission's review and discussion of the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The review of the EIR is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on May 22, 2019. Shortly afterward, the EIR will be circulated for public review and comment. The public hearings for the EHNCP have not been scheduled at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the plan preparation is expected to be neutral as the City can recover costs of preparing the plan through a specific plan maintenance fee paid for by the future development of the area. Additionally, there will be further analysis of project impacts through a Fiscal Impact Analysis and Feasibility Study prepared as part of the overall EHNCP proposal. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP is being prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A -- Site Map I Exhibit B — May 16, 2018 City Council Staff Report Exhibit C — Draft Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) Specific Plan (under separate cover) D2—P9 9 Page 612 XHIBIT A 13 DATE: May 16, 2018 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Matthew Burris, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL_ (NESAP). RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to continue working with the community to develop a neighborhood and open space conservation plan for the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal area. BACKGROUND: The North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP) is a planning effort to investigate the feasibility of planning and annexing approximately 4,388 acres of land in the City's Sphere of Influence into the City's City Limits. Within the NESAP boundary, 300 acres are within the City and 4,088 acres are within the SO] and this area extends from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the National Forest boundary. Annexation of this land would extend the City's land use authority over the land, providing local control of the future development of that land through zoning and development standards. The catalyst for this planning process was San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) completing construction of various flood control facilities, resulting in approximately 1,212 of SBCFCD land becoming surplus land. Initial County Development Efforts In 2008, the County of San Bernardino initiated an effort to find a development partner for the development of the surplus 1,212 acres. The City distributed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for those developers who wished to be considered in a potential joint venture with the County of San Bernardino to entitle the approximate 1,200 acres. The County's land is partially located within the City and partially within the unincorporated area of the County, but within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). Seven proposals were submitted, one later withdrawn, to develop the project area. The County discontinued the potential joint venture in 2009 due to the economic downturn. As of right now, the County controls the zoning (and thus the uses and density) on approximately 900 acres of their land. Furthermore, the City's Etiwanda North Specific Plan anticipates development on the County's land following completion of the flood control facilities. If the County finds a development partner, the land could be developed and the City would have little ability to control the uses, the density, or the impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. The City would also not collect any property tax revenue to pay for the costs of services and maintenance that would come with new residents using our streets and parks. 2015 Review of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan In 2015, the City Council reaffirmed their goal of pre -zoning and annexing an approximately 4,100 -acre portion of the City's SOL If the land were annexed, it would give the City local control, the ability to achieve quality development, an ability to minimize impacts to the community, and ensure fiscal responsibility. tater that year, after a competitive bid process, the City contracted with Sargent Town Planning for the 4,388 - acre North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP) through the preparation of a Specific Plan, EI R, and appurtenant support studies and analysis. A decision was made early in the NESAP process to establish a new specific plan as the ENSP does not provide for conservation, does not zone the entire P C )C W R I T R D2 -Pg 11 a�Page 614 NESAP area, permits a significant amount of development where it should not occur, and does not adequately address development where it could occur. Between the summer of 2015 and the Fall of 2017, the consulting team and City worked to develop an initial plan proposal. The early design considerations proposed maintaining the northerly 3,176 acres as a "conservation priority area", and focused potential development in 1,212 acres of "development priority area" in the southerly portion. Early concepts for the development priority area included a mix of residential product types, a central commercial "town center" with neighborhood retail and restaurants, and public uses and amenities arranged in a compact and walkable land use pattern to encourage active living. Furthermore, as the habitat adjacent to the National Forest is less degraded, initial planning concepts were oriented around directing conservation mitigation easements into the northerly 3,176 acres. In essence, the development of the County's land would help ensure the preservation of the land between the City and the National Forest through the purchase of land or conservation easements. Staff worked closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to discuss the NESAP and elicit their comments regarding potential environmental constraints. Because of their comments and concerns, the NESAP area was evaluated for the presence of the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) and extensive trappings were conducted. No presence of the SBKR was found on-site. The NESAP area was also evaluated for the presence and quality of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFFSS), which determined that, due to the lack of sand and water flows across the site, the RAFFSS habitat is declining and will continue to degrade. However, the habitat concerns were given strong consideration and heavily influenced the resulting plan proposal. A restoration plan to improve RAFFSS habitat was considered in response to agency concerns. The initial design concept preserved/restored a large central portion of the development priority area, and provided for areas of residential and commercial development around what is essentially the perimeter with a large habitat area in the central core. 2017 Community Meetings In the fall of 2097, the City conducted a series of four Community Meetings held on October 26, November 2, November 9, and November 16, 2017. These Community Meetings were held at public school sites in general proximity to the NESAP area and over a month's time to provide the greatest opportunity for public participation. Approximately 6,500 notices were mailed to all property owners north of the 210 freeway and east of Haven Avenue. All Community Meetings were well attended, with the number of persons in attendance ranging from approximately 60 to 100 persons at each event. At those meetings, staff and the consultant team presented the initial design considerations for the conservation priority area and the development priority area, and some of the reasoning behind those considerations (i.e., USFWS and CDFW comments). Those in attendance raised questions and objections to the following: • Traffic (including existing conditions and potential impacts from future development), • The proposed number and location of residential units, multi -family development (e.g., condos, apartments, attached and SFR), • Trails and equestrian use, • Commercial development, Loss of view and open space, Increased property taxes, and • The desire to retain the NESAP area as it currently exists. During this time, the City also engaged the community through a survey and found: ■ 64.4% of respondents like the idea of conserving Upper Sphere Area (3,000 Acres); ■ 63.7% prioritize conserving foothills; ■ 84.7% report local control is important. Revised NESAP Outreach On December 20, 2017, following the four Community Meetings, the City Council commented on the NESAP. The City Council agreed with the City Manager's statement that comments from the public were heard, that staff would go back and look at the proposal, look at the feedback received and would further evaluate the density, housing types, and amount of commercial. Further development of the NESAP Page 352 D2—Pg 12 Page 615 concept and EIR were halted while staff evaluated the comments received. [n response to the community's concerns, staff initiated additional community outreach efforts to work more closely with the community in defining the future of the NESAP area. Hearing from the community that the initial proposal seemed too intense and that the community desired a greater opportunity for input, the original NESAP concept was shelved. l.n its place, staff brought a blank slate back to the community, summarizing that three paths are generally: Options: bo Nothing Annex, Keep as Open Space Annex with Community-based Pian Comnmunity creates plan for Outcome County develops land Community raises $$$, land responsible development before stays open space Countyfinds a development partner High: our options for None to low: little would Potential Community mitigating impacts are change, fire hazards and low to moderate: most impacts Impacts reduced without land use circulation issues would would be offset by mitigation control remain requirements High: we will have to payfor High: we will have to tax Neutral to slightly positive: the Potential Fiscal Impacts services for new neighbors ourselves or otherwise raise right mixof land uses will be without receivingtax revenue $171 Million to pay for and fiscal) neutral to slightly Y g y post#ive maintain [and Depends on how much money High: Our city has some of the Quality & Amenities Unknown is available highest quality development in So Cal During the spring of 2018, staff met with representatives of the home owner associations adjacent to the NESAP area to explain the project process in greater detail and provide the opportunity to answer any questions. The City conducted another survey to initiate the community workshops and found: 0 70.9% prefer local control and 0 58.9% support some level of development under City zoning. The City then held two Community Workshops on March 22 and April 19, 2018 to work with the community on developing the direction for the NESAP area. These Community Workshops were held at the Central Park Rancho Cucamonga Hall with the intent to provide the greatest opportunity for public participation. Approximately 9,700 notices were mailed to all property owners north of the 210 freeway and east of Archibald Avenue. Additionally, understanding the future of NESAP is a city-wide concern, staff -conducted supplemented outreach activities using email and social media. An additional 20,508 engagements occurred over the course of 5 Facebook Live events alone. Both Community Workshops were well attended with approximately 100 persons in attendance at the first meeting and approximately 230 persons at the second. At the March 22, 2018 Community Workshop, participants worked in groups of 6 to 8 participants each to prioritize community objectives for the NESAP area. The first activity asked participants to discuss and identify their top -5 priorities for the planning of the area. The top five priorities identified that evening were: 1) Local Control, 2) Avoid New Property Taxes, 3) Development Compatibility, 4) Preserve Open Space and View Corridors (tied). The second activity asked participants to design a conceptual land use plan for the NESAP area considering their responses from the first activity. Participants were provided a map of the area and various stickers representing different land uses (i.e., housing of various types and densities, neighborhood serving commercial, and parks and open space. As a result, participants prepared 16 maps: • 1 recommended no annexation allowing development under the County, • 1 recommended annexing and keeping the land as open space, and Paga 353 D2—Pg 13 Page 616 • 14 proposed varying ranges and mixes of residential development, neighborhood commercial uses, trails, equestrian facilities, and extending major streets (i.e., Wilson Avenue, Milliken Avenue, and Rochester Avenue). Between April 5 and April 12, 2018, the City conducted a series of 9 community Pop -Up events and asked participants to complete a survey regarding the NESAP that served as a "Virtual Workshop." A total of 262 people completed the survey, which contained questions regarding: • the Annexation Proposal, • Neighborhood Development, • Parks, Open Space, and Trails, • Streets, Traffic and Circulation, • Annexation Funding. General comments indicated support for the local control and facilitating local control through low -intensity development, with large lot single-family homes, parkland, open space trails and habitat conservation, agreement with the need to connect and complete existing streets, and. roughly equal support and opposition for conserving the area. At the April 19, 2018, Community Workshop participants seated around tables with 6 to 8 participants each to answer three questions about the type and nature of development that might make sense (focused on Open Space Types, Neighborhood Types, and Neighborhood Amenities) to solicit refinements to the community priorities and preferences for the NESAP area expressed in the previous Community Workshop. During that workshop, the City received wide-ranging feedback on the types of open spaces, housing, and amenities that might be appropriate for the NESAP area. Generally, the input coalesced around the idea of creating high-quality, low intensity neighborhoods that continue the equestrian trail network and are rural in character. During this workshop, the idea of finding a mechanism for purchasing and preserving this land was again raised by some community members. Open Space Survey Since the original proposal was unveiled last fall, staff have received repeated input about the possibility of the community self -taxing themselves to raise money and buy some or all of the NESAP lands for preservation as open space..Avoiding new taxes has been an operating principle from the beginning of this work effort and this principal was confirmed in the fall meetings, the March workshop, and the Virtual Workshop. However, given the repeated request to look at this option from some community members, staff initiated a FlashVote survey to better understand. whether this may be an initiative the community would support. Staff estimated the costs for acquisition of the land, installation of basic infrastructure as would be required under the General Plan, such as finishing trail connections and Wilson Avenue, and providing for the long- term maintenance of the plan. For the lower 1,212 acres, costs were estimated to be $129 million. For the remainder of the un -conserved acreage of the conservation priority area, costs were estimated at an additional $42 million.. Between April 30 and May 2, 2018, the City conducted a FlashVote 'to obtain information regarding community support for purchasing land within the NESAP using funds from a new tax. A total of 601 participants completed the vote, 486 identified themselves as local residents. Approximately 51.2 percent did not support a new tax to purchase the area and only 33.7% supported purchasing the land through a new tax. ANALYSIS: There are three options available to the City: 1. Discontinue the annexation proposal. The NESAP area would stay under County jurisdiction and any development proposals would be subject to County entitlement processing and County development standards. The City would not be able to impose its Development Impact Fees to construct new infrastructure needed to serve the new population nor collect taxes to operated and maintain its roads and parks that would be impacted by the population living in these new neighborhoods. 2. Annex the area and keep as Open Space. To respect property rights and not put the City at undue risk, conserving the area as open space would require the land be purchased specifically for Page 354 D2—Pg 14 Page 617 open space. There is virtually no grant money available for the purchase of land of this scale and quality. The only feasible method identified thus far would be for the City to purchase the land. However, the City does not have the funds to purchase this land and the money would have to be raised by a local initiative. Under this option, the City would purchase the NESAP area, funded through a bond measure (such as a Mello -Roos) to be repaid through a new parcel tax. Staff has evaluated three options, which reference the Lower Sphere Area (the 1,212 acres north of Los Osos High School) and the remaining 3,176 acres generally north of the current City boundary (Upper Sphere Area). These options include the following and would distribute the parcel tax citywide: • Buy and conserve the Lower Sphere Area for approximately $129,000,000, paid for by an additional annual tax of $260 per parcel over 20 years • Buy and conserve the Upper Sphere Area for approximately $42,000,000, paid for by an additional annual tax of $95 per parcel ;171,000,000, Buy and conserve both the Lower and Upper Sphere Areas for approximately paid for by an additional annual tax of $355 per parcel 3. Annex the NESAP with a Community -Based Plan. The third option would entail the continued preparation of a community-based plan that would allow enough development to provide for the desired amenities, such as trails and parks, and open space conservation. This option would utilize feedback we have from all community meetings and continued community engagement. Of the three broad options available, discontinuation of Annexation is the least supported by the community. Throughout the community outreach process, via both surveys and workshops, the community has repeated that local control is of the upmost importance: • In the October FlashVote, 84.7% respondents supported local control • In the March FlashVote, 70.9% reported local control In the March 22 Community Workshop, local control was the top community priority and all but one of the working groups recommended plans for local control • In the April Virtual Workshop, the top priority for NESAP was again local control Thus, we believe Option 1, in which the City does not continue the effort would not be preferred by the community. Option 2, annexing the area and keeping it as open space, also appears to be a less viable option. Throughout the process, several community members have stated this option is the preferred option and the community would be willing to self -tax to raise the funds.'The City does not have the funds to purchase the land from the County or other private land owners in the NESAP area. Additionally, staff has not been able to identify any outside funding sources that would facilitate the purchase of this land. This leaves the suggested path of passing a new bond measure that would be repaid through a parcel tax, but this option does not appear to have enough community support to actually pass a new bond measure: • "Avoid new property taxes" was the second most important priority identified at the first workshop and third most important priority identified through the Virtual Workshop • Only 47.7% of respondents to the Virtual Workshop agreed that the City should investigate exploring the possibility of a new parcel tax to acquire the lower 1,212 acres However, given the repeated requests for this option, staff tested this idea via FlashVote to determine how much support there might be for a new tax to fund acquisition of the land. Only 33.7% of respondent were in favor of passing bond measure and parcel tax to purchase the land. Given this input from the community, staff recommends moving forward with Option 3: Annex the NESAP area with a community-based plan for new neighborhoods and open space conservation. Through the community outreach activities this past spring, staff has heard several objectives repeatedly from the community: • Local control • High quality • Low -intensity • Rural character D2—Pg 15 Page 355 Page 618 • Continue the Equestrian Overlay • New trails that connect to existing trails and open space • Safe and walkable streets • Amenity rich • Preserves open space • Does not result in new taxes or costs for existing residents As such, staff recommends continuing to work with the community to prepare a plan for the NESAP area based on this vision. Under this option, staff envisions working with the community over the course of the next several months to explore and refine the vision for open space and trails in concert with the Equestrian Overlay, high-quality low -intensity neighborhoods, and habitat conservation. This would include the development of a Specific Plan and El R as a mechanism for facilitating local control through annexation. The time necessary to complete the NESAP will follow a path of further community engagement, Specific Plan and EIR preparation, circulation of the project EIR, Planning Commission consideration and City Council consideration, and finally submitting the annexation application to LAFCO. Staff anticipates scheduling the NESAP for City Council consideration in the first or second quarter of 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the plan preparation is expected to be neutral as the City can recover costs of preparing the plan through a specific plan maintenance fee paid for by the future developer of the area. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: By 2018, review the City's long-term objectives for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere area and identify development, mitigation, preservation and annexation potential. City Manager's Office and Community Development (prior year Council Goal). ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Community Workshop #1 ResLdts Attachment 2 - Virtual Workshop Results Attachment 3 - Community Workshop #2 Results Attachment 4 - October F1ashVote Results Attachment 5 - March FlashVote Results Attachment 6 - Open Space Survey Results AttachiTient 7 - Spring 20" Media Coverage Page 356 D2—Pg 16 Page 619 R'1r 1%1` fm T' Am %0 t v HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 7:OOpm Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo X Vice Chairman Wimberly X� Commissioner Dopp _X Commissioner Munoz X Commissioner Oaxaca X� Additional Staff Present. Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney, Jennifer Nakamura; Associate Planner, Vince Acuna, Associate Planner,- Albert Espinoza, Assistant City Engineer, Valerie Victorino, Executive Assistant.- Mike ssistant;Mike Smith_ Senior Planner, Matt Bums, Deputy City Manager/Economic & Community Development; Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, Communications and Marketing Officer, City Manager's Office, B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications. Gwyn Frost and Luana Hernandez spoke to the Historical Preservation Commission to note all of the historical landmarks within each of the Council Districts District 4 this evening included the following landmarks_ Etiwanda Railway Station (Depot), Chaffey Isle House George Edgar Frost House and Norton Fisher House. Page 1 of 9 C1—Pg1 Page 620 i -%r- r-%1 L. &-r, ALU vu HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Ms. Hernandez added that the current Grapevine Community Services Recreation Guide features many of the historic areas and buildings within the City on the cover. She added that she would like a new brochure on the City Historic Landmarks to be published and placed in hotels and local businesses, Deborah Allen, with the City Manager's Office, invited alt the Commissioners to the Health Equity Summit that the City is sponsoring on May 7t" at Central Park_ Chairman Guglielmo closed public communications. C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. Cl- Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2019 Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly.° carried 5-0-0 to adopt the minutes. D. DIRECTOR'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chairman may open the meeting for public input. D1. DIRECTORS REPORT OF THE CITY'S 6 -MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2018-00471 — GOLDEN PROPERTY LLC FOR LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS, LLC — at an existing restaurant located within the Industrial Park (IP) District, Industrial Commercial Overlay located at 11560 4th Street; APN; 0229-411-04. Vince Acuna, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and Power Point presentation (copy on file). No public comments. Page 2 of 9 Cl— Pg2 Page 621 APRIL 24, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRiVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Chairman Guglielmo asked if they needed to return again in another 6 months. Mr. Acuna stated that it was not required and that they only were only required to return back to the Commission once for review. Report was received and tiled_ D2. REVIEW OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION SPECIFIC PLAN (EHNCP) — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager, started the Power Point presentation (copy on file) with the history of the plan. Jennifer Camacho-Curtis spoke regarding the surveys that have been conducted and community outreach. Mr. Burris continued with the power point explaining the plan including the six Guiding Principles, Albert Espinoza stated that the street network will be using regular streets but will also have roundabouts to keep the rural feel to the project_ Mike Smith talked about the neighborhood concept with the sizes of the homes within each neighborhood. Anthony, a resident in the area, noted previous attempts of land use regulation by government entities, Don Michevich, a local owner, noted changes in this presentation from the community outreach events. He had concems about traffic. Mark Gibboney, a resident, stated that he just wanted conservation with no commercial involvement, Karen Ruby, living in Deer Creek Estates, is concerned about on -street parking and requesting no commercial development. Page 3 of 9 C1-- Pg3 Page 622 11rRfL Aw-ri GV 1 q7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CiVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Beau Kimberly, a resident, is concerned about property and development rights. Wants circulation direction for the northern portion of the land_ Kevin Hernandez, an adjacent property owner had concern that many do not know what is happening, He expressed additional concern about mixed use and elevations. Mark Harris; Deer Creek resident. wants to ensure the open space and his view. Commissioner Munoz thanked all who attended with their opinions. He encouraged everyone to work with staff in regard to exact questions they might have. He stated that outreach over the last 2 years gave the public significant chances to express their opinions He noted that the City has community-based vision in regard to this excess land from the County of San Bernardino, He noted that this complete and comprehensive reflective plan to be used as a guide for all future development and that he City has an opportunity to improve this area. Commissioner Wimberly thanked staff and residents and concurred with Commissioner Munoz. Commissioner Oaxaca also thanked staff and residents He stated that this was an ongoing process for the community to provide input on this plan. Concerns of the property owners in the northern area should be taken into account. He added that additional opportunities will continue for input including the EiR in the future. Conservation is a major part of this plan but it is not free and could deteriorate without protection. Commissioner Dopp thanked everyone in attendance and City staff for the detailed report. He noted that it is the obligation of the residents to become informed and be involved. The conservation area preservation is important. He asked staff to further explain the TDR process He also asked about the management of the plan in the next 15-20-30 years. Mr, Bums noted that we have additional experts present to answer those questions. Commissioner Dopp noted that there is demand for some commercial development, including a grocery store, north of the 210 freeway. He noted that this plan has incorporated a unique sense of place. Chairman Guglielmo would like the enhancement of the trails and access areas including parking for them_ Page 4 of 9 Cl— Pg4 Page 623 r-%rnIL. A6-ri A6 %F I vF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Mr. Burris responded to several questions including that multi family and mixed use are different uses and gave their descriptions. He noted the extent of the public outreach. The land use regarding the adjoining the Deer Creek residential area was also discussed. John Baucke with New Urban Realty Advisors, spoke explaining the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Mr. Burris stated that tentatively the next meeting will be on May 22, 2019 for the draft EIR. After public communication was heard, the plan was received and filed. Chairman Guglielmo called a recess of the meeting at 9:33pm_ Chairman Guglielmo reconvened the meeting at 9-39pm. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. E1. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2018-00605, Planned Community Amendment DRC2019-00232, Master Plan Amendment DRC2019-00231, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2019-00230 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — A request to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code, the Victoria Community Plan, the Town Square Master Plan, the Victoria Arbors Master Plan, the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to amend requirements and standards for the development of Hotels. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action, CONTINUED FROM APRIL 10, 2019, Page 5 of 9 Cl— Pg5 Page 624 r%rF%EL- LOT, Lv 1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and Power Point presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Oaxaca thanked staff for the additional information and continuing to work with the hotel community. Commissioner Dopp asked about the safety standards to prevent possible criminal activity_ Ms. Nakamura stated that the overall design is compatible with safety standards from the police department. Commissioner Dopp asked for clarification of the amenities that the City would require. Ms_ Nakamura has started an expanded list of amenities and will include them in the final ordinance. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public hearing. Brandon Feighner with CBRE Hotels; thanked the Commission for coming back with this meeting. He indicated most of the requirements of the ordinance should already be in place. Don Cape with Theraldsen Hospitality, stated that he had concems about the staff report details - Richard Garcia, Director of Operations with Theraldsen Hospitality, stated that they had a downturn in bed occupancies this winter which affected the industry due to rain and the government shutdown. Gary Theraldsen, with Theraldsen Hotels, stated that they build quality hotels that last 40 to 50 years Chairman Guglielmo closed the public hearing_ Commissioner Munoz noted that there was not much different and still holds the position to approve the recommendation with Commissioner Wimberly concurring. Commissioner Oaxaca stated that the proposal was necessary and was glad to hear that confirmation from the hotel industry stated by those present. Page 6 of 9 Cl- Pg6 Page 625 !-►r E11 L L -r I L V 1 .7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRiVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Ms. Nakamura stated that the primary goal is a good balance within the City with many choices, Commissioner Oaxaca stated that there are differences in amenities within hotels. Ms. Nakamura stated that the option is available that would have staff provide an amended list of amenities and reduce maximum occupancy from 75 to 72 percent before going before the City Council, Commissioner Dopp noted that demand and supply of land availability for hotels is limited, Extended Stay Plus would be acceptable and to continue to push for better design and not have cookie cutter buildings. Chairman Guglielmo thanked staff for the enhanced report and for the Theraldsen team here tonight. Ms. Nakamura noted the options added with modifying the minimum occupancy rate and permiting Extended Stay Hotels in all zones with staff and Planning Commission review required and including required amenities. Mr. Ghirelll clarified the prohibition on Extended Stay Hotels was removed and would include additional required amenities. Minor typo in the resolution was noted and will be corrected. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Oaxaca; carried 5-0-0 as amended. F. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES: None COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: None Page 7 of 9 C1— Pg7 Page 626 APRIL 24, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA G. ADJOURNMENT 10:32pm I, Valerie Victorino, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 18, 2019 seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750, Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enab'e the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available For the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should retrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the Page 8 of 9 Cl— PgB Page 627 STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager INITIATED BY: Elisa C. Cox, Interim Planning Director Mike Smith, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DIRECTORS REPORT - INTRODUCTION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and discuss the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Specific Plan (hereafter referred to as the "Specific Plan"). PROJECT BACKGROUND: At the April 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented to the Commission a Director's Report regarding the Specific Plan. Staff provided background on the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, a summary of the various components of the Specific Plan, and the current status of the City's processing of it. The Commission reviewed and discussed the draft Specific Plan document, which was provided to them prior to the meeting for their review. They also asked staff questions and requested clarification on certain topics. Although the presentation was a Director's Report and not a public hearing, they also received comments from the public. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Exhibits A and B, respectively). ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared by the City's environmental consultant to analyze the potential environmental effects of the Specific Plan. The purpose of an EIR is to inform the public about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public participation. The contents of the EIR becomes a planning tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best land use for the project site. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan, as well as identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. All environmental categories are being evaluated in the Draft EIR. The intent of this EIR is to evaluate the broad -scale impacts of the Specific Plan. Any future proposed projects within the D1—Pg 1 Page 628 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 2019 Page 2 EHNCP Specific Plan will be reviewed on their own merit A summary of all of the project -related impacts and the recommended mitigation measures will be provided in the Final EIR (FEIR). On April 29, 2019, the Draft EIR for the EHNCP Specific Plan was released for the 45 -day review period, which will end on June 14, 2019. The following summarizes key points in the environmental review process: A. Notice of Preparation: A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental impact Report was prepared and circulated on December 4, 2018 to the State Clearinghouse, and to public agencies that have discretionary approval power over the project, i.e. "Responsible Agencies" and Tribal Governments. Also, the NOP was made available for review at the Archibald and Paul A. Biane Libraries, at City Hall, and on the City's website, Per State law, the comment period ended 49 days after the date of circulation on January 21, 2019, The NOP serves as public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. The City received comments from eight public agencies, two organizations, two native American tribes, and 43 individual members of the community. The NOP and the comments that were received are contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Agencies or interested persons, whether they responded during the public review period of the NOP or not, will have an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the public review period or during public hearings to be conducted by the City on the Draft EIR and the Specific Plan. B. Public Scoping Meeting: The City conducted a noticed Public Scoping meeting during a Planning Commission meeting on December 12, 2018. The notice for this scoping meeting appeared in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notification was provided in various social media platforms_ The intent of the Public Scoping Meeting was to receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the EIR as it relates to the project and environment, Following a brief explanation of the environmental review process, comments were received from the public and the Commission. Public comments included opposition to the development of the area, preferring to keep the land as a conservation area; opposition due to a perceived loss of property value for the northern portion of the project site. concern with the location of the proposed school, potential for fire and flood events; increased traffic and noise, and relocation of the fire station. The public and the Commission requested that a broad spectrum of potential alternatives to the project be considered and analyzed in the EIR and that an economic analysis of the project, and its alternatives, be conducted. C. Draft EIR Preparation and Circulation: The Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2017091027) were prepared and distributed to all Responsible and Trustee agencies, and individuals who had expressed interest in the project and/or had previously requested copies, D1—Pg 2 Page 629 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 2019 Page 3 The NOA was also provided on the City's webpage for the project, on the City's "eNewsletter' (which has 18,000 subscribers), and an email was sent to approximately 1,200 individuals who subscribe to the EHNCP topic. The NOA was also advertised in various social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Nextdoor. The 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR began on April 29, 2019 and will expire on June 14, 2019. During the public review period, the Draft EIR and technical appendices are available for review at: a. The Archibald Library - 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; b. The Paul A. Biane Library -12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739: c. The Planning Information and Services Counter at City Hall - 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; and d. www.citvofrc.usletiwandaheights Written responses (Response to Comments (RTC)) to all significant environmental issues raised will be prepared and made available in the Final EIR (FEIR). D. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program—(MMRP): In compliance with CEQA, monitoring program will be prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure. E. Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations: If significant unavoidable environmental impacts result with a project, the City must balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project, if the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, the City may adopt a statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Section 21081. A statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the project. A full description of the significant impacts resulting from the proposed project and those mitigation measures being recommended to reduce the level of significance for each impact will be shown in the Facts, Findings, and, if necessary, Statement of Overriding Considerations. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the plan preparation is expected to be neutral as the City can recover costs of preparing the plan through a specific plan maintenance fee paid for by the future development of the area. Additionally, there will be further analysis of project impacts through a Fiscal Impact Analysis and Feasibility Study prepared as part of the overall EHNCP proposal. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP is being prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. D1—Pg 3 Page 630 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA May 22, 2019 Page 4 EXHIBITS. Exhibit A - April 24, 2019 Planning Commission Director's Report Exhibit B - April 24, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes (refer to pages 3 through 5) Exhibit C - Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report Exhibit D - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) Specific Plan (under separate cover) D1—Pg 4 Page 631 DATE: April 24, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Candyce Burnett, City Planner INITIATED BY: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager Elisa Cox, Deputy City Manager Candyce Burnett, City Planner Mike Smith, Senior Planner TITLE DIRECTOR'S REPORT - REVIEW OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and discuss the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Pian Specific Plan. THE CITY'S VISION The City's Vision emerged from a planning process that included extensive analyses, a thorough review of the goals and policies described in the General Plan, directions from City Council, and, most importantly, the participation and input from the overall community. This vision is to maintain and conserve large areas of rural and natural open space in the northern part of what is referred to as the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI). This large area of rural and natural open space will be fiscally supported by, and in balance with, high quality residential neighborhood development in the southern part of the SOI that is already surrounded by existing residential neighborhoods. This Specific Plan was developed from the above -noted input to help guide and develop the guiding principles that set the foundation of "the Plan They balance the primary goal to conserve the large quantities of natural open space in the northern area of the Plan with high-quality neighborhoods in the southerly areas of the Plan where there are existing neighborhoods. Guiding Principles include local control, open space conservation, active healthy living, fiscal responsibility, public safety, and a unique sense of place. BACKGROUND — ANNEXATION PROPOSALS In 2007, the County of San Bernardino (the County) informed the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) intended to sell up to 1,070 acres of a surplus property on the northern edge of the City. The area had an overall area of 1,212 acres that had previously been needed for flood control purposes. In 2008, the City offered to assist the County and distributed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for developers who wished to be considered for a potential joint venture with the County to entitle the land partially located within EXHIBIT A D1—lag 5 Page 632 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 2 the City Limits and partially within the SOI, i.e. the unincorporated area of the County. However, the County discontinued the potential joint venture in 2009 due to the economic downturn that occurred around that time period. City leadership recognized that development on the County's land would occur in the future and wanted to be prepared for the eventual sale of this surplus property by the County. Therefore, in January 2015, the City Council reaffirmed the goal of pre -zoning and annexation the 4,088 -acre portion of the City's SOI. This land is currently regulated by the County's zoning and, therefore, allowed residential and commercial development that would be subject to the County's, and not the City's, development standards. In May 2015, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Sargent Town Planning (STP) to prepare the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP). Between the summer of 2015 and the fall of 2017, the City developed an initial plan for the 4,388 - acre NESAP area. This initial plan included maintaining the northerly 3,176 acres as a Conservation Priority Area (CPA) and focused potential development in the 1,212 -acre Development Priority Area (DPA) in the southerly portion. BACKGROUND -- COMMUNITY OUTREACH During the fall of 2017. the City conducted a series of four Community Meetings that were held during a month-long period to provide the public information on the development of the NESAP. It became clear in these meetings that the community wanted to be more involved and to provide more input on the development of the project area. On December 20, 2017, after reviewing the pian to -date and the public's comments, the City Council directed Staff to go back and engage the community to evaluate whether or not to continue the project, and if the recommendation is to continue the project, to revise the density of the project, i.e. the number of dwelling units per acre; the type and character of the residential component of the project; and amount of commercial floor area within the project. Staff paused further development of the NESAP and EIR and embarked on extensive public engagement to grapple with these issues. On May 16, 2018, after extensive outreach (discussed below), the City Council directed Staff to work with the community to develop a community-based plan. Directions from the City Council included 1) incorporating large -lot residential development with a "banded" component that would match adjacent residential densities, 2) incorporating local and Community Trails for consistency with the Equestrian Overlay (as described in the General Plan, Figure LU -2 - Land Use), 3) incorporating a traffic circulation component that connects existing streets (i.e., Wilson Avenue, Milliken Avenue, and Rochester Avenue) and is compatible with the surrounding community; 4) limiting commercial uses; and 5) incorporating any necessary public facilities (e.g. a school and parks). At this time the City also established a name for the future Specific Plan: "Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan" (EHNCP). The name reflects the City's intent to balance the community priorities for conservation in the rural northern portion of the planning area and appropriate development in the southern neighborhood area. After the May 16, 2018 meeting, Staff continued the community engagement process, received and evaluated the community's input, and began to draft the plan, D1—Pg 6 Page 633 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 3 PROJECT STATUS A. Community Outreach: In the fall of 2017, the City conducted four community meetings to solicit comments from interested individuals and community groups on the initial planning concepts. Participants had many questions and concerns about the process, the preliminary concept, including the number and type of residential units proposed, particularly multi -family units, and the amount and type of commercial uses. In addition, there were concerns about fire safety and habitat associated with the configuration of open space in the heart of the neighborhood. Due to the level of concern, the City set aside the preliminary concept and conducted further outreach to better understand the priorities of the Rancho Cucamonga community. During early 2018, the City gathered further input through small group and large community meetings along with online and paper surveys to determine the next steps. These additional community meetings and surveys confirmed that 1) local control of this area was preferred by the community, and 2) some level of development under City zoning standards was acceptable. Respondents overwhelmingly supported local control through annexation and agreed that planning a new neighborhood would be the preferred method of providing local control to set the standard for high-quality development and cover the cost of habitat conservation. On May 16, 2018, the City Council directed staff to continue working with the community on a plan for neighborhoods and conservation in the northeastern area of the City (Exhibit B). B. Community Engagement Summer 2018: In the Summer of 2018, after receiving direction from the City Council to create a community-based plan, the City hosted a community-based planning process to learn more about priorities and how to best balance them. The extensive community engagement process included small group meetings, pop-up events, multiple online surveys, and a large, well -attended public open house where attendees provided feedback on an initial concept plan. The EHNCP was developed in response to the community's feedback received during this period. The following highlights the engagement efforts: • July, August, and September 2018 — Nine (9) pop-up outreach events were held with over 800 members of the community engaged. At each pop-up, participants were provided an opportunity for questions and answers, informational materials, Dot Survey, and children participated in a drawing exercise; • August 21-29, 2018 — Small group meetings were held with four community groups including Campeones para is Comunidad (Community Champions), Healthy Rancho Cucamonga Steering Committee, Healthy RC Youth Leaders, and a small group meeting with a home owners association (HOA) that included residents who live in a residential area located to the west of the project area; September 21, 2018 — An open house was held at the Cultural Center court yard. The open house attracted approximately 200 people and was organized around five (5) stations spotlighting the main planning topics; and Dl—Pg 7 Page 634 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 4 October 2018 - February 2019 — Staff engaged over 200,000 digital impressions and reached nearly 89,000 through various digital survey tools such as Facebook LIVE, Facebook posts, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor, videos, and eNews. C. General Plan: As noted previously, the majority of the project area is designated as Flood Control/Public Utilities, Conservation, Hillside Residential, and Open Space per the General Plan. Figure LU -2 - Land Use. With the exception of a 33 -acre parcel located south of Banyan Avenue and west of the Deer Creek flood control channel, the majority of the proposed Neighborhood Priority Area (NPA) is currently designated as Flood Control/Utility Corridor. An amendment to the General Plan is required to change the land use designations within the NPA (related file: General Pian Amendment DRC2015-00749). The remaining 3,532 acres of the project area is within the Rural/Conservation Area (RCA) and the EHNCP would rezone this area consistent with the existing Open Space Land Use designations in the General Plan. Other minor clarifying amendments will be required, including a new text amendment to allow the clustering of homes within the RCA. The amendment to the General Plan will be included with the project for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council at a subsequent public hearing. D. Etiwanda North Specific Plan: Most of the project area (approximately 3,494 acres) is within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). This Specific Plan was adopted in April 1992. The project area that is located between the northward "extension" of Milliken Avenue and the existing neighborhoods on the project area's western boundary, are outside the boundary of the ENSP and would, therefore, be regulated by the Development Code (if they were within the City's boundaries). The ENSP was adopted to establish pre -zoning and development standards for the Etiwanda area of the Sphere of Influence (SOI). Doing this was an effort to ensure that when development of properties within the ENSP was proposed, such development would follow the City's standards and, therefore, be in conformance with the pre - zoning document and be consistent with the goals of annexation. However, there are properties within the ENSP that were developed prior to this proposed annexation project and, therefore, were not designed to the standards described in the ENSP. The ENSP permits a significant amount of residential development in the proposed Conservation Priority Area (CPA) and permits a limited amount of residential development in the proposed Development Priority Area (DPA) while maintaining a substantial portion of this area as Flood Control. The ENSP also established two "floating", i.e. approximate, locations for commercial uses. The size and scope of such development would be determined based on a market analysis of the number of households that would support commercial uses. During the preparation of the annexation, it was determined that a new specific plan was necessary as the ENSP does not provide for conservation, does not `pre -zone" the entire project area, permits a significant amount of development where it should not occur, and does not adequately address development where it could occur. Thus, the ENSP needs to be amended to remove the EHNCP from that Specific Plan (related file: Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750). E. Previous Proiect - NESAP= The 2017 proposal, the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project, or NESAP, was shelved in the winter of 2018 when the City Council directed staff to return to the drawing board and work with the community to determine a vision for the planning area. Dl—Pg 8 Page 635 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 5 F. The Current Project - EHNCP: As directed by the City Council, the EHNCP was developed with direct input from the community to help guide and develop the guiding principles that set the foundation of "the Plan". The Community Vision and Guiding Principles were developed from community input, City Council direction, and policies of the General Plan. They balance the primary goal to conserve the large quantities of natural open space in the northern area of the plan with high-quality neighborhoods in the southerly areas of the Plan where they would complement the existing neighborhoods. Guiding Principles included local control, open space conservation, active healthy living, fiscal responsibility, public safety, and a unique sense of place. Based on the Vision and Guiding Principles site studies were explored that in - turned informed the drafting of the Development Standards in the EHNCP. The plan establishes two areas: The Rural/C_ onservation Area (RCA): The primary focal components of this area are: conserving as much open space land as feasible; generating conservation funding; prioritizing the conservation of lands adjacent to the existing North Etiwanda Preserve; permitting limited quantities of rural housing; extending open space corridors and trails from foothill open space down into the neighborhoods; and providing a variety of parks, greenspaces, and playfields adjacent to every neighborhood. The City has had a long-standing vision for the foothills between the City boundary up to the National Forest line and through the implementation of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, set forth specific Open Space Land Use designations devoted to the preservation of the natural resources and open space opportunities. The vision of the EHNCP builds on those Goals and Policies to enhance the efforts of conservation through Chapter 3 - Conservation Plan of the Specific Pian that identifies the value of the biological setting, establishes conservation methods including establishing a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program (Section 7.4, page 336), while allowing for appropriate limited rural development on privately owned property. The Rural/Conservation Area's (RCA) primary focus is centered around these conservation efforts. The key strategies in the plan include the continued efforts to conserve additional land and restoration of habitat. This can be achieved through developer incentives in the Neighborhood Area to underwrite conservation as mitigation to offset impacts of that development. Additionally, this can be accomplished with property owner incentives within the RCA through the TDR to the Neighborhood Area, and then setting aside their property for additional mitigation and conservation. Although there are large areas of the RCA that are currently considered Open Space or Conservation, not all properties are actively managed and do not have permanent or adequate funding to continue to maintain and manage the habitat. The plan sets clear conservation objectives for conservation management with appropriate implementation measures. The Plan also creates a set of design and development standards (Section 5.9 - Rural Development Standards, page 236) that will regulate development in the RCA. All new development will be required to comply with the regulation in the Rural Development Standards to maintain the rural feeling of the area including very low density, large lots, minimally improved streets and infrastructure as well as specific design elements (e.g. minimal lighting, massing, and location on the site). Development in the RCA is regulated D1—Pg 9 Page 636 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 6 so as to not impact the natural terrain and habitat or conservation properties while taking into consideration potential site constraints, natural hazards, and limited services. As discussed above, the primary focus of the Plan is to maximize open space and conservation. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) strategy would encourage the preservation of land within the RCA and give priority to land adjacent to the North Etiwanda Preserve to provide larger contiguous conservation areas and habitat linkages without placing new tax burdens on existing residents. As outlined in Section 1.5 Guiding Principles (Topic #4 - Fiscal Responsibility, page 29) the objectives for conservation of the RCA was that new development must make preservation of natural landscapes feasible and fiscally self-sustaining. The plan has been developed with this in mind to enable enough development in the Neighborhood Area of new residential units, sale tax generating retail and restaurants, and through the process of transferring development rights. The process of transferring development rights would allow for a privately -owned property in the RCA to transfer the residential density to the Neighborhood Area voluntarily in exchange for financial or other negotiated compensation. The number of residential units would be determined on the maximum density allowed based on the regulating zone, slope, and other environmental constraints. When a parcel is abutting another permanently preserved property (e -g. the North Etiwanda Preserve), a multiplier could be applied to incentivize the transfer of density from the RCA. The multiplier would be determined by the City or a qualified entity established by the City. The total density allowed for a Neighborhood Area phase/subarea could be allowed to exceed the total as shown in Table 7.3 (below) but the Plan's total density would not be allowed to exceed the maximum permitted density. TABLE 7.3 PHASING SUMMARY PHASE 1 2 3 4 5 Dwelling 117 127 154 567 478 459 281 Units Commercial Square Feet 148,569 18,277 Parks Acres 2 25 3.5 8 j5 93 7.5 8.5 Acres 3.3 50 155 117 90 87 NA Total RCA Total GRAND TOTAL 15 702 2.900 100 - 13,154 180,000 - 4.5 30 11 85.15 46 49 201 828 3,000 180,000 85-15 3,565 4,393 The Neighborhood Area. The primary components of this area are: neighborhoods with beautiful walkable streets; very large lot equestrian homes; homes in walkable neighborhoods; neighborhoods geared toward older individuals; neighborhoods suited to, and attainable by, families; neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants; neighborhoods that include smaller detached and attached single-family homes; and homes that reflect the heritage of Etiwanda and Alta Loma. To ensure this, the Pian is divided into "Regulating Zones". For each zone there are development standards that will regulate development in the Neighborhood Area. These D1—Pg 10 Page 637 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 7 standards will be applied to each project through the "Precise Neighborhood Plan" process (Section 7.7, page 344). The standards for each regulating zone are calibrated to generate the physical form and character in accordance with the Vision described in Chapter 4. They will regulate 1) allowed building types (Table 5.4A, page 130), 2) primary and secondary setback requirements (Table 5.413, page 130); and 3) allowed uses (Appendix 1, page 1-1). Appendix 1 will be incorporated into the Development Code (related file: Municipal Code Amendment DRC2019-00288). The regulating zones follow a spectrum that is sensitive to the existing context of Rancho Cucamonga. The regulating zones are described as follows (excerpted from the Plan): 1. Neighborhood Estate (NE) Regulating Zone: The Neighborhood Estate regulating zone is for large homes on large lots, with large setbacks and yards, and expansive views of the mountains to the north and/or valley to the south. A semi -rural, equestrian design character is envisioned to provide for opportunities for equestrian living, with curbless streets that lead directly to multipurpose trails to the foothills; 2. Neighborhood General 1 (NG -1) Regulating Zone: This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached homes on a range of lot sizes, knitted together by a connective network of landscaped pedestrian -oriented streets, parks, and trails. Well -landscaped front yards and private rear and side yard areas for family activities surround each home; 3. Neighborhood General 2 (NG -2) Regulating Zone: This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached and attached homes, knitted together by a network of pedestrian -oriented streets and Paseos, and in proximity to neighborhood parks or squares for family; and 4. Shops & Restaurants (SR) Regulating Zone: This two -block area centered on the intersection of Wilson and Rochester Avenues has a classic Southern California small- town "Main Street" character with a distinctly rural twist. Neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants have large shopfronts and wide sidewalks for strolling, dining, and visiting. Parking is provided on the street and in rear parking lots that are accessed by courts and Paseos. The Neighborhood Area is divided into nine (9) sub -areas (Figure 5.3 — Sub -Area Regulating Plan, page 121). The purpose of this is to 1) phase development and 2) ensure the intended distribution of building types. To provide long-term flexibility in the layout and design of each development proposal, the Regulating Plan is conceptual and subject to refinement through the Precise Neighborhood Plan process. The first developer in each sub -area is responsible for securing approval of a Precise Neighborhood Plan through the process described in the Plan (Section 7.7 —Authority, Amendments, and Approvals, page 344). Following the City staffs review of a proposed Precise Neighborhood Plan to verify consistency with the Plan, it will be forwarded for review and action by the Planning Commission. If approved, it will be recorded as a refinement to the Regulating Plan. All subsequent development within each sub -area will be reviewed by the City for consistency with the Precise Neighborhood Plan in place. D1—pg 11 Page 638 Pi-ANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 8 Additional regulations in the Plan include standards and guidelines for topics such as architecture, commercial storefronts, landscaping, public and private open spaces, street (thoroughfare) design, and parking, The regulations are well -detailed to ensure that City staff can effectively use it, developers can follow it, and that the City's design/technical goals and policies that apply elsewhere in the City are implemented and fulfilled in the EHNCP. The required design and/technical characteristics for, for example, various building typologies, signs, and trails are clearly described in graphic form and demonstrated with imagery of the desired qualities that must be incorporated. Architecture is extensively discussed with emphasis on what elements must be present to reflect an architectural theme of, for example, a house. This will ensure consistency with the City's architectural standards and compatibility with existing residential development in the area surrounding the EHNCP. Regarding the multi-purpose trails, the Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the area. It specifies certain design and technical requirements for them, In instances where it does not, the Trails Implementation Plan adopted in 1991 and the City's standard drawings for features such as trail improvements including surfacing, fencing, gates, and entrances will apply. Open space, views, and access to trails and recreation space was a significant priority during the public engagement process and is a primary focus of the General Plan. The plans overarching goal is to limit the amount of high-quality neighborhood development in order to support the larger goal of conserving large amounts of permanent open space and habitat conservation. The framework of "the Pian" establishes a network of trail connections building off the existing trial network identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan and already in the built environment. It also proposes to improve the trail connections where there is a lack of connection and create unique walkable neighborhoods. A design feature of the plan is that every residence is within a 5- to 7 - minute walk of the Deer Creek Greenway, Day Creek Trail and/or the central greenway' which all lead to the foothill trail network. It is important to note that trails will not only be designed and permitted where they don't impact permanent conservation or habitat mitigation property or any special species that are protected within those conservation areas. Within the Neighborhood Area parks are planned to be the living rooms of the neighborhood with the paseos providing shortcuts to neighborhood parks and smaller green spaces_ Special community gathering spaces are also planned in the design to create unique spaces for farmers markets and seasonal activities. With so many active and passive open and gathering spaces for residents, this will discourage these activities in the foothill open spaces where they don't belong. It's anticipated that activities in the Rural open space areas in the RCA will be controlled activities limited to educational uses, hiking on designated trails and limited bike and equestrian access on designated trails (Section 4,2, Open Space Framework, page 72). ' The "central greenway" will be renamed by the community through additional engagement d(tring the DER review period. D1—Pg 12 Page 639 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA April 24, 2019 Page 9 Within the Neighborhood Area there is a hierarchy of open spaces and parks including trails, trail heads, greenways, roundabout park, neighborhood parks, play fields, paseos, and a town square. The intent of the open space framework is that every place inside the planning area, including the streets as an extension of your living space to encourage an active healthy lifestyle. The goal of the plan is that every home is in within a 2- to 3 -minute walk of a park or open space. NEXT STEPS: Following the review of the draft Specific Plan by the Planning Commission, staff will incorporate recommended edits made by the Commission and/or the public. The draft Specific Plan is substantially complete, staff may also continue to minimally refine and enhance it where necessary for content, clarity, and/or structure. In the meantime, staff will prepare a Director's Report for the Planning Commission's review and discussion of the draft Environmental Impact Report (EER). The review of the EIR is scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting on May 22, 2019. Shortly afterward, the EIR will be circulated for public review and comment. The public hearings for the EHNCP have not been scheduled at this time. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the plan preparation is expected to be neutral as the City can recover costs of preparing the plan through a specific plan maintenance fee paid for by the future development of the area. Additionally, there will be further analysis of project impacts through a Fiscal Impact Analysis and Feasibility Study prepared as part of the overall EHNCP proposal. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP is being prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A — Site Map Exhibit B — May 16, 2018 City Council Staff Report Exhibit C — Draft Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Pian (EHNCP) Specific Plan (under separate cover) D1—Pg 13 Page 640 APRIL 24, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 7: 00pm Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo X TX Vice Chairman Wimberly Commissioner Dopp X Commissioner Munoz X Commissioner Oaxaca X Additional Staff Present. Nick Ghirelli, assistant City Attorney; Jennifer Nakamura: Associate Planner; Vince Acuna, Associate Planner; Albert Espinoza, Assistant City Engineer; Valerie Victorino: Executive Assistant.- Mike Smith: Senior Planner; Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic & Community Development:: Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, Communications and Marketing Officer, City Manager's Office. I B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS r This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting,. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications. Gwyn Frost and Luana Hernandez spoke to the Historical Preservation Commission to note all of the historical landmarks within each of the Council Districts. District 4 this evening included the following landmarks. Etiwanda Railway Station (Depot). Chaffey isle House George Edgar Frost House and Norton Fisher House. EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 9 D1—Pg 14 Page 641 /"%rr%lL_ Ar. �r3 LL 1 %7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Ms. Hernandez added that the current Grapevine Community Services Recreation Guide features many of the historic areas and buildings within the City on the cover_ She added that she would like a new brochure on the City Historic Landmarks to be published and placed in hotels and local businesses. Deborah Allen, with the City Manager's Office, invited all the Commissioners to the Health Equity Summit that the City is sponsoring on May 71" at Central Park, Chairman Guglielmo closed public communications. C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2019 Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly, carried 5-0-0 to adopt the minutes. D. DIRECTOR'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chairman may open the meeting for public input. D1. DIRECTORS REPORT OF THE CITY'S 6 -MONTH REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION DRC2018-00471 - GOLDEN PROPERTY LLC FOR LAZY DOG RESTAURANTS, LLC - at an existing restaurant located within the Industrial Park {IP} District, Industrial Commercial Overlay located at 11560 4th Street; APN: 0229-411-04. Vince Acuna, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and Power Point presentation (copy on file) No public comments. Page 2 of 9 D1 -Pg 15 Page 642 APRIL 24, 2419 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Chairman Guglielmo asked if they needed to return again in another ti months Mr. Acuna stated that it was not required and that they only were only required to return back to the Commission once for review. Report was received and filed D2. REVIEW OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION SPECIFIC PLAN (EHNCP) - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager, started the Power Point presentation (copy on file) with the history of the plan Jennifer Camacho-Curtis spoke regarding the surveys that have been conducted and community outreach. Mr. Burris continued with the power point explaining the plan including the six Guiding Principles. Albert Espinoza stated that the street network will be using regular streets but will also have roundabouts to keep the rural feel to the project Mike Smith talked about the neighborhood concept with the sizes of the homes within each neighborhood Anthony- a resident in the area. noted previous attempts of land use regulation by government entities. Don Michevich, a local owner, noted changes in this presentation from the community outreach events He had concerns about traffic. Mark Gibboney, a resident, stated that he just wanted conservation with no commercial involvement. Karen Ruby, living in Deer Creek Estates, is concerned about on -street parking and requesting no commercial development Page 3 of 9 D1 -Pg 16 Page 643 r.r J 24, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Beau Kimberly: a resident, is concerned about property and development rights. Wants circulation direction for the northern portion of the land. Kevin Hernandez, an adjacent property owner had concern that many do not know what is happening. He expressed additional concern about mixed use and elevations. Mark Harris_ Deer Creek resident, wants to ensure the open space and his view. Commissioner Munoz thanked all who attended with their opinions, He encouraged everyone to work with staff in regard to exact questions they might have. He stated that outreach over the last 2 years gave the public significant chances to express their opinions. He noted that the City has community-based vision in regard to this excess land from the County of San Bernardino. He noted that this complete and comprehensive reflective plan to be used as a guide for all future development and that he City has an opportunity to improve this area_ Commissioner Wimberly thanked staff and residents and concurred with Commissioner Munoz. Commissioner Oaxaca also thanked staff and residents. He stated that this was an ongoing process for the community to provide input on this plan. Concerns of the property owners in the northern area should be taken into account. He added that additional opportunities will continue for input including the EIR in the future. Conservation is a major part of this plan but it is not free and could deteriorate without protection_ Commissioner Dopp thanked everyone in attendance and City staff for the detailed report. He noted that it is the obligation of the residents to become informed and be involved- The conservation area preservation is important. He asked staff to further explain the TDR process. He also asked about the management of the plan in the next 95-20-30 years Mr. Burris noted that we have additional experts present to answer those questions Commissioner Dopp noted that there is demand for some commercial development, including a grocery store, north of the 290 freeway, He noted that this plan has incorporated a unique sense of place. Chairman Guglielmo would like the enhancement of the trails and access areas including parking for them. Page 4 of 9 D1—Pg 17 Page 644 APRIL 24, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Mr. Burris responded to several questions including that multi family and mixed use are different uses and gave their descriptions. He noted the extent of the public outreach. The land use regarding the adjoining the Deer Creek residential area was also discussed John Baucke with New Urban Realty Advisors. spoke explaining the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program Mr. Burris stated that tentatively the next meeting will be on May 22. 2019 for the draft EIR After public communication was heard, the plan was received and filed Chairman Guglielmo called a recess of the meeting at 9:33pm. Chairman Guglielmo reconvened the meeting at 9-39pm. E. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. E1. MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT DRC2018-00605, Planned Community Amendment DRC2019-00232, Master Plan Amendment DRC2019-00231, Specific Plan Amendment DRC2019-00230 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA — A request to amend Title 17 of the Municipal Code, the Victoria Community Plan, the Town Square Master Plan, the Victoria Arbors Master Plan, the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Empire Lakes Specific Plan to amend requirements and standards for the development of Hotels. This item is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA guidelines under CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action. CONTINUED FROM APRIL 10, 2019. Page 5of9 D1—Pg 18 Page 645 APRIL 24, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and Power Point presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Oaxaca thanked staff for the additional information and continuing to work with the hotel community. Commissioner Dopp asked about the safety standards to prevent possible criminal activity. Ms. Nakamura stated that the overall design is compatible with safety standards from the police department. Commissioner Dopp asked for clarification of the amenities that the City would require. Ms, Nakamura has started an expanded list of amenities and will include them in the final ordinance. Chairman Guglrelmo opened the public hearing. Brandon Feighner with CBRE Hotels, thanked the Commission for coming back with this meeting, He indicated most of the requirements of the ordinance should already be in place. Don Cape with Theraldsen Hospitality, stated that he had concerns about the staff report details Richard Garcia_ Director of Operations with Theraldsen Hospitality, stated that they had a downturn in bed occupancies this winter which affected the industry due to rain and the government shutdown. Gary Theraldsen, with Theraldsen Hotels, stated that they build quality hotels that last 40 to 50 years. Chairman Guglrelmo closed the public hearing. Commissioner Munoz noted that there was not much different and still holds the position to approve the recommendation with Commissioner Wimberly concurring. Commissioner Oaxaca stated that the proposal was necessary and was glad to hear that confirmation from the hotel industry stated by those present - Page 6 of 9 resent_ Page6of9 D1 -Pg 19 Page 646 APRIL 24, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Ms. Nakamura stated that the primary goal is a good balance within the City with many choices Commissioner Oaxaca stated that there are differences in amenities within hotels Ms Nakamura stated that the option is available that would have staff provide an amended list of amenities and reduce maximum occupancy from 75 to 72 percent before going before the City Council. Commissioner Dopp noted that demand and supply of land availability for hotels is limited Extended Stay Plus would be acceptable and to continue to push for better design and not have cookie cutter buildings. Chairman Guglielmo thanked staff for the enhanced report and for the Theraldsen team here tonight. Ms. Nakamura noted the options added with modifying the minimum occupancy rate and permiting Extended Stay Hotels in all zones with staff and Planning Commission review required and including required amenities Mr. Ghirelli clarified the prohibition on Extended Stay Hotels was removed and would include additional required amenities. Minor typo in the resolution was noted and will be corrected. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Oaxaca. carried 5-0-0 as amended F. COMMISSION BUSINEWHISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES: None COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: None Page 7 of 9 D1 -Pg 20 Page 647 APRIL 24, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA G. ADJOURNMENT 10:32pm I, Valerie Victorino, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 18, 2019 seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the Page 8 of 9 D1—Pg 21 Page 648 APRIL 24, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. it is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under `Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materia`s should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 40500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public rnspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a -m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appear the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,037 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Page 9 of 9 D1 -Pg 22 Page 649 NOTICL Oh'AVAILABILITY [#K1 Etitinanda 11eight.s Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft En-s-ironmentaf impact Report (Draft EIR) SCfi NO. 2017091027 RANCHO 1pril 29, 2019 CUCAMONGA Project Title: I.-lwanda I leigrlt, \ei<,hb.lthoo,11 and Conser%ation I Li n Lead .kc�;Lncy: City of Rancho Cucanionga Platlnin�� Department 10500 Civic Center- Drive R,111060 CLICil111(lll�a. C iditol-nla 91 X30 Contact: C'andyce Burnett, City Planner Project Location: Rancho C 1.1 anion,,a and Unincorporated Sail Bernardino Co. Coutnti: San Bernardino Project Location - Specific: The I ti«anda Ileights \.-ighborhood and Conservation Plan (HIN('P) Area (Plan Area) is located aloes, the northeastern ed(re of [lie C'11y at lite have of the San GaN lel Mountains, I he site i.; located %vest of` State Route 15 (SR -15). north of State Ruute 210 (SR -210). south of the San Gabriel Mountains, :1114 [brill 01' exiSlin�, re,IdeElLlII iletgllborhm)ck in the City of Rancho Cucamon�,fl (01y°). The Plan Area fi ILKIei tile 4.393, which consist, of the 3,176 -acre Upper l old and 1,217 -acre Louver Band area,. Approximately 3Oi acre, located in the lvestern edge and southeast corner of the Plan Area are currently n ithin the City. and the renlaltnlnu 4.088 acres consists of unincorporated area in the ('ountt of San liernardiito (C'Ullllly} Withill the City's Sphere of Influence (S01)). Dewription of the Project: The l-1 I\C'P Project would include the annexation of ale portioni ofthe Nan Areas nut currently \Within the City and the adoption of the la 11CP al, a Specific PIi111 pinsnallt tel Sections 65450 through 654-57 of the Cahfomla Government Code of the 1;1 INC'P to create a tranlen ork to provide for the con,ery ation of additional open space in the RCA and development in the ISA. The L'1INCP is organized into seven chapters aS described belmk. Chapter 1_-:fileylakina, of the Plain di,cuti�,es the circulnstallcei leading to the preparation of the Plan, the process by which analysk. public engagement, planning and conceptual design work led to till', conitnlinih'-based Vision tier this area. the guiding principles and Vision for a plan that balances ale conseR'atio n and nelullborhood development baled {nil the con-imunity input received. Chapter 2 — Setting and Context addresses the reuional and local context, along Nvith the physical. environmental, and regulatory settin+,, of the Plan Area. Chapter 3 -- Conservation Plan provides an overview and vision of the conservation plan for the RCA. Chapter 4 —Neighborhood Plan provides an oven'iew of the physical plats for the new neighborhoods proposed in the NA, based oil the community input. Chapter_5 — Develo ment Standards and Design Guidelines contains the development regulations and neighborhood -design standards developed to create the desired design character as the lie"- planned neighborhoods are developed over time. Standards for slew development are integrated with public realm deiign standards to ensure varied and harmonious streetscapes and frontages that define public spaces. Chapter 6 — Infrastructure and Public Sen ices addresses the improvement and the extension of existing inttastrl.Ldure and public services with a focus on the provision of infrastructure and services %vithin the NA by identifying the "backbone" infrastructure needed to support the propo c,i development within the NA as required by thi City of Rancho Cucann,mga NlUnicipal Code, Chapter 7 -- Implementation outlines strategies and procedures to facilitate development of the flan in a collaborative and organized matnner. Specifically, this Chapter includes a discussion of overall phasing. a conservation strategy, financing mechanisms, procedural steps for implementing the Plan, and implementation actions. Significant Effects Discussed in the Draft EIR: The Draft EIR addresses the proposed project's impacts associated with aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, Iand use and planning, mineral resources, [noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems. Other environmental topics were circulated %with the Notice of Preparation. With incorporation of identified regulatory requirements and project design features into the project, and implementation of identified project -specific mitigation (for EXHIBIT C D1—Pg 23 Page 650 potentially siginilicant project impacts), potential impacts ►►ould be less than significant, witli the exception of the fohovv-mlr air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas ennitisionti, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic. These* impacts ►►ould be significant and unavoidable and would require adoption ol'a Statement ol`Overriding Considerations should the City choose to approve the proposed project, Address Where Copy of the Draft EIR is Available littl} ::'1%► %► s.ci(Nolrcrosil:ti►%amlahvighty The Draft FIR is available tier public re► iew ai the: Cite of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 (909) 477-2750 Ilours: 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Thursday + Archibald Library 7368 Archibald Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 477-2720 Hours: 10:00 AM to 8:00 I'M Monday throus-h Thursday 12:00 I'M to 6-00 Pkl 17rid,iy 10:00 AM to 5:00 I'M Saturday 1:00 PM to 5:00 PNI Sunday (Electronic Copy Biane Library 12505 Cultural Center Dri►e Rancho Cucanion{gla, CA 91739 (909) 477-2720 provided at Ftours: 10:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Thursday 10:00 ANI to 6:00 I'M Friday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Saturday Public Review Period: '1 he Draft FIR is being circulated for a minimum 45 -day review period, which will commence on April 29, 2019 and conclude on June 14, 2019. Due to the time limits mandated by State Law. your connme tts must be received at the earliest dente, but not later than June 14, 2019. Please send your continents to Ms. Candyce Burnett, City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamon!-a, CA 91730, Nis., Burnett may be reached by phone at (909) 477-2750, or via e-mail at ( and} ec,Burne(t a cityofre.us. Public hearing: Written and oral comments regarding the Draft );IR may also be submitted at public hearings that.will be held before the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and City Council. The date, time, and place of future public hearings will be appropriately notified per City and CEQA requirements. Copies of all relevant material, including the. project specifications, the Draft FIR, and supporting documents, are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, located at the addresses stated above. Hazardous Materials Statement: The project site is not listed on any list of hazardous waste sites prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, D1—Pg 24 Page 651 1■1A 1 i.f.y Am%# I V HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTE'S RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRiVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER 7:00pm Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo X Vice Chairman Wimberly X Commissioner Dopp X Commissioner Munoz _X Commissioner Oaxaca X Additional Staff Present: Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney; Matt Burris: Deputy City Manager; Elisa Cox, DCM/Interim Planning Director, Mike Smith, Senior Planner; Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner; Jason Welday. Engineering Services Director. Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer, Jasmin Oriel, Administrative Assistant. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications. Seeing none, closed. Page 1 of 6 Cl— Pg1 Page 652 ITIM 1 LL, LV 1 ♦7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. C1. Moved by Munoz. seconded by Wimberly ;carried 5-0 to approve the minutes. D. DIRECTOR'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chairman may open the meeting for public input. D1. DIRECTORS REPORT - INTRODUCTION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN Tony Locacciato. Meridian Consultants, gave an oral report. Commissioner Munoz reiterated the breadth of the content in the E1R Commissioner Wimberly had no questions Commissioner Dopp requested clarification on the "no project' alternative and the quantity of homes allowed under County zoning designations. Commissioners Oaxaca and Guglielmo had no questions. Commissioner Guglielmo opened the public hearing. Don Horvatitch is concerned about the impact of vistas on his property: illegal harvesting of sage and a possible historic area. Page 2 of 6 Cl— Pg2 Page 653 ower% I AF.A.1 AF.v I v HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Tony Marisek is concerned about the quantity of lands available for mitigation_ Tom Griffey is concerned about impacts of the annexation to a 26 acre property at the terminus of Etiwanda. Joe Cowan, ALRC President states the ALRC is opposed to the project and has concerns about impacts of the project to the equestrian overlay zone, impacts to fire safety, water resources and missing trail connections within the plan. Patrick Kamerly is concerned about property and development rights within the north portion of the plan area. Larry Henderson representing the ALRC is concerned about use of form based codes in the plan, use of alley and drives for development, lack of General Plan amendment text, public safety and evacuation plan, and that the EIR and plan are incomplete. Mark Gibboney is concerned about flood zone and fire risk, expressed desire to keep land as open space%onservation land. Judith Brennan is concerned about impact to wildlife corridors and trail connectivity. Jesse Bojorquez. representing Bernard Hugh is concerned about property rights for his property. Alex Cunningham is concerned about impacts of the project to his neighborhood (east of the Preserve adjacent to the Fontana border). Expressed desire to stay rural, concerned about property rights, Concemed about fire dangers and fire protections and why their land is considered part of the annexation. Barb DeWitt is concerned about trail connections and preserving the equestrian lifestyle and density of the plan_ Mark Harris is concerned about views and vistas in his area (Deer Creek Estates), and the plan not representing citizen comments. Commissioner Guglielmo closed the public hearing. Page 3 of 6 C1— Pg3 Page 654 MAY 22, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Commissioner Munoz reiterated his support of the work on the project. Commissioner Wimberly thanked the public for coming out to speak on the project. Commissioner Oaxaca thanked the public for speaking on the project, anticipated ongoing conversations about the project. Commissioner Dopp noted most comments were regarding the specific plan., not the EiR. Recommended additional conversations with staff for specific issues. Asked for clarification on if fire safety is addressed in the EIR Mr. Locacciato stated it is included in the EIR and the Fire District was consulted on the EiR. DCM Burris elaborated on how the plan considers evacuation for fire as part of the design Commissioner Dopp asked follow up questions on the density listed in the alternative plans shown in the EIR. DCM Burris stated it is based on the most likely density the market will present within the neighborhood area. Commissioner Dopp asked for a map of the Parry's Spineflower within the conservation area Commissioner Dopp asked for clarification on traffic impacts to specific intersections. Mr_ Locacciato clarified how the traffic counts were displayed in the table. Commissioner Guglielmo thanked the public for their input and questions. Asked staff for responses to email comments received about flood impacts. Shared the number of jobs proposed to be created by the plan. Asked for clarifications on public comments on trail connectivity and mitigation lands. Senior Planner Mike Smith stated those comments will be addressed in the staff report when the project is ready to be considered The Environmental Impact Report was received and placed on hle_ Page 4 of 6 C1— Pg4 Page 655 ■wnra I a Mny A=v ■ v HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA IViIV RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA E. COMMISSION BUSINEWHISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES: None COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner Munoz reminded comments on the EIR can be made until June 14, 2019. Commissioner Oaxaca asked about SB50; Commissioner Munoz stated it has been tabled until the end of the year. F. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 8-35pm to a workshop in the Rains Room. I, Valerie Victorino, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 16, 2019 seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909)477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view, To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. Page 5 of 6 Cl— Pg5 Page 656 IVIP% I SLI LV 1 .7 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to_ Comments are generally lrmited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments " There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing, Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director, AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.. except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decislon to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,037 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Page 6 of 6 C1-- Pg6 Page 657 JULY 10,2019 TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA ACTION RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE A. 6:00 P.M. -CALL TO ORDER 6:00 PM Roll Call: Francisco Oaxaca _X_ Tom Tisler (Bicycle) _A_ Luis Munoz _X_ Carol Douglass (Equestrian) _X_ Mike Smith (Staff Coordinator) -X_ B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Trails Advisory Committee on any item listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Trails Advisory Committee from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Committee may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Staff Coordinator, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional businessmeeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. C. DISCUSSION ITEMS C1. ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00751 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A review of the proposed trails standards/guidelines that will apply to the multi-purpose trails and trails system within the proposed Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation (EHNCP) Specific Plan that will apply to multiple parcels within the City and that have a combined area of approximately 305 acres, and multiple parcels within the City's Sphere of Influence that have a combined area of 4,080 acres, and are proposed to be annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga for a project area extending from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence - APN's: 0201-033-32, -35 through -40, - 43, and -44, 0201-191-27 and -28, 0201-272-14 through -18, 0201-281-02, -04 through -10, -13, -14, -16 through -22, 0225-091-03, 05, and -06, 225-092-01, 0225-101-32, 0225-152-06 through -11, and -17, 0225-161-42, 0226-061-03, -07, -16, -20, -26, -27, -28, -33, -47, -56, - 57, -61 through -71, -73 through -78, 0226-082-08, -19, -20, -21, and -30, 1074-351-01, -04, -05, and -06, 1087-051-02 through -14, -16 through -27, 1087-061-01 through -21, and 1087 - Page 1 of 3 Page 658 JULY 10, 2019 TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA ACTION RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE 071-01 through -14, and -16 through -21. Related files: General Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00749, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750, Annexation DRC2015-00732, and Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2017091027), Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Facts and Findings to support the Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. The Trails Advisory Committee received the report from Staff and reviewed the proposed trail design standards and requirements that will be incorporated into one of the chapters of the draft Etiwanda North Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) Specific Plan. There were minimal questions which Staff answered to the Committee's satisfaction. The Committee requested some revisions/clarifications to be incorporated which are outlined below. The Committee recommends approval to the Planning Commission and City Council. This recommendation is conditioned on the completion of the following modifications: • The incorporation of enhanced graphics that better define/describe the type, purpose, and available amenities/features at the various points of access to the trail network (where applicable); • The design of the graphics should clearly demonstrate that the trails and points of access are for all users, i. e. is multi-purpose (pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists). Also, where horse trailer parking is proposed, their locations should be identified on the map exhibits; • The addition of maps/exhibits that clearly show and label the existing/proposed trails as described in the General Plan and the proposed trails as described in the draft Specific Plan (this may require another map exhibit); • The addition of text that states that when the Specific Plan does not discuss the design and/technical requirements for a trail element or feature, the user of the Plan shall refer to the City's requirements, standard drawings, relevant governing documents, etc. that apply to the trails located elsewhere in the City. D. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING This is the time for the Trails Advisory Committee to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. NONE Page 2of3 Page 659 JULY 10,2019 TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA ACTION RAINS ROOM CITY HALL 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE E. ADJOURNMENT 6:40 PM I, Valerie Victorino, Executive Assistant II of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on Wednesday, July 03, 2019, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. Page 3of3 Page 660 STAFF REPORT DATE: August 28, 2019 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Anne McIntosh, Planning Director INITIATED BY: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager Elisa C. Cox, Deputy City Manager Mike Smith, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00749, ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752, ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00751, ANNEXATION DRC2015-00732, AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459. The project will consider the following: 1. A proposal to amend the 2010 General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga by deleting, adding, and/or revising text, graphics, and exhibits and changing land use designations of certain parcels in order to integrate the proposed Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan's (EHNCP) Specific Plan (hereafter the "Specific Plan") into the General Plan. This includes, among other things, changing the land use designations of multiple parcels within the City that have a combined area of approximately 305 acres and multiple parcels within the City's Sphere of Influence that have a combined area of 4,393 acres in a project area extending from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (hereafter the "Project Area"), and which are proposed to be annexed into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, to land use designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses. 2. A proposal to amend the Etiwanda North Specific Plan by deleting, adding, and/or revising text, graphics, and exhibits within the specific plan in order to remove those parcels proposed to be included in the proposed EHNCP Specific Plan and make other conforming amendments. 3. A proposal to adopt the proposed EHNCP Specific Plan that will apply to multiple parcels within the Project Area to allow conservation, residential, commercial, and civic uses for a project area extending from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence, in conjunction with the proposed Specific Plan. Attachment 10 Page 661 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 2 4. A proposal to amend the Zoning Map of the City of Rancho Cucamonga by deleting, adding, and/or revising text and graphics within the Zoning Map, and change the zoning/land use designations in the Project Area to zoning/land use designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the Specific Plan (prezoning the Project Area within the SOI). 5. A proposal to annex multiple parcels within the City's Sphere of Influence that have a combined area of 4,088 acres for a project area extending from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence, in conjunction with the proposed Specific Plan. 6. A proposal to amend the Development Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to add a description of the proposed Specific Plan and the Allowed Use table for the Specific Plan. This proposal will apply to the Project Area in order to permit zoning/land use designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the proposed Specific Plan. The Project Area extends from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence - APN's: 0201-033-32, -35 through -40, -43, and -44, 0201-191-27 and -28, 0201-272-14 through -18, 0201-281-02, -04 through -10, -13, -14, -16 through -22, 0225-091-03, 05, and -06, 225-092-01, 0225-101-32, 0225-152-06 through -11, and -17, 0225-161- 42, 0226-061-03, -07, -16, -20, -26, -27, -28, -33, -47, -56, -57, -61 through -71, -73 through -78, 0226-082-08, -19, -20, -21, and -30, 1074-351-01, -04, -05, and -06, 1087-051-02 through -14, -16 through -27, 1087-061-01 through -21, and 1087-071-01 through -14, and -16 through -21. RECOMMENDATION 1. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2017091027); and 2. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolutions recommending the City Council: a) Adopt the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Specific Plan DRC2015- 00751; b) Adopt General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749; c) Adopt Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750; d) Adopt Zoning Map Amendment and Prezoning DRC2015-00752; e) Adopt Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459; and f) Approve and direct staff to process through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Annexation DRC2015-00732. Page 662 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 3 THE CITY'S VISION As described in the General Plan, the City has long held a vision for the conservation of the alluvial fan and foothills between our northern most neighborhoods and the National Forest. The Specific Plan presents an opportunity for detailing and codifying that vision. This detailed vision for the unincorporated foothills above the neighborhoods of Etiwanda was developed after an extensive multi-year process that included analysis of various development and conservation options, a thorough review of the goals and policies described in the General Plan, review by the Planning Commission, directions from City Council, and extensive participation and input from the overall community. Through the Specific Plan, the community has articulated a vision for extensive conservation of the alluvial fans, foothills, and drainage areas that border the City to north, enabled and supported by high quality, complete, walkable neighborhoods that reflect the rural history of Etiwanda and provide a range of housing opportunities to the south. This vision is unlikely to be seen without gaining local control through annexation of this land currently in the City's sphere of influence (SOI) - identified in Exhibit A - but governed by the County's much more lenient development standards. Guiding principles of the Specific Plan include maintaining local control over land currently in the City's SOI, conserving open space, providing opportunities for active healthy living, maintaining fiscal responsibility, providing public safety, and creating a unique sense of place. BACKGROUND A. Etiwanda North Specific Plan In 1992, the City Council adopted the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). The ENSP was adopted to establish pre -zoning and development standards for the Etiwanda area of the Sphere of Influence (SOI). Doing this was an effort to ensure that when development of properties within the ENSP was proposed, such development would follow the City's standards and, therefore, be in conformance with the pre -zoning document and be consistent with the goals of annexation. The current ENSP permits a significant amount of residential development in the proposed Conservation Priority Area (CPA) and permits a limited amount of residential development in the proposed Development Priority Area (DPA) while maintaining a substantial portion of this area as Flood Control. The ENSP also established two "floating", i.e. approximate, locations for commercial uses. The size and scope of such development would be determined based on a market analysis of the number of households that would support commercial uses. B. North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal In 2007, the County of San Bernardino (County) informed the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) intended to sell up to 1,070 acres of surplus property on the northern edge of the City. The area had an overall area of 1,212 acres that had previously been needed for flood control purposes. In 2008, the City offered to assist the County and distributed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for developers who wished to be considered for a potential joint venture with the County to entitle the land partially located within the City Limits and partially within the SOI, i.e. the unincorporated area of the County. However, the County discontinued the potential joint venture in 2009 due to the economic downturn that occurred around that time period. Page 663 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 4 City leadership recognized that development on the County's land would occur in the future and wanted to be prepared for the eventual sale of this surplus property by the County. Therefore, in January 2015, the City Council reaffirmed the goal of pre -zoning and annexing 4,088 -acres of the City's SOI. This land is currently regulated by the County's zoning and, therefore, allows residential and commercial development that would be subject to the County's development regulations. In May 2015, the City Council approved an agreement with Sargent Town Planning (STP) to prepare the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal. Between the summer of 2015 and the fall of 2017, the City developed an initial plan for the 4,393 -acre Project Area, including the 4,088 acres currently located outside of the City, but within the City's SOI. This initial plan identified the 3,176 -acre Upper Sphere Area as a "Conservation Priority Area" and focused potential development in the 1,217 -acre Lower Sphere Area, identified as the "Neighborhood Priority Area." C. Initial Community Engagement In the fall of 2017, the City conducted four community meetings to solicit comments from interested individuals and community groups on the initial planning concepts. Participants had many questions and concerns about the process, the preliminary concept, including the number and type of residential units proposed, particularly multi -family units, and the amount and type of commercial uses. In addition, there were concerns about fire safety and habitat associated with the configuration of open space in the heart of the neighborhood. Due to the level of concern, the City set aside the preliminary concept and conducted further outreach to better understand the priorities of the Rancho Cucamonga community. During the first half of 2018, City staff worked with the community through a series of meetings and online engagements to consider whether or not to: • Halt planning and annexation efforts and allow the land to develop under County standards; Raise funds through a new parcel tax to purchase the land for permanent open space conservation, or; Prepare a plan for new neighborhoods that would allow for conservation of much of the open space. Throughout the community engagement process, the majority of participants continually supported local control and some sort of neighborhood development as a mechanism for achieving local control through annexing the land into the City. At the May 16, 2018 City Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to work toward a neighborhood and conservation plan that facilitates the community's direction to achieve this outcome. A copy of the staff report and minutes are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. D. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan As this effort moved into the next phase of creating a plan, the City established a name for the Specific Plan: "Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan" (EHNCP) which both communicates the location of the planning area within the City and the intended purpose of the plan. The name reflects the City's intent to balance the community's priorities for conservation in the rural northern portion of the planning area, and appropriate development in the southern neighborhood area that lies between two existing neighborhoods in the City. After the May 16, Page 664 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 5 2018 City Council meeting, Staff continued the community engagement process, received and evaluated the community's input, and began to draft the plan. E. Continued Community Engagement In the Summer of 2018, the City started an extensive public engagement process to learn more about the community's priorities and how to best balance them in order to create a community- based plan. The public engagement process included small group meetings, pop-up events, multiple online surveys, and a large, well -attended public open house where attendees provided feedback on an initial concept plan. The Public Review Draft EHNCP was developed in response to the community's feedback received during this period. The following highlights the outreach efforts: July, August, and September 2018 — The City hosted popup outreach. At each popup, the City went to stakeholders at events planned for the community. The popups were intended to raise awareness, to distribute accurate information, and to promote later public engagement opportunities, including the online survey and public Open House. Through nine popups events, the City staff and consultant team interfaced with approximately 839 people. August 21 through August 29, 2018 — The City met with four different small groups to learn about their preferences for various types of housing, parks, and neighborhood amenities. The groups represent unique perspectives on the future of the Project Area. Small group meetings were held with Campeones para la Comunidad (Community Champions), Healthy RC Steering Committee, Healthy RC Youth Leaders, and several home owners associations (HOAs) that include residents who live to the west of the Project Area. • August 28 through September 24, 2018 — The City hosted an online survey to gather input on emerging priorities and concepts under consideration for the EHNCP. A total of 1,099 respondents participated. September 21, 2018 — The City hosted an open house at the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Courtyard to share concepts and gather input for the EHNCP. The open house attracted approximately 200 people and was organized around five stations spotlighting the main planning topics. October 2018 through February 2019 — Staff engaged over 200,000 digital impressions and reached nearly 89,000 through various digital survey tools such as Facebook LIVE, Facebook posts, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor, videos, and eNews. A summary of the community outreach events described above is attached to this staff report as Exhibit D, along with a fact sheet called "What We've Heard" that explains and clarifies some of the key topics raised during the outreach process. The City has maintained a website for the EHNCP that includes access to all materials related to the process. The website address is: www.citvofrc.us/EtiwandaHeights. F. Public Review Draft EHNCP Page 665 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 6 The Public Review Draft EHNCP was developed from Fall 2018 to Spring 2019 and was developed in response to the input received during the community engagement period described previously. The overarching goal and organizing framework of the EHNCP is to generate a limited amount of unique, high-quality neighborhoods that are in balance with, and supportive of, large amounts of contiguous open space and habitat. As such, the EHNCP is organized around two areas: the Rural/Conservation Area, which increased in size from the previous draft to 3,565 acres, equaling 81% of the Plan area; and the Neighborhood Area, the southern 828 -acre area that lies between two existing neighborhoods in the City. The EHNCP established six guiding principles, along with development standards, design guidelines and regulatory provisions to facilitate implementation of the guiding principles. The Public Review Draft EHNCP was made available to the public on April 15, 2019. G. Planning Commission Meeting At the April 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented a Director's Report updating the Commission on the development of the Specific Plan. Staff provided background on the Specific Plan, a detailed summary of the various components of the Specific Plan, and the community engagement process. The Commission reviewed and discussed the draft Specific Plan document, which was provided to them prior to the meeting for their review. The Planning Commission received public testimony and made several recommendations for improvements and clarifications to the Draft Specific Plan. Overall, the Planning Commission expressed support for the Specific Plan. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Exhibits E and F, respectively). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was subsequently presented to the Planning Commission on May 22, 2019 and is discussed under the Environmental Assessment section of this report. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Exhibits G and H, respectively). H. Trails Advisory Committee Meeti On July 10, 2019, the Trails Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed trail design standards and requirements in the Public Review Draft EHNCP. There were minimal questions which Staff answered to the Committee's satisfaction. The Committee requested some revisions and clarifications, which have been incorporated into the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan, and recommended approval to the Planning Commission and City Council with the addition of the requested modifications. A copy of the minutes from the Trails Advisory Committee are attached (Exhibit 1). ANALYSIS A. Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan The Specific Plan being presented to the Planning Commission with this report is the culmination of the process described previously in the Background section of this report, and includes changes and revisions that respond to input from City Staff, Planning Commission, Trails Advisory Committee, and comments received from agencies, organizations, and the general public during Draft EIR public review period. The Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan is attached as Exhibit J (with the Resolution recommending approval). Page 666 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 7 As directed by the City Council, the Specific Plan was developed with direct input from the community to develop the guiding principles that set the foundation of the EHNCP. The Community Vision and Guiding Principles were developed from community input, City Council direction, and General Plan policies. The Community Vision and Guiding Principles balance the primary goal to conserve the large quantities of natural open space in the EHNCP's northern area (Rural/Conservation Area) with high-quality neighborhoods in the EHNCP's southerly area (Neighborhood Area) which complement the existing neighborhoods to the east and west. The six Guiding Principles are: local control, open space conservation, active healthy living, fiscal responsibility, public safety, and a unique sense of place. The development standards, design guidelines and regulatory provisions of the EHNCP, were, in turn, developed to facilitate implementation of the guiding principles. The Specific Plan is both a vision document and regulatory tool. The Specific Plan specifies a vision for a series of walkable, traditional neighborhoods designed to incorporate the rural heritage of our foothill neighborhoods. The proposed neighborhoods would be comprised of a range of single-family houses, from half -acre equestrian estates to smaller starter homes to active adult living options. The plan reflects the full extent of our experience and expertise with designing and delivering world-class neighborhoods. Every home would be within a two- to four -minute walk of a park or trail. A small "Main Street" shopping area would provide residents with shopping and dining opportunities within walking and biking distance of their homes. The new neighborhoods would be built around a new K-8' school and connected via a network of small, traditionally sized blocks and tree -lined streets. Furthermore, a missing segment of Wilson Avenue will be completed and Rochester Avenue will be extended. This will increase much needed roadway capacity and provide accessibility into the foothill neighborhoods bringing residents traffic relief and improve first responders' ability to access area neighborhoods. The Specific Plan emphasizes design for people and improved accessibility. Initial analysis indicates these neighborhoods will generate at least 15% less traffic per person than existing neighborhoods in the area. In part, the reduced need for cars is achieved by the extensive multi- purpose trails proposed within the Project Area. These trails will connect to, and complete, the City's trail network in the area. The Specific Plan enhances recreational opportunities for those with horses, bicyclists, hikers, and runners by providing for more than 11 miles of new trails. Within the 790 -acre Neighborhood Area, the Specific Plan now proposes 2,7002 homes, 85 acres of parks, and 180,000 square feet of shops, retail, and community center. This proposed development will help achieve the overarching goal of widespread conservation of the "front country" adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest. The remaining 3,603 acres (an increase from the previous draft) are proposed as Rural/Conservation and would provide for a mix of conserved habitat mitigation lands and open space, existing open space preserves, and very low-density rural residential. The Specific Plan proposes to do this by, first, prioritizing and directing new mitigation land into the creation of three new preserves. Second, the Specific Plan applies the City's General Plan land uses, proposed for this area ten years ago, onto the front country, applying stronger hillside design standards to The Specific Plan allows for additional school facilities within residential areas if needed. 2 The number of homes in the Neighborhood Area could be up to 3,000 if the full transfer of development rights as allowed by the Specific Plan occurs. This is discussed in more detail below in the section that describes the Rural/Conservation Area. Page 667 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 8 undeveloped lands, and providing for no more than 100 new homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. The Specific Plan further defines and clarifies these standards, including requiring clustering of houses, smaller roadways, and vegetation buffers, so as to further minimize the impact of potential new development and reduce fire risks to new homes. Third, the Specific Plan establishes a voluntary transfer of development rights program. This program would provide an incentive and a mechanism for land owners within the Rural/Conservation Area to sell the development potential of their lands to developers in the Neighborhood Area, providing Rural/Conservation Area land owners with a way of increasing the value of their lands without having to undergo all of the efforts necessary to development those lands first. Such a program is intended to deliver more conserved open space without infringing on anyone's property rights and without using eminent domain to acquire any open space or conservation land. Finally, the City's proposed trail network will thread through the both the Neighborhood Area and the Rural/Conservation Area, tying the new open spaces and neighborhoods together and connecting them to the City's existing foothill neighborhoods. The policy framework and regulating provisions of the Rural/Conservation Area and Neighborhood Area are described below: Rural/Conservation Area: The City has had a long-standing vision for the foothills in its Sphere of Influence, and, through the implementation of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, set forth specific Open Space Land Use designations devoted to the preservation of the natural resources and open space opportunities. The Specific Plan builds on the General Plan to enhance the efforts of conservation and open space preservation. The Rural/Conservation Area's primary focus is centered around these conservation efforts. The key strategies in the Specific Plan are intended to continue efforts to conserve additional land and restore habitat. This will, in part, be achieved through developer incentives in the Neighborhood Area to underwrite conservation as mitigation to offset impacts of that development. Additionally, conservation will be accomplished with property owner incentives within the Rural/Conservation Area through the voluntary, market-driven transfer of development rights to the Neighborhood Area, and then setting aside the property for additional mitigation and conservation. Although there are large areas of the Rural/Conservation Area that are currently considered Open Space or Conservation, not all properties are actively managed and do not have permanent or adequate funding to continue to maintain and manage the habitat. Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan sets forth clear objectives for conservation management with appropriate implementation measures. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the existing biological setting, a vision for the future of this vital area, a framework of land use regulation and conservation incentive and funding programs to encourage and enable public agencies and private property owners to work together to systematically conserve as much of the Rural/Conservation Area as feasible. Section 5.9 of the Plan establishes four regulating sub -zones for properties in the Rural/Conservation Area that are consistent with the existing land use designations in the General Plan. The regulating subzones in the Rural/Conservation Area are as follows: Page 668 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 9 • Hillside: Allows for rural residential development at up to one dwelling unit per five acres, consistent with the existing range of the General Plan Land Use designation, and subject to the Hillside Ordinance and standards in Section 5.9. • Open Space: Allows for rural residential development at up to one dwelling unit per twenty acres, consistent with the existing range of the General Plan Land Use designation, and subject to the Hillside Ordinance and standards in Section 5.9; • Flood Control/Utility Corridor: Includes lands primarily used for flood control purposes and to support public utilities, consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. Habitable structures are not permitted to provide a high level of public safety, this sub - zone should be left natural for the most part, offering residents the additional benefits of a scenic and recreational resource with limited development potential. • Conservation: Consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation, includes lands to be managed to preserve and protect sensitive habitat, wetland resources, and sensitive plant and animal species potentially occurring in designated areas. This area has high scenic values, limited or no infrastructure facilities, steep terrain, and limited access. Parcels within this sub -zone are owned and managed by a variety of public and private non-profit entities to maximize preservation of open space, watershed and wildlife habitat areas. The land is to be maintained as habitat in perpetuity. As additional land is set aside for conservation in the Rural/Conservation Area, such properties will be rezoned to Conservation. The Specific Plan also establishes design and development standards (Section 5.9) that will regulate development in the Rural/Conservation Area which are intended to preserve the rural character of the foothills. The development standards require avoidance of resources on the site, clustering of structures and homes, minimally improved streets and infrastructure, and fuel modification buffers, as well as design elements that include minimal lighting and appropriately -scaled massing. Development in the Rural/Conservation Area is regulated so as to minimally impact natural terrain and habitat, while taking into consideration potential site constraints, natural hazards, and limited services. As discussed above, the primary focus of the Specific Plan is to maximize open space and conservation. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program will encourage the preservation of land within the Rural/Conservation Area without placing new tax burdens on existing residents. As outlined in Section 1.5, Guiding Principles, one objective for conservation of the Rural/Conservation Area was that new development must make preservation of natural landscapes feasible and fiscally self-sustaining. The Specific Plan has been developed with this in mind to enable enough development of new residential units and sales tax -generating retail and restaurants in the Neighborhood Area, and through the process of transferring development rights. The process of transferring development rights is set forth in Section 7.4 and would allow for a privately -owned property in the Rural/Conservation Area to transfer the residential density to the Neighborhood Area voluntarily in exchange for financial or other negotiated compensation. The number of residential units subject to transfer would be determined by the maximum density allowed on the property based on the regulating zone, slope, and other Page 669 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 10 environmental constraints. When a parcel is abutting a permanently preserved property (e.g. the North Etiwanda Preserve), a multiplier could be applied to incentivize the transfer of density from the Rural/Conservation Area. The multiplier would be determined by the City or a qualified entity established by the City (TDR Authority). However, the Specific Plan's total yield would not be allowed to exceed the maximum proposal of 3,000 residential units. An infographic on the TDR process is attached to this staff report as Exhibit K. Neighborhood Area: Section 5.2 of the Specific Plan establishes four regulating zones for properties in the Neighborhood Area. The regulating zones in the Neighborhood Area are as follows: • Neighborhood Estate (NE): The Neighborhood Estate regulating zone is for large homes on large lots, with large setbacks and yards, and expansive views of the mountains to the north and/or valley to the south. A semi -rural, equestrian design character is envisioned to provide for opportunities for equestrian living, with curbless streets that lead directly to multipurpose trails to the foothills. • Neighborhood General 1 (NG -1): This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached homes on a range of lot sizes, knitted together by a connective network of landscaped pedestrian -oriented streets, parks, and trails. Well -landscaped front yards and private rear and side yard areas for family activities surround each home. • Neighborhood General 2 (NG -2): This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached and attached homes, knitted together by a network of pedestrian - oriented streets and Paseos, and in proximity to neighborhood parks or squares for family. • Shops & Restaurants (SR): This two -block area centered on the intersection of Wilson and Rochester Avenues has a classic Southern California small-town "Main Street" character with a distinctly rural twist. Neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants have large shopfronts and wide sidewalks for strolling, dining, and visiting. Parking is provided on the street and in rear parking lots that are accessed by courts and Paseos. For each regulating zone, the Specific Plan establishes development standards that will regulate development in the Neighborhood Area. These standards will be applied to each project through the "Precise Neighborhood Plan" process (Section 7.7). The standards for each regulating zone are calibrated to generate the physical form and character in accordance with the Vision described in Chapter 4. The development standards address: 1) layout of new blocks and lots; 2) building types, including lot size, setbacks, height, and massing for each building type; 3) private frontages; 4) signage; and 5) architectural and landscape guidelines. The Specific Plan also contains development standards for public realm improvements, including streets and open space. Allowed uses are contained in Appendix 1, which will be incorporated into the Development Code. The Neighborhood Area is divided into nine Sub - Areas (Figure 5.3). The purpose of this is to 1) phase development and 2) ensure the intended distribution and mixture of building types. Open space, views, and access to trails and recreation space was identified as a significant priority during the public engagement process and is a primary focus of the General Plan. The Page 670 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 11 Specific Plan's overarching goal is to provide for just enough development in order to support the larger goal of conserving large amounts of permanent open space and habitat conservation. The Specific Plan establishes a network of trail connections building on the existing trail network and trails identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. It also proposes to improve the trail connections where there is a lack of connection and create unique walkable neighborhoods. A design feature of the Plan is that every residence is within a 5- to 7 -minute walk of the Deer Creek Greenway, Day Creek Trail and/or, the central greenway, named Camino de las Alturas3, which all lead to the foothill trail network. The Specific Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the area; rather, it supports and enhances the Equestrian Overlay through the provision of connected trails, amenities and equestrian lots within the Project Area. A phasing plan is provided in Section 7.3 in order to achieve orderly build -out of the community based upon market and economic conditions and provide adequate infrastructure and public facilities concurrent with development of each phase. The Neighborhood Area is anticipated to develop in nine phases over a period of approximately 13 years, including entitlement and construction. The phase numbers correspond to an anticipated sequence of Neighborhood Area development, with development of land in Phase 1 expected to occur relatively early, as Phase 1 is adjacent to existing streets, infrastructure, and utilities. The order, however, of phased development may change over time, and individual phases may overlap or develop concurrently. The extension and improvement of Milliken Avenue and associated infrastructure (Phase 2) will facilitate the development of higher -priced estate homes in Phase 3 that will take longer to absorb. A summary of the distribution of dwelling units, commercial square footage, and acreages for parks by phase is in Table 7.3 (Phasing Summary). Sub -areas that have no development potential are Sub -area 10, which encompasses a utility easement, and Sub -area 12, which encompasses the North Etiwanda Preserve. Tentative map, phased final map, improvement plan, and building permit approvals will be required for development. Each of these plans, maps, and permits are subject to City review for consistency with the Specific Plan and approval. Phased infrastructure improvements, as required and approved by the City Engineer to support each phase, will be installed by the Master Developer/Builder or Neighborhood Builder(s)/Developer(s). Development phasing will occur as appropriate levels of infrastructure, community facilities, and open space dedications are provided. 3 The "central greenway" was renamed by the community to Camino de las Alturas through additional engagement in May and June 2019. Page 671 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 12 PHASE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Baseline- 110 120 150 515 444 430 263 Max w/o TDR Max w/ TDR 156 165 165 600 474 455 8 9 NA Total RCA Total GRAND TOTAL 14 653 2,700 100 2,800 281 14 690 3,000 0 3,000 Commercial Square _ 148,569 18,277 - Feet 13,154 180,000 - 180,000 Parks Acres 2.25 3.5 15.1 9.3 7.5 8.5 4.5 30 11 85.15 - 85.15 Acres 33 50 117 117 90 87 46 49 201 790 3,606 4,393 Notes: • Commercial square footage includes the joint use public facility. • All units in the Rural/Conservation Area are located in Sub -areas 11 and 13. Sub -areas 11 and 13 are anticipated to develop based on individual actions and timing of Rural/Conservation Area property owners. • Max wl TDR: Unit counts may change consistent with the Conservation Incentive Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program described in Chapter 7.4. These numbers reflect the maximum development, which includes both the base development plus the maximum number of transferred units. • TDR units that are not used in a prior phase(s) may roll over to a future phase to the extent they meet the standards of the Regulating Plan and do not exceed the maximums specified. In such cases additional environmental review may be needed. • Totals may not sum due to rounding. B. Substantive Chanaes to the Public Review Draft Plan Since the Public Review Draft EHNCP was presented to the Planning Commission on April 24, 2019, changes were made to the Specific Plan in response to input from City Staff, the Planning Commission, Trails Advisory Committee, and comments received from agencies, organizations, and the general public during Draft EIR public review period. Minor clean-up edits, clarifications and updates were also made throughout the Specific Plan to further refine the document. The substantive changes and those that respond to environmental concerns received during the Draft EIR review period are discussed below: • Reduction of Neighborhood Area Footprint: The overall acreage of the Neighborhood Area was reduced from 828 acres to 790 acres, with the remaining 38 acres being added to the Rural/Conservation Area, zoned Rural -Open Space, and intended to become part of the future Etiwanda Heights Preserve. The change occurs in Sub -Area 3 (Figure 5.3), with a reduction in gross acreage of that sub -area from 155 to 117 acres. This change is an approach to respond to comments received from community input and environmental organizations, and results in multiple benefits: - Biological resource benefits: With a reduced development footprint on the north edge of the Neighborhood Area, there are several benefits associated with biological resources, which include: an increase in the size of the Etiwanda Heights Preserve by 38 acres; a decrease in impacts to scale broom scrub by 21.15 acres; a decrease in impacts to non -wetland waters or streambeds by 5.46 acres and that acreage would be added to the Etiwanda Heights Preserve for conservation; reduced impacts to three special -status plant species (i.e. 1 Plummer's mariposa lily, 4 intermediate mariposa Page 672 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 13 lilies, and 882 Parry's spineflower); these individuals would be conserved within the Etiwanda Heights Preserve. - Improved viewshed benefits: As there were still some community concerns about edge conditions on the west side, the revised plan widens the Deer Creek Greenway along the west edge of Sub -Area 3 by approximately 100 feet to provide an additional buffer between neighborhoods and to improve views of the mountains for residents in the Deer Creek neighborhood. - Addition of equestrian standards and amenities to support the Equestrian Overlay: The Specific Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the Project Area; rather, it supports and enhances the Equestrian Overlay through the provision of connected trails, amenities and equestrian lots within the Project Area. With the revision to Sub -Area 3, additional development standards were added to Section 5.4 to ensure equestrian housing is permitted on a wider variety of lot sizes, while still ensuring compatibility with adjacent residences. In addition, with a greater mix of lots sizes in Sub -Area 3, which now range from large single-family lots up to estate lots, the projected financial feasibility of the development improves, which could leverage more amenities. As such, a three -acre equestrian park, flanking the west side of Camino de las Alturas, has been added to the Specific Plan. Trails: Section 6.1.4 was amended to expand the trail network to provide an additional east -west connection in the Neighborhood Area, and to provide more detail for users of the Specific Plan to ensure that equestrian and multi -use trail needs are met. Updates include the addition of an east/west multi -use trail along the residential street that connects the Day Creek Greenway to Camino de las Alturas, and better descriptions of the type, purpose, and available amenities/features at the various points of access to the trail network. The revisions clearly demonstrate that the trails and points of access are for all users, i.e. is multi-purpose (pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists), and identifies where horse trailer parking is proposed. The Specific Plan also more clearly illustrates the existing/proposed trails as described in the General Plan and the proposed trails as described in the Specific Plan, as well as provides additional text that states that when the Specific Plan does not discuss the design and/technical requirements for a trail element or feature, those implementing the Specific Plan shall refer to the City's requirements, standard drawings, relevant governing documents, etc. that apply to the trails located elsewhere in the City. The Specific Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the area; rather, it supports and enhances the Equestrian Overlay through the provision of connected trails, amenities and equestrian lots within the Project Area. Rural Development Standards: In response to comments received from the Endangered Habitats League (EHL), which supports the Specific Plan's requirement of "clustering" in the Rural/Conservation Area, supplemental language and additional development standards for clustering were added to Section 5.9 using existing successful programs in San Diego County and San Luis Obispo as models. The additional language sets forth goals and principles for any development in the Rural/Conservation Area and adds specific quantitative standards for the avoidance of environmental resources, as well as Page 673 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 14 additional requirements for minimizing site disturbance. Additional design standards for roads in the Rural/Conservation Area were also added. Conservation and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): In response to comments received from the Planning Commission and environmental agencies and organizations, and with input from a nationally -recognized TDR consultant, the discussion of conservation and TDR (Section 7.4) was expanded and clarified. This includes modifications to further incentivize the use of TDR as a conservation mechanism, and to provide more clarity to the user as to the density transfer process and the administration and management of the program. The total number of baseline, or "non -TDR" residential units permitted in the Neighborhood Area has been reduced from 2,900 to 2,700, with the maximum number of residential units permitted with TDR remaining at 3,000 to motivate builders to negotiate with Rural/Conservation Area property owners to purchase development rights. The Specific Plan would continue to allow development of up to 3,000 units in the Neighborhood Area though the TDR Program. This program would allow for the transfer of development rights for the 100 units allowed in the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area. In addition, the TDR Authority that would be established would hold an allocation of development rights for 200 additional units based on the relative values of the properties involved in the TDR transaction. Supplemental language has also been added to more clearly describe the 3:1 "global" ratio with a value -based program so the values between the sending (Rural/Conservation Area) sites and receiving (Neighborhood Area) sites can be equalized and take into account the wide-ranging values of the sending development rights, the differences between product types, and the developer/builder's willingness to pay the TDR processing cost. The equalization ratio will be set administratively by the TDR Authority, with adjustments overtime to better meet the objectives of the Specific Plan. As currently stated in the TDR program, the TDR Authority is allowed to increase the multiplier to further incentivize the density from priority areas. The Specific Plan also includes a re -visiting clause to amend the program if the program is not meeting the intended objectives. In addition, until such time that TDR from the Rural/Conservation Area has been accomplished, units will not be permitted to move between subareas in order to further incentivize the transfer of units from the Rural/Conservation Area. A table and map of parcels within the Project Area that have recorded Conservation Easements was included as Appendix 4 of the Plan for future tracking and monitoring of the TDR program. Healthy Development Checklist: The Healthy Development Checklist was created by the Riverside University Health System, Public Health, in 2017 and developed collaboratively with agencies in the Inland Empire. It is the most up-to-date, best practices tool for connecting broad -level healthy community policies with the details that occur with neighborhood planning and development review. It was developed as a toolkit for making the connection from policy framework to neighborhood design in creating healthy neighborhoods. Creating healthy neighborhoods is in line with Rancho Cucamonga's core values; therefore, the Healthy Development Checklist has been included in the Specific Plan as a framework for the Neighborhood Area. The Checklist has been incorporated into Chapter 4, and the vision for the Plan carefully considers and addresses each of the six categories of the Healthy Development Checklist with strengths and amenities uniquely derived from its location. The Healthy Development Checklist was developed to provide Page 674 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 15 criteria for healthy development practices; therefore, a provision was also added to Section 7.7 to require that every Precise Neighborhood Plan application shall include a completed Healthy Development Checklist to demonstrate how the Precise Neighborhood Plan complies with as many of the criteria as possible to promote health through the development project. The Checklist is intended to be used as a tool to judge the overall health performance and supportiveness of new development projects. Allowed Uses: In response to comments received by the Planning Commission, Table A- 1.1, Allowed Uses, was broadened to permit and conditionally permit additional commercial uses in the Shops and Restaurants (SR) Regulating Zone, while still maintaining the "Main Street" intent of small-scale retail shops and restaurants in this zone. The changes include the addition of business support services, furniture and appliances stores, home improvement supply stores with a maximum size of 5,000 square feet, repair shops for small equipment, medical services permitted on upper floors only, and veterinary clinics with a conditional use permit. These changes have been reviewed from a CEQA perspective, and as discussed below do not result in any changes in the conclusions reached in the Draft EIR, although certain impacts are reduced as a result of the changes. Please refer to the Final EIR, Appendix F, Analysis of Revised Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, which is attached to the staff report as Exhibit L (with the Resolution recommending certification). C. General Plan The majority of the Project Area is designated as Flood Control/Public Utilities, Conservation, Hillside Residential, and Open Space per the General Plan, Figure LU -2. With the exception of a 33 -acre parcel located south of Banyan Avenue and west of the Deer Creek flood control channel, the majority of the proposed Neighborhood Area is currently designated as Flood Control/Utility Corridor. The remaining 3,603 acres of the Project Area are within the Rural/Conservation Area and the Specific Plan would rezone this area consistent with the existing Open Space Land Use designations in the General Plan. An amendment to the General Plan is required to change the land use designations within the Neighborhood Area, as well to provide other changes to General Plan maps and text to memorialize the Specific Plan in the General Plan. The proposed General Plan map, text and table amendments (with the Resolution recommending approval) are attached as Exhibit M. The General Plan Amendments are contingent upon approval of the annexation application from the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and will be implemented once the annexation process is complete. Per Section 65454 of the California Government Code, specific plans must be consistent with the jurisdiction's General Plan. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan was approved in 2010, and as subsequently amended, serves as the main land use policy document for the City. Therefore, all future development in the City must comply with the General Plan's goals and policies, unless amended. The vision, goals, development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan are consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and Housing Element. The General Plan Consistency Analysis prepared as part of the EIR provides an analysis of the consistency of the Plan, including the proposed amendment to the General Plan to incorporate the Plan into the General Plan, with applicable goals and policies in the Page 675 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 16 adopted Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The General Plan Consistency Analysis (Table 4.10- 2 of the EIR) is attached to this staff report as Exhibit N. In addition, the City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre SOI area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP is being prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. D. Development Code and Zoning Map The Development Code will be amended to add a description of the Specific Plan and the Allowed Use table for the Specific Plan within the Development Code. This proposal will apply to the Project Area to permit zoning/land use designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the Specific Plan. The proposed Development Code Amendments (with the Resolution recommending approval) are attached to this staff report as Exhibit O. The Zoning Map will be amended to change the zoning of multiple parcels within the Project Area, including the areas proposed to be annexed into the City, to zoning designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the Specific Plan. The proposed Zoning Map Amendments (with the Resolution recommending approval) are attached to this staff report as Exhibit P. E. Etiwanda North Specific Plan As identified in the Background section of this report, most of the project area (approximately 3,494 acres) is within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). During the preparation of the annexation, it was determined that a new specific plan was necessary as the ENSP does not provide for conservation, does not "pre -zone" the entire project area, permits a significant amount of development where it should not occur, and does not adequately address development where it could occur. Thus, the ENSP needs to be amended to remove the EHNCP area from that Specific Plan. The proposed amendments to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (with the Resolution recommending approval) are attached to this staff report as Exhibit Q. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2017091027), and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP). This item will be forwarded to the City Council for final action, where the City Council will consider proposed findings required by CEQA and a Statement of Overriding Considerations before the EHNCP can be adopted. The purpose of an EIR is to inform the public about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public participation. The contents of the EIR becomes an informational tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best land use for the project site. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan, as well as identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. All environmental categories are being evaluated in EIR. The intent of this EIR is to evaluate the Page 676 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 17 broad -scale impacts of the Specific Plan. Any future proposed projects within the Plan Area will be reviewed on their own merit. The following summarizes key points in the environmental review process: A. Notice of Preparation A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated on December 4, 2018 to the State Clearinghouse, and to public agencies that have discretionary approval power over the project, i.e. "Responsible Agencies", as well as to Tribal Governments. Also, the NOP was made available for review at the Archibald and Paul A. Biane Libraries, at City Hall, and on the City's website. Consistent wtih State law, the comment period ended 49 days after the date of circulation on January 21, 2019. The NOP serves as public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. As discussed below, a scoping meeting was held for the Project. The City received comments from eight public agencies, two organizations, two native American tribes, and 43 individual members of the community. The NOP and the comments that were received are contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Agencies or interested persons, whether they responded during the public review period of the NOP or not, also had an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the public review period and during public hearings as discussed below. Further, as required under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, tribal notification letters were sent in January 2019 by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City complied with AB 52 and PRC Section 21080.3.1 and initiated and concluded consultation with the tribes that responded to the letters, as discussed in the Final EIR (Exhibit L). B. Public Scoping Meeting The City conducted a noticed Public Scoping meeting during a Planning Commission meeting on December 12, 2018. The notice for this scoping meeting appeared in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notification was provided in various social media platforms. The intent of the Public Scoping Meeting was to receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the EIR as it relates to the project and environment. Following a brief explanation of the environmental review process, comments were received from the public and the Commission. Public comments included opposition to the development of the area, preferring to keep the land as a conservation area; opposition due to a perceived loss of property value for the northern portion of the project site; concern with the location of the proposed school; concern about potential for fire and flood events; concern about increased traffic and noise; and concern about relocation of the fire station. The public and the Commission requested that a broad spectrum of potential alternatives to the project be considered and analyzed in the EIR. Page 677 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 18 C. Draft EIR Preparation and Circulation The Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2017091027) were prepared and distributed to all Responsible and Trustee agencies, and individuals who had expressed interest in the project and/or had previously requested copies. The NOA was also provided on the City's webpage for the project, on the City's "eNewsletter" (which has 18,000 subscribers), and an email was sent to approximately 1,200 individuals who subscribe to the EHNCP topic. The NOA was also advertised in various social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Nextdoor. The 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR began on April 29, 2019 and ended on June 14, 2019. During the public review period, the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review at: a. The Archibald Library - 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; b. The Paul A. Biane Library - 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739; c. The Planning Counter at City Hall - 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; and d. www.citvofrc.us/etiwandaheights Comment letters were received from ten agencies and organizations, and thirty-three members of the public, as well as comments from the Planning Commission, during the public comment period for the Draft EIR. The list of commenting parties and comment letters are included in the Final EIR and attached to this staff report as Exhibit L. Written responses to all significant environmental issues raised have been prepared and made available in the Final EIR. D. Planning Commission Meeting At the May 22, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented to the Commission a Director's Report regarding the DEIR. Staff and the CEQA consultant provided background on the Specific Plan, a detailed summary of the DEIR and topics analyzed in the DEIR. The Commission reviewed and discussed the DEIR document, which was provided to them prior to the meeting for their review. The Planning Commission received public testimony. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Exhibits G and H, respectively). E. Analysis of Project Revisions As noted above, the revisions made to the Specific Plan in response to various comments were assessed to determine whether any new or more severe impacts might result. As discussed in detail in Appendix F to the Final EIR, most environmental impacts of the Original Plan that are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. Impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and potentially unavoidable. Implementation of the Revised Specific Plan would incrementally reduce, but not substantially reduce these impacts when compared to the Original Plan. F. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) Page 678 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 19 In compliance with CEQA, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure. G. Facts. Findinas. and Statement of Overridina Considerations If significant unavoidable environmental impacts result with a project, the City must balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, the City may adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission must consider the EIR in either its draft or final form before making its recommendations. Both the Final and Draft EIR are attached hereto in Exhibit L. The findings that the Planning Commission needs to make to recommend approval to the Council are set forth in the Draft Resolutions, attached as exhibits to this staff report. The Final EIR, including Appendix F, concludes that with implementation of the Specific Plan and all recommended mitigation measures, air quality emissions generated by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan would remain significant and contribute to cumulative impacts, and would not be consistent with Southern California Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for this reason. The EIR identifies a program of mitigation for impacts to biological resources in both the Neighborhood Areas and for potential impacts from development of up to 100 homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. Because the number and location of homes that may be developed in the Rural/Conservation Area cannot be determined at this time, potential impacts, even with the development standards and review procedures defined in the Plan, may remain significant. While the Plan identifies the preservation of land in the Rural/Conservation Area as mitigation for impacts to habitat, including riparian and wetland habitat and habitat for sensitive species in the Neighborhood Area, if a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, impacts would remain significant. Thus, as a conservative approach, the Final EIR concludes that there may be significant unmitigable impacts to sensitive wildlife species, riparian and other sensitive natural communities, and state or federally protected wetlands. Greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan are considered significant, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, because the growth allowed by the Specific Plan is not fully accounted for in current regional growth projections and the total amount of estimated emissions exceeds the threshold of significance used in the analysis. Because the Specific Plan would permit development of an area identified as containing aggregate (sand and gravel) resources of regional value that would preclude access to these resources, this impact is identified as significant and unavoidable. As stated above, because the growth allowed by the Specific Plan is not fully accounted for in current regional growth projections, the population and housing impacts of the Specific Plan are also identified as significant and unavoidable. Also, traffic generated by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan would also contribute to projected cumulative impacts on segments of the 1-15 and SR -210 that would require improvements not identified in current regional plans. For this reason, Page 679 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 20 the impacts of the Specific Plan on freeway traffic conditions are identified as significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Section 21081. A statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared for consideration by the City Council before approving the EHNCP. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is expected to balance the following project benefits against the remaining significant environmental impacts identified above: Project Benefit #1: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 - acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP has been prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. Project Benefit #2: The City desires to take local land use control of the Project Area to ensure that future conservation and limited development meet with the City's high standards. Project Benefit #3: Implementation of this Specific Plan will help achieve the overarching goal of widespread conservation of the "front country" adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest. underwritten by and in balance with high quality neighborhood development in the southerly portion of the Project Area already surrounded by existing neighborhoods. The Specific Plan defines a strategy for development to ensure that conservation and neighborhood development pay their own way and do not place new tax burdens on existing residents. Project Benefit #4: Implementation of the Specific Plan will extend the City's pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trail networks to connect existing and new neighborhoods to one another and to the foothill open spaces above. Project Benefit #5: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide a range of housing opportunities for families of many ages, sizes and lifestyles. Project Benefit #6: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide connections from existing neighborhoods and streets into the Project Area, ensuring access and prioritizing multi -modal safety — designated bike lanes, pedestrian -friendly sidewalks, and limited equestrian paths — while designing safe neighborhoods, complete stormwater management plans and natural fire -safety buffers to mitigate risks of wildfire spread. Project Benefit #7: The Specific Plan provides high quality design standards to ensure that the buildings and landscapes of Etiwanda Heights reflect the unique heritage of Etiwanda and Alta Loma, and that new neighborhood edges are compatible with existing adjacent neighborhoods and respect existing viewsheds. Project Benefit #8: The Specific Plan emphasizes design for people and improved accessibility and initial analysis indicates that the EHNCP neighborhoods will generate at least 15% less traffic (Vehicle Miles Traveled) per person than existing neighborhoods in the area. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Page 680 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 21 The Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed project was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. Also, Staff posted notification of the public hearing on the webpage for this project that was created on the City's website, and on social media networks including the City's Facebook page. NEXT STEPS Following the Planning Commission's consideration and potential adoption of the attached resolutions with recommendations to the City Council, Staff will present the (1) Specific Plan with the associated recent changes, (2) associated amendments to the General Plan, Development Code, Zoning Map, and ENSP, (3) the FEIR, including Appendix F which analyzes the latest project revisions, and (4) a resolution for annexation to the City Council for consideration and review at a public hearing on October 2, 2019. If the City Council certifies the FEIR, adopts the Specific Plan and associated approvals, and adopts of the resolution for annexation, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District will submit an application for a Tentative Tract Map for the surplus flood control land in the Neighborhood Area for consideration by the Planning Commission. Also, if the City Council adopts the resolution for annexation (attached to this staff report as Exhibit R), the City will submit an annexation application to San Bernardino County LAFCO for approval of the annexation of 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact of the plan preparation is expected to be neutral as the City can recover costs of preparing the plan through a specific plan maintenance fee paid for by the future development of the area. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP has been prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. EXHIBITS Exhibit A — Location Map Exhibit B — May 16, 2018 City Council Staff Report Exhibit C — May 16, 2018 City Council Meeting Minutes Exhibit D — "What We've Heard" Fact Sheet and Summaries of Community Outreach Events Exhibit E — April 24, 2019 Planning Commission Director's Report on Specific Plan Exhibit F — April 24, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Exhibit G — May 22, 2019 Planning Commission Director's Report on DEIR Exhibit H — May 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Exhibit I — July 10, 2019 Trails Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Exhibit J — Resolution Recommending Approval of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan DRC2015-00751 with Public Hearing Draft Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan attached thereto Exhibit K — Infographic on Transfers of Development Rights (TDR) Exhibit L — Resolution Recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2017091027) with Final Environmental Impact Report and Draft Environmental Impact Report attached thereto Page 681 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2015-00751 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD & CONSERVATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT August 28, 2019 Page 22 Exhibit M — Resolution Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749 with Proposed General Plan Amendments attached thereto Exhibit N — Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis Exhibit O — Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2019- 00459 with Proposed Development Code Amendments attached thereto Exhibit P - Resolution Recommending Approval of Zoning Map Amendment and Prezoning DRC2015-00752 with Proposed Zoning Map Amendments attached thereto Exhibit Q — Resolution Recommending Approval of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750 with Proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments attached thereto Exhibit R - Resolution Recommending Approval of Annexation DRC2015-00732 Page 682 RESOLUTION NO. 19-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, DRC2015-00751, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). 2. A copy of the Specific Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by this reference. The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 3. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan and concluded the hearing on that date. 5. 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. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the Specific Plan, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR in both its draft and final forms. The Planning Commission, by separate resolution attached as Exhibit K to the Planning Commission staff report, which is incorporated herein by this reference, recommended that the City Council make the required CEQA findings, certify the EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this recommendation was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Page 683 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-50 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN, DRC2015-00751 August 28, 2019 Page 2 3. Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on July 24, 2019 and August 28, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b_ Development of the Project Area is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Pian and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. C. The Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. d. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer developrr ent rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation area to the Neighborhood Area. The Planning Commission agrees with the Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal, and recommend approval of the Specific Plan for that reason. e. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. The Planning Commission finds that the Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Specific Plan for these reasons. f. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit M to the Planning Commission staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis, the Planning Commission finds that, subject to the City Council's approval of the related documents and Page 684 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-50 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN. DRC2015-00751 August 28, 2019 Page 3 approvals associated with the EHNCP (General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Dave opment Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750. and Annexation ORC2015-00732)_ the Specific Plan is consistent with the policies and provis;ons of the General Plan and %v';11 not conflict with any other specific plan. g. Approval of the Specific Plan would not be mater'ally injurious or det-imenta' to adjacent properties, h. The fndings set forth in th's Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Comm_ssion, 4. Recommendation, On the basis of the foregoing and all of the ev'dence in the administrative record before it. the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the Specific Plan for the Etiwanda Heights Ne'ghborhood and Cons-zrva` on Plan. DRC2015- 00751, attached hereto as Exhibit "A. 5. The Secretary to this Commiss,on s' -la! cert!7',y to t7 -ie adopt:.- o- t ,is Reso,utiv'. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF -%UGUS T 2019 PLANNING COQ: �SION OF THE T 'CSC CUCAPr 04M A BY. Tony Gbolielrno. Chairman ATTEST; klatt Bur is. AICD Secretary I Matt Bufris. Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga do hereby certify that the forego -ng Resolut=on was duly and regular:y'ntrod uced. passed, and adopted by t]'* Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Plann;ng Commission he'd on the 28th day of August_ 2019, by the following vote-to-viit- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DOPP, GUGLIELMO MUNOZ OAXACA. WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN. COMMISSIONERS: Page 685 RESOLUTION NO. 19-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019- 00459 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, DRC2015-00751, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. The City has caused to be prepared Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459 (the "Development Code Amendment"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to amend Section 17.114.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to add a description of the EHNCP Specific Plan as an official specific plan of the City, and make other conforming changes. Upon approval of the Development Code Amendment, the EHNCP Specific Plan will be codified in Section 17.114.020 in the same manner as other specific plans. 3. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan and concluded the hearing on that date. 5. 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. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the Development Code Amendment, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR in both its draft and final forms. The Planning Commission, by separate resolution attached as Exhibit K to the Planning Commission staff report, which is incorporated herein by this reference, recommended that the City Council make the PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-51 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 August 28: 2019 Page 2 required CEQA findings, certify the EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this recommendation was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. 3. Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on July 24, 2019 and August 28, 2019, including written and oral staff reports. together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a smatl portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b. Development of the Project Area is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. C, The majority of the unincorporated Project Area is currently pre -zoned under the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which includes zoning designations for Utility Corridor, Flood Control/Riparian, Resource Conservation, Very Low Residential Estate, Very Low Residential, Love Residential, Hillside Residential Estate, Hillside Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Fault Zone, and Open Space. The remainder of the unincorporated Project Area in the City's Sphere of Influence is not currently pre -zoned by the City. The Project Area located within the City's boundaries is zoned Flood Control north of Banyan Street and Residential -Medium south of Banyan Street. d. The Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. Each planning area is governed by a regulating zone that carries specific regulatory requirements intended to implement the Specific Plan's vision. e. The RurallConservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. The Rural/Conservation Area consists of a single regulating zone known as Rural, which is subdivided into the following sub -zones that correspond to existing General Plan open space land use designations: (1) Hillside; (2) Conservation; (3) Open Space; and (4) Flood Control. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation area to the Neighborhood Area. The Planning Commission agrees with the Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal. Based Page 687 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-51 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 August 28, 2019 Page 3 on these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Development Code Map Amendment in order to codify the Specific Plan as an official specific plan of the City, f. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development, The Neighborhood Area consists of the following regulating zones: (1) Neighborhood Estate; (2) Neighborhood General 1; Neighborhood General 2; (3) Shops and Restaurants; and (4) Central Greenway Overlay. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. The Planning Commission finds that the Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. Based on these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Development Code Map Amendment in order to codify the Specific Plan as an official specific plan of the City. g. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit M to the Planning Commission staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis, the Planning Commission finds that, subject to the City Council's approval of the related documents and approvals associated with the EHNCP (General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750, and Annexation DRC2015-00732), the Zoning Map Amendment is consistentwith the goals, policies and implementation programs of the General Plan and will not conflict with any specific plan applicable to the Project Area. h. Approval of the Zoning Map Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. i. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00752, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-51 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 August 28, 2019 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2019. PLANNING COMP ION O T C ANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: ony duglielmo, Chairman ATTEST, Matt Bur s. AICP, Secretary 1, Matt Burris, Secretary of the Planning Commissw of the Csty of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby eet y that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly mtmducad, passed, and adopted by the Planning Comm:ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meeting of the Pianning Commission held on the 28th day of August, 2019. by th.e fo;=a:;ina vote-1L:)-v t AYES- COMMISSIONERS- DOPP GUGLIELMO, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS- ABSTAIN- COMMISSIONERS - Page 689 RESOLUTION NO. 19-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND PREZONING DRC2015-00752 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, DRC2015-00751, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals, 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. The City has caused to be prepared Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752 (the "Zoning Map Amendment"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to pre -zone the portion of the Project Area within the City's Sphere of Influence, re -zone the portion of the Project Area within the City's boundaries, and ultimately incorporate the Specific Plan into the City's official Zoning Map. To accomplish this objective, the Zoning Map Amendment would zone the entire Project Area as SP-EHNCP, which would implement the Specific Plan's regulating zones across the Project Area. The entire Project Area is also zoned Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, which would continue to apply to the Project Area after approval of the Specific Plan and annexation of the unincorporated Project Area into the City. 3. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan and concluded the hearing on that date. 5. 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. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the Zoning Map Amendment, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on Page 690 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-52 EHNCP ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752 August 28, 2019 Page 2 the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR in both its draft and final forms. The Planning Commission, by separate resolution attached as Exhibit K to the Planning Commission staff report, which is incorporated herein by this reference, recommended that the City Council make the required CEQA findings, certify the EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this recommendation was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. 3. Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on July 24, 2019 and August 28, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows; a. Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b. Development of the Project Area is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. C. The majority of the unincorporated Project Area is currently pre -zoned under the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which includes zoning designations for Utility Corridor, Flood Control/Riparian, Resource Conservation, Very Low Residential Estate, Very Low Residential, Low Residential, Hillside Residential Estate, Hillside Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Fault Zone, and Open Space. The remainder of the unincorporated Project Area in the City's Sphere of Influence is not currently pre -zoned by the City. The Project Area located within the City's boundaries is zoned Flood Control north of Banyan Street and Residential -Medium south of Banyan Street. d. The Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the RurallConservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. Each planning area is governed by a regulating zone that carries specific regulatory requirements intended to implement the Specific Plan's vision. e. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. The Rural/Conservation Area consists of a single regulating zone known as Rural, which is subdivided into the following sub -zones that correspond to existing General Plan open space land use designations: (1) Hillside; (2) Conservation; (3) Open Space; and (4) Flood Control. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Page 691 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-52 EHNCP ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752 August 28, 2019 Page 3 program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation area to the Neighborhood Area. The Planning Commission agrees with the Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal. Based on these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment in order to implement the Specific Plan. f. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Neighborhood Area consists of the following regulating zones: (1) Neighborhood Estate; (2) Neighborhood General 1; Neighborhood General 2; (3) Shops and Restaurants; and (4) Central Greenway Overlay. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. The Planning Commission finds that the Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. Based on these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment in order to implement the Specific Plan. g. As reflected in Exhibit 'A" the Zoning Map Amendment would pre-zone the unincorporated portions of the Project Area within the City's Sphere of Influence as SP-EHNCP. It would also zone the portions of the Project Area within the City as SP-EHNCP. Upon approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, the Specific Plan's regulating zones within both the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood Areas, as described above, would be applied to each parcel in accordance with the Specific Plan. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the Zoning Map Amendment in order to implement these regulating zones within the Project Area and thus implement the Specific Plan. h. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit M to the Planning Commission staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis, the Planning Commission finds that, subject to the City Council's approval of the related documents and approvals associated with the EHNCP (General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750, and Annexation DRC2015-00732), the Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation programs of the General Plan and will not conflict with any specific plan applicable to the Project Area. i. Approval of the Zoning Map Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. j. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Zoning Map Amendment and Prezoning DRC2015-00752, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Page 692 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-52 EHNCP ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752 August 28, 2019 Page 4 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cert,fy to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2019. PLANNING COMM ION OF TH Y c ANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: any ug"elmo, Chairman ATTEST.- Matt Bu is. A1CP. Secretary I. Matt Burris, 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 28th day of August. 2019. by the fo'lo-.vi g vote-"o-v/it: AYES: COMMISSIONERS. DOPP GUGLIELMO. MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS - ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Page 693 RESOLUTION NO. 19-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, DRC2015-00751, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"), The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. The City has caused to be prepared an amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, DRC2015-00750 (the "Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to remove portions of the Project Area from the Etiwanda North Specific Plan as those properties will be governed by the EHNCP Specific Plan following final approval of the Specific Plan and annexation. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment also involves conforming changes to text, graphics, and maps. 3_ On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan and concluded the hearing on that date. 5. 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. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. Based upon the information Page 694 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-53 EHNCP ETIWANDA NORTH SP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750 August 28, 2019 Page 2 contained in the initial study, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR in both its draft and final forms. The Planning Commission, by separate resolution attached as Exhibit K to the Planning Commission staff report, which is incorporated herein by this reference, recommended that the City Council make the required CEQA findings, certify the EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this recommendation was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. 3, Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on July 24, 2019 and August 28, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b. Development of the Project Area is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation. Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The unincorporated and incorporated portions of the Project Area that are currently subject to the Etiwanda North specific Plan are hereinafter referred to as the "Affected Project Area." C. The majority of the unincorporated Project Area is currently pre -zoned under the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which includes zoning designations for Utility Corridor, Flood ControllRiparian, Resource Conservation, Very Low Residential Estate, Very Low Residential, Low Residential, Hillside Residential Estate, Hillside Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Fault Zone, and Open Space. The remainder of the unincorporated Project Area in the City's Sphere of Influence is not currently pre -zoned by the City. The Project Area located within the City's boundaries is zoned Flood Control north of Banyan Street and Residential -Medium south of Banyan Street. d. The Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. Each planning area is governed by a regulating zone that carries specific regulatory requirements intended to implement the Specific Plan's vision. Page 695 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 19-53 EHNCP ETIWANDA NORTH SP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750 August 28, 2019 Page 3 e. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. The RurallConservation Area consists of a single regulating zone known as Rural, which is subdivided into the following sub -zones that correspond to existing General Plan open space land use designations: (1) Hillside; (2) Conservation; (3) Open Space; and (4) Flood Control. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation area to the Neighborhood Area. The Planning Commission agrees with the Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan, on the other hand, would permit a significant amount of residential development within the Rural/Conservation Area that is no longer consistent with the City's conservation goals. Based on these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Etiwanda North Specifc Plan Amendment in order to apply the Specific Plan to the Affected Project Area. f. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Neighborhood Area consists of the following regulating zones; (1) Neighborhood Estate; (2) Neighborhood General 1; Neighborhood General 2; (3) Shops and Restaurants; and (4) Central Greenway Overlay. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. The Planning Commission finds that the Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. Based on these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment in order to apply the Specific Plan to the Affected Project Area. g. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit M to the Planning Commission staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis, the Planning Commission finds that, subject to the City Council's approval of the related documents and approvals associated with the EHNCP (General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, and Annexation DRC2015-00732), the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation programs of the General Plan and will not conflict with any other specific plan. h. Approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. Page 696 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUT:ON NO. 19-53 EHNCP ETIWANDA NORTH SP AMENDMENT DRC2015-40750 August 28, 2019 Page 4 i. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Etiwanda North Specific Pian Amendment DRC2015-00750. attached hereto as Exhibit "A.' 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2019. PLANNING COM ION OF THE r, CHO CUCAMONGA BY: 3 ony G ghelmo. Chairman ATTEST: Matt Burr! , OCP, Secretary I, Matt Barris Secretary of the Planning Comm s.. D,. ine City of Ra.,; ho Cucamc--aa co nefeby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and rea.alarly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Cornmission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. at a regular meetin7 0= t# e Plarhing Commission ha!d on tn= 28th day of August. 2019. by the follo%�Jng vote -to -wit, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DOPP. GUGLIELMO. MUNOZ, OAXACA WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISS'.ONERS- ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 697 RESOLUTION NO. 19-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE NORTH ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, MAKE FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. In addition to the Specific Plan, the EHNCP requires the following additional approvals: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00751, General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750, Annexation DRC2015-00732, as well as a forthcoming tentative tract map (collectively, the "Project"). 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA guidelines, the City prepared an initial study for the Project and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. 4. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City determined that an EIR must be prepared for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. 5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, on December 4, 2018, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the Project, and circulated the NOP and initial study to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the application for a 49 -day public review period. 6. The City received comments from eight public agencies, two organizations, two native American tribes, and 43 individual members of the community provided comments in response to the NOP. 7. The City also initiated consultation with two tribes in the area, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, in accordance with the City's obligations under AB 52, Page 698 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-54 EHNCP CEQA RECOMMENDATION August 28, 2019 Page 2 8. The City released the Draft EIR for a 45 -day public review period beginning April 29, 2019 and ending on June 14, 2019. During the public review period the City received a total of 33 comment letters on the Draft EIR, and the City has prepared responses to each comment. 9. The EIR concludes that, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, the Project may have a significant and unavoidable impact on several environmental resources. Accordingly, the City Council must adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the Project. 10. The City has prepared a Final EIR in accordance with CEQA, which contains the City's responses to comments, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, and various corrections made to the Draft EIR. The Draft and Final EIRs for the Project are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. 11. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 12. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Project and concluded the hearing on that date. 13. 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. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on July 24, 2019 and August 28, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered both the Draft and Final EIRs for the Project, which are attached as Exhibit "A." The Planning Commission has also considered the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project. b. The Drat and Final EIRs comply with the requirements of CEQA. C, There are Project benefits that would outweigh any of the adverse impacts identified in the EIR. 3. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR prepared for the Project, adopt findings pursuant to CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Page 699 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-5-4 EHNCP CEQA RECOMMENDATION August 28, 2019 Page 3 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2019. PLANNING CO#`IMMSION OF THE_CITY—Qc.RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Tony uglie mo, Chairman r ATTEST: Matt 8u is, AICD, Secretary I. t.,Iatt Burris. 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 meld on the 28th day of August. 9-019, by the following vote-to-vML., AYES: COMMISSIONERS: DOPP, GUGLiEL MO, MUNOZ, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Page 700 RESOLUTION NO, 19-55 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION AND TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO ANNEX THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN WITHIN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). 2. The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. Approximately 4,088 acres of the Project Area identified in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, are located within the City's Sphere of Influence in unincorporated San Bernardino County. This portion of unincorporated land within the Project Area is hereinafter referred to as the "Annexation Area." 3. In order to facilitate the EHNCP, the City must apply to, and seek approval from, the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County (SB LAFCO) for: (1) annexation of the Annexation Area into the City; and (2) detachment of the Annexation Area from County Service Area 70 (collectively, the "Annexation"). 4. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed EHNCP, including the proposed Annexation, and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 5. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the EHNCP, including the proposed Annexation, and concluded the hearing on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the Annexation, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Page 701 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 19-55 EHNCP ANNEXATION, DRC2015-00732 August 28, 2019 Page 2 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR in both its draft and final forms. The Planning Commission, by separate resolution attached as Exhibit K to the Planning Commission staff report, which is incorporated herein by this reference, recommended that the City Council make the required CEQA findings, certify the EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this recommendation was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. 3. Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on July 24, 2019 and August 28, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testirr.ony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a_ Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, the 4,088 acre -Annexation Area is located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres of the Project Area lie within the City. b. Development of the Project Area is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Fioodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. Upon approval of the Annexation, the Annexation Area would no longer be subject to the County's land use regulations, but would instead be regulated by the City, primarily through the Specific Plan. C. The Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. d. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation area to the Neighborhood Area, Page 702 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-55 EHNCP ANNEXATION, DRC2015-00732 August 28, 2019 Page 3 e. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. f. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit M to the Planning Commission staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis, the Planning Commission finds that, subject to the City Council's approval of the related documents and approvals associated with the EHNCP (Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00751, General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750), the Annexation is consistent with the policies and implementation programs of the General Plan. g. The proposed Annexation will establish local control over the Annexation Area and allows the City to adopt a community-based Specific Plan that meets the City's high-quality standards. In addition, approval of the Specific Plan would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. h. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution of application to the SB LAECO for the proposed Annexation and take all other necessary steps in order to annex the Annexation Area into the City. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. Page 703 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 19-55 EHNCP ANNEXATION, DRC2015-00732 August 28 2019 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2019 PLANNING COMM SION OF THS — R NCHO CUCAMONGA BY: /14rony glrelmo, thairrnan ATTEST: Matt BurrY AICr. Secretary I, Matt Burns, Secretary of the Plann:na Cornmiss:on of the City of Rancho Cucamonga do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was du.y and regularly introduced. passed and adopted by the Planning Comm,ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a regular meet no of the Plann;ng Commission held o, -i the 28th day of Aug -s` 2019 by'� e fo!lo.,i ng vote -t3 -w AYES: COMMISSIONERS DOPP, GUGLIELMO, MUNOZ. OAXACA WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS Page 704 RESOLUTION NO. 19-56 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00749 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. The City has caused to be prepared General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749 (the "General Plan Amendment"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to incorporate the Specific Plan into the City's land use policies and designations. Specifically, the General Plan Amendment would: (1) establish density limits within the Specific Plan's Neighborhood and Rural/Conservation Areas; (2) establish the land use designation as specific plan for the Neighborhood Area and apply the Rural/Conservation Area's sub -zones; (3) establish new City boundaries upon annexation into the City of the 4,088 acres within the Project Area that are currently in the City's Sphere of Influence; and (5) modify various language, text, tables, and figures in Chapter 2: Managing Land Use, Chapter 3: Community Mobility, Chapter 4: Economic Development, 5: Community Services, 6: Resource Conservation, 7: Public Facilities and Infrastructure, 8: Public Health and Safety, and 9: Housing, to allow the future development under the Specific Plan. 3. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment and concluded the hearing on that date. 5. 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. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the General Plan Amendment, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, based on the information contained in the Page 705 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-56 EHNCP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2015-00749 August 28, 2019 Page 2 initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR in both its draft and final forms. The Planning Commission, by separate resolution attached as Exhibit K to the Planning Commission staff report, which is incorporated herein by this reference, recommended that the City Council make the required CEQA findings, certify the EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this recommendation was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. 3. Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on July 24, 2019 and August 28, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b. Development of the Project Area is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential. Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. C. The EHNCP's Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue, The General Plan Amendment is intended to incorporate these two planning areas by, among other things, amending applicable density limits for the areas and establishing land use designations for them. d. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation area to the Neighborhood Area. The Planning Commission agrees with the Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal. For these reasons, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment in order to facilitate implementation of these measures. Page 706 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-56 EHNCP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2015-00749 August 28, 2019 Page 3 e. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. The Planning Commission finds that the Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. Forthese reasons, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment in order to facilitate implementation of the Specific Plan. f. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit M to the Planning Commission staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis and other evidence in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with all other General Plan goals, policies and implementation programs. g. For the reasons described in this Resolution, approval of the General Plan Amendment is in the public interest and would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. h. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. 4. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00751, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF AUGUST 2019. PLANNING COMMIS ON OF TH O CHO CUCAMONGA BY: ony Gug ielmo, Chairman ATTEST: Matt Vurris, AICP, Secretary Page 707 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 19-58 EHNCP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2015-00749 August 28, 2019 Page 4 I- Matt Burris, 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 regu.rar muting of the Fann-ng Commission he'd on the 28th day of August. 2019 by the follow ng vote -to -wit. AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: DOPP, GUGLIELMO, MUNOZ, OAXACA. WIMBERLY Page 708 01 LC1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMON�, AUGUST 28, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA A. 7:00 P.M. — CALL TO ORDER 7: 00p► Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call: Chairman Guglielmo _x Vice Chairman Wimberly _x Commissioner Dopp _x Commissioner Munoz x Commissioner Oaxaca x Additional Staff Present: Nick Ghirelli, Assistant City Attorney, Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Elisa Cox, Deputy City Manager; Brian Sandona, Senior Civil Engineer; Jennifer Camacho-Curtis, Communications Manager; Nicole Dalton, Communications Coordinator; David Eoff, Senior Planner, Rob Ball, Fire Marshall; Jason Welday, Engineering Director; Valerie Victorino, Executive Assistant; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant, Jennifer Nakamura, Management Analyst 11. B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individual members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications. Seeing none, closed. Attachment 11 Page 1 of 10 Page 709 CITY C AUGUST 8 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA C. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non -controversial. They will be acted upon by the Commission at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed for discussion. C1. Consideration to adopt the Regular Meeting Minutes of August 14, 2019. C2. Consideration to adopt Adjourned Meeting (Workshop) Minutes of August 14, 2019 Moved by Wimberly, second by Dopp; carried 4-0-1, Oaxaca abstain. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual or less as determined by the Chairman. Please sign in after speaking. D1. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015- 00749, ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752, ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00751, ANNEXATION DRC2015-00732, AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 — CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CONTINUED FROM JULY 24, 2019. Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager, gave the Staff Report and Power Point presentation (copy on file). Commissioner Dopp asked staff to elaborate on the changes to the TDR program. Mr. Burris explained that the TDR credit ratio was increased to encourage master developers to engage with property owners within the rural conservation area to move development units Page 2 of 10 Page 710 AUGUST 28, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA to the neighborhood area from the rural conservation area. Property owners within the rural conservation area will ultimately have the choice to sell their development rights or develop privately on their own. Commissioner Dopp asked for clarification on the flooding issues in Deer Creek and Day Creek. Tony Locacciato, Meridian Consulting, stated that the CEQA analysis evaluated the flood, performance and maintenance data of those basins provided by the County and determined that they are quite adequate to handle flood debris. Chairman Guglielmo asked about the expansion of the retail uses in the commercial area, specifically medical uses in the upstairs units only. Mr. Burris explained that to maintain fiscal neutrality, it was important to permit retail uses which provide sales tax support while allowing other service -based uses without compromising the ability to maintain and support retail uses. Mr. Burris further explained that second story uses could be elevator served. Nick Ghirelli stated that all projects would be required to meet ADA accessibility standards. Chairman Guglielmo stated that he would prefer not to see vacant space. Chairman Guglielmo asked if these uses could be permitted on the ground floor with a CUP. Commissioner Dopp asked about the types of retail uses in the plan. Mr. Burris explained the types of retail and service uses within the City. Commissioner Dopp asked about the translocation of plants. Mr. Locacciato explained how plant species can be relocated. Tony Maricic stated he owns property up in the conservation area. Expressed concern that the City has not engaged the owners of the properties within the conservation area, the lack of a circulation plan for the conservation area, and the 200 acre kangaroo rat habitat. Stated Page 3 of 10 Page 711 01 LC1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMON�, AUGUST 28, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA that the City and County have prevented property owners from getting to their property for maintenance. Judy Brennan stated opposition to the project. Risking loss of trust in the City. Any home north of Banyan was supposed to be half acre. Does not believe the plan will be followed. Concerned that trails will not be constructed and does not have accurate trail connections from east to west. Trails are needed for equestrian uses as well as evacuation. Don Horvatich expressed his concern that the community plan doesn't match the surrounding area, and the desire for no retail in the area. Sami Muller asked how strongly is the conservation area designated and for how long? Is the housing proposed going to look like what is in the plan? William Gibson is concerned about the number of cars and the traffic impacts between Day Creek and Milliken. Asked about the impacts to schools. Mark Gibboney is opposed to the plan because the idea of open space was not evaluated. The community was not part of the 2017 plan. Stated Federal agencies recommend conservation of the land. Does not like the small lot development. Community asked for large lots only. The plan is a done deal — public wasn't asked. Alexander Cunningham expressed he represents the area east of preserve to Fontana City limits — 400 acres. Planning Department met with us to address compatibility. Confused with the transfer of development rights. Likes rural life and don't understand why they need to be brought into the City. They don't fit. Mary Linden Keith mentioned she is opposed to the plan because this is the Deer Creek Wash. 80 foot gorilla above the wash. Homes already there should not be there. Should not add more homes. Concerned about flood impacts of Deer Creek. Chairman Guglielmo closed public communications and asked staff to respond to comments Mr. Burris available for questions: Responses from Staff - Page 4 of 10 Page 712 01 LC1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMON�, AUGUST 28, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Outreach — One of the most extensive the City has every embarked upon. Multiple workshops in multiple parts of the city, social media, electronic and in person. The City tried to bring a broad and wide balanced perspective to the Commission for consideration. The City reached out to land owners in the rural area, as well. Fiscal responsibility — Focus is on the financial burden on the City. For example; fire, police and public services. Low property tax city, retail needed to supplement funds needed to support civic services. Conservation land — How long? Designed to be set up forever, provides for an endowment for lands to be managed in perpetuity. Architectural styles - Craftsman, Spanish, Mid Century and Ranch, similar to surrounding areas. Traffic - Thoroughly detailed in the EIR, found that adding another east -west road north of the 210 will help alleviate pressure on Banyan. Plan anticipates another new K-8 school on Wilson to divert traffic from Banyan. Plan should have been open space. Considered this in great detail. Cost was estimated at over $100 million. There is no revenue stream available to fund. Balance community vision, property rights and fiscal responsibility. Water supply assessment was provided by CVWD and found adequate water supplies, conservation is mandated by the State. Commissioner Oaxaca commented on Flood Control and is hoping to see in the documents in response to comments. Reference to documents from various regulatory agencies related to flood control — gap for him — unable to square historical documents with justifications in the final EIR. What is the relevance of the historical documents? Are they wrong? Out of date? Improvements made over the year changed factors? Would have liked a side-by-side comparison of historical documents and FEIR conclusions. Similar concerns with fire danger. If historical documents are relevant, how are they being addressed? Page 5 of 10 Page 713 01 LC1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMON�, AUGUST 28, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA Mr. Burris responded to help in navigating documents — 2003 Grand Prix Fire — able to take bad fire and water storm and test the flood control facilities. Basins are not dams, not intended to hold water. Intended to contain debris and to keep it out of channels. Help to understand that the levy has been certified by FEMA. Is a diversion mechanism to help direct flows into the channel. Systems has been tested many times over. Staff visited the site many times during and after significant rain storm to understand how the infrastructure worked during and after a rain storm. Water virtually not on the site because everything is working as it should. Flood District did an amazing job and spent millions of dollars to protect our downstream neighborhoods. Mr. Locacciato explained some of the changes made to the areas by the Army Corps of Engineers and Flood Control Channel. Commissioner Oaxaca asked about the role of the property owners in the LAFCO decision making process. Mr. Ghirelli and Mr. Burris provided a brief explanation of the LAFCO process and after LAFCO approved an annexation, with an ability for protest vote. Commissioner Wimberly asked about outreach with property owners within the conservation area and if enough outreach has been done. Mr. Burris explained that we have reached out to many property owners and residents, with some response. We continue to initiate conversations throughout the process. Commissioner Dopp asked if outreach is still available to interested parties and could changes be made necessary before City Council. Mr. Burris said yes, conversations can and will be ongoing throughout the process. Chairman Guglielmo offered each commissioner time to comment. Commissioner Dopp stated that the City has done a lot of outreach and provided data to support it. Feels that annexation allows for local control that was supported by outreach data. While some may not agree with all parts of the project, it is important that people feel heard. Preserving as much of the conservation area as important for the long term. Properties Page 6 of 10 Page 714 01 LC1TY OF RANCHO CUCAMON�, AUGUST 28, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA change and development desires change over time. This plan is the best opportunity to allow for some development and preserve out open space. Commissioner Dopp further stated he understands the concern about traffic. Agrees that adding another east -west access may help alleviate traffic along Banyan and Vintage. Is happy to see buffers with the adjacent residential community. Wonders if the TDR option will work. Understands the need for commercial uses. Recognizes that while half acre homes are nice, we must think of the long term and the cost and availability of housing for the next generations. The City has done their best to make a plan that is the most palatable to most residents. Commissioner Oaxaca thanked staff and the team for the efforts to date to develop the plan and reach out to the community and listen to that input. Notes two points from public: 1. Apply local control, 2. Maximize the area that can be conserved. Conservation takes resources to prevent the area from deteriorating. This plan allows us to create the resources to make the conservation happen. Commissioner Oaxaca recognized the traffic concerns brought up by the public. Feels that the completion of Wilson Avenue will help. The goal is to bring the best possible plan to meet the most needs of those who have a current and future stake in Rancho Cucamonga. Commissioner Wimberly thanked staff for their work and believes that this is the best plan for the future of the City. Concurs with Commissioners Dopp and Oaxaca. Wants to make sure that the TDR ratios support conservation. Commissioner Munoz thanked public for coming out to participate in the process. Understands that not all may agree with the plan, but it is the Commissions job to look at the long term. Plan is comprehensive, thorough and allows for local control, addresses conservation of the open space and connected the plan to the General Plan while maintaining fiscal responsibility. Glad to see the addition of roadway segments that will alleviate stress during school pick up and drop off times. Pleased with the expansion of the trails network, architectural styles and development standards. Supports the plan. Chairman Guglielmo thanked the public for their participation. Goal is to look at the overall view of the City and decide what is best for the City as a whole. Believes in private property rights and empathetic to those that may not agree. We have an unbelievable city and we have an opportunity to make it even better. The plan creates additional trails and parks which we Page 7 of 10 Page 715 CITY C AUGUST 8 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA have been wanting for a long time. Concessions have been made by the City which resulted in reduced development and increased conservation land. Agrees with many of the points made by fellow commissioners. Moved by Munoz, seconded by Wimberly; carried 5 -0 -0. G. COMMISSION BUSINESS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION INTER -AGENCY UPDATES: Commissioner Wimberly announced that requests for proposals are available for the PC Academy COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner Dopp welcomed new Planning Director Anne McIntosh H. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 9:33 I, Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive Assistant of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on August 8, 2019, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. Page 8 of 10 Page 716 AUGUST 28, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. Page 9 of 10 Page 717 AUGUST 28, 2019 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $3,114 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Page 10 of 10 Page 718 ORDINANCE NO. 957 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, DRC2015-00751, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundarywith Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary, and largely in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). 2. A copy of the final Specific Plan is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by this reference. The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 3. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on Public Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan, dated August 7, 2019, and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Specific Plan, concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 19-50, recommending that the City Council approve the Specific Plan. 5. Following the Planning Commission's public hearing, the Specific Plan was slightly revised to: (1) clarify the expected maintenance responsibilities of public and private improvements within the Project Area; and (2) to restrict density transfers among residential sub -areas until those density transfers reasonably achieved through the Specific Plan's Transfer of Development Rights Program are completed. 6. On October 2, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the final Specific Plan and concluded the hearing on that date. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Findings. 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP Specific Plan, and the associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on Attachment 12 Page 719 ORDINANCE NO. 957 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN, DRC2015-00751 October 2, 2019 Page 2 the environment. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review and comment, and a Final FEIR was reviewed by the City Council. By separate Resolution No. 19-082, the City Council has: (i) made the required CEQA findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; (iii) adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and (d) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 19-082 is incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to the City Council during the above - referenced public hearing on October 2, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b. Development of the unincorporated portion of the Project Area in the City's sphere of influence is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, or both. C. The Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. d. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation area to the Neighborhood Area. The City Council supports the Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal. e. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Page 720 ORDINANCE NO. 957 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN, DRC2015-00751 October 2, 2019 Page 3 Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. The City Council finds that the Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. f. The City Council finds that the revisions to the Public Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan are minor in nature and do not affect the Planning Commission's recommendation because they do not affect the improvements to be constructed, or the residential densitywithin, the Project Area. g. The City Council has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit Q to the City Council staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis, the City Council finds that in conjunction with the related documents and approvals associated with the EHNCP (General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750, and Annexation DRC2015-00732), the Specific Plan is consistent with the policies and provisions of the General Plan and will not conflict with any other specific plan. This finding is more specifically supported by the following evidence: i. The Specific Plan would limit development within the EHNCP Specific Plan's Rural/Conservation Area, consistent with the City's conservation goals, as outlined in the General Plan's Resource Conservation Element and including Goal RC -1 ("Encourage stewardship of natural open space areas, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural resources") and its associated policies. ii. The Specific Plan's Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. This is consistent with General Plan Goal LU -9 ("Foster a cohesive, healthy community through appropriate patterns and scales of development, including complementary transitions between districts, neighborhoods, and land uses") and its associated policies. h. The land use and development regulations within the Specific Plan are comparable in breadth and depth to similar zoning regulations contained in the Development Code. In terms of breadth, the Specific Plan provides a similar range of zoning regulations as the Development Code. As with the Development Code, the Specific Plan provides regulations pertaining to lot size, setbacks, building height, density, and unit size, as well as required improvements and units associated with new developments in the City. The Neighborhood Area's density limits are based on a minimum and maximum density in each sub -area, similar to the regulatory framework for the Development Code's residential zoning districts. The Specific Plan's zoning regulations are also comparable to the Development Code's depth of regulations. For example, in the Neighborhood Area, the sub -areas range from estate lots to small homes to attached homes. The Development Code includes a range of residential zoning districts that are roughly consistent with the Specific Plan's. The Rural/Conservation Area includes density limits that would be more comparable with the Open Space regulations in the Development Code. In addition, the Development Code's Hillside Zoning Regulations will apply within the Project Area. The Shopping/Retail sub -area of the Neighborhood Area includes comparable uses to those permitted in other commercial zoning districts under the Development Code, particularly the Community Commercial district. Page 721 ORDINANCE NO. 957 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN, DRC2015-00751 October 2, 2019 Page 4 i. The administration and permit processes within the Specific Plan are consistent with the administration and permit processes of the Development Code. Development within the Rural/Conservation Area is subject to the requirements and review procedures of the Development Code's Hillside Development Review provisions. Development within the Neighborhood Area is subject to Planning Commission review pursuant to the Major Design Review process set forth in the Development Code, which is consistent with the regulatory procedures for commercial and residential development under other specific plans within the City. j. Approval of the Specific Plan would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. k. The findings set forth in this Ordinance reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. C. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. Decision. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby adopts the Specific Plan for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, DRC2015-00751, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. 3. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of October, 2019, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on , 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 722 ORDINANCE NO. 957 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN, DRC2015-00751 October 2, 2019 Page 5 ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 723 ORDINANCE NO. 957 EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN, DRC2015-00751 October 2, 2019 Page 6 Exhibit A Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Page 724 The Public Hearing Draft of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood &Conservation Plan was distributed to the City Council under separate cover. A copy is available for viewing at the City Clerk's Office, located at: City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga It is also available online at www.citvofrc.us/etiwandahei2rhts. Page 725 The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan seeks to maximize open space and prioritize habitat conservation in the Rural /Conservation Area (RCA) by generating funding from Neighborhood Area (NA) development for the permanent preservation and ultimate restoration and long-term maintenance and management of lands in the RCA. To incentivize permanent preservation of the maximum amount of open space and habitat, the Plan establishes a Transfer Development Rights (TDR) program that allows the Master Builder / Developers to pay private property owners in the RCA for the transfer of density (development rights) from the RCA to the NA. In other words, units that previously could have been built in the RCA could instead be built in the NA so the RCA can become permanent conservation land. O Atransferable development rights (TDR) program creates a market for willing buyers and sellers of development rights. The mechanism allows landowners to voluntarily sever the right of residential development associated with land ownership from the land itself and other property rights and converts it into building rights in another location. TDR Authority The City or its designee acting as the administrator of the TRD Program. Development Rights The right to build residential dwelling units on a private property that can be severed from other rights of ownership. Appraised Value of Development Rights The fair market value of the rights to develop residential units on a private property, as determined by an appraisal. Development rights are a portion of a land's total value. This portion of value can be estimated by an appraisal. The value of development rights is the difference between the fair market value of the land with potential for residential units and the land without any potential for residential units. Rural/Conservation Area This portion of the Plan that allows very limited rural development, but is intended primarily to be preserved in its natural state. Site Information Sheet A document issued by the City that notes the number of residential units which could be developed on the Rural and Conservation Area parcel(s) under the zoning of the property and the particular development constraints which are known for the property. The Site Information Sheet informs the appraiser about the property. Residual Property Value The fair market value of the property that remains after development potential has been transferred away from the property the easement which servers the ability to develop residential units on the property has been recorded on the property. TDR Credit The unit of measurement representing the right to increase the density or intensity of development by one residential unit, obtained through a Transfer of Development Rights. -1- RCA property owner files preliminary site review application and Preliminary Title Report with the City/ TDR Authority. - 4 - RCA property owner approves appraisal and submits it to the TDR Authority. rA TDR Authority determines how many TDR credits will be allocated to equalize the values between the offered "sending" property (i.e. appraised development rights value and other TDR processing costs) and the value of additional units to the Neighborhood Developer/Builders based on product type. -10- Density transfer is recorded and TDR credits allocated to Neighborhood Area. -2- City reviews application and title report, provides Site Information Sheet with number of residential units in which the residential development rights will be valued. -5- TDR Authority notifies Master Developer and Neighborhood Builders of opportunity to acquire development rights. 01 Price agreed upon and rights bought through escrow process. Open Space Easement restricting residential development recorded. Property Owner paid for Development Rights & reimbursed processing costs. If an accord is not reached, than the developer can pursue TDR purchase from other RCA land owners. r -3- RCA property owner commissions an appraisal of property. Site info. Sheet and title report provided to appraiser. Appraisal notes value of residential development rights and residual property value. Developer / Builder(s) submit offers of what they are willing to pay for additional units based on product type. X TDR Authority issues a Transfer of Development Credit Certificate to Developer/Builder. TDR Value Equalization/Balancing Value to Sending Site: Rural/Conservation Area Based on Appraised Development Right! Receiving Site: Neighborhood Area Based on Developer's Wil Pay per Dwelling Unit by Product Type Attachment 14rMCUCAMONGARANCHO Page 728 RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundarywith Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary that is largely in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. In addition to the Specific Plan, the EHNCP requires the following additional approvals: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00751, General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750, Annexation DRC2015-00732, as well as a forthcoming tentative tract map or maps (collectively, the "Project"). 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA guidelines, the City prepared an initial study for the Project and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. 4. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City determined that an EIR must be prepared for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. 5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, on December 4, 2018, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the Project, and circulated the NOP and initial study to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the application for a 49 -day public review period. 6. The City received comments from eight public agencies, two organizations, two native American tribes, and 43 individual members of the community provided comments in response to the NOP. 7. The City also initiated consultation with two tribes in the area, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, in accordance with the City's obligations under AB 52. 8. The City released the Draft EIR for a 45 -day public review period beginning April 29, 2019 and ending on June 14, 2019. During the public review period the City received a total of 33 comment letters on the Draft EIR, and the City has prepared responses to each comment. Page 729 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 2 9. The EIR concludes that, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, the Project may have a significant and unavoidable impact on several environmental resources. Accordingly, the City Council must adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the Project. 10. Asa result of public comments received during the Draft EIR's public comment period, as well as during public meetings regarding the EHNCP, certain revisions were made to the Specific Plan and included in a revised Public Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan, dated August 7, 2019. These revisions to the Specific Plan included: (1) a 38 -acre reduction in the size of the Specific Plan's Neighborhood Area and a corresponding increase in size of the Rural/Conservation Area, located within the northwest corner of the Neighborhood Area, which reduced the Neighborhood Area's development potential from 155 to 117 acres, and increased in size the Etiwanda Heights Preserve from 337 acres to 375 acres; (2) added a new three -acre equestrian park to the northeast corner of Sub -Area 3; (3) expanded the trail network to provide an additional east -west connection through the Neighborhood Are and additional descriptors for the type and extent of trails within the Project Area; (4) modified the Rural/Conservation Areas' development standards and set quantitative standards for the avoidance of environmental resources; (5) reduced the number of permitted residential units in the Neighborhood Area from 2,900 to 2,700 units; (6) increased the development rights that may be transferred from the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area under the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program; (7) incorporated Riverside University Health Systems' Healthy Development Checklist; and (8) added additional small retail and professional uses to the list of permitted uses in the Shops and Restaurants Regulating Zone. 11. The City prepared an environmental analysis of the changes to the Specific Plan identified in the August 7, 2019 Public Hearing Draft and concluded that they would incrementally reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Draft EIR, but would not change the Draft EIR's overall conclusions. 12. The City prepared a Final EIR in accordance with CEQA, which contains the City's responses to comments, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, the Draft EIR as modified by the Final EIR, and all appendices, including the aforementioned environmental analysis of the Project as modified by the Specific Plan's Public Hearing Draft. 13. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and concluded the hearing on that date. Thereafter, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the Project, and specifically adopted Resolution No. 19-54 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR, make necessary findings under CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 14. Following the Planning Commission's public hearing, the Public Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan was slightly revised to: (1) clarify the expected maintenance responsibilities of public and private improvements within the Project Area; and (2) to restrict density transfers among residential sub -areas until those density transfers reasonably achieved through the Specific Plan's Transfer of Development Rights Program are completed. 15. A traffic mitigation measure in the EIR applicable to the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Avenue was also modified after the Planning Commission meeting. The modified mitigation measure would avoid reconfiguring the eastbound approach to this intersection, and Page 730 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 3 would instead adjust and optimize the PM peak hour signal timing plan and cycle length. An environmental analysis of this modification was prepared and concluded that the modified mitigation measure would be equally as effective as the prior version of the measure. This environmental analysis is included as an appendix to the Final EIR. 16. On October 2, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project and concluded the hearing on that date. 17. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is herebyfound, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR, together with its appendices, and all other available evidence presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing on October 2, 2019, including written and oral staff reports and public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the EIR and the Project. b. The revisions to the Public Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan are minor in nature and do not affect the Planning Commission's recommendation because they do not affect the improvements to be constructed, or the residential density within, the Project Area. C. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written findings for each significant effect identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR; ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or iii. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. These required findings are set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. Page 731 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 4 d. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. e. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Section V of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. f. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. g. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. h. Sections 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. i. A discussion of the Project benefits and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. j. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. k. Prior to taking action on the Final EIR and approving the Project, the City Council specifically finds and certifies that: (1) the Final EIR was presented to the City Council; (2) the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings; (3) the Final EIR is adequate and has been completed in full compliance with CEQA; and (4) the Final EIR reflects the City Council independent judgment and analysis. I. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional recirculation or additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA. 3. Determination. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR, adopts findings pursuant to the CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit B attached Page 732 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 5 hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. 4. Location of Record. The documents and other materials, including the staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and specifications, that constitute the record on which this Resolution is based are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. All such documents are incorporated herein by reference. 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AW L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 733 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 6 Exhibit A CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. ("Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("Rancho Cucamonga" or "City") hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (the "Project"). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft EIR and the written responses thereto, the Final EIR, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. Project Objectives. As set forth in the EIR, objectives that the City seeks to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: A. Conserve the natural resources and open space character of the unique foothill area to be governed by the Project. B. Establish local control by annexing this area to the City and adopting a community-based plan that meets the City's high-quality standards. C. Develop an economically feasible, fiscally responsible plan that pays its own way without levying new taxes on existing residents. D. Respect the rights of existing property owners. E. Provide a range of open space and park areas offering a range of recreation opportunities. Page 734 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 7 F. In the Project's Neighborhood Area, provide for the development of high-quality, single-family neighborhoods with a range of housing opportunities—including equestrian - oriented housing—that are compatible in character with the existing surrounding neighborhoods. III. Background. The proposed Project involves the planning, development, and conservation of 4,393 acres located in the northeastern edge of the City at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains ("Project Site"). The Project Site is more specifically located west of State Route (SR) 15, north of SR -210, south of the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest, and north of existing residential neighborhoods in the City. The Project Site include a majority of the existing 652 -acre North Etiwanda Preserve. Approximately 305 acres, located in the western edge and southeast corner of the Project Site, are currently within the City and governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The remaining 4,088 acres of the Project Site are located in unincorporated San Bernardino County, but within the City's Sphere of Influence. Current General Plan designations within the Project Site include conservation, open space, hillside residential, and flood control/utility corridor. Approximately 3,565 acres, or 81%, of the Project Site is located in the Project's Rural/Conservation Area, which is primarily intended to be preserved in its natural setting with hiking trails and natural features. Approximately 828 acres of the Project Site is located in the Project's Neighborhood Area, which is intended for appropriate residential and commercial development associated amenities, such as parks, trails, and bike paths. The Project Site is generally undeveloped, although it includes some rural residential development and the Limei Fang -Ling Yen Mountain Temple. Other features include the Deer and Day Creek debris basins, channels, and levee and a closed sand and gravel mine. The area is characterized by alluvial fans from the San Gabriel Mountains. The Project's Rural/Conservation Area has terrain slopes of 30% or more, with alluvial fans sloping from 20% to 10% to the south. In the Neighborhood Area, slopes range from 7% to 5%. The proposed Project consists of a Specific Plan referred to as the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Development Code Amendment, an amendment to the existing Etiwanda North Specific Plan, approval of a large -parcel tentative tract map, and approval of the annexation of the 4,088 acres of the Plan Area currently under the jurisdiction of San Bernardino County. The proposed Project would permit up to 3,000 homes, with a maximum of 100 homes permitted on privately -owned property in the Rural/Conservation Area and 2,900 single-family detached and attached homes in the Neighborhood Area. The proposed Project also includes a conservation plan for the Rural/Conservation Area, including a transfer of development rights (TDR) program intended to incentivize the transfer of density from the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area. The proposed Project includes a phasing plan divided into nine phases to be developed over approximately 13 years. Page 735 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 8 IV. Effects Determined to be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation The following effects were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study, and were not analyzed in detail in the EIR because they require no additional analysis to determine whether the effects could be significant. A. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 1. The Project will not Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use. 2. The Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. 3. The Project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). 4. The Project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. 5. The Project does not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR. The EIR found that the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on the following environmental topics: Aesthetics, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Public Services and Recreation. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Final EIR. A. AESTHETICS 1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains will not be dramatically altered, since little to no development is expected in the upper elevations of the Project Site, within the Rural/Conservation Area. Development within the Rural/Conservation Area is limited to 100, low-density homes that are subject to strict grading limitations. Although new residential and limited commercial uses are proposed in the lower elevations of the Project Site, within the Neighborhood Area, those uses are expected to blend visually with current residential uses in the area that are visually prominent to the west, south, and east of the Project Site. View from the two designated Special Boulevards traversing the Page 736 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 9 Neighborhood Area, Wilson Avenue and Milliken Avenue, would remain substantially the same under the Project. 2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway because there are no designated state scenic highways within, or in proximity to, the Project Site. 3. For the nonurbanized portion of the Project Site, the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings. The Rural/Conservation Area includes a majority of the existing North Etiwanda Preserve and new preserves where development will not be permitted. The remaining developable portion of the Rural/Conservation Area is limited to 100 homes, subject to grading limitations, infrastructure that conforms to the natural terrain, and buildings that are rural in character. In addition, the TDR Program will help minimize development in the Rural/Conservation Area. Thus, there is little opportunity for development in the nonurbanized Rural/Conservation Area that could degrade its visual character. 4. For the urbanized portion of the Project Site, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project's Specific Plan proposes new development standards that would create open space buffers, corridors, and spaces. Future development will conform to these development standards, which are intended to govern scenic quality in the area. 5. The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The proposed Project would increase the intensity and density of development throughout the site, which add new sources of light and glare. However, the Project would result in less than significant light and glare impacts through the Specific Plan's development standards, which limit outdoor fixtures to fifteen (15) feet in height, require lighting to be shielded or recessed, and limit building mounted luminaires to a maximum initial illuminance of 0.05 horizontal and vertical foot-candles. In addition, street light fixtures will be widely spaced and approved as Dark Sky Friendly Fixtures. Adherence to these design standards, and the City's existing lighting ordinances, would result in a less than significant impact. 6. The Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics. The Project implements the General Plan's goals of limiting hillside development and all future projects will be subject to the City's hillside development regulations. Although additional projects may contribute to a visual change in the City, these projects are also subject to applicable development standards and light regulations in applicable specific plans and the Municipal Code. 7. The Project will not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on aesthetics. B. AIR QUALITY 1. The proposed Project would not result in emissions, such as those leading to odors, that adversely affect a substantial number of people. Page 737 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 10 C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. The proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Rural/Conservation Area does not function as a corridor due to the lack of physical constraints that would prevent wildlife movement. Instead, it functions as an intact large block of habitat for a variety of species — providing all of the necessary life -history needs for these species. There are no wildlife corridors within the Neighborhood Area, but activities proposed within the Neighborhood Area would impact areas identified as the San Gabriel—San Bernardino Connection. The EHNCP proposes establishing three new preserves in the Rural/Conservation Area, totaling approximately 749 acres. These areas have the potential to be directly connected into national forest lands located to the north, thus being potentially directly connected to very large blocks of contiguous habitat through on-going conservation expansion. Therefore, no significant impacts to wildlife corridors or habitat linkages are anticipated. 2. The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 3. The proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. D. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 1. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Based on an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project Area, no resources were found to contain information that would qualify them for a finding of significance and/or eligibility for listing under any significance criteria. The site is highly disturbed from high velocity colluvial events and thus has a low sensitivity to the discovery of significant archaeological resources. 2. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with the cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). The EIR did not identify previously recorded built environmental resources in the Project Area, and the pedestrian survey only identified homestead structures, water conveyance systems, remnants of mining operations, and transmission lines. These resources were found ineligible for the California Register of Historic Resources or local listing for tribal cultural resources. 3. The Project will not contribute to any adverse cumulative impacts involving cultural or tribal resources. Page 738 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 11 E. ENERGY 1. The proposed Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. During Project construction, electricity usage and demand would be within the supply and infrastructure service capabilities of the Project's electric utility, Southern California Edison, and equipment would be powered off when not in use. Construction activities typically do not consume natural gas, and while construction activities would require petroleum-based fuel for construction transportation and construction equipment, its usage would comply with all energy efficiency standards and regulations. During Project operation, energy would be used for multiple purposes associated with residential and commercial development, including lighting, air conditioning/heating, and refrigeration. The Project's compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code, including new requirements for rooftop solar in new residential developments, would significantly reduce the Project's electrical and natural gas demand. While the Project would result in the addition of 35,446 trips, further improvements and mandates involving fuel efficiency and alternative transportation options, in addition to mitigation measures intended to reduce miles traveled, would reduce the Project's overall petroleum usage. As a result, the Project's proportional impact on petroleum usage statewide would be negligible. 2. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Construction and operation of the Project would not result in an increase in demand for electricity or natural gas that exceeds available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities that could result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, for which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, Project construction and operation impacts to energy infrastructure capacity would be less than significant. 3. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact on energy usage. Buildout of the Project Site, along with related projects and projected growth, would necessary increase energy usage in Southern California Edison's service area, the total usage is relatively small given the utility's anticipated growth. In addition, all new residential and commercial projects will be required to comply with higher efficiency standards in the State's Green Building Standards Code. A similar analysis and conclusion is reached with respect to SoCalGas in terms of natural gas usage. Furthermore, increases in fuel efficiency will reduce cumulative impacts in petroleum usage to a less than significant level. 4. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on energy infrastructure or resources. F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Current code restrictions prohibit constructing structures for human occupancy across the trace of activity faults, and no structures would be built within the active portion of the Etiwanda Scarp portion of the Etiwanda Fault. Page 739 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 12 2. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. Regulatory compliance with building codes will not cause the Project to exacerbate existing seismic conditions. 3. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Regulatory compliance with building codes will not cause the Project to exacerbate existing seismic conditions. 4. The proposed Project will not contribute to any adverse cumulative impacts involving geology and soils. G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Compliance with standard state and federal regulatory requirements would avoid any potential impacts. 2. The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The EIR did not anticipate that acutely hazardous materials would be used within the Project Area, but to the extent any are, they would be required to be handled in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations governing the handling of such materials. 3. The proposed Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 4. The proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan, but would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. 5. The proposed Project will not result in any cumulatively considerable effects on hazards and hazards materials. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Most construction activities associated with buildout of the Project Site will be regulated under the NPDES General Construction Activity Permit (SWRCB Order No. 2012 -0006 -DWG), and each building tract would be required to prepare a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to said permit. Each SWPPP will include a variety of BMPs to ensure that construction -based runoff will not degrade water quality. Project operation will incorporate low impact development features, such as bioswales, park ponds, and detention ponds, that limit stormwater runoff. Each project within the Project Site will be required to maintain the BMPs that are incorporated into their projects, pursuant to the City's Code. Page 740 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 13 2. The proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the China Groundwater Basin. Based on a Project - specific water demand analysis prepared by the Cucamonga Valley Water District, which analyzed potential effects on groundwater supply and recharge, the Project's water demand would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Furthermore, the Project Site contains the Day Creek Spreading Grounds , which retains surface water long enough for it to percolate into the soil. And up to 80 percent of annual rainfall will be filtered and contribute to groundwater recharge using the BMPs discussed above. 3. The proposed Project would not: (1) substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (2) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; (3) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (4) impede or redirect flood flows. During construction, the preparation and implementation of SWPPPs for each development within the Project Site will reduce the potential for siltation, erosion, and hazardous materials spills. In addition, the implementation each SWPPPs BMPs would reduce on- and off-site flooding and would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial sources of polluted runoff. Operation of the Project would not alter draining flows or flood control features. Project features include detention ponds, park ponds, street -side bioswales, and spillways designed to safely convey existing condition peak flows. Channel grading of the new Day Creek Greenway and modifications to the Deer Creek Greenway will allow runoff to safely be routed to the ultimate discharge location. 4. The proposed Project will not result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District's flood control facilities, including the Day Creek Debris Dam and the Day Creek Spreading Grounds, have been analyzed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and District and determined to be sufficient to avoid flooding. This is true even with the removal of the flood control property that encompasses the Project Site. Furthermore, no portion of the Neighborhood Area, where residential development is most predominant, is located within a 100 -year floodplain. 5. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project will be required to comply with the regional Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the municipal stormwater permit. In addition, the Chino and Cucamonga Basins are adjudicated basins, and are expressly exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. 6. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulative impact on hydrology or water quality. Like all other anticipated projects, this Project must comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit and will be required to prepare low impact development BMPs pursuant to the regional WQMP. The proposed storm drain system would provide sufficient volume to treat storm water for water quality purposes and is designed to properly convey the increased runoff attributable to site development. In addition, the Project's drainage system would discharge stormwater flows in a non-erosive manner and therefore would not increase cumulative flooding potential. Page 741 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 14 7. Hydrology and water quality impacts will not be cumulatively considerable. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The Neighborhood Area would be developed between two existing neighborhoods in surplus flood control property. By extending Wilson Avenue through the Project Area and improving and extending Milliken and Rochester Avenues, the Project would complement and complete the existing development pattern in the area. J. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in the General Plan, the North Etiwanda Specific Plan, or other land use plan. K. NOISE 1. The proposed Project would not generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. 2. The proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan. 3. The proposed Project will not result in cumulatively significant noise impacts, including construction and operational noise. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. M. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 1. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. Based on consultation with the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD), the Project Area can be adequately served by existing fire stations and no new or altered facilities are needed to serve the Project's use. The Project's extension of Wilson Avenue, Milliken Avenue, and Day Creek Boulevard would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and residents in the event of an emergency. 2. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection. Although the Project would result in Page 742 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 15 increased demand for police services, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department who have adequate service provided from existing Sheriff's facilities. The Project also includes a police substation as part of the Project's planned Joint Use Public Facility, which would provide additional facilities to meet demand. 3. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools. The need for additional school facilities to accommodate the Project's anticipated 2,188 students is addressed through each individual project's payment of school impact fees to the school districts that will serve the Project Area. 4. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library services. The State service standard for library facilities is 10,000 square feet per 50,000 residents. The City's existing libraries, at 47,350 square feet can serve an estimated population of 236,750, and are therefore adequate to serve the anticipated growth from the Project. 5. The proposed Project would not (1) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks; (2) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. or (3) include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project would increase park and recreational service demands based on population increases. In order to accommodate these plans, the Project includes the construction and operation of numerous park and recreational facilities, in addition to a proposed Joint Use Public Facility to be shared by the City's Community Services, Library Services, and law enforcement departments. In addition, the Rural/Conservation Area would include new and connecting trails intended to serve the public. According to the EIR, these facilities will not cause a significant adverse impact on the environment. 6. The proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. The cumulative impacts of the Project and similar projects that are in various stages of development may cause a need to advance plan for the RCFPD's proposed Station 178, which would reduce the call volume of surrounding fire stations that will be impacted by future growth. As the RCFPD is funded by property taxes, any increase in development will cause the RCFPD to evaluate service demands and direct resources to ensure that service demands are met. New developments must pay a development impact fee to fund new police services and contribute property tax revenue. The City will monitor police staffing levels and facilities to ensure that any future increase in demand is adequately met. Similarly, the payment of school Page 743 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 16 impact, library, and park impact fees in the Project Area and surrounding area will allow the City and school districts to develop facilities to meet increases in demand. 7. The proposed Project will not have cumulatively considerable impacts on public services or recreational facilities. N. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1. The proposed Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The Project Area is not located in an airport land use influence area, nor does the Project include any characteristics that would change air traffic in the area. The additional population generated by the Project would not result in any substantial increase in air traffic levels at regional airports. 2. The proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The Specific Plan does not include any such specific design features and future development in the Project Area will be reviewed for conformance with safe street and highway design. 3. The proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The Specific Plan's proposed street network is adequate to provide access for police, fire, and other emergency vehicles into the Project Area. In addition, future development in the Project Area will be reviewed to ensure that access is designed in accordance with emergency access plans developed for the Project. 4. The proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. 5. The proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Based on Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) guidance provided in the December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA, the Office of Planning and Research recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is 15 percent below that of existing development may indicate that transportation impacts would be less than significant. The Project would generate VMT of approximately 30.40 VMT/service population. This is expected to perform better than 15 percent below comparable regions from a VMP perspective, and 19 percent better that than the City and 21 percent better than the San Bernardino County Valley Region. It should be noted that conformance with VMT as a threshold of significance for traffic is not required until July 1, 2020. O. UTILITIES AND SEWER SERVICE 1. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. Page 744 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 17 2. The wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project has determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. 3. The proposed Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. 4. The proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 5. The proposed Project will not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to utilities and sewer service. VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Utilities and Service Systems. Measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts in this section to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VI. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES Cultural Resources Threshold CUL -2: The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Public Resources Code. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Public Resources Code. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to such archeological resources as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the unlikely event that cultural resources are exposed during construction activities for the proposed EHNCP, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, Page 745 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 18 meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. b. Facts in Support of Findings Two Built Environment Pedestrian Surveys were conducted for the Neighborhood Area and one such survey was conducted of the southern portion of the Rural/Conservation Area (proposed Etiwanda Heights Preserve) of the Project Site. The surveys identified six archaeological resources, including three historic isolates and three archaeological sites in the Neighborhood Area, but none of these resources qualified for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under any significance criteria. Further, the Neighborhood Area's geology is unlikely to produce significant archaeological resources during ground breaking activities. However, ground breaking activities during construction and development of the Project have a potential to uncover previously unidentified archaeological resources within the Project Site. Mitigation Measure MM TCLU-1 requires all construction work within 100 feet of an exposed cultural resource to immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the resource and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. If the resources provides significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. This mitigation measure would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to archaeological resources are reduced to less than significant. Threshold CUL -2: The Project has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects to human remains, if any, as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential cultural resource impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the unlikely event that cultural resources are exposed during construction activities for the proposed EHNCP, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Page 746 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 19 Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the coroner has determined, within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (Neighborhood AreaHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Neighborhood AreaHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the Property Owner, the disposition of the human remains. b. Facts in Support of Findings No known conditions exist within the Rural/Conservation Area that suggest that human remains are likely to be found. Furthermore, the California Native American Commission's Sacred Lands File does not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the Project Area. There are no formal cemeteries within the Project Area. As a result, it is unlikely that human remains would be encountered during ground disturbing activities associated with the Project. However, the possibility remains that human remains could be encountered within the Project Area during ground disturbing activities, and they must be handled and treated in accordance with applicable laws, including Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-1 requires the completion of an archaeological monitoring plan prior to earth -moving activities and would require a qualified archaeologist to implement procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sample, identification, and evaluation of the remains, as appropriate. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL- 2 would require notification of the County Coroner within 24 hours of the discovery of human remains so that the Coroner may handle and identify the remains. These mitigation measures would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to archaeological resources involving human remains are reduced to less than significant. 2. Impacts to Tribal Resources Threshold TCUL-2: The proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with the cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the Lead Agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c11) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. a. Findings Page 747 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 20 The proposed Project has a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with the cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential tribal resource impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the unlikely event that cultural resources are exposed during construction activities for the proposed EHNCP, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the coroner has determined, within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (Neighborhood AreaHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Neighborhood AreaHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the Property Owner, the disposition of the human remains. b. Facts in Support of Findings No previously recorded tribal cultural resources have been identified within the Project Area, based on a review of the Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File for the Project Area. The resources identified in the Project Area consist of historic era homestead structures, water conveyance systems, remands of mining operations, and transmission lines. The City contacted the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation as part of its outreach and consultation requirements under SB 18 and AB 52. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians informed the City that portions of the Rural/Conservation Area are in the City's ancestral territory and recommended certain mitigation measures to reduce impacts on their tribal resources. Although ground breaking activities in the Rural/Conservation Area are expected to be minimal, Mitigation Measures MM TCUL-1 and MM TCUL-2 would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to tribal cultural resources are reduced to less than significant. Page 748 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 21 B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Landslides Threshold GEO-4: The proposed Project has the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslide. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslide. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving landslides as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 Landslides. The potential for seismically induced landslides and slope instability shall be investigated during future geotechnical studies. If the studies suggest slope instability is a concern, remedial recommendations to limit slope instability, such as construction of slope stability buttresses, installation of soil nails or anchors, or redesign of slopes, should be provided. Appropriate implementation of grading and slope stabilization recommendations is expected to reduce the impact of seismically induced landslides. b. Facts in Support of Findings The Neighborhood Area is relatively flat and contains minimal rises or elevation changes, with no major slopes or bluffs. As such, the Neighborhood Area would likely not be subject to landslide risks. However, the northern portion of the Rural/Conservation Area is within a moderate to high potential landslide susceptibility zone, and the presence of relatively high topographic relief across the Rural/Conservation Area raises the potential hazards from slope instability. Thus, development within this area must be evaluated during geotechnical investigations for individual projects within the Project Area. To that end, Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 has been added to the Project in order to require an investigation of seismically induced landslides and slope instability for each individual project. With this measure, the potential for environmental effects associated with landslides are reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Erosion Threshold GEO-5: The proposed Project has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to involving soil erosion as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measures has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Page 749 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 22 Mitigation Measure MM GEO-2 Compressible Soils. Future site-specific geotechnical investigations of planned development shall be conducted. These investigations should identify potentially compressible soils. Implementation of the recommended removal and re -compaction of the near surface soils should mitigate the significant portion of the soils that are prone to compression on-site. In addition, if deep artificial fill is to be placed in the abandoned quarry (or in other areas), specific recommendations for placement and settlement monitoring of these fills will be required. Delay in construction while the settlement of the deep artificial fills reduces to acceptable limits may be necessary. Geotechnical studies with recommendations specifically addressing these issues will be required if deep fills are planned. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-3 Erosion. The potential for erosion can typically be reduced by appropriate paving of exposed ground surfaces, landscaping, providing terraces on slopes, placing berms or V -ditches at the tops of slopes, and installing adequate storm drain systems. Graded slopes must be protected until healthy plant growth is established. Typically, protection can be provided by the use of sprayed polymers, straw waddles, jute mesh or by other measures. Temporary erosion control measures must be provided during construction, as required by current grading codes. Such measures typically include temporary catchment basins and/or sandbagging to control runoff and contain sediment transport within the individual project sites. Correct implementation of these erosion control measures is expected to reduce the impact resulting from erosion. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-4 Rippability and Oversized Rock. Future site specific geotechnical investigations of planned development shall be conducted. These investigations must identify areas of hard rock and oversize rock. Adjusting the grades so as to not encounter the nonrippable rock will reduce the impact from the non-rippable material to less than significant. Oversized rocks should be handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultants of the specific projects. Examples of oversized rock treatment includes placement in deeper fills, nonstructural areas, crushing, or disposed of off-site. b. Facts in Support of Findings Based on field investigations, the upper portion of the surficial soils within the Project Area are expected to be slightly to moderately compressible, which can result in erosion or settlement. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-2 for potential removal and re -compaction of the near surface soils would protect existing conditions from compaction -based erosion impacts to a less than significant level. The successful removal and re -compaction of the near surface soils should mitigate the significant portion of the soils that are prone to compression at each project site. The native soils within the Project Area, as well as fill slopes constructed with native soils, will have a moderate susceptibility to erosion, particularly during development. However, the incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-3 into the Project will reduce erosion to a less than significant level by requiring appropriate paving of exposed ground surfaces, landscaping, providing terraces on slopes, placing berms on v -ditches at the tops of slopes, and installation of adequate storm drain systems. Such erosion control measures, when correctly applied, reduce erosion impacts to less than significant levels. Page 750 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 23 Finally, bedrock materials within the Project Area are generally anticipated to be rippable to depths of five to ten feet below ground surface. An impact may be created where heavy ripping or blasting is required for deep cuts in bedrock to allow for future development. Furthermore, oversized materials, including rocks, may need to be removed in order to build over the land. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-4 has been incorporated into the Project in order to mitigate rippability and oversized rock disposal impacts to a less than significant level. It does so by adjusting potential grades so as to not encounter the non-rippable rock. 3. Expansive or Unstable Soil or Geology Threshold GEO-6: The proposed Project has the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving such unstable soil or geology as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measures has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-5 Corrosive Soils. Testing should be performed prior to construction of the proposed improvements within the Rural/Conservation Area and Neighborhood Area. All concrete in contact with the soil shall be designed based on requirements of the California Building Code. All metals in contact with corrosive soil shall be protected in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer or a corrosion engineer. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-6 Settlement. The potential for seismically induced settlement shall be investigated during future geotechnical studies. Based on these studies, loose, compressible soils prone to seismic settlement must be identified. Recommendations for removal and replacement or mitigation of soil prone to seismic settlement should be provided as part of geotechnical reports submitted to the City as part of the review of specific projects. Correct implementation of remedial grading and design recommendations is expected to reduce the impact of seismically induced settlement. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-7 Stability of Slopes. Future site-specific geotechnical investigations of the planned development shall be conducted. These investigations must analyze this potential for slope instability in light of the proposed grading and development plans and underlying earth materials, and present recommendations for construction and adequate stability of manufactured slopes. Slopes shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer for individual projects, California Building Code and City and/or County guidelines. Page 751 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 24 Mitigation Measure MM GEO-8 Excavation. Where excavations are made, the excavation wall may be shored, with shoring designed to withstand any additional loads, or the excavation walls may be flattened or "laid-back" to a shallower gradient. Excavation spoils should not be placed immediately adjacent to the excavation walls unless the excavation is shored to support the added load. Other measures used to reduce the potential for temporary slope failure include cutting and backfilling excavations in sections, and not leaving temporary excavations open for long periods of time. All California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CaIOSHA) regulations must be observed for excavations that will be entered by people. Following these measures is expected to reduce the impact posed by temporary slopes. b. Facts in Support of Findings With respect to corrosive soils in both the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood areas, soils are expected to have negligible amounts of soluble sulfate contents, but contain mild to moderate amounts of ferrous metal. As a water soluble constituent, this can potentially result in soil corrosion in connection with concrete and create hazards for structure and underground improvements. However, the addition of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-5 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level because it will ensure that concrete and metal improvements meet state Building Code and manufacturer recommended standards, respectively, in areas where sulfates or ferrous metals are identified. The potential for significant seismic settlement is low in the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood areas due to the existence of alluvial fan deposits. However, the Project Site is located in an area of potential seismic settlement and, therefore, the potential for seismically induced settlement is considered potentially significant. As a result, the Municipal Code results that individual projects evaluate the potential for seismic settlement. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-6 has been added to the Project to ensure that correct implementation of remedial grading and design recommendations are applied to individual projects. With the incorporation of this mitigation measure, impacts would not exacerbate existing conditions and would be less than significant. Designed slope cuts into native soil can be prone to instability, depending on the nature of the earth material underlying the slope. Design fill slopes may also be prone to instability if poorly constructed or constructed of unsuitable earth materials. This is the case in both the Neighborhood and Rural/Conservation Areas and results in a potentially significant hazard of unstable manufactured slopes. However, Mitigation measure MM GEO-7 would avoid exacerbating existing conditions by ensuring that slopes are constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. Therefore, the impacts arising out of the stability of manufactured slopes are reduced to a less than significant level. Temporary slopes will be cut for excavations for underground utilities or other structures throughout the Project Area. Unconsolidated soils may occur when temporary slopes are cut and create a potential risk temporary slope failure. This is especially true when temporary slopes are cut at a steeper gradient than manufactured slopes. As a result, Mitigation Measure MM GEO-8 has been incorporated into the Project to ensure that temporary excavations are shored in accordance with specific recommendations to avoid collapse and in accordance with OSHA requirements. This will reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. Page 752 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 25 Threshold GEO-7: The proposed Project has the potential to be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. C. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving such expansive soil identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-9 Expansive Soils. Testing within hillside areas of the Rural/Conservation Area should be performed in planned development areas in order to evaluate the expansion potential of the near surface soil materials and prior to construction of the proposed foundations. Providing the results to the structural engineer will allow them to design a foundation system that is able to withstand the expansive potential of the near surface soil materials. d. Facts in Support of Findings Expansive soils underlying a foundation or slab, if left untreated, can cause damage to a structure. Differential movement in the building can result in damage to floors and walls, as well as door and window frames. Based on investigations within both the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood Areas, the alluvial soils have an Expansion Index in the very low range (less than 20 EI), with some soils in the very low to medium range in the Rural/Conservation Area (less than 90 EI). Because some soils in the hillsides areas of the Rural/Conservation Areas may be expansive, the potential for damage caused by expanding soils has the potential to be significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM GEO-9 has been added to the Project to ensure testing is conducted in these areas to determine whether a site has expansive soils and, if so, a structural engineer will design a foundation system to withstand the soil conditions. With this measure, the potential impact of expansive soils is reduced to less than significant. Threshold GEO-8: The proposed Project has the potential to have soils incapable of adequately supporting use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. e. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to have soils incapable of adequately supporting use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-10 Rural Development Design Review. Development in the Rural/Conservation Area shall be subject to the requirements Page 753 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 26 and review procedures of City Municipal Code 17.16.140 (Hillside Development Review). In addition to those requirements, applications for development in the Rural/Conservation Area shall include a septic system feasibility study prior to each new development as well as to obtain a well drill permit. Facts in Support of Findings Sewer capacity in both the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood area is expected to be adequate. No septic tanks or alternative sewer systems are anticipated for the Neighborhood Area. However, some of the rural development of up to 100 residences in the Rural/Conservation Area may rely on septic tanks or alternative sewer systems because there are currently no specific infrastructure plans for new development in this area. As such, it is unknown whether there will be an impact on such infrastructure due to soil stability, and thus the impact is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-10 has been added to the Project to ensure that septic systems are appropriate for new development and the soils can accommodate the system before drilling occurs. With this measure, impacts are reduced to less than significant. 4. Paleontological and Geological Features Threshold GEO-9: The Project has the potential to directly or indirectly impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to directly or indirectly impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving such unique paleontological or geological features identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-11 Inadvertent Discoveries. In the event that paleontological resources are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Ground -disturbing activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as testing or data recovery, may be warranted. Should any prehistoric or historical Native American artifacts be encountered, additional consultation with Neighborhood AreaHC-listed tribal groups should be conducted immediately. b. Facts in Support of Findings There are currently no unique geologic features located in the Project Area, but there is a potential for discovering paleontological resources. Construction in the Project Area will have to adhere to Public Resources Code Section 210833.2, which requires earth -disturbing work to be suspended or redirected if a paleontological resource is identified. In addition, Mitigation Measure MM GEO-11 has been incorporated into the project to ensure that any inadvertent discoveries of such resources would result in an immediate halt of construction in the vicinity of the resource until a paleontologist Page 754 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 27 can evaluate the significance of the find. With these measures, the impact to paleontological resources is avoided and reduced to a less than significant level. C. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Release of Hazardous Materials or Substances Threshold HAZ-2. The proposed Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. a. Findings The Project has a potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1. Future developers and/or contractors must coordinate in advance of construction with the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection TDistrict to ensure that road closures (temporary or permanent) are identified that alternate access and evacuation routes are determined in the event of an emergency and/or natural disaster. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-2. Before issuance of a grading permit for projects within Plan Area on any individual project site (i.e., Phase) that contains or are known to have historically contained commercial/industrial related uses, the site developer(s) must: Investigate the project site to determine whether it or immediately adjacent areas have a record of hazardous material contamination via the preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment (ESA), which must be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for review. If contamination is found the report must characterize the site according to the nature and extent of contamination that is present before development activities precede at that site. If contamination is determined to be on-site, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in accordance with appropriate agency requirements, must require remediation of the soil and/groundwater conditions on the contaminated site. If further remediation is required, it must be the responsibility of the site developer(s) to complete such remediation prior to construction of the project. If remediation is required as identified by the local oversight agency, it must be accomplished in a manner that reduces risk to below applicable standards and must be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy permits. Soil remediation methods that could be employed include, but are not limited to, one or more of Page 755 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 28 the following: excavation and on-site treatment, such as above ground bioremediation, soil washing, soil stabilization, soil vapor extraction, or high- temperature soil thermal desorption. Groundwater remediation methods that could be employed include, but are not limited to, pumping water to surface, treating, and returning to aquifer; treating groundwater in place by injecting oxidizing agents; and placing membrane in aquifer and using natural flows to trap contaminants. Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that document the successful completion of required remediation activities, if any, for contaminated soils, must be submitted and approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to the issuance of grading permits for site development. No construction must occur in the affected area until reports have been accepted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-3. If previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction within the Plan Area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination must cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan must be prepared and implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post -development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures must include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post -development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Example soil remediation methods that may be employed include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: excavation and on-site treatment, such as above ground bioremediation, soil washing, soil stabilization, soil vapor extraction, or high-temperature soil thermal desorption. Example groundwater remediation methods that may be employed include, but are not limited to, pumping water to surface, treating, and returning to aquifer; treating groundwater in place by injecting oxidizing agents; and placing membrane in aquifer and using natural flows to trap contaminants. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies must be notified (e.g., City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and San Bernardino County Environmental Health Division). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements must be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. b. Facts in Support of Findings Based on an investigation of available records involving the Project Area, the only existing potential source of contamination within the Project Area is a now -closed sand and gravel mine that the County has determined poses no risk of environmental contamination. However, other past uses within the Project Area may resulted in hazardous materials contamination that were not identified in the investigation. If any such materials are identified in the Project Area during Project implementation, a remediation and cleanup in accordance with applicable law would commence. To Page 756 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 29 ensure a proper remediation and cleanup is completed and the risk is reduced to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 has been incorporated into the Project. This measure would ensure that an environmental site assessment is performed for each individual project and, if hazardous materials are found, would require that they be properly handled and the site remediated. A closure report acceptable to the First Protection District must be issued before grading permits could be approved. If hazardous materials are identified during Project implementation, then it is possible that construction works and the public could be exposed to unknown hazardous substances in the soil or groundwater. At this time, it is unknown what types of substances might exist on site or the health and safety risks they would pose, especially if they migrated off-site. In order to avoid this potential risk, Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 has been adopted to ensure that, if such substances are discovered, a Risk Management Plan is prepared and implemented to determine the risk and propose actions to protect works and the public from exposure to the substances. In addition, state environmental regulators may be involved to protect those exposed to the substances. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, the potential risks involving hazardous materials is reduced to a less than significant level. Threshold HAZ-3. The proposed Project does not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Initial Study determined that the Project does not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no mitigation measures were required for this impact area. To the extent that air pollutants will be emitted during Project construction and operation, however, those impacts are analyzed under Section VI.A, Air Quality. 2. Emergency Planning Threshold HAZ-6. The proposed Project has the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. a. Findings The Project has the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to such emergency planning. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1. Future developers and/or contractors must coordinate in advance of construction with the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to ensure that road closures (temporary or permanent) are identified that alternate access and evacuation routes are determined in the event of an emergency and/or natural disaster. b. Facts in Support of Findings Page 757 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 30 Milliken Avenue, Banyan Street, and Rochester Avenue are main thoroughfares that may be used by emergency responders or evacuees during an emergency. During certain periods of construction, temporary road closures or detours or the transportation of oversized loads may occur, which could slow down or impede traffic. As a result, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 has been added to the Project to ensure that Project development and construction is coordinated with the Fire Protection District so that appropriate alternate evacuation and access routes may be planned. With this measure, the impact to emergency traffic impacts is reduced to a less than significant level. Project implementation should not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans because it would neither reduce nor impede traffic lanes. 3. Wildfires Threshold HAZ-7. The proposed Project has the potential to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. a. Findings The Project has the potential to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to such emergency planning. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-4: Fire Protection Plan. To address the risk to residential development, future developers shall prepare fire protection plans that meet the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Development Standards and are consistent with the Master Fire Protection Plan. The fire protection plan shall describe all actions that will be taken to reduce wildfire risks to the structure(s). The plan shall include (1) A copy of the site plan that indicates topographic reference lines; (2) A copy of the approved landscape/vegetation management plan;(3) Methods and timetables for controlling, changing or modifying areas on the property (elements of the plan shall include removal of dead vegetation, litter, vegetation that may grow into overhead electrical lines, certain ground fuels, and ladder fuels as well as the thinning of live trees); and (4) A maintenance schedule for the landscape/vegetation management plan. The Fire Protection Plan for a specific neighborhood or phase of construction shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-5: Fire Prevention Construction Techniques. Construction within the designated Wildfire- Urban Interface Fire Area is required to be in accordance with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, the California Residential Code and Standard 49-1 of the of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Page 758 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 31 b. Facts in Support of Findings Wildland fires can, and have, occurred in open spaces containing flammable and nonflammable vegetation cover, such as portions of the Rural/Conservation Area. To that end, most of the land within the Project Area has been identified by Cal Fair as a very high fire hazard severity zone and the entire Project Area is within the Fire Protection District's designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA). According to Government Code Section 51179, once an agency has been notified by Cal Fire that there are Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the agency's boundaries, it is required to adopt by ordinance a Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone map that officially designates the hazard area. The City has adopted a combined Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area map designated areas within the City and beyond the current boundaries of the City. Given the Project's location and fire risks, the impact of wildfires was determined to be potentially significant. The Fire Protection District has adopted Standard 49-1, which defines construction requirements for buildings, fire protection plans, vegetation management and landscaping, roadways, identification of buildings, electrical transmission and distribution lines, storage of firewood and other combustible materials, outdoor fires and cooking appliances, evacuation planning, a fire access plan that conforms to Fire District Standard 5-1, and a water supply plan that conforms to Fire District Standard 5-10. To help reduce the presence of more fire -prone plants in the landscaping proposals, the Fire District has developed a list of undesirable plants and trees included in this standard. Since the adoption of the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area map, all projects in the designated area, including custom single-family homes, have been required to comply with the applicable State and local wildfire safety provisions by submitting for review and approval a document, such as a site- specific fire protection plan or specific plan, that contains all of the required and applicable elements of Standard 49-1 and demonstrates compliance with the applicable State codes. In addition to requiring the designation of a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code also requires hazardous vegetation and fuels to be managed "to reduce the severity of potential exterior wildfire exposures to buildings and to reduce the risk of fire spreading to buildings." Hazardous vegetation and fuels around all applicable buildings and structures are required to be maintained in accordance with existing State laws and regulations including those found in the Public Resources Code and the Government Code. The Project incorporates a buffer/defense line between the natural areas, which are more susceptible to fire, and the Neighborhood Area. In addition to these required measures, Mitigation Measures MM 4 and 5 have been adopted to further reduce the impact of wildfires to a less than significant level. In the event of a wildfire, the plans required by these mitigation measures will ensure that future developments within the Project Area are properly designed, constructed, and maintained to mitigate the impacts of wildfire. With these measures, and the above existing requirements of State law and the Fire Protection District, this environmental impact is reduced to a less than significant level. Page 759 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 32 D. NOISE Threshold NOI-1: The proposed Project has the potential to generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the General Plan and noise ordinance. a. Findings The Project has the potential to generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the General Plan and noise ordinance. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to noise. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM N-1: Prior to the issuance of each permit for grading, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit construction -related noise mitigation plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the project. The plan shall demonstrate that the construction plans and specifications include the following noise abatement, notification, and control measures: • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State -required noise -attenuation devices. • Limiting the number of noise -generating heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously within 50 feet of off-site noise sensitive receptors surrounding the site. • Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. • On-site and off-site construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses, as feasible. • If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. • A "Construction Noise Coordinator" shall be identified. The Construction Noise Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Construction Noise Coordinator shall notify the City within 48 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Planning Page 760 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 33 Department. Signs shall be posted at the construction that include the contact information for the Construction Noise Coordinator. Mitigation Measure MM N-2: Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings at the southeast and southwest corners of the Plan Area, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit an acoustical study to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Official that demonstrates that the proposed architectural design would provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less (based on buildout traffic noise conditions) in all habitable rooms of the proposed buildings facing the SR -210. The Property Owner/Developer shall also submit plans and specifications showing that: • All residential units shall be provided with a means of mechanical ventilation, as required by the California Building Code for occupancy with windows closed. b. Facts in Support of Findings Noise impacts from Project construction activities would result from the noise generated by the amount of construction equipment, the location of the equipment, the timing and duration of the noise -generating construction activities, and the relative distance to noise -sensitive receptors. On-site construction activities, such as grading and building construction and finishing, would generate maximum noise levels of 74 dBA to 85 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet. To provide a conservative or "worst-case" analysis, the EIR estimated the equipment noise levels assuming all construction equipment contains in the Project Area would operate simultaneously. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM N-1 would provide noise abatement during construction near adjacent receptors. Mitigation Measure MM N-1 would include the use of optimal muffler systems for all equipment and the break in line of sight to a sensitive receptor would reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10 dB or more.9 In addition, Mitigation Measure MM N-1 would limit the number of noise generating heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously used on the Plan Area within 50 feet of off-site noise sensitive receptors surrounding the site to no more than one or two pieces of heavy-duty off-road equipment would further reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10 dBA. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM N-1, construction noise would be reduced by, at a minimum, 25 dB, and would not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA for residential uses and 70 dBA for commercial or industrial uses when measured at the adjacent property line. As such, impacts would be less than significant with this mitigation incorporated. With respect to off-site construction activities, such as off-site truck travel associated with the hauling of excavated materials and deliveries, the maximum construction trips would be approximately 1,500 trips per day including 492 vendor trips per day. Based on these trips, roadway noise levels would result in 67.8 dBA CNEL at 25 feet from the receptor. The noise level increases from construction trips would not exceed existing noise levels greater than 5 dBA at areas that would exceed 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL or greater than 3 dBA at areas that would exceed 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL. As such, impacts related to off-site construction activities would be less than significant. Operational noise impacts would be primarily generated by vehicle trips associated with the Project. Any noise increase of 5 dBA or greater is potentially significant when it impacts a sensitive land use, such as a residential area, and the noise level at the sensitive land use would exceed 65 dBA Ldn or Page 761 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 34 CNEL. The Project would generate an estimated 35,446 daily trips, which includes both internal trips (4,264) and external trips (31,182). To estimate noise level increase and impacts due to the Project, noise level increases were calculated from the traffic volumes provided in a traffic study. The difference in traffic noise between existing conditions and existing plus Project conditions represents the increase in noise attributable to Project -related traffic. Project -related traffic would cause noise levels along the analyzed roadways to increase by more than 3 dBA at Wilson Avenue west of Day Creek Boulevard (Intersection 7), Day Creek Boulevard south of Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard north and south of Wilson Avenue. However, any noise increases of 5 dBA or greater is potentially significant when it impacts sensitive land uses that would exceed 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL. These intersections exceeding 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL would not result in increases of 5 dBA or greater. Therefore, impacts related to roadway noise levels would be less than significant. The General Plan's Public Health and Safety Element includes noise compatibility guidelines. These guidelines and applicable sections of the State building code are used to evaluate the Project's compatibility with future ambient noise levels. The dominant noise source on the southeast and southwest corners of the Plan area include the SR -210 freeway. Ambient noise levels within this area range from 55.9 — 56.4 dBA. However, there is potential for increased noise levels due to increased traffic along SR -210. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure MM N-2 has been incorporated into the Project in order to require the incorporation of architectural features (such as a sound wall adjacent to the SR -210 freeway) to ensure that residential habitable rooms facing the freeway have interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less, as required by the California Building Code. As such, impacts associated with operation of the Project would be less than significant with this mitigation incorporated. Cumulative Noise Impacts. The proposed Project has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on roadway noise. C. Findings The Project has the potential to cause a cumulatively considerable impact on roadway noise. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to roadway noise. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1: The Property Owner/Developer shall implement the following intersection improvements. Intersection 7: Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements identified below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require striping modifications and median improvements. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1595th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: Page 762 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 35 Modify eastbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lanes, and one right -turn lane Add right -turn overlap phasing in the eastbound direction Optimization of cycle length This measure shall be implemented prior to completion of 55% when the entire Plan is at full buildout. Intersection 17: Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak hour signal timing plans, including a cycle length of 120 seconds. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 2755th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 19: Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak hour signal timing plans relative to the expected traffic volume demand. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1885th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. The improvement is consistent with the proposed mitigation measure in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 150th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: Modify northbound approach of the intersection from two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right -turn lane to two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one through -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane Optimization of coordinated splits Page 763 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 36 d. Facts in Support of Findings Cumulative traffic noise impacts are measured based on projected long-term noise level increases compared to existing conditions. The long-term scenario is the future year (2040) with Project condition, which includes all pending and approved development projects within the City. As shown in the EIR, future (2040) traffic would cause noise levels along the analyzed roadways to increase by more than 3 dBA at Wilson Avenue west of Day Creek Boulevard (Intersection 7). As discussed below in the Traffic and Transportation impact area, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1 would require striping modifications and improvements, which would reduce the level of service at this intersection to acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak hours. Furthermore, the modification would reduce traffic volumes within those intersections and would not result in a doubling of traffic volume. In addition, future traffic at Milliken Street north of Wilson Avenue (Intersection 6) would increase by 4.7 dBA CNEL and 5.3 dBA CNEL during the AM and PM peak hour respectively. However, noise levels at the residences would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold. As such, with the addition of these mitigation measures to the Project, cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant. E. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Conflict with Conaestion Manaaement Plan Threshold TRAF-2: The proposed project has the potential to conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to conflict with the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the potential conflict with the CMP. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the Project's conflict with the CMP is less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1: The Property Owner/Developer shall implement the following intersection improvements. Intersection 7: Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements identified below can fit within the existing right-of- way and will require striping modifications and median improvements. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1595th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: Page 764 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 37 o Modify eastbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lanes, and one right -turn lane. o Add right -turn overlap phasing in the eastbound direction. o Optimization of cycle length. Intersection 17: Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak -hour signal timing plans, including a cycle length of 120 seconds. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 2755th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 19: Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak -hour signal timing plans relative to the expected traffic volume demand. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1885th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. The improvement is consistent with the proposed mitigation measure in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right -turn lane to two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one through -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane. Page 765 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 38 o Optimization of coordinated splits. This measure is estimated to be triggered at 5% when the entire Plan is at full buildout. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the cost of the improvements identified below to mitigate cumulative impacts at these intersections. This fair share contribution will be used by the City with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. Intersection 33: Base Line Road and East Avenue. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one right -turn lane. o Restripe the southbound approach from one dedicated right -turn lane, two through lanes and one left turn late to two dedicated right -turn lanes, one through lane and one left -turn lane. o Add right -turn overlap phasing in all directions. o Optimize signal timing plan coordinated splits. Intersection 35: Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Adjust and optimize the PM peak hour signal timing plan and cycle length. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share for the following measures required to mitigate Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project conditions. This fair share contribution will be used by the Caltrans with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. Page 766 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 39 • Intersection 34: Baseline Avenue and 1-15 Northbound Ramps. The modifications below can fit within the existing right- of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one left -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane to one left -turn lane and two right -turn lanes. b. Facts in Support of Findings The San Bernardino County CMP defines a network of state highways and arterials; level of service (LOS) standards and related procedures; the process for mitigation of impacts of new development on the transportation system; and technical justification for the approach. The CMP sets the LOS standard for the County's CMP -designated highway system at LOS E for roadway intersections and freeway interchanges in the County's CMP -designated highway system and implements an enhanced transportation management program to ensure that the designated roadways and intersections meet the set standard. The San Bernardino County CMP defines LOS E or better as the acceptable level of service for facilities included in the CMP network. However, it also notes that local agency thresholds should be applied as long as they provide improved service levels compared to the CMP requirements. Because the City and Caltrans have LOS standards that are more stringent than CMP standards, any impacts captured by an analysis using the local standards is captured under CMP analysis as well. As the Project would not have any significant impacts under the more stringent City and Caltrans' thresholds forthese locations, with implementation of MM TRAF-1through MM TRAF-3 for reducing traffic volumes, potential conflicts with the CMP would be reduced to less than significant levels. F. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Threshold UTIL-1. The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. a. Findings The Project has the potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the construction of new utility services. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Sewers. Any improvements to segments of the sewer main system downstream of the Plan Area determined to be needed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District to provide the capacity needed to Page 767 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 40 accommodate wastewater generated by the project, based on additional modeling and review, shall be constructed. Improvements may include installing larger sewer lines or constructing parallel lines to provide additional capacity b. Facts in Support of Findings The proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Water, sewer, and other urban services would not be extended to the Rural/Conservation Area where private property owners would be served by private water wells and septic systems. In the Neighborhood Area, a water supply assessment was prepared by the Cucamonga Valley Water District that demonstrates that the District has sufficient capacity to meet the demand for water associated with the Project. A storage reservoir, a 16 -inch water transmission line, and an interconnect between the new storage and existing storage tanks would be constructed. The EIR analyzed the impacts of these new facilities and determined that they would have a less than significant impact. With respect to wastewater, a Backbone Water and Wastewater Plan of Service Technical Report demonstrated that the Inland Empire Utilities Agency would have sufficient capacity to serve the Project Area. A sewer main would be constructed to serve the Project, but is not expected to result in significant impacts. No significant upgrades to electricity, gas, or communications lines are expected to be constructed in order to provide service to the Project Area. There are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. A water supply assessment was prepared by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVW D) that demonstrates that the District has sufficient capacity to meet the demand for water associated with the Project. The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. In addition, the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Residents of the Project Area would generate approximately 31 tons of solid waste per day, or 11,281 tons per year, and the commercial retail shops would generate approximately four tons per day, or 1,460 tons per year. Based on the total amount of remaining capacity at landfills that will serve the Project, the Project's total contribution of 35 tons per day would represent 0.00002 percent of the available remaining capacity. Impacts would therefore be less than significant and capacity would be sufficient. In addition, State law (AB 939) requires a 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills, which the City has achieved with a 57 percent diversion rate. The Project would comply with all management and reduction requirements. The Inland Empire Utilities Agency has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the Agency's existing customers. A Backbone Water and Wastewater Plan of Service Technical Report demonstrated that the Inland Empire Utilities Agency would have sufficient capacity to serve the Project Area. A 21 -inch trunk main would be extended 2.5 miles south from the Neighborhood Area in the existing north -south utility corridor to Foothills Parkway, which would connect to an existing 27 -inch CVWD trunk main with available capacity to accept wastewater flows from the Neighborhood Area. However, some upgrades to downstream sewer mains would be constructed as part of the Project. Any improvements that would cross the SR -210 Freeway would need to be routed through an Page 768 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 41 existing crossing or a new crossing would need to be built under the freeway by horizonal drilling (jack and bore). The undetermined need for such sewer mains could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore Mitigation Measure MM UTIIL-1 has been added to ensure construction of these improvements to any downstream sewer mains as determined needed by CVWD to provide capacity to accommodate and convey wastewater flows from the Project Area. With the incorporation of this mitigation measure, the impact on utilities is mitigated to a less than significant level. VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation. In the environmental areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Transportation and Traffic, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below: A. AIR QUALITY Air Quality Planning and Standards Threshold AQ -1: Implementation of the proposed Project will result in a significant and unavoidable conflict with or obstruction of the Southern California Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan. a. Findings Operational emissions arising out of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to construction emissions. Specifically, the following measures have been included in the Project to lessen the impacts. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -1: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Any emissions -control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -2: The Plan shall be developed in nine phases over approximately 13 years, as described in Section 2.0: Project Description, to minimize concurrent development. In addition, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential operational emissions are less than significant. Page 769 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 42 Mitigation Measure MM AQ -3: Preferential parking for low -emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code One- and two-family dwellings and facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each residential building and nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with the Residential and Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -4: Post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 5 minutes). Post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM -AQ -3 and MM AQ -4 that would reduce significant impact caused by operational emissions to a less than significant level. Thus, the impact associated with operational emissions remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The primary source of construction related NOx, CO, and SOx emissions is construction equipment exhaust and on -road haul truck trips while the majority of particulate matter emissions would occur as a result of fugitive dust emissions generated during grading and excavation activities. Primary sources of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be clearing activities, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. The estimated maximum daily emissions for each of the nine phases of the Project do not exceed SCAQMD's regional concentration thresholds. The EIR's analysis is conservative in that it assumes that all of the construction equipment and activities would occur continuously overthe day. In reality, this would not occur, as most equipment operates only a fraction of each workday and many of the activities would not overlap on a daily basis. In addition, the emission results did not include implementation of regulatory compliance measures such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which minimize short-term emissions of dust and particulate. Therefore, the EIR's analysis of construction emissions is considered a worst case analysis. Exceedances would occur if concurrent grading and building in each individual phase were to take place. Based on the recommendation provided by the SCAQMD, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ1 would require the use of Tier 3 off-road diesel -powered construction equipment equipped with any emissions -control device such as a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF). The measure would be expected to reduce diesel particulate matter by approximately 85 percent or more. SCAQMD Rule 1113 would limit the amount of VOCs in architectural coatings and solvents. In addition, the Project would comply with the applicable provisions of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure regarding idling limitations for diesel trucks. Through mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules and implementation of MM AQ -1, construction -related emission impacts would be less than significant. If construction of all Project phases were to occur concurrently, construction activities would likely exceed regional VOC and NOx concentration thresholds. Again, this is based on a conservative, worst-case analysis that assumes all construction equipment activities would occur continuously over the day and that activities would overlap. This is unlikely to occur. However, Mitigation Page 770 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 43 Measure MM -AQ -2 has been incorporated into the Project to require construction to be phased in accordance with the Project phasing components. As discussed in the prior paragraph, phased development would not exceed regional construction concentration thresholds. As such, construction -related air quality impacts would remain less than significant. The Project's estimated operational emissions are comprised of area, energy and mobile source emissions. Area source emissions would result from the use of consumer products, natural gas fireplaces, landscaping equipment, and periodic repainting of buildings. Consumer products include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries. Energy emissions come from the use of natural gas for heating and hot water. All fireplaces would be gas -fueled; in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 445, there would be no wood burning fireplaces. Mobile source emissions are based on Project -related trip generation forecasts. The Project would generate an estimated 35,446 gross tripends per day, which includes both internal and external trips. The EIR's analysis concludes that the Project's operational emissions would exceed daily operational emissions for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. The primary source of VOC would be from consumer products from residential land uses, an area source. The primary source of NOx, CO, PM 10, and PM2.5 emissions would be from the 35,446 gross tripends per day from mobile sources. Compliance with local and State standards are not reasonably quantifiable, but would provide additional emissions reductions that are not accounted for. For example, the Project would be required to comply with California Building Code requirements for energy efficiency which would reduce natural gas emissions. The Project would be designed in accordance with applicable residential and nonresidential sections of the CALGreen Building Code as designed by the City and required by Section 17.50 of the City's Municipal Code. The Project would comply with Section 17.50 of the City's Municipal Code to install recycled water systems for all projects with a total landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet. The Project would be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. There are no feasible Plan -level mitigation measures for consumer product VOC emission reductions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ -3 would require preferential parking for alternative fueled vehicles and electric vehicle charging facilities for nonresidential buildings, residential buildings, parking garages and parking lots. In addition, this measure would require bicycle parking for residential building and parking facilities. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -4 would limit truck idling and would provide incentives for employees of commercial business to commute by Metrolink or bus. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ -3 and MM AQ -4 would reduce project - related VMT long-term emissions of mobile source pollutants, estimates of the amount of emissions reductions are not feasible. These measures provide incentives to reduce the number of vehicle trips with fossil -fuel only vehicles, but do not guarantee any reductions. Therefore, operational impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The EIR includes a discussion of regional health arising out of the significant and unavoidable operational emissions impacts. Threshold AQ -2: The proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of VOC, NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5 and localized PM2.5 for which the project region is nonattainment under applicable federal and state ambient air quality standards. Page 771 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 44 C. Findings NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5 emissions arising out of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable. The South Coast Air Quality Basin is is currently nonattainment for Federal ozone and PM2.5 and for State ozone, PM 10, and PM2.5. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project to substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to these emissions. Specifically, the following measures have been included to lessen this impact. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -1: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Any emissions -control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -2: The Plan shall be developed in nine phases over approximately 13 years, as described in Section 2.0: Project Description, to minimize concurrent development. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -3: Preferential parking for low -emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code One- and two-family dwellings and facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each residential building and nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with the Residential and Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -4: Post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 5 minutes). Post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -5: Preparation of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) of the proposed Sub -Area 1 to the southwest and Sub -Area 8 to the southeast if housing development were to occur within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Disclose the potential health impacts to prospective residents from living in a close proximity of 1-210 and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and/or when residents are outdoor (e.g., common usable open space areas). Many strategies are available to reduce exposure, including, but are not limited to: building filtration systems with MERV 13 or better; building design, orientation, location; and vegetation barriers or landscape screening. Page 772 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 45 There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -5 that would reduce significant impact caused by the emissions to a less than significant level. Thus, the impact associated with the increased emission of criteria pollutants remains significant and unavoidable. d. Facts in Support of Findings According to SCAQMD, if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants. By applying SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, the EIR concludes that implementation of the Project would result in an increase of regional VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 and localized PM2.5. Despite the implementation of Mitigation MEasures MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -5, emissions would contribute to existing violations of the criteria pollutants in exceedance and are considered significant and unavoidable for this reason. 2. Health Risk Exposure Threshold AQ -3: The proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. a. Findings Localized operational emissions arising out of the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and, therefore, would be considered significant and unavoidable. Localized construction impacts would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which attempt to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. Specifically, the following measure has been included to lessen the Project's potential construction emissions. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -5: Preparation of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) of the proposed Sub -Area 1 to the southwest and Sub -Area 8 to the southeast if housing development were to occur within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Disclose the potential health impacts to prospective residents from living in a close proximity of 1-210 and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and/or when residents are outdoor (e.g., common usable open space areas). Many strategies are available to reduce exposure, including, but are not limited to: building filtration systems with MERV 13 or better; building design, orientation, location; and vegetation barriers or landscape screening. However, there are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM AQ -5 that would reduce significant impact caused by operational emissions to a less than significant level. Thus, the impact associated with operational emissions remains significant and unavoidable. Page 773 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 46 b. Facts in Support of Findings Based on the EIR's analysis of localized construction emissions, both by phase and concurrently, emissions would not exceed the localized thresholds for NOx, CO, PM1o, and PM2.5 during construction. The EIR evaluated localized effects from the on-site portion of operational daily emissions at sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the Project according to the SCAQMD's LST methodology. Localized thresholds emissions for NOx, CO, PM,o would not exceed localized operational emissions. However, localized PM2.5 emissions would exceed emissions primarily due to the contribution of area sources (hearth and landscaping) and energy sources (natural gas). The Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 201 and 203, which requires that any facility with the potential to emit substantial amounts of air pollutants must receive permits to construct and operate the facility. Depending on the nature of the business and the associated emissions sources and pollutants, Mitigation Measure MM AQ5 may require an emissions analysis and/or a health risk analysis to demonstrate that emissions would not exceed SCAQMD specific rules requirements and there would not be unacceptable health risks to on- and off-site receptors. Additional controls on pollutant and odor emissions are provided in Section 17.66.060 of the Development Code. The permitting process thereby ensures that facilities would not emit criteria pollutants that would result in a significant impact. However, reductions associated with compliance with local and state standards are not reasonably quantifiable. Consequently, impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. 3. Cumulative Impacts a. Findings The proposed Project would cause a cumulatively considerable contribution of emissions to air quality. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which attempt to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. Specifically, the following measures have been included to lessen the Project's potential construction emissions. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -1: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet Tier 3 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Any emissions -control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -2: The Plan shall be developed in nine phases over approximately 13 years, as described in Section 2.0: Project Description, to minimize concurrent development. Page 774 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 47 Mitigation Measure MM AQ -3: Preferential parking for low -emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code One- and two-family dwellings and facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each residential building and nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with the Residential and Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -4: Post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 5 minutes). Post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. However, there are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -5 that would reduce significant impact caused by operational emissions to a less than significant level. Thus, the cumulative impact associated with air quality emissions remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Emissions -based thresholds be used to determine if a project's contribution to regional cumulative emissions is cumulatively considerable, according to SCAQMD. Individual projects that exceed SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would be considered to cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As discussed previously in these findings, operation of the Project would result in an increase of regional VOC, NOx, CO, PM,o and PM2.5 and localized PM2.5. Contribution of these emission to air quality would therefore be considered cumulatively considerable, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM -1 through MM -5 that seek to reduce emission levels. In the environmental areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Transportation and Traffic, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below: B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Adverse Effects on Plant and Wildlife Species Threshold BIO -1: The proposed Project would have a direct, substantial adverse effect on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. a. Findings Due to habitat modifications and other direct impacts, the Project would have a have a direct, substantial adverse effect on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant direct effects on those plant and wildlife specifies. Page 775 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 48 Specifically, the following measures have been included to lessen the Project's direct effects on candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0-1: Management Plan. A total of 752.42 acres shall be mitigated through preservation of the Etiwanda Heights Preserve and through acquired lands within the Rural/Conservation Area for impacts occurring within the Neighborhood Area. Upon adoption of the EHNCP, all lands within the Rural/Conservation Area will be subject to a comprehensive Preserve Management and Monitoring Plan to direct management of the entire contiguous block of land, which will include a financial source to pay for management of the entire preserve area. An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the acquired areas within the Rural/Conservation Area. A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities in perpetuity. In compliance with Chapter 3, Conservation Plan, Section 3.5, Conservation Objectives, Strategy 5.2, the CMP shall, at a minimum address the following issues: NonNative Plant Management, Post -Flood Management, Public Access and Trail Management, Seed Collection and Dispersal Program, SBKR Habitat Management Program, and Fire Management/Fuel Modification Buffer Zones. Acquired lands within the Rural/Conservation Area will include areas containing suitable habitat specifically for coastal California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat among all other species with potential to occur within the Neighborhood Area. Specifically, lands acquired within the Rural/Conservation Area would provide approximately 658 acres of suitable habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as well as conservation of USFWS Critical Habitat for this species. Since the habitat within the Neighborhood Area is considered low quality, as described in Section 4.4.2, the compensatory mitigation ratio for San Bernardino kangaroo rat shall be 1:1, subject to approval by USFWS. A total of 757.53 acres of impacts to USFWS Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat would occur within the Neighborhood Area. The Recommended Preserve would conserve approximately 550.67 acres of Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and there are approximately 833 acres of Critical Habitat for this species available for acquisition within the Rural/Conservation Area. Therefore, impacts within the Neighborhood Area would be fully mitigated through acquisition of lands designated as Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat within the Rural/Conservation Area - 550.67 acres as part of the Specific Plan, and 282.33 acres of additional preserve acquisition. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0-2: Jurisdictional Resources. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits that impact jurisdictional resources, including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, sufficient acreage within Rural/Conservation Area or elsewhere shall be conserved, enhanced, or restored to cover all impacts to waters of the United States and CDFW-only areas at a 1:1 ratio (additional mitigation may be required to satisfy agency requirements). An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the conservation areas. Prior to dedication of the conservation area, a Conservation Management Plan will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource Page 776 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 49 management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities. A total of 71.38 acres of mitigation would be required for impacts to jurisdictional resources within the Neighborhood Area. A total of 51.62 acres of non -wetland waters or streambeds within the Rural/Conservation Area Etiwanda Heights Preserve would be conserved with Plan implementation. Therefore, in order to mitigate for impacts to jurisdictional resources, a minimum of 19.76 acres would be acquired within the Rural/Conservation Area for conservation and management. As stated previously and shown on Figure 4.3-3, there are approximately 461.53 acres of jurisdictional resources within the Rural/Conservation Area. It should be noted that this total does not include the Rural/Conservation Area Etiwanda Heights Preserve since these jurisdictional resources are already accounted for in Table 4.3-13: Minimum Mitigation Required for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources. Therefore, acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional resources would be feasible even with slight changes to the impact footprint. Table 4.3-13 summarizes the mitigation required for impacts to jurisdictional resources. Table 4.3-13 Minimum Mitigation Required for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources Jurisdictional Resource' Permanent Impacts within NA (acres) Mitigation Ratio' Mitigation Required (acres) RCA Etiwanda Heights Preserve (acres) Other RCA Mitigation Lands (acres) ACRE/RWQCB/CDFW 71.22 1:1 71.22 46.57 -24.65 CDFW-only 0.16 1:1 0.16 5.05 +4.89 Total 71.38 -- 71.38 51.62 19.76 Notes: ' Modeling based on 4 percent annual chance (25 -year) floodplain with a minimum depth threshold of 0.2 feet. 2Mitigation ratios are subject to agency approval. Mitigation Measure 113I0-3: Special -Status Plant Species Monitoring Plan. For species federally and/or state -listed as threatened or endangered, prior to construction activities occurring within occupied habitat, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be submitted to and approved by the USFWS (for federally listed plants) and/or CDFW (for state -listed plants). Regulatory agency approval is required prior to implementation of the Plan. Prior to Plan implementation, a translocation plan shall be developed and implemented for non -listed plant species, prior to construction activities occurring within occupied habitat for that species. Based on the current impacts within the Neighborhood Area, two special -status plant species (intermediate mariposa lily and Parry's spineflower) would require translocation of individuals. The mitigation and monitoring plan for the transplanted special -status plant(s) shall describe the following as needed based on plant species: (1) the location of feasible mitigation sites; (2) site preparation measures as needed such as topsoil treatment, soil decompaction, erosion Page 777 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 50 control, temporary irrigation systems, and removal of non-native species; (3) a schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the mitigation areas; (4) adaptive management measures such as replanting, weed control, or erosion control to be implemented if habitat improvement/restoration efforts are not successful; (5) the source of all plant propagules (seed, potted nursery stock, etc.) and the quantity and species of seed or potted stock of all plants to be introduced or planted into the restoration/enhancement areas; (6) a schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the enhancement/restoration areas, to include at minimum, qualitative annual monitoring for revegetation success and site degradation due to erosion, trespass, or animal damage for a period no less than two years; (7) as needed where sites are near trails or other access points, measures such as fencing, signage, or security patrols to exclude unauthorized entry into the restoration/enhancement areas; and (8) contingency measures such as replanting, weed control, or erosion control to be implemented if habitat improvement/restoration efforts are not successful. Take of any listed species, or collection and transplantation of any individuals and populations of any listed species, will require approval by the USFWS and/or CDFW and issuance of an Incidental Take Permit. Mitigation Measure MM BIO -4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys. No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities shall occur during the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) breeding season (March 1 to August 15). If construction activities cannot be completed outside coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season, then a pre -construction survey shall be conducted in all areas of suitable habitat, by a qualified biologist (possessing a valid Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(a) Recovery Permit). If found during pre -construction surveys, a 500 -foot buffer would be required around the nest site. For potential impacts associated with construction noise, presence or absence of coastal California gnatcatcher would be determined by pre -construction surveys conducted by a qualified biologist adjacent to the Neighborhood Area. Coastal sage scrub outside of the impact area would be flagged to protect it from construction equipment as directed by the biologist. Between March 1 and August 15, no noise -generating construction activities that exceed ambient noise levels would occur in close proximity to occupied habitat. If necessary, other measures shall be implemented in consultation with the biologist as necessary, to reduce noise levels. Measures may include, but are not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and the simultaneous use of equipment. Mitigation Measure MM BIO -5: Burrowing Owl Surveys. Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, and grading permits, an approved biologist to conduct focused pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) shall be retained. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the approved biologist shall prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan that outlines appropriate buffering distances and timing and stipulates the passive relocation process. Any impacted Page 778 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 51 occupied burrows would be replaced at a minimum 2:1 ratio proximate to the location of impact. The plan would be subject to review and approval by the wildlife agencies and the City, including any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from construction -related activities. Mitigation Measure MM BI0-6: Nesting Bird Surveys. Construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be avoided during nesting bird season, from approximately March 15 through September 15, as directed by Section 4.4 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010a). If construction activities cannot be completed outside the nesting bird season, a pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted. Special attention shall be given during surveys for ground -nesting birds (e.g., killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), lesser nighthawks (Chordeiles acutipennis), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus)) due to the amount of nests observed during field surveys. Surveys shall be conducted within 500 feet of disturbance areas no earlier than 3 days prior to the commencement of disturbance. If construction activities are delayed, then additional pre -construction surveys shall be conducted such that no more than 3 days will have elapsed between the survey and ground -disturbance activities. If active nests are found, clearing and construction shall be postponed or halted within a buffer area, established by the qualified biologist, that is suitable to the particular bird species and location of the nest, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. The results of the surveys, including graphics showing the locations of any active nests detected, and documentation of any avoidance measures taken, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City within 14 days of completion of the pre -construction surveys or construction monitoring to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. Mitigation Measure MM BI0-7: Small Mammal Trapping and Clearance Surveys. Thirty days prior to construction activities in suitable habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), American badger (Taxidea taxus), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). Mitigation Measure MM BI0-7a: No earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active roosts of bats are present on or within 300 feet of the Neighborhood Area disturbance boundaries. Should an active maternity roost be identified (in California, the breeding season of native Page 779 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 52 bat species is generally from April 1 through August 31), the roost shall not be disturbed, and construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted, until the roost is vacated and juveniles have fledged. Surveys shall include rocky outcrops, caves, structures, and large trees (particularly trees 12 inches in diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade with loose bark or other cavities). Trees and rocky outcrops shall be surveyed by a qualified bat biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a CDFW collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW allowing the biologist to handle bats). If active maternity roosts or hibernacula are found, the rock outcrop or tree occupied by the roost shall be avoided (i.e., not removed) by the Neighborhood Area. If avoidance of the maternity roost must occur, the bat biologist shall survey (through the use of radio telemetry or other CDFW approved methods) for nearby alternative maternity colony sites. If the bat biologist determines in consultation with and with the approval of CDFW that there are alternative roost sites used by the maternity colony and young are not present then no further action is required. If a maternity roost will be impacted by the activities proposed within the Neighborhood Area, and no alternative maternity roosts are in use near the site, substitute roosting habitat for the maternity colony shall be provided on, or in close proximity to, the Neighborhood Area no less than 3 months prior to the eviction of the colony. Large concrete walls (e.g., on bridges) on south or southwestern slopes that are retrofitted with slots and cavities are an example of structures that may provide alternative potential roosting habitat appropriate for maternity colonies. Alternative roost sites must be of comparable size and proximal in location to the impacted colony. CDFW shall also be notified of any hibernacula or active nurseries within the construction zone. If non -breeding bat hibernacula are found in trees scheduled to be removed or in crevices in rock outcrops within the grading footprint, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist, by opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity or other means determined appropriate by the bat biologist (e.g., installation of one-way doors). In situations requiring one-way doors, a minimum of 1 week shall pass after doors are installed and temperatures should be sufficiently warm for bats to exit the roost because bats do not typically leave their roost daily during winter months in southern coastal California. This action should allow all bats to leave during the course of 1 week. Roosts that need to be removed in situations where the use of one-way doors is not necessary in the judgment of the qualified bat biologist in consultation with CDFW shall first be disturbed by various means at the direction of the bat biologist at dusk to allow bats to escape during the darker hours, and the roost tree shall be removed or the grading shall occur the next day (i.e., there shall be no less or more than one night between initial disturbance and the grading or tree removal). These actions should allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight. If an active maternity roost is located on the Neighborhood Area, and alternative roosting habitat is available, the demolition of the roost site must commence Page 780 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 53 before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March 1) or after young are flying (i.e., after July 31) using the exclusion techniques described above. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0 -7b: Thirty days prior to construction activities in scrub and chaparral habitats, or other suitable habitat a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for American badger. If American badgers are present, occupied habitat shall be flagged and ground - disturbing activities avoided within 50 feet of the occupied den. Maternity dens shall be avoided during the pup -rearing season (February 15 through July 1) and a minimum 200 -foot buffer established. This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with CDFW. Maternity dens shall be flagged for avoidance, identified on construction maps, and a qualified biologist shall be present during construction. If avoidance of a non -maternity den is not feasible, badgers shall be relocated either by trapping or by slowly excavating the burrow (either by hand or mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of the biologist, removing no more than 4 inches at a time) before or after the rearing season (February 15 through July 1). Any relocation of badgers shall occur only after consultation with CDFW. A written report documenting the badger removal shall be provided to CDFW within 30 days of relocation. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0 -7c: Trapping and relocation for northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and Los Angeles pocket mouse will occur in all areas of soil disturbance and construction, if required by CDFW. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0 -7d: If active San Diego desert woodrat nests (stick houses) are identified within the disturbance zone or within 100 feet of the disturbance zone, a fence shall be erected around the nest site adequate to provide the woodrat sufficient foraging habitat at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. Clearing and construction within the fenced area will be postponed or halted until young have left the nest. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to these nests will occur. If avoidance is not possible, the following sequential steps shall be taken: (1) all understory vegetation will be cleared in the area immediately surrounding active nests, followed by a period of one night without further disturbance to allow woodrats to vacate the nest; (2) each occupied nest will then be disturbed by a qualified wildlife biologist until all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge off site; and (3) the nest sticks shall be removed from the Neighborhood Area and piled at the base of a nearby hardwood tree (preferably a coast live oak or California walnut). Relocated nests shall not be spaced closer than 100 feet apart, unless a qualified wildlife biologist has determined that a specific habitat can support a higher density of nests. All woodrat nests moved shall be documented and a written report provided to CDFW. All woodrat Page 781 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 54 relocation shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in possession of a scientific collecting permit. Mitigation Measure MM BIO -8: Reptile Clearance Surveys. A qualified biologist will be present during construction activities immediately adjacent to or within habitat that supports populations of special -status reptile species. Clearance surveys for special -status reptiles shall be conducted by the qualified biologist prior to the initiation of construction each day. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to CDFW in the annual mitigation status report. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM BIO -1 through MM BIO -8 that would reduce significant direct impact to candidate, sensitive, or special status species. This is particularly true because the extent of the impact is unknown and is dependent on the amount of conservation lands that will be required pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1. Thus, the direct impact to candidate, sensitive, or special status species remains significant and unavoidable. However, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the indirect impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species to a less than significant level. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that the Project's indirect effects on species habitat are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9: Indirect Impacts to Special -Status Resources. The following best management practices shall be implemented to minimize indirect impacts to special -status resources: 1. Biological Monitor. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits, written confirmation that a qualified biologist has been retained to implement the Neighborhood Area's biological monitoring program shall be provided. The letter shall include the names and contact information of all persons involved in the biological monitoring of the Neighborhood Area. The biological monitor shall attend all pre -construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas, and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated Neighborhood Area activities that may be in violation of any permits issued by agencies having jurisdictional authority over the Neighborhood Area. Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources, all workers shall be educated by the qualified biologist to recognize and avoid those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources. 2. Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to grading and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for all construction/contractor personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start of construction shall be maintained on site, and this list shall be updated as required when new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in Page 782 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 55 the field for more than 5 days without participating in the WEAP. The qualified biologist shall provide ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with environmental/permit regulations and mitigation measures. The qualified biologist shall perform the following: • Provide training materials and briefings to all personnel working on site. The material shall include but not be limited to the identification and status of plant and wildlife species, significant natural plant community habitats (e.g., riparian), fire protection measures, and review of mitigation requirements. • A discussion of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other state or federal permit requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance with these acts; • Attend the pre -construction meeting to ensure that timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds, pre - construction surveys, or relocation efforts); • Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps showing the location of special status wildlife or populations of rare plants, exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and construction crews prior to ground disturbance. This applies to pre -construction activities, such as site surveying and staking, natural resources surveying or reconnaissance, establishment of water quality best management practices, and geotechnical or hydrological investigations; • Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; • Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are sited within grading areas to minimize degradation of vegetation communities adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they shall be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species habitats will be affected); • Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating the limits of all construction activity; • Ensure and document that required pre -construction surveys and/or relocation efforts have been implemented; • Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading; and • Submit to CDFW an immediate report (within 72 hours) of any conflicts or errors resulting in impacts to special status biological resources. Page 783 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 56 3. Construction Fencing. The construction limits shall be flagged prior to ground -disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the flagged disturbance limits. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans. 4. Toxic Substances. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, evidence shall be submitted indicating that the use of chemicals or the generation of by-products such as pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, and other substances that are potentially toxic or impactive to native habitats/flora/fauna (including water) shall incorporate measures to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the conservation area within the Neighborhood Area. No trash, oil, parking, or other construction/development-related material/activities shall be allowed outside any approved construction limits. All construction -related activity that may have potential for leakage or intrusion shall be monitored by the qualified biologist. b. Facts in Support of Findings Direct Impacts Based on geography, topography, vegetation communities, and soils occurring within the Rural/Conservation Area, there are 38 special -status plant species and 27 special -status wildlife species with moderate or high potential to occur. The EIR's Biological Report provides an analysis of special -status plant and wildlife species with potential to occur within the Rural/Conservation Area. Although the exact location and amount of impacts on privately owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area site is unknown, impacts to special -status plant species would be potentially significant. Impacts to three special -status plants species and 20 special -status wildlife occurring or have potential to occur within the Neighborhood Area are potentially significant. The four special status plant species include the intermediate mariposa lily, parry's spineflower, plummer's mariposa lily, and California walnut. Direct impacts to the intermediate mariposa lily and parry's spineflower are significant because these species are rare, threatened, or endangered in California. However, impacts to these species would be reduced to less than significant through conservation of lands within the Etiwanda Heights Preserve , acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, and through translocation of these two species as directed by Mitigation Measure MM BIO -3 Direct impacts to the Plummer's mariposa lily and California walnut, are not considered significant because these species are of low sensitivity, and the on-site populations are not significant in terms of the ability for this species to persist. In addition, the species do not occur within the Project Area in a population that is considered regionally significant and/or are common in the study area. However, acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1 would provide suitable habitat for these species and reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Page 784 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 57 The 20 special -status wildlife species occurring or have potential to occur within the Neighborhood Area are: coastal California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, prairie falcon, Cooper's hawk, southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli), northern harrier, rufous hummingbird, Costa's hummingbird, Lawrence's goldfinch, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), American badger (Taxidea taxus), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), San Diegan tiger whiptail, southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), and Blainville's horned lizard. Although the San Diego pocket mouse was the only species observed in trapping sites conducted in the Neighborhood Area, the Neighborhood Area contains habitat suitable for the other species to be present on site. The Neighborhood Area and a portion of the Rural/Conservation Area containing the Etiwanda Heights Preserve was surveyed and no coastal California gnatcatcher were observed. Therefore, impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher are not anticipated. However, because the Neighborhood Area supports coastal sage scrub communities and other sensitive habitats, a pre -construction survey would be completed to reduce potential impacts to less than significant pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -5. Nevertheless, should coastal California gnatcatchers be found during pre - construction surveys, consultation with the USFWS would be required. Permanent impacts to suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher would be mitigated through Mitigation Measure MM BIO -4, Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys, and Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would acquire suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher within the Rura/Conservation Area. However, it is possible that a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, and thus the direct impact on the California gnatcatcher would remain significant. San Bernardino kangaroo rat was not observed, but there is potential for this species to occur on site, and approximately 2,813 acres of USFWS Critical Habitat is present within both the Neighborhood Area and Rural/Conservation Area. Permanent impacts to suitable habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat are partially mitigated through Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would acquire suitable habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat within the Rural/Conservation Area. Other possible mitigation opportunities could include future reintroduction of San Bernardino kangaroo rat into conservation areas. All efforts concerning reintroduction would be conducted in consultation with USFWS. Separate from, but inclusive of, impacts to suitable habitat as discussed above, impacts to 757.53 acres of unoccupied USFWS Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat would be significant absent the mitigation provided in Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would require acquisition of lands containing Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However, if a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, this impact to the San Bernardino kangaroo rat remain significant. Although no burrowing owls were observed within the Neighborhood Area, there is moderate potential for this species to occur. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM BIO -5, which requires pre - construction surveys for burrowing owl, would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Additionally, potential impacts to burrowing owl would be further reduced through acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1. The Neighborhood Area would impact 658.41 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for loggerhead shrike, Cooper's hawk, southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, Costa's hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, Bell's sage sparrow, and Lawrence's goldfinch. Individual adults of these species are unlikely to be directly killed or injured during construction activities because Page 785 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 58 they are highly mobile and would likely leave the area during construction. However, nesting activities could be disrupted if construction occurs during the breeding season as a result of nest abandonment or reduced reproductive success. Nests, eggs, and young could be directly affected by vegetation clearing and grading. These impacts can be reduced to less -than significant levels through the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -6, which would require preconstruction nesting bird surveys. Additionally, impacts to these species would be further reduced through acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1. Although prairie falcon and northern harrier are not likely to nest on site due to lack of suitable nesting habitat, the Neighborhood Area would impact 658.41 acres of suitable foraging habitat. Raptor species could forage virtually anywhere on site where prey is available. Permanent impacts to foraging habitat for these species would be significant and would require implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would acquire lands containing suitable foraging habitat and potential nesting habitat within the Rural/Conservation Area. The Neighborhood Area would impact 658.41 acres of suitable habitat for pallid bat, American badger, Los Angeles pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). Construction could result in direct impacts to foraging and roosting habitat for pallid bat and could directly affect individuals at roost sites. Individual adults foraging on-site are unlikely to be directly killed or injured during construction activities because they are highly mobile and only active at night. Still, individuals could be killed or harmed if active roost sites were removed, either causing direct mortality or more likely causing abandonment during the day. Direct impacts to foraging habitat would be reduced through the acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area (Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1). Direct impacts to individuals, including young, at roost sites, as a result of construction activities would also be significant and would be reduced through Mitigation Measure MM BIO -7a, which would require pre -construction surveys for active bat roosts. American badger was not observed but has moderate potential to occur on site. Individual adults are unlikely to be directly killed or injured during construction activities because they are fairly mobile and should be able to escape from construction areas. The greatest potential for direct impacts to badgers would be mortality of young in a natal den and potentially the mother, which fiercely defends the natal den. While adults are highly mobile and can usually escape human disturbances, young natal dens and females defending natal dens, would be highly vulnerable to injury and mortality during construction. Direct impacts to individuals would be significant absent mitigation provided in Mitigation Measure MM BIO -7b, which would require pre -construction surveys for American badgers. Additionally, impacts to these species would be further reduced through acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area (Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1). Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse was observed within all 41 small mammal trapping sites, indicating an abundance of individuals. Los Angeles pocket mouse was not observed during the trapping efforts but has moderate potential to occur due to suitable habitat present on-site. San Diego desert woodrat was observed during the small mammal trapping, and woodrat middens were observed throughout the site. These species could be killed or injured during vegetation clearing and grading. Individuals may escape direct impacts but unless they were able to move into adjacent habitat, their chance of survival upon being flushed from a burrow or midden would be low. Therefore, both adults and young dependent on the nest would be highly vulnerable to injury and mortality during construction. Direct impacts to northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be significant absent the mitigation proposed in Mitigation Measure Page 786 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 59 MM BIO -7c, which would require pre -construction trapping surveys. Direct impacts to San Diego desert woodrat individuals would be significant absent mitigation proposed in Mitigation Measure MM BIO -8d, which would require pre -construction clearance surveys. Additionally, impacts to these species would be further reduced through acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area (Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1). The Neighborhood Area would result in impacts to 658.41 acres of suitable habitat for San Diego tiger whiptail, southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, and Blainville's horned lizard. Although some individuals can move quickly over short distances in short bursts, they do not move far, and other individuals are cryptic and slow moving on the surface or are otherwise underground. Therefore, these species are all highly vulnerable to injury and mortality during construction. Impacts to special -status reptiles would be reduced to less than significant by the following measures: Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would acquire lands containing suitable habitat within the Rural/Conservation Area; Mitigation Measure MM BIO -8, which would require pre - construction clearance surveys; and Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require worker awareness training by a qualified biologist for all construction personnel. Although most biological impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level by the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO -1 through MM Bio -9 into the Project, significant direct impacts may still remain for certain plant and wildlife species. Indirect Impacts Short-term indirect impacts to special -status plant would primarily result from construction -related dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, as well as soil erosion and runoff. Long-term indirect impacts on special -status plants would most likely occur as a result of trampling of vegetation by humans and domestic pets, invasion by exotic species, alteration of the natural fire regime, and exposure to urban pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials). If development were to occur on the privately -owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area, indirect effects may include dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, or construction -related soil erosion and runoff. Long-term edge effects could include intrusions by humans and possible trampling of individual plants, invasion by exotic plant and wildlife species, exposure to urban pollutants (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials), soil erosion, litter, fire, and hydrologic changes (e.g., surface and groundwater level and quality). Indirect impacts to special -status plants would be significant absent mitigation and would be avoided with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of BMPs and erosion control, control of invasive weeds, and avoidance of toxic substances that could affect plant life. Indirect impacts to special -status wildlife species may include both habitat degradation and effects on individuals. Habitat degradation may occur in the same manner as discussed above. However, it should be noted that over the long term, indirect impacts on wildlife are expected to be limited along the open space—urban interface, because most of the Neighborhood Area is bordered by existing and future development, and there will be a relatively small amount of interface (or "edge") between development and open space. Dust can impact vegetation surrounding the Neighborhood Area, resulting in changes in the community structure and function. These changes could result in impacts to suitable habitat for special -status wildlife species. Wildlife may also be indirectly affected in the short term and long term by construction -related noise, which can disrupt normal activities, cause lasting stress, and subject wildlife to higher predation risks. Trash and garbage from Neighborhood Area -related activities could attract invasive predators such as ravens, gulls, crows, opossums, Page 787 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 60 skunks, and raccoons that could impact the native wildlife species within the adjacent Etiwanda Heights Preserve. Accidental spills of hazardous chemicals could contaminate surface waters and indirectly impact wildlife species through direct or secondary poisoning and other sub -lethal effects (e.g., endocrine impacts), reduced prey availability, or altering suitable habitat. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of BMPs and erosion control, minimizing noise, worker -awareness training, trash removal, and avoidance of toxic substances. As a result, indirect impacts to wildlife would be less than significant. 2. Adverse Effects on Vegetation Threshold 113I0-2: The proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. a. Findings The Project would have a have a direct, substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the direct, significant effects on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. Specifically, the following measures have been included to reduce the Project's direct effects on these resources. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0-1: Management Plan. A total of 752.42 acres shall be mitigated through preservation of the Etiwanda Heights Preserve and through acquired lands within the Rural/Conservation Area for impacts occurring within the Neighborhood Area. Upon adoption of the EHNCP, all lands within the Rural/Conservation Area will be subject to a comprehensive Preserve Management and Monitoring Plan to direct management of the entire contiguous block of land, which will include a financial source to pay for management of the entire preserve area. An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the acquired areas within the Rural/Conservation Area. A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities in perpetuity. In compliance with Chapter 3, Conservation Plan, Section 3.5, Conservation Objectives, Strategy 5.2, the CMP shall, at a minimum address the following issues: NonNative Plant Management, Post -Flood Management, Public Access and Trail Management, Seed Collection and Dispersal Program, SBKR Habitat Management Program, and Fire Management/Fuel Modification Buffer Zones. Acquired lands within the Rural/Conservation Area will include areas containing suitable habitat specifically for coastal California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat among all other species with potential to occur within the Neighborhood Area. Specifically, lands acquired within the Rural/Conservation Area would provide approximately 658 acres of suitable habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as well as conservation of USFWS Critical Habitat for Page 788 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 61 this species. Since the habitat within the Neighborhood Area is considered low quality, as described in Section 4.4.2, the compensatory mitigation ratio for San Bernardino kangaroo rat shall be 1:1, subject to approval by USFWS. A total of 757.53 acres of impacts to USFWS Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat would occur within the Neighborhood Area. The Recommended Preserve would conserve approximately 550.67 acres of Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and there are approximately 833 acres of Critical Habitat for this species available for acquisition within the Rural/Conservation Area. Therefore, impacts within the Neighborhood Area would be fully mitigated through acquisition of lands designated as Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat within the Rural/Conservation Area - 550.67 acres as part of the Specific Plan, and 282.33 acres of additional preserve acquisition. Mitigation Measure MM BI0-9: Indirect Impacts to Special -Status Resources. The following best management practices shall be implemented to minimize indirect impacts to special -status resources: 1. Biological Monitor. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits, written confirmation that a qualified biologist has been retained to implement the Neighborhood Area's biological monitoring program shall be provided. The letter shall include the names and contact information of all persons involved in the biological monitoring of the Neighborhood Area. The biological monitor shall attend all pre -construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas, and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated Neighborhood Area activities that may be in violation of any permits issued by agencies having jurisdictional authority over the Neighborhood Area. Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources, all workers shall be educated by the qualified biologist to recognize and avoid those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources. 2. Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to grading and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for all construction/contractor personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start of construction shall be maintained on site, and this list shall be updated as required when new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in the field for more than 5 days without participating in the WEAP. The qualified biologist shall provide ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with environmental/permit regulations and mitigation measures. The qualified biologist shall perform the following: • Provide training materials and briefings to all personnel working on site. The material shall include but not be limited to the identification and status of plant and wildlife species, significant natural plant community habitats (e.g., riparian), fire protection measures, and review of mitigation requirements. Page 789 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 62 • A discussion of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other state or federal permit requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance with these acts; • Attend the pre -construction meeting to ensure that timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds, pre - construction surveys, or relocation efforts); • Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps showing the location of special status wildlife or populations of rare plants, exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and construction crews prior to ground disturbance. This applies to pre -construction activities, such as site surveying and staking, natural resources surveying or reconnaissance, establishment of water quality best management practices, and geotechnical or hydrological investigations; • Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; • Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are sited within grading areas to minimize degradation of vegetation communities adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they shall be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species habitats will be affected); • Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating the limits of all construction activity; • Ensure and document that required pre -construction surveys and/or relocation efforts have been implemented; • Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading; and • Submit to CDFW an immediate report (within 72 hours) of any conflicts or errors resulting in impacts to special status biological resources. 3. Construction Fencing. The construction limits shall be flagged prior to ground -disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the flagged disturbance limits. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans. 4. Toxic Substances. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, evidence shall be submitted indicating that the use of chemicals or the generation of by-products such as pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, and other substances that are Page 790 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 63 potentially toxic or impactive to native habitats/flora/fauna (including water) shall incorporate measures to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the conservation area within the Neighborhood Area. No trash, oil, parking, or other construction/development-related material/activities shall be allowed outside any approved construction limits. All construction -related activity that may have potential for leakage or intrusion shall be monitored by the qualified biologist. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM BIO -1 and MM BIO -9 that would reduce significant direct impact to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. This is particularly true because the extent of the impact is unknown and is dependent on the amount of conservation lands that will be required pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1. Thus, the direct impact to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities remains significant and unavoidable. However, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the Project's indirect impact on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to a less than significant level. Specifically, Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9 has been included to ensure that the Project's indirect effects on species habitat are less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Direct Impacts A total of 1,252.84 acres of un -conserved privately -owned lands are located within the Rural/Conservation Area. Of this total, permanent direct impacts to vegetation communities are estimated at 630 acres. Although the exact location and amount of impacts on privately owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area is unknown, six vegetation communities (scale broom scrub, white sage scrub, white sage -California buckwheat, white sage -California sagebrush, California sycamore woodlands, and California sycamore -coast live oak) are considered sensitive. Any impacts to these communities would be potentially significant. As part of the development review and permitting processes in the Rural/Conservation Area, potential impacts would be assessed, and measures would be applied as appropriate to reduce potential impacts. Such measures may be included as conditions of approval to remove a tree under the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. In addition, if applicable to individual projects in the Rural/Conservation Area, Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9 would apply. In the absence of specific details for future individual home development in the Rural/Conservation Area, adverse effects to sensitive vegetation communities resulting from any future development in the Rural/Conservation Area would result in a potentially significant impact. A total of 827.82 acres of vegetative communities will be impacted in the Neighborhood Area, including 658.41 acres of scrub and chaparral habitat and 169.40 acres of disturbed and developed lands. Within the Neighborhood Area, two of the vegetation communities (scale broom scrub (including disturbed) and white sage scrub) are considered sensitive; therefore, impacts to 376.21 acres with Neighborhood Area implementation would be potentially significant and would require mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for scale broom scrub (including disturbed) and a 2:1 ratio for white sage scrub. A total of 752.42 acres would be required for mitigation. Mitigation for significant impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would occur through the acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM- BIO -1. Page 791 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 64 A total of 217.61 acres of scale broom scrub would be conserved within the Etiwanda Heights Preserve with project implementation. However, if a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, the direct impact to vegetative communities would remain significant. The proposed acquisition approach for mitigation will provide the following benefits: (1) reduce the risk of development within the Rural/Conservation Area, (2) provide a large habitat block with connectivity to existing preserve areas for the protection of sensitive habitat used by special -status species, (3) allow for enhancement of distressed or disturbed vegetation communities within the conserved area, (4) allow for type conversion (restoration) of disturbed or non-native land covers to native communities, (5) include a comprehensive Preserve Management and Monitoring Plan to direct management of the entire contiguous block of land, and (6) include a financial source to pay for management of the entire preserve area. There are areas within the Rural/Conservation Area currently designated by the County of San Bernardino General Plan as Special Development Residential, Hillside Residential and Rural Living, where residential and commercial development are allowed. Without a comprehensive acquisition and management plan, large portions of the existing area would be available for development. Nonetheless, if sufficient land is not conserved, impacts would remain significant. Indirect Impacts Short-term indirect impacts to vegetation communities would primarily result from construction - related dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, as well as soil erosion and runoff. Long-term indirect impacts on vegetation communities would most likely occur as a result of trampling of vegetation by humans and domestic pets, invasion by exotic species, alteration of the natural fire regime, and exposure to urban pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials). Over the long term, indirect impacts on vegetation communities within the Rural/Conservation Area would increase the amount of interface (or "edge") between development and open space. Indirect impacts to vegetation communities would be significant absent mitigation and would be avoided with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of BMPs and erosion control, control of invasive weeds, and avoiding the use of toxic substances that could affect plant life Short-term indirect impacts to vegetation communities would primarily result from construction - related dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, as well as soil erosion and runoff. Long-term indirect impacts on vegetation communities would most likely occur as a result of trampling of vegetation by humans and domestic pets, invasion by exotic species, alteration of the natural fire regime, and exposure to urban pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials). Indirect impacts to vegetation communities would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of best management practices (BMPs) and erosion control, control of invasive weeds, and avoiding the use of toxic substances that could affect plant life. 3. Adverse Effects on Wetlands Threshold 113I0-3: Have a substantial adverse direct effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Page 792 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 65 a. Findings The proposed Project would have a substantial adverse direct effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the direct, significant effects on wetlands. Specifically, the following measures have been included to reduce the Project's effects on these resources Mitigation Measure MM BIO -2: Jurisdictional Resources. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits that impact jurisdictional resources, including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, sufficient acreage within Rural/Conservation Area or elsewhere shall be conserved, enhanced, or restored to cover all impacts to waters of the United States and CDFW-only areas at a 1:1 ratio (additional mitigation may be required to satisfy agency requirements). An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the conservation areas. Prior to dedication of the conservation area, a Conservation Management Plan will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities. A total of 71.38 acres of mitigation would be required for impacts to jurisdictional resources within the Neighborhood Area. A total of 51.62 acres of non -wetland waters or streambeds within the Rural/Conservation Area Etiwanda Heights Preserve would be conserved with Plan implementation. Therefore, in order to mitigate for impacts to jurisdictional resources, a minimum of 19.76 acres would be acquired within the Rural/Conservation Area for conservation and management. As stated previously and shown on Figure 4.3-3, there are approximately 461.53 acres of jurisdictional resources within the Rural/Conservation Area. It should be noted that this total does not include the Rural/Conservation Area Etiwanda Heights Preserve since these jurisdictional resources are already accounted for in Table 4.3-13: Minimum Mitigation Required for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources. Therefore, acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional resources would be feasible even with slight changes to the impact footprint. Table 4.3-13 summarizes the mitigation required for impacts to jurisdictional resources. Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9: Indirect Impacts to Special -Status Resources. The following best management practices shall be implemented to minimize indirect impacts to special -status resources: 1. Biological Monitor. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits, written confirmation that a qualified biologist has been retained to implement the Neighborhood Area's biological monitoring program shall be provided. The letter shall include the names and contact information of all persons involved in the biological monitoring of the Neighborhood Area. The biological monitor shall attend all pre -construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring Page 793 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 66 of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas, and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated Neighborhood Area activities that may be in violation of any permits issued by agencies having jurisdictional authority over the Neighborhood Area. Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources, all workers shall be educated by the qualified biologist to recognize and avoid those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources. 2. Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to grading and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for all construction/contractor personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start of construction shall be maintained on site, and this list shall be updated as required when new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in the field for more than 5 days without participating in the WEAP. The qualified biologist shall provide ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with environmental/permit regulations and mitigation measures. The qualified biologist shall perform the following: • Provide training materials and briefings to all personnel working on site. The material shall include but not be limited to the identification and status of plant and wildlife species, significant natural plant community habitats (e.g., riparian), fire protection measures, and review of mitigation requirements. • A discussion of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other state or federal permit requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance with these acts; • Attend the pre -construction meeting to ensure that timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds, pre - construction surveys, or relocation efforts); • Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps showing the location of special status wildlife or populations of rare plants, exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and construction crews prior to ground disturbance. This applies to pre -construction activities, such as site surveying and staking, natural resources surveying or reconnaissance, establishment of water quality best management practices, and geotechnical or hydrological investigations; • Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; • Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are sited within grading areas to minimize degradation of vegetation communities adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they shall Page 794 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 67 be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species habitats will be affected); • Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating the limits of all construction activity; • Ensure and document that required pre -construction surveys and/or relocation efforts have been implemented; • Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading; and • Submit to CDFW an immediate report (within 72 hours) of any conflicts or errors resulting in impacts to special status biological resources. 3. Construction Fencing. The construction limits shall be flagged prior to ground -disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the flagged disturbance limits. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans. 4. Toxic Substances. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, evidence shall be submitted indicating that the use of chemicals or the generation of by-products such as pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, and other substances that are potentially toxic or impactive to native habitats/flora/fauna (including water) shall incorporate measures to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the conservation area within the Neighborhood Area. No trash, oil, parking, or other construction/development-related material/activities shall be allowed outside any approved construction limits. All construction -related activity that may have potential for leakage or intrusion shall be monitored by the qualified biologist. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM BIO -2 and MM BIO -9 that would reduce the Project's significant direct impact to wetlands. This is particularly true because the extent of the impact is unknown and is dependent on the amount of conservation lands that will be required pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -2. Thus, the direct impact to wetlands remains significant and unavoidable. However, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the indirect impact on wetlands to a less than significant level. Specifically, the Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9 has been included to ensure that the Project's indirect effects on wetlands are less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Direct Impacts Page 795 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 68 There is an estimated 34 acres of jurisdictional resources on privately owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area: Although the exact location and amount of impacts on privately owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area site is unknown, impacts to jurisdictional resources would be significant would require mitigation. Mitigation for significant impacts to jurisdictional resources on private properties located within the Rural/Conservation Area would be implemented according to the mitigation ratios and measures as determined through separate review and approval by regulatory agencies. New homes are permitted only in the Hillside and Open Space Regulating Sub -zones, require Design Review, and are subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance where applicable (see Chapter 7.7 of the Plan and 17.16.140 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code). The allowance of new homes is controlled by each Sub -area and sub -zone within the Rural/Conservation Area. Applications will be reviewed for compliance with the standards of this chapter of the Plan. More specifically, as stated under the Rural Regulating zone that applies to the Rural/Conservation Area, no structure may be built within 50 feet of any Blue Line Stream on any current map prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS) or contains significant riparian or streambed environs. There would be permanent impacts to 71.38 acres of non -wetland waters or streambeds within the Neighborhood Area. Impacts to jurisdictional resources would be considered significant absent mitigation and would require obtaining the appropriate agency permits. Direct impacts to these jurisdictional resources would remain significant even with Mitigation Measure MM BIO -2, which would require conservation and restoration of jurisdictional resources at a minimum 1:1 ratio (though the ratio may increase through permitting discussions) within the Rural/Conservation Area. Nonetheless, as noted above, if sufficient land is not conserved, impacts would be significant. Indirect Impacts The EHNCP supports jurisdictional resources, which are typically affected in the short term by dust and construction -related soil erosion and runoff. Indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources would be significant absent mitigation and would be avoided with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of BMPs and erosion control, and avoiding the use of toxic substances that could affect waterways. 4. Cumulative Biological Impacts a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to cause a cumulatively significant impact on biological resources. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the cumulative effects on wetlands. Specifically, Mitigation Measures MM BIO -1 through MM BIO -9, above, have been included to reduce the Project's cumulative biological impacts. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development in the Rural/Conservation Area would be subject to the requirements and review procedures of the City's Hillside Development Review Ordinance. In addition to those requirements, applications for development in the Rural/Conservation Area would include or address site-specific biological resources studies and any required permits from State and Federal regulatory agencies. Page 796 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 69 With compliance with Rural/Conservation Area Development Design Review procedures and implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Development of the Neighborhood Area has been evaluated and found to be less than significant, with compliance with the existing regulations, mitigation measures BIO -1 though BIO -9, preservation of open space, development standards and the provisions outlined in the Specific Plan. Impacts to jurisdictional features and San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat in the Neighborhood Area. However, if a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, this impact would remain significant. In consideration of the preceding factors, the Project's contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would remain significant. C. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Generation Threshold GHGA : The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, either direction or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. a. Findings The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant GHG impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project in order to reduce the Project's GHG impacts. Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1: Require the use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers through the Electric Lawn Mower Rebate Program established by the SCAQMD. Mitigation Measure MM GHG-2: Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Measure for Energy efficiency that exceed Title 24 requirements by 15 to 30 percent. Mitigation Measure MM GHG-3: Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Measure for water conservation to reduce indoor potable water use by 20 percent by applying water saving fixtures and/or flow restrictors. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3 that would reduce the Project's significant impact on the generation of GHG emissions. Thus, the Project's impact on GHG emissions remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Construction activity is relatively short in duration and contributes a relatively small portion of the total lifetime GHG emissions of a project. In addition, GHG emissions -reduction measures for construction equipment are relatively limited. Therefore, SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30 -year project lifetime so that GHG reduction measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies. Page 797 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 70 In this case, the Project is anticipated to be constructed in nine (9) phases. Construction assumptions used in the EIR's analysis of GHG emissions conservatively assumed that the Project would be constructed with the most intensive activities occurring on a daily basis. With that conservative assumption, the overall total GHG emissions associated with construction is 19,982 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). When amortized over a thirty (30) year period, this amount is 666 MTCO2e per year. Once the Project is built out, GHG emissions from mobile and area sources and indirect emissions from energy and water use, wastewater, as well as waste management would occur every year thereafter. Such emissions would include area sources, such as fireplaces and lawnmowers, natural gas heaters, vehicle trips, solid waste generation, and the energy used to operate water and wastewater systems. The EIR attributes GHG emissions estimates for each of these operational energy sources. Without any mitigation, construction and operation of the Project would generate 54,053 MTCO2e per year. Under SCAQMD targets for GHG efficiency, this equates to a per capita efficiency target of 5.69 GHG Efficiency per person per year. SCAQMD's Tier 4 efficiency target for GHG emissions is 6.6 MTCO2 per year in 2020 and 4.1 MTCO2 per year in 2035. Thus, without any mitigation, the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's GHG emissions targets. Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3 have been incorporated into the Project in an effort to reduce GHG emissions from the Project. When taking into consideration implementation of the requirements set forth in the City's Development Code and the CalGreen Building requirements and Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, the Project's GHG emissions would result in a reduction of 9,928 MTCO2e per year (18 percent). However, even with regulatory compliance and the mitigation measures, the Project would still exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 4.1 MTCO2e per service population during the horizon year of 2035. The SCAQMD recommends that if the Project would generate emissions in excess of the applicable targets, to assess the Project utilizing the Tier 5 approach. The Tier 5 approach recommends implementation of offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level. Any offsite mitigation measure that include purchase offsets would require that the project provide offsets for life of the project, which is defined by 30 years. If the project is unable to implement offsite GHG reduction mitigation measures to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the screening level, then GHG emissions would be considered significant. This remains uncertain. With implementation and enforcement of Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, and compliance with local and regional plans to further reduce emissions, impacts would remain potentially significant. 2. Conflict with Applicable Plan Threshold GHG-2: The Project would conflict with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. a. Findings The proposed Project would conflict with applicable population provisions of the SCAG RTP/SCS for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Changes or alterations have been required in, or Page 798 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 71 incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant GHG impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 iteration of the Project to 3,000 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in units brings the Project closer to the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. In addition, with respect to GHG emissions and consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Thus, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The Project has been found consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan and the primary GHG reduction policies of the SCAG RTP/SCS. The 2016 RTP/SCS is expected to help SCAG reach its GHG reduction goals, as identified by CARIB, with reductions in per capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions of 9 percent by 2020 and 16 percent by 2035. However, the impact of growth associated with the Project is considered significant because all of the population and employment growth associated with the Project is not accounted for in the current 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and SCAG regional forecasts for 2020-2045. SCAG projections take into account current jurisdictional boundaries. The EHNCP includes 305 acres in the City and 4,088 acres currently in the County. As such, the current 2016 — 2040 SCAG RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts only reflect growth projected for the EHNCP, a population increase of 2,000. This projected growth, when combined with the growth already forecast on the 305 acres in the City, would account for 300 of the 415 jobs projected for the EHNCP and 6,035 persons above the projections in the City's General Plan, compared to the 9,090 for the EHNCP. Although the population increase is incrementally above the regional growth forecasts, the impact of growth associated with the EHNCP is considered significant because all of the population and employment growth associated with the proposed EHNCP is not accounted for in the current 2016 — 2040 RTP/SCS and draft 2020 — 2045 draft SCAG Regional Growth Forecasts. There is no way to feasibly mitigate this impact, although it should be noted that SCAG is currently preparing the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which will include the projected growth within the annexation area. Thus, this impact should be resolved and reduced to a less than significant level upon the next adoption of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. 3. Cumulative GHG Impacts a. Findings The proposed Project would be inconsistent with applicable GHG regulations, plans, and policies. Therefore, the Project would result in a cumulative impact to global climate change. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant GHG impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 iteration of the Project to 3,000 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in units brings the Project closer to the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. In addition, Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Thus, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Page 799 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 72 b. Facts in Support of Findings Currently no generally accepted methodology exists to determine whether GHG emissions associated with a specific project represent new emissions or existing and/or displaced emissions. Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064h(3), the City as a lead agency, has determined that the Project's contribution to cumulative GHG emission and global climate change would be less than significant if the proposed Plan is consistent with the applicable regulatory plans and polices to reduce GHG emissions. Accordingly, the analysis described above in Threshold GHG-2 took into account the potential for the proposed Project to contribute to the cumulative impact of global climate change due to its population conflict with the SCAG RTP/STS. The proposed Project, even with mitigation would result in a potentially -significant impact, because it could be inconsistent with applicable plans. There is no way to feasibly mitigate this impact, although it should be noted that SCAG is currently preparing the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which will include the projected growth within the annexation area. Thus, this impact should be resolved and reduced to a less than significant level upon the next adoption of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. D. LAND USE AND PLANNING Conflict with Applicable Plan Threshold LUA: The proposed Project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS. a. Findings The proposed Project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the population estimates identified in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant population impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 iteration of the Project to 3,000 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in units brings the Project closer to the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. In addition, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. b. Facts in Support of Findings The EIR comprehensively evaluated the proposed Project's consistency with applicable regulatory land use plans, including the City's General Plan, Development Code, and the SCAG RTP/SCS. The EIR found that the proposed Project is consistent with all of these planning documents. The City's General Plan would allow development of up to 660 residential units with an associated population of approximately 2,000 persons on the 305 acres currently within the City. The General Plan also projects development of 1,057 units in the City's SOI with an associated population of 3,400. The 4,088 acres proposed for annexation accounts for 69% of the 5,927 acres located in the City's SOI. Based on this percentage, the portion of the projected growth associated with the annexation area would be 729 units or approximately 2,346 persons. The total population growth projected in the City's General Plan for the portion of the EHNCP in the City and portion of the SOI Page 800 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 73 proposed for annexation is approximately 4,346 persons. This portion of the 9,090 population growth associated with the Plan (approximately 48%) is consistent with City's General Plan population projection, which is consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS growth forecast of 204,300 forthe City's population in 2040. The total increase in the City's population thatwould be associated with the Plan is 9,090, approximately 4,744 persons above the projections in the City's General Plan for the Plan Area. This portion of the population growth associated with the Plan would be beyond the growth included in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS growth forecasts. This impact would have been greater if the Project, as originally described in 2017, were carried through because that Project included a maximum of 3,800 units. With only 3,000 allowable units, the current iteration of the Project lessens the conflict with the population growth estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Nevertheless, due to the conflict, the impact on land use remains significant and unavoidable. E. MINERAL RESOURCES Loss of Mineral Resources Threshold MR -1: The proposed Project would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state. a. Findings The proposed Project would result in the loss of approximately 86,400,000 of potential aggregate reserves, including reserves in the now closed and reclaimed Inland Rock/Day Creek Spreading Grounds aggregate quarry. No feasible mitigation would preserve these mineral resources. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. As a result, the Project's impact on mineral resources is significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The Aggregate Resource Sector D-3 (Deer and Day Creek Fans) is the only aggregate resource zone located within the Project Area. Estimate potential aggregate reserves in D-3 are 86,400,000 tons. This area also contains the now closed and reclaimed Inland Rock/Day Creek Spreading Grounds aggregate quarry. The D-3 Aggregate Resources zone, including the reclaimed aggregate quarry, would be completely developed under the Project. While portions of this D-3 area were processed for the termination of mineral resource designation in 2009 due to the presence of adjacent incompatible land uses, the loss of the D-3 area would represent a loss of approximately 16% of the estimate potential aggregate reserves in the region. It should also be noted that a 200 -acre portion of the D-3 area is already restricted by the existing Open Space Easement. Nonetheless, this loss of regionally important mineral resources was accounted for in the City's 2010 General Plan EIR and was found to be significant and unavoidable. Consistent with the General Plan EIR, Project -related impacts to regional mineral resources would be significant. The only way to avoid this impact would be to preclude development on the D-3 aggregate resources area; therefore, there is no feasible mitigation. Page 801 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 74 Other considerations merit the loss of this mineral resource. The Neighborhood Area contains the residential units and public services that are needed to meet regional housing needs and provide recreational services to nearby residents. In addition, the tax revenue generated by the Neighborhood Area, as well as the DTR program, will help ensure that the Rural/Conservation Area is primarily conserved as open space. This is only feasible if the D-3 Aggregate Resources Zone is developed. F. POPULATION AND HOUSING Population Inducement and Growth Threshold POP -1: The proposed Project would induce substantial unplanned population growth forecasted under the current SCAG RTP/SCS, either directly or indirectly. a. Findings The proposed Project would induce population growth that was unplanned in the current population estimates identified in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant population growth impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 iteration of the Project to 3,000 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in units brings the Project closer to the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. In addition, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. b. Facts in Support of Findings The total population growth projected in the City's General Plan for the portion of the EHNCP in the City and the portion of the proposed annexation area is approximately 4,346 persons. This portion of the 9,090 population growth associated with the Plan (approximately 48 percent) is consistent with City's General Plan population projection, which is consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS growth forecast of 204,300 for the City's population in 2040. The total increase in the City's population that would be associated with the Project is 9,090, approximately 4,744 persons above the projections in the City's General Plan for the Project Area. This portion of the population growth associated with the Project would be beyond the growth included in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS growth forecasts. It is therefore considered significant and unavoidable. SCAG is currently preparing the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and draft growth forecasts for this planning period have been developed. This forecast was developed based on local input, received between late 2017 and early 2019, on preliminary growth forecasts prepared by SCAG. This draft forecast includes projected growth in the 4,088 -acre annexation area based on input from San Bernardino County. Specifically, the current draft forecast includes approximately 1,600 households with a population of 4,900 and 300 jobs in the Neighborhood Area, reflecting the County's plans to sell this surplus property for development. The population growth associated with the portion of the Plan Area currently in the City, approximately 2,000, and the growth in the annexation area included in the draft growth forecast, 4,900, totals 6,900, which is approximately 76 percent of the 9,090 growth in population projected for the 3,000 residential units the Plan would allow. It should be noted that the maximum 3,000 housing units that would be allowed by the Plan would assist the City of Rancho Page 802 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 75 Cucamonga in meeting State -mandated fair share housing production targets as outlined in SCAG's RHNA. As discussed previously, the City has a shortfall of sites for meeting its moderate income RHNA goal; however, there is a surplus of sites for lower income units. The additional increment of population growth that would be generated by the Plan, 4,744 persons, may result in the City's population exceeding the 2040 population growth forecast of 204,300 by approximately 2 percent. Because the Plan may result in the City's population exceeding the 2040 population forecast for the City, which could result in additional environmental impacts not addressed by regional plans, this impact is considered significant. This impact would have been greater if the Project, as originally described in 2017, were carried through because that Project included a maximum of 3,800 units. With only 3,000 allowable units, the current iteration of the Project lessens the conflict with the population growth estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. 2. Cumulative Population Impacts a. Findings The proposed Project would have a cumulatively significant impact on unplanned population growth exceeding current forecasts under the SCAG RTP/SCS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the cumulatively significant impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 iteration of the Project to 3,000 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in units brings the Project closer to the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. In addition, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development of the Plan and other projects in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in San Bernardino County would lead to increases in population, housing, and employment. The Project would involve development of up to a maximum of 3,000 residential units, with approximately 9,090 new residents, and approximately 415 employment opportunities. Implementation of the Plan, in combination with other development projects in the unincorporated County areas, adjacent jurisdictions, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga in accordance with the adopted General Plan, would contribute to future population, housing, and employment growth within the area. As discussed previously, approximately 48 percent of the population growth of 9,090 that would be generated by the Plan, 4,346 persons, is accounted for the SCAG RTP/SCS 2016-2040 Growth Forecasts. The remaining population growth of 4,744 is not accounted for the 2016-2040 Growth Forecasts. The draft 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts account for approximately 76 percent of the population growth that would be generated by the Plan. The additional increment of population growth that would be generated by the Plan not accounted for in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts may result in population growth exceeding current forecasts, which may contribute to cumulative impacts. This impact would have been greater if the Project, as originally described in 2017, were carried through because that Project included a maximum of 3,800 units. With only 3,000 allowable units, the current iteration of the Project lessens the conflict with the population growth estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Page 803 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 76 G. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Threshold TRAF-1: The proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to conflict with applicable level of service (LOS) criteria established by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Ontario, Caltrans, and SANBAG for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. With respect to local streets and highways, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid the significant traffic impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following project design features and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project in order to reduce the Project's traffic impacts. Project Design Feature PDF TRAF-1: Roadway Network Improvements. The Plan includes the proposed extension of Wilson Avenue from Milliken Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard and the extension of Rochester Avenue, and the planning areas of Existing Year (2017) Plus Project intersection lane configurations are assumed to include the same lane geometries as Existing Year (2017) Conditions with the exception of the following project design features at the Plan locations: • Intersection 6: Wilson Avenue and Milliken Avenue: Multilane roundabout intersection, new southbound approach. • • Intersection 16: Fredericksburg Avenue and Banyan Street: New northbound approach. • • Intersection 18: Rochester Avenue and Banyan Street: Multilane roundabout intersection, new southbound approach. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1: The Property Owner/Developer shall implement the following intersection improvements. Intersection 7: Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements identified below can fit within the existing right-of- way and will require striping modifications and median improvements. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1595th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: Page 804 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 77 o Modify eastbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lanes, and one right -turn lane o Add right -turn overlap phasing in the eastbound direction o Optimization of cycle length Intersection 17: Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak -hour signal timing plans, including a cycle length of 120 seconds. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 2755th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 19: Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak -hour signal timing plans relative to the expected traffic volume demand. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1885th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. The improvement is consistent with the proposed mitigation measure in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right -turn lane to two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one through -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane Page 805 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 78 o Optimization of coordinated splits This measure is estimated to be triggered at 5% when the entire Plan is at full buildout. With the above referenced project design features and mitigation measures, impacts to local streets and highways are reduced to a less than significant level. However, there are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM TRAF-1 that would reduce the Project's cumulatively significant traffic impacts on State freeways. Changes or alterations to mitigate on state highways are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency—Caltrans—and not the City. Such changes can and should be adopted by such Caltrans in conjunction with SANBAG. Thus, the Project's impact on freeway traffic remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Based on trip generation and trip distribution estimates, Project -related trips were assigned to the study area roadway network. Utilizing the net Project -only traffic estimates developed for the peak hour, traffic forecasts for the Existing (Year 2017) Baseline plus Project conditions were developed. The Existing (Year 2017) Baseline traffic volumes were combined with the net Project -only traffic volumes to obtain the Existing (Year 2017) Baseline plus Project traffic volume forecasts. The Existing (Year 2017) Baseline plus Project peak -hour traffic volumes were analyzed at each of the study intersections to determine the LOS. In addition, PDF TRAF-1 was incorporated as part of the existing plus Project scenario. Intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. However, significant impacts are forecast to occur at the following intersections: (1) Intersection 7: Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard—AM Peak Hour (LOS F), PM Peak Hour (LOS F); (2) Intersection 17: Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue—AM Peak Hour (LOS E); (3) Intersection 19: Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard—AM Peak Hour (LOS E); and (4) Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard—PM Peak Hour (LOS E). As such, intersection improvements are needed to mitigate these impacts to improve the LOS at these intersections. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. 12 freeway segments on 1-15 and 16 study freeway segments on SR -210 are forecast to operate below LOS D during at least one peak hour in year 2040. Many of the freeway segments with the Project Area would exceed the significance criteria. As such, there are impacts to the freeway system near the Project Area. The freeway traffic congestion also further burdens local streets that drivers use to avoid 1-15 and SR -210 and cut through the City. Therefore, the Project would contribute to projected impacts on the freeway as identified from Caltrans, such as the requirement of additional lanes, and funding for these additional improvements is not currently provided in the current Regional Transportation Plan. As such, impacts would be potentially significant. The 1-210 and 1-15 freeways are not controlled by the City; the City cannot not guarantee implementation of measures to mitigate impacts to freeways. For these reasons, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 2. Cumulative Traffic Impacts a. Findings Page 806 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 79 The proposed Project has the potential to create a cumulative traffic impact on local streets and hightways. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid the significant traffic impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following project design features and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project in order to reduce the Project's traffic impacts. Project Design Feature PDF TRAF-1: Roadway Network Improvements. The Plan includes the proposed extension of Wilson Avenue from Milliken Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard and the extension of Rochester Avenue, and the planning areas of Existing Year (2017) Plus Project intersection lane configurations are assumed to include the same lane geometries as Existing Year (2017) Conditions with the exception of the following project design features at the Plan locations: • Intersection 6: Wilson Avenue and Milliken Avenue: Multilane roundabout intersection, new southbound approach. • Intersection 16: Fredericksburg Avenue and Banyan Street: New northbound approach. • Intersection 18: Rochester Avenue and Banyan Street: Multilane roundabout intersection, new southbound approach. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the cost of the improvements identified below to mitigate cumulative impacts at these intersections. This fair share contribution will be used by the City with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. Intersection 33: Base Line Road and East Avenue. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one right -turn lane. o Restripe the southbound approach from one dedicated right -turn lane, two through lanes and one left turn late to two dedicated right -turn lanes, one through lane and one left -turn lane. o Add right -turn overlap phasing in all directions. o Optimize signal timing plan coordinated splits. • Intersection 35: Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will Page 807 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 80 require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Adjust and optimize the PM peak hour signal timing plan and cycle length. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share for the following measures required to mitigate Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project conditions. This fair share contribution will be used by the Caltrans with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. Intersection 34: Baseline Avenue and 1-15 Northbound Ramps. The modifications below can fit within the existing right- of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one left -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane to one left -turn lane and two right -turn lanes. With the above referenced project design features and mitigation measures, cumulative impacts to local streets and highways are reduced to a less than significant level. However, there are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM TRAF-2 through MM TRAF-3 that would reduce the Project's cumulatively significant traffic impacts on State highways. Changes or alterations to mitigate impacts on state highways are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency—Caltrans—and not the City. Such changes can and should be adopted by such Caltrans in conjunction with SANBAG. Thus, the Project's cumulative impact on freeway traffic remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The EIR analyzed cumulative and cumulative plus Project Intersection Peak -Hour Levels of Service and the following study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS during one or both peak hours for Cumulative Year (2040) Conditions: (1) Intersection 18: Banyan Street and Rochester Avenue—AM Peak Hour (LOS F); (2) Intersection 33: Base Line Road and East Avenue—AM Peak Hour (LOS E), PM Peak Hour (LOS F); (3) Intersection 34: Baseline Ave and I- 15 Northbound Ramps—PM Peak Hour (LOS E); (4) Intersection 35: Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue—PM Peak Hour (LOS E); and (5) Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard—PM Peak Hour (LOS E). A further study incorporating Mitigation Measures MM TRAF-2 and MM TRAF-3 improved these intersection operations to either an acceptable LOS or pre -project conditions. As such, impacts to these local streets and highways would be reduced to a less than significant level. Page 808 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 81 With respect to freeways, many segments with the addition of Project traffic would exceed the significance criteria. As such, there are cumulative impacts to the freeway system near the Plan Area. The freeway traffic congestion also further burdens local streets that avoid 1-15 and SR -210 to cut through Rancho the City. It is noted that freeways are currently congested and is anticipated to get further congested, with or without the Plan, due to regional population growth. To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway mainline widening or freeway ramps widening would be needed, which requires a complete reconstruction of the freeway in the Plan Area vicinity; a process that is suited to regional planned efforts and is infeasible for a single development project or specific plan project to undertake. Since freeways are an interconnected system, it would not be possible, nor effective, to provide isolated spot improvements of one segment of the freeway where deficient operations are observed. While the cumulative analysis assumes planned and funded improvements for freeway segments, additional freeway improvements are not considered feasible at this time because: (1) such improvements are unlikely to be accomplished within a reasonable period of time (i.e. the horizon year of the project) and would therefore not reduce or avoid impacts because such a project would require substantial consultation with SCAG and Caltrans, (2) such a project will require SCAG and Caltrans to make various policy choices to amend the RTP and related long term transportation plans which cannot be determined at this time (e.g. funding such a suggestion could potentially eliminate or delay other regional projects which may be of higher priority), (3) SCAG and Caltrans would have to perform additional transportation planning to determine the effectiveness of such a suggestion, and (4) given the large scope of the suggested project, such planning should be done on a regional level rather than based upon the needs of individual components of the transportation system such as the Project. Lastly, the 1-210 and 1-15 freeways are not controlled by the City; the City cannot not guarantee implementation of measures to mitigate cumulative impacts to freeways. For these reasons, cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. VIII. Project Alternatives The EIR considered and analyzed a range of alternatives to the Proposed Project including: Alternative 1 - No Project, Alternative 2 - County Development of Neighborhood Area, Alternative 3 - Annexation under Current City Plans, and Alternative 4 - Annexation with Alternative Land Use Plan. In addition, a range of other alternatives, including a 100 Percent Open Space Alternative, a 3,800 Residential Unit Alternative, and an All'/2-Acre Lots Alternative, were considered but eliminated from further consideration for the reasons explained in Section 5.3 of the EIR, including that these potential alternatives failed to meet most of the project objectives. The four alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR are discussed below, including the basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is available in Table 5.0-1 of the EIR. Page 809 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 82 A. ALTERNATIVE 1 — NO PROJECT Summary of Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the City would not prepare a new plan or annex any County land and existing County Zoning would shape future development within the annexation area and existing City zoning / Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) would shape future development within the small portions of the Plan Area currently within City limits. This alternative would include no development within the Neighborhood Area (NA) north of Banyan Street or west of Rochester Avenue due to the County General Plan Flood Control designation east of Milliken Avenue and the City Flood Control Designation in the area west of Milliken Avenue. Approximately 120 to 200 residences would be expected in Sub -Area 1, south of Banyan Street and west of Milliken Avenue as this area is already in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and zoned Low Medium Residential. The County General Plan anticipates up to 7,000 residences in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence area, of which the EHNCP Plan Area is more than half. Based on the existing County General Plan Land Use/Zoning designations for the Plan Area, it is estimated that approximately 3,500 to 4,500 homes could be developed in the RCA. The County's General Plan designates the NA as Floodway and would not permit any development in this area. 2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Implementation of the No Project Alternative would increase environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. Further, the project objectives would not be fully realized under this alternative. As summarized in Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis of the Draft EIR, most environmental impacts of the EHNCP project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. However, under the EHNCP, impacts related to air quality, biological resources, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable because there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, impacts to mineral resources would be considered similar to or less than impacts from the EHNCP. Impacts to aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural and tribal resources; energy; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems would be greater under this alternative when compared to those for the EHNCP. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 5.0-1: Comparison of Alternatives to the Project, as well as in the EIR's discussion of this alternative's specific impact categories. In addition to overall greater impacts associated with this Alternative, the following Project objectives would not be achieved: • Conserve the natural resources and open space character of this unique foothill area because the Resource Conservation Ara (RCA) would be developed with approximately 3,500 to 4,500 homes thereby greatly reducing the potential for conservation of natural resources; • Establish local control by annexing this area to the City and adopting a community-based plan that meet the City's high-quality standards, Page 810 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 83 because this alternative would leave control with the County of San Bernardino; • Provide a range of open space and park areas offering a range of recreation opportunities, because the conversion of undeveloped lands to residential development in the RCA would greatly diminish both open space and recreational opportunities; In the NA, provide for the development of high-quality, single-family neighborhoods with a range of housing opportunities- including equestrian -oriented housing - that are compatible in character with the existing surrounding neighborhoods because this alternative would not allow for development of residential uses in the NA other than 120 to 200 residences in Sub -Area 1, south of Banyan Street and west of Milliken Avenue, the area currently in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and zoned Low Medium Residential; • Improve access to the existing and new foothill neighborhoods by extending, connecting and improving Wilson Avenue, Rochester Avenue, and Milliken Avenue, and providing a network of walkable and bikeable neighborhood streets because the County's General Plan designates the NA as Floodway and would not permit any development in this area; Enhance fire safety throughout the Plan Area, in particular reduce wildfire hazard to existing and new neighborhoods, because the greatly increased residential uses in the RCA in a high fire hazard zone would directly conflict with this objective, and also increase risks by leaving the NA undeveloped, therefore placing homes in an area surrounded by unmaintained vegetation, or potential wildfire fuel; • Provide a limited amount of small-scale neighborhood shops and restaurants to meet the daily needs of residents in the existing and future foothill neighborhoods because this alternative does not provide for small- scale neighborhood shops and restaurants. The No Project Alternative is hereby rejected because it fails to meet the project's main objectives, and because it would have greater environmental impact that the EHNCP. B. ALTERNATIVE 2 — COUNTY DEVELOPMENT OF NA ALTERNATIVE Summary of Alternative. The proposed County Development of NA Alternative would ensure the County meets it fiduciary responsibility to sell their surplus land for a reasonable price. This alternative allows for development within the City under the guiding General Plan land use designations and densities in the NA. This alternative would have the following characteristics: • The City does not prepare a new plan or annex any County land. Page 811 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 84 • The County's General Plan for the RCA would not be amended and would allow the development of approximately 3,500 to 4,500 residential units in the RCA as described and evaluated in the No Project Alternative. Under this alternative, development of the NA is assumed to occur after the County sells its surplus property. Based on recent market studies and current products for sale in Rancho Cucamonga, a likely average residential density would be around 8 units per net acre or 6 units per gross acre. At that density, a neighborhood development of 900 acres would yield 5,400 residences. Prior development proposals also included a neighborhood -serving commercial "main street" thus up to 160,000 s.f. of commercial use is also assumed. Approximately 120 to 200 residences would be expected in Sub -Area 1, south of Banyan Street and west of Milliken Avenue as this area is already in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and zoned Low Medium Residential. 2. Reasons for Reiecting Alternative Implementation of this alternative would increase environmental impacts when compared to the EHNCP because the vast majority of the Plan Area would be developed with urban uses and very little additional open space would be acquired and conserved. At the same time, the Project objectives would not be fully realized under this Alternative. As summarized in Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis of this Draft EIR, most environmental impacts of the Plan are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. However, under the Plan, impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable because there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, impacts to land use and planning would be reduced. However, impacts to aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural and tribal resources; energy; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; mineral resources; noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems would be greater under this alternative when compared to those for the EHNCP. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 5.0-1, as well as in the EIR's discussion of this alternative's specific impact categories. In addition to overall greater impacts associated with this Alternative, the following Project objectives would not be achieved: • Conserve the natural resources and open space character of this unique foothill area, because the RCA would not be preserved, but would be developed with up to 4,500 homes; • Establish local control by annexing this area to the City and adopting a community-based plan that meet the City's high-quality standards, because this alternative would leave the RCA and majority of the NA under control of the County; Page 812 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 85 • Provide a range of open space and park areas offering a range of recreation opportunities because this alternative would fully develop the RCA and NA with residential uses, without conservation of the majority of the RCA; • In the NA, provide for the development of high-quality, single-family neighborhoods with a range of housing opportunities- including equestrian -oriented housing - that are compatible in character with the existing surrounding neighborhoods, because the housing density in the NA would be too great to allow for equestrian -oriented housing. Alternative 2 is hereby rejected because it fails to meet the Project's main objectives, and because it would have greater impacts than the proposed Project. C. ALTERNATIVE 3 — ANNEXATION UNDER CURRENT CITY PLANS ALTERNATIVE Summary of Alternative This alternative considers annexation without the approval of the EHNCP as proposed. The area would be regulated under the City's existing General Plan and the ENSP, which covers the majority of the Plan Area, excluding the portion west of Milliken Avenue, which would be regulated under the City's current General Plan, with consistent zoning adopted for this area. This alternative would assume the same land use map for the RCA as the EHNCP but would not allow for the transfer of development rights or impose rural clustering standards in the majority of the developable portion of the RCA, and as such, would allow for approximately 150 homes in the RCA. Additionally, the proposed rural development standards would reduce the overall footprint of development for each individual future home site. • This alternative would have the following characteristics: Within the NA, the area north of the Diversion Levee is zoned Resource Conservation (RC) by the ENSP and would not allow new residential development. • Within the NA in the area south of the Diversion Levee and east of the flood control channel, the Flood Control (FC) zoning would be removed because the land is no longer needed for flood control purposes, however the future land use designation is RC, so no new housing would be allowed in this area. Within the NA in the area south of the Diversion Levee and west and south of the flood control channel, the FC zoning would be removed now that the land is no longer needed for flood control purposes, and the ENSP Residential Overlay would apply. The land use designations identified by ENSP in the Residential Overlay are Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac), Very Low Density Residential (<2 du/acre), and Very Low Residential Estate (1 du/ac). A portion of the area south of Banyan Street is zoned Low Density Residential by the ENSP. This zoning would allow for residential development similar to the neighborhoods to the east, Page 813 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 86 which were also developed under the low and very low-density residential zoning designation of the ENSP. • Within the area outside the ENSP, south of Banyan Street and west of Milliken Avenue, the City's existing zoning of Low Medium Residential would apply. • Development of the following amounts of housing would be allowed with the alternative: • FC (VLE) area = 85 acres x 1 = 85 DU (ENSP) • FC (VL) area = 85 acres x 2 = 170 DU (ENSP) • FC (L) area = 86 acres x 4 = 344 DU (ENSP) • LM area = 28 acres x 8 = 224 DU (Zoning) • Total capacity for the NA= 823 DU (2.9 DU/acre) • In addition, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial development would be expected based on the ENSP Neighborhood Commercial Floating Zone, which has not been developed in other areas of the ENSP. This alternative would allow for up to 150 homes in the RCA and 823 homes in the NA. 2. Reasons for Resecting Alternative Implementation of this alternative would increase some environmental impacts when compared to the Plan, while reducing others. At the same time, all of the objectives would not be fully realized under this Plan. As summarized in Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis of the Draft EIR, most environmental impacts of the Plan are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. However, under the Plan, impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable because there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, impacts to air quality; biological resources in the NA; energy; greenhouse gas emissions; mineral resources; noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems would be reduced. Impacts to biological resources in the RCA, cultural and tribal resources; and hydrology and water qualitywould be considered similar underthis alternative. Impacts to aesthetics; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; and land use and planning would be greater under this alternative when compared to those for the Plan. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 5.0-1, as well as in the EIR's discussion of this alternative's specific impact categories. The following Project objectives would not be achieved with Alternative 3: Page 814 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 87 • Enhance fire safety throughout the Plan Area, in particular reduce wildfire hazard to existing and new neighborhoods because Fire officials expressed grave concerns with the very large, wild open space in the center of the neighborhoods — with very limited opportunities for fuel modification — thus this alternative presented fire hazard that could not be mitigated. Provide a limited amount of small-scale neighborhood shops and restaurants to meet the daily needs of residents in the existing and future foothill neighborhoods and a community center in a pedestrian oriented environment. A larger quantity of shops and restaurants, as well as potential office spaces, could have accomplished this basic objective, but greatly exceeded the community's expectation for "limited" commercial development. This alternative would allow for at least two large commercial centers in the NA, whereas community input was strongly against this level of commercial development in a residential neighborhood. • Develop a land use plan for the NA that provides the County with an opportunity for meeting their fiduciary responsibility of selling their surplus land for a reasonable price, because this alternative allows for far fewer homes in the NA, which would not make this a financially viable alternative. D. ALTERNATIVE 4 — ANNEXATION WITH ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN Summary of Alternative Under the Annexation with Alternative Land Use Plan alternative, a new Specific Plan would be approved. This alternative was one of three developed as part of the community outreach program conducted by the City in the fall of 2017. Under this alternative, the new neighborhood would be located in the northeast portion of the NA, at the closed mine site. This alternative would allow for similar development in the RCA of up to 100 homes. Alternative 4 would have the following characteristics: 1. This alternative would allow for up to 2,000 homes with a large area of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub preserved between the new neighborhoods in the NA. 2. This alternative was determined to have fire hazard risks that could not be mitigated and was the least preferred based on community surveys in 2018. 2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Implementation of this alternative would decrease the environmental impacts when compared to the Plan. At the same time, all of the objectives would not be fully realized under this Alternative. As summarized in Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis of this Draft EIR, most environmental impacts of the Plan are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. However, under the Plan, impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse Page 815 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 88 gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable because there are no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, impacts to air quality; energy; greenhouse gases; hydrology and water quality; mineral resources; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems would be reduced. Impacts to aesthetics; biological resources; cultural and tribal resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; and noise would be considered similar under this alternative. Impacts to land use and planning would be greater underthis alternative. Asummaryof impacts is provided in Table 5.0-1, as well as in the EIR's discussion of this alternative's specific impact categories. Although this alternative would result in overall reduced impacts, the following Project objectives would not be achieved: Conserve the natural resources and open space character of this unique foothill area while providing additional housing opportunities to meet regional housing needs in an environmentally sensitive manner. This alternative proposed to directly conserve 491 acres of the "lower band" of the Plan Area, as well as conserving much of the "upper band" as additional mitigation of habitat impacts. Based on second opinions regarding the "lower band" conservation, it was determined that it was somewhat speculative, and there was a potential to invest a great deal of money in restoring and conserving that area without creating viable, high- quality habitat. The fact that it has been cut off from natural seasonal stormwater flows for so long, that the reintroduction of such flows would be dependent on removing a portion of the Diversion Levee, and that the area would be surrounded by neighborhoods argued against this alternative from a habitat perspective. Provide a range of open space and park areas offering a range of recreation opportunities. This alternative could meet this objective, although by focusing the Plan around a very large central open space from which humans would be excluded does not offer the same recreational opportunities as a large central open space to which they have access. Improve access to the existing and new foothill neighborhoods by extending, connecting and improving Wilson Avenue, Rochester Avenue, and Milliken Avenue, and providing a network of walkable and bikeable neighborhood streets. This alternative could partially meet this objective, but the very large central open space, off limits to humans, very significantly reduced connectivity for all modes other than automobiles. • Enhance fire safety throughout the Plan Area, in particular reduce wildfire hazard to existing and new neighborhoods in that Fire officials expressed grave concerns that the very large, wild open space in the center of the neighborhoods — with very limited opportunities for fuel modification — this alternative presented fire hazard that could not be mitigated. Page 816 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 89 Alternative 4 is hereby rejected because even though it could reduce potential environmental impacts, it fails to meet the main objectives of the project. E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the analysis of alternatives to a project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to explain potentially feasible ways to avoid or minimize the significant effects identified for the Plan. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. A summary comparison of impacts associated with the Plan alternatives is provided in Table 5.0-1. As indicated in Table 5.0-1, the first line compares each alternative's incremental increase, decrease, or results in similar impacts, to the Plan's identified impact. The second line compares the level of significance of each alternative's impact to the level of significance of the Plan's impact. Of the alternatives considered in this Draft EIR section, Alternative 3— Annexation Under Current City Plans Alternative is environmentally superior to the other alternatives considered because this alternative would include less residential development than the EHNCP would permit, and would preserve more natural habitat identified as critical habitat for the SBKR and provide the opportunity to restore this habitat, which is currently degraded as a result of the long-term hydrologic and sediment transport changes from the existing diversion levees. However, as with the Plan, long-term edge effects for this alternative could include intrusions by humans and domestic pets, and possible trampling of individual plants, invasion by exotic plant and wildlife species, exposure to urban pollutants (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials), soil erosion, litter, fire, and hydrologic changes (e.g., surface and groundwater level and quality). For these reasons, this alternative would result in similar significant impacts as those under the Plan to biological resources. This alternative does not meet the basic objectives of the EHNCP, including enhancing fire safety throughout the Plan Area and providing a high level of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation between the new neighborhoods and the existing surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, the alternative would entail substantial additional costs to remove the west end of the Diversion Levee to restore drainage flows to the habitat area that would be preserved and fund an experimental habitat restoration and monitoring program, which mayor may not be successful. Additionally, the indirect impact to the habitat area from human intrusion, domestic pets, and lighting from the new neighborhoods around the preserve area would further feasibility. For these reasons, this alternative is not considered feasible. Lastly, input provided by the community was a strong preference for limited commercial space, yet this alternative would allow for 28 acres of neighborhood commercial development, which greatly exceeds that of the Plan. Page 817 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 90 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the approval of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP), consisting of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, EHNCP Specific Plan DRC2015-00751, Annexation DRC2015- 00732, and Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459 (the "Project"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and in the record, some of which have been reduced in severity to the degree feasible through mitigation measures. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts (Air Quality — operational VOC, NOx, CO, PM2.5 and PM10 emissions; Biological Resources — direct impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species, riparian habitat, and wetlands; Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG); Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing — unplanned population growth in SCAG RTP/SCS; Mineral Resources — removal of the D-3 Aggregate Resources zone; Transportation and Traffic — freeway traffic impacts) and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that the collective benefits of the Project as set forth below, taken together, warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. Project Benefits: Project Benefit #1: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP has been prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. Project Benefit #2: The City desires to take local land use control of the Project Area to ensure that future conservation and limited development meet with the City's high standards. Project Benefit #3: Implementation of this Specific Plan will help achieve the overarching goal of widespread conservation of the "front country" adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest. underwritten by and in balance with high quality neighborhood development in the southerly portion of the Project Area already surrounded by existing neighborhoods. The Specific Plan defines a strategy for development to ensure that conservation and neighborhood development pay their own way and do not place new tax burdens on existing residents. Project Benefit #4: Implementation of the Specific Plan will extend the City's pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trail networks to connect existing and new neighborhoods to one another and to the foothill open spaces above. Project Benefit #5: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide a range of housing opportunities for families of many ages, sizes and lifestyles. The Project will provide a substantial amount of Page 818 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 91 housing for local and area residents to help meet future market demand and the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Project Benefit #6: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide connections from existing neighborhoods and streets into the Project Area, ensuring access and prioritizing multi -modal safety — designated bike lanes, pedestrian -friendly sidewalks, and limited equestrian paths — while designing safe neighborhoods, complete stormwater management plans and natural fire -safety buffers to mitigate risks of wildfire spread. The Project will create over 118 acres of new park space within the City. Project Benefit #7: The Specific Plan provides high quality design standards to ensure that the buildings and landscapes of Etiwanda Heights reflect the unique heritage of Etiwanda and Alta Loma, and that new neighborhood edges are compatible with existing adjacent neighborhoods and respect existing viewsheds. Project Benefit #8: The Specific Plan emphasizes design for people and improved accessibility and initial analysis indicates that the EHNCP neighborhoods will generate at least 15% less traffic (Vehicle Miles Traveled) per person than existing neighborhoods in the area. Project Benefit #9: According to the Project's Fiscal Analysis, prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman & Associates, the Project is expected to generate 424 new jobs in the City and generate a General Fund surplus of approximately $1.065 million (in 2019 dollars) on a recurring basis. General Fund revenue can be used for a variety of governmental purposes, including the acquisition of conservation and recreational land within the Project Area. Page 819 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 92 Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page 820 3.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to ensure that mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) State Clearinghouse No. 2017111002 prepared for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP). When approving projects with EIRs that identify significant impacts, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting programs or conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency is required to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable, through permit conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by a public agency to reduce or avoid significant project impacts not incorporated into the design or program for the project may be made conditions of project approval as set forth in a MMRP. The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. The MMRP includes the mitigation measures identified in the EIR required to address the significant impacts associated with the proposed project. The required mitigation measures are summarized in this program; the full text of the impact analysis and mitigation measures is presented in the Draft EIR in Chapter ES, Executive Summary, except as revised in this Final EIR. The mitigation revisions in the Final EIR include the addition of Mitigation Measures MM AQ -2, MM AQ -3 and MM AQ -7 through MM AQ -15, MM TCUL-3 and MM TCUL-4, and revisions to Mitigation Measures MM 13I0-1: Management Plan and MM 13I0-2: Jurisdictional Resources, as presented in Section 4.0: Corrections and Additions of this Final EIR. The addition of these mitigation measures was made to reflect required implementation procedures in the MMRP. The mitigation measures contained in this document are categorized according to the primary environmental impact designations listed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report and are shown in the MMRP. B. MITIGATION MATRIX The MMRP is organized in a table format (see Table 3.0-1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program—Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan), keyed to each significant impact and each EIR mitigation measure. Only mitigation measures adopted to address significant impacts are included in this program. Each mitigation measure is set out in full, followed by a tabular summary of monitoring requirements. The column headings in the tables are defined as follows: Meridian Consultants 3.0-1 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 072-004-I8 August2019 Page 821 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measures adopted as Conditions of Approval: This column presents the mitigation measure identified in the EIR. Timing: The general schedule for conducting each mitigation task, identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action. Responsible Agency/Monitor: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the monitoring and reporting tasks. Signature/Date Completed: This column may be used by the lead agency to document the person who verified the implementation of the mitigation measure and the date on which this verification occurred. C. ENFORCEMENT If the EHNCP Specific Plan is adopted, the MMRP would be incorporated as a condition of approval for all future projects in the EHNCP Planning Area. As such, all mitigation measures for significant impacts must be carried out in order to fulfill the requirements of approval. A number of the mitigation measures would be implemented during the course of the development review process for future projects in Downtown. These measures would be referenced on architectural, development and similar plans, in technical reports, and in the field prior to construction. Most of the remaining mitigation measures would be implemented during the construction or project implementation phase. Table 3.0-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Air Quality MM AQ -1 Preconstruction. Building Official. • All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet or exceed Tier 4 off- road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Any emissions -control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. The Lead Agency should include this requirement in applicable bid documents, and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate ability to supply compliant equipment prior to the commencement of any construction Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-2 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 822 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-3 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 823 Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed activities. Additionally, the Lead Agency should require reporting and provision of written documentation by contractors to ensure compliance and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. In the event that the Lead Agency finds that Tier 4 construction equipment is not feasible pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364, the Project representative or contractor must use all off-road, diesel -powered construction greater than 50 hp that meets Tier 3 off-road emission standards and other technologies/strategies approved by the Lead Agency. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to, reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction equipment, limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Proposed Project, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously, if applicable. MM AQ -2 Preconstruction. Planning • Encourage construction contractors to apply for South Coast Director and/or AQMD "SOON" funds. The "SOON" program provides funds her designee) to applicable fleets for the purchase of commercially - available low -emission heavy-duty engines to achieve near- term reduction of NOx emissions from in -use off-road diesel vehicles. More information on this program can be found at South Coast AQMD's website: http://www.agmd.gov/home/programs/business/business- detail?title=off-road-diesel-engines. MM AQ -3 Preconstruction. Planning • Maintain equipment maintenance records for the Director and/or construction portion of the Proposed Project. All her designee) construction equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their construction contractor(s) should be made available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction. MM AQ -4 Preconstruction. Planning • The Plan shall be developed in nine phases over Director and/or approximately 13 years, as described in Section 2.0: Project her designee) Description, to minimize concurrent development. MM AQ -5 Preconstruction. Planning • Preferential parking for low -emitting, fuel-efficient, and Director and/or carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in her designee) Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code. • One- and two-family dwellings and facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-3 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 823 Mitigation Measure residential building and nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with the Residential and Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code. MM AQ -6 • Post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 5 minutes). • Post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas MM AQ -7 Require the use of zero -emissions (ZE) or near -zero emission (NZE) trucks (e.g., material delivery, heavy-duty trucks for the commercial and retail uses at the Proposed Project) such as heavy-duty trucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB's adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02 grams per brake horsepower -hour (g/bhp-hr). CARB also adopted the statewide Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. The Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1, 2012. Lighter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1, 2013, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent. Since the construction schedule of the Proposed Project extends into 2035, it is reasonable to assume that 2010 model year trucks will become more widely available commercially. Therefore, South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency, at a minimum, require that construction vendors, contractors, and/or haul truck operators commit to using 2010 model year or newer engines that meet CARB's 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 g/bhp-hr of particulate matter (PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions or newer, cleaner trucks. When requiring ZE or NZE on -road haul trucks, the Lead Agency should include analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient power and supportive infrastructure available for ZE/NZE trucks in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems Sections of the Final EIR, where appropriate. Additionally, the Lead Agency should require that operators maintain records of all trucks associated with the Proposed Project's construction and make these records available to the Lead Agency upon request. The records will serve as evidence to prove that each truck called to the Proposed Project meets the minimum 2010 model year engine emission standards. The Lead Agency should conduct regular inspections of the records to the maximum extent feasible and practicable to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Preconstruction Preconstruction Planning Director and/or her designee) Planning Director and/or her designee) 3.0-4 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 824 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-5 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 825 Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed MM AQ -8 Preconstruction. Planning • Provide incentives for employees working at the proposed Director and/or commercial and retail uses to encourage the use of public her designee) transportation or carpooling, such as discounted transit passes or carpool rebates. MM AQ -9 Preconstruction. Planning • Implement a rideshare program for employees working at Director and/or the proposed commercial and retail uses and set a goal to her designee) achieve a certain participation rate over a period of time. MM AQ -10 Preconstruction. Planning • Maximize the use of solar energy including solar panels. Director and/or Installing the maximum possible number of solar energy her designee) arrays on the building roofs and/or on the Proposed Project site to generate solar energy for the commercial and retail facilities and/or EV charging station at each residential and non-residential building. MM AQ -11 Preconstruction. Planning • Require the use of electric landscaping equipment, such as Director and/or lawn mower and leaf blowers her designee) MM AQ -12 Preconstruction. Planning • Require the use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers Director and/or with HEPA filters. her designee) MM AQ -13 Preconstruction. Planning • Maximize the planting of trees in landscaping and parking Director and/or lots her designee) MM AQ -14 Preconstruction. Planning • Use light colored paving and roofing materials. Director and/or her designee) MM AQ -15 Preconstruction. Planning • Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting Director and/or devices, and appliances. her designee) Planning MM AQ -16 Preconstruction. • Preparation of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) of the Director and/or proposed Sub -Area 1 to the southwest and Sub -Area 8 to her designee) the southeast if housing development were to occur within 500 feet of a freeway, urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. • Disclose the potential health impacts to prospective residents from living in a close proximity of 1-210 and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and/or when residents are outdoor (e.g., common usable open space areas). • Many strategies are available to reduce exposure, including, but are not limited to: building filtration systems with MERV Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-5 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 825 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-6 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 826 Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed 13 or better; building design, orientation, location; and vegetation barriers or landscape screening Biological Resources MM 13I0-1 Preconstruction; Planning • Management Plan. A total of 710.12 acres shall be mitigated Pre-operation Director through preservation of the Etiwanda Heights Preserve and through acquired lands within the RCA for impacts occurring within the NA. Upon adoption of the EHNCP, all lands within the RCA will be subject to a comprehensive Preserve Management and Monitoring Plan to direct management of the entire contiguous block of land, which will include a financial source to pay for management of the entire preserve area. An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the acquired areas within the RCA. A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities in perpetuity. In compliance with Chapter 3, Conservation Plan, Section 3.5, Conservation Objectives, Strategy 5.2, the CMP shall, at a minimum address the following issues: Non -Native Plant Management, Post -Flood Management, Public Access and Trail Management, Seed Collection and Dispersal Program, SBKR Habitat Management Program, and Fire Management/Fuel Modification Buffer Zones. • Acquired lands within the RCA will include areas containing suitable habitat specifically for coastal California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat among all other species with potential to occur within the NA. Specifically, lands acquired within the RCA would provide approximately 623 acres of suitable habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as well as conservation of United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat for this species. Since the habitat within the NA is considered low quality, as described in Section 4.4.2, the compensatory mitigation ratio for San Bernardino kangaroo rat shall be 1:1, subject to approval by USFWS. A total of 721.52 acres of impacts to USFWS Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat would occur within the NA. The Recommended Preserve would conserve approximately 586.70 acres of Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and there are approximately 833 acres of Critical Habitat for this species available for acquisition within the RCA. Therefore, impacts within the NA would be fully mitigated through acquisition of lands designated as Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat within the RCA - 586.70 acres as part of the Specific Plan, and 134.82 acres of additional preserve acquisition. Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-6 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 826 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing MM 13I0-2 Preconstruction; • Jurisdictional Resources. Prior to the issuance of any land Pre-operation development permits that impact jurisdictional resources, including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, sufficient acreage within RCA or elsewhere shall be conserved, enhanced, or restored to cover all impacts to waters of the United States and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-only areas at a 1:1 ratio (additional mitigation may be required to satisfy agency requirements). An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the conservation areas. Prior to dedication of the conservation area, a Conservation Management Plan will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities. A total of 65.92 acres of mitigation would be required for impacts to jurisdictional resources within the NA. A total of 57.08 acres of non -wetland waters or streambeds within the RCA Etiwanda Heights Preserve would be conserved with Plan implementation. Therefore, in order to mitigate for impacts to jurisdictional resources, a minimum of 14.30 acres would be acquired within the RCA for conservation and management. As stated previously and shown on Figure 4.3-3, there are approximately 461.53 acres of jurisdictional resources within the RCA. It should be noted that this total does not include the RCA Etiwanda Heights Preserve since these jurisdictional resources are already accounted for in Table 4.3-13. Therefore, acquisition of lands within the RCA to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional resources would be feasible even with slight changes to the impact footprint. Table 5, Table 5, Minimum Mitigation Required for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources, of Appendix F of the Final EIR summarizes the mitigation required for impacts to jurisdictional resources. Responsible Signature/Date Agency/Monitor Completed Planning Director MM BIO -3 Preconstruction; Planning • Special -Status Plant Species Monitoring Plan. For species Pre-operation. Director federally and/or state -listed as threatened or endangered, prior to construction activities occurring within occupied habitat, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be submitted to and approved by the USFWS (for federally listed plants) and/or CDFW (for state -listed plants). Regulatory agency approval is required prior to implementation of the Plan. Prior to Plan implementation, a translocation plan shall be developed and implemented for non -listed plant species, prior to construction activities occurring within occupied habitat for that species. • Based on the current impacts within the NA, two special - status Dlant species (intermediate mariposa lilv and Parrv's Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-7 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 827 Mitigation Measure spineflower) would require translocation of individuals. The mitigation and monitoring plan for the transplanted special - status plant(s) shall describe the following as needed based on plant species: (1) the location of feasible mitigation sites; (2) site preparation measures as needed such as topsoil treatment, soil decompaction, erosion control, temporary irrigation systems, and removal of non-native species; (3) a schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the mitigation areas; (4) adaptive management measures such as replanting, weed control, or erosion control to be implemented if habitat improvement/restoration efforts are not successful; (5) the source of all plant propagules (seed, potted nursery stock, etc.) and the quantity and species of seed or potted stock of all plants to be introduced or planted into the restoration/enhancement areas; (6) a schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the enhancement/restoration areas, to include at minimum, qualitative annual monitoring for revegetation success and site degradation due to erosion, trespass, or animal damage for a period no less than two years; (7) as needed where sites are near trails or other access points, measures such as fencing, signage, or security patrols to exclude unauthorized entry into the restoration/enhancement areas; and (8) contingency measures such as replanting, weed control, or erosion control to be implemented if habitat improvement/restoration efforts are not successful. • Take of any listed species, or collection and transplantation of any individuals and populations of any listed species, will require approval by the USFWS and/or CDFW and issuance of an Incidental Take Permit. MM BIO -4 • Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys. No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities shall occur during the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) breeding season (March 1 to August 15). If construction activities cannot be completed outside coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season, then a pre - construction survey shall be conducted in all areas of suitable habitat, by a qualified biologist (possessing a valid Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(a) Recovery Permit). If found during pre -construction surveys, a 500 -foot buffer would be required around the nest site. For potential impacts associated with construction noise, presence or absence of coastal California gnatcatcher would be determined by pre -construction surveys conducted by a qualified biologist adjacent to the NA. Coastal sage scrub outside of the impact area would be flagged to protect it from construction equipment as directed by the biologist. Between March 1 and AU2USt 15. no noise-eeneratine Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Preconstruction; Planning Pre-operation. Director 3.0-8 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 828 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-9 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 829 Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed construction activities that exceed ambient noise levels would occur in close proximity to occupied habitat. If necessary, other measures shall be implemented in consultation with the biologist as necessary, to reduce noise levels. Measures may include, but are not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and the simultaneous use of equipment. MM BIO -5 Preconstruction; Planning • Prior to issuance of any land development permits, Pre-operation. Director including clearing, grubbing, and grading permits, an approved biologist to conduct focused pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) shall be retained. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the approved biologist shall prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan that outlines appropriate buffering distances and timing and stipulates the passive relocation process. Any impacted occupied burrows would be replaced at a minimum 2:1 ratio proximate to the location of impact. The plan would be subject to review and approval by the wildlife agencies and the City, including any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from construction - related activities. MM BIO -6 Construction; Planning • Construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be Pre-operation. Director avoided during nesting bird season, from approximately March 15 through September 15, as directed by Section 4.4 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010a). If construction activities cannot be completed outside the nesting bird season, a pre - construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted. Special attention shall be given during surveys for ground -nesting birds (e.g., killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), lesser nighthawks (Chordeiles acutipennis), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus)) due to the amount of nests observed during field surveys. Surveys shall be conducted within 500 feet of disturbance areas no earlier than 3 days prior to the commencement of disturbance. If construction activities are delayed, then additional pre -construction surveys shall be conducted such that no more than 3 days will have elapsed between the survey and ground -disturbance activities. • If active nests are found, clearing and construction shall be postponed or halted within a buffer area, established by the qualified biologist, that is suitable to the particular bird species and location of the nest, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-9 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 829 Mitigation Measure and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. The results of the surveys, including graphics showing the locations of any active nests detected, and documentation of any avoidance measures taken, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City within 14 days of completion of the pre - construction surveys or construction monitoring to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. MM BIO -7 • Small Mammal Trapping and Clearance Surveys. Thirty days prior to construction activities in suitable habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), American badger (Taxidea taxus), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). MM BIO -7a • No earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities, a pre -construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active roosts of bats are present on or within 300 feet of the NA disturbance boundaries. Should an active maternity roost be identified (in California, the breeding season of native bat species is generally from April 1 through August 31), the roost shall not be disturbed, and construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted, until the roost is vacated and juveniles have fledged. Surveys shall include rocky outcrops, caves, structures, and large trees (particularly trees 12 inches in diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade with loose bark or other cavities). Trees and rocky outcrops shall be surveyed by a qualified bat biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a CDFW collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW allowing the biologist to handle bats). If active maternity roosts or hibernacula are found, the rock outcrop or tree occupied by the roost shall be avoided (i.e., not removed) by the NA. If avoidance of the maternity roost must occur, the bat biologist shall survey (through the use of radio telemetry or other CDFW approved methods) for nearby alternative maternity colony sites. If the bat biologist determines in consultation with and with the approval of CDFW that there are alternative roost sites used by the maternity colony and young are not present then no further action is required. Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Preconstruction; Planning Pre-operation. Director 3.0-10 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 830 Mitigation Measure • If a maternity roost will be impacted by the activities proposed within the NA, and no alternative maternity roosts are in use near the site, substitute roosting habitat for the maternity colony shall be provided on, or in close proximity to, the NA no less than 3 months prior to the eviction of the colony. Large concrete walls (e.g., on bridges) on south or southwestern slopes that are retrofitted with slots and cavities are an example of structures that may provide alternative potential roosting habitat appropriate for maternity colonies. Alternative roost sites must be of comparable size and proximal in location to the impacted colony. CDFW shall also be notified of any hibernacula or active nurseries within the construction zone. • If non -breeding bat hibernacula are found in trees scheduled to be removed or in crevices in rock outcrops within the grading footprint, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist, by opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity or other means determined appropriate by the bat biologist (e.g., installation of one-way doors). In situations requiring one-way doors, a minimum of 1 week shall pass after doors are installed and temperatures should be sufficiently warm for bats to exit the roost because bats do not typically leave their roost daily during winter months in southern coastal California. This action should allow all bats to leave during the course of 1 week. Roosts that need to be removed in situations where the use of one-way doors is not necessary in the judgment of the qualified bat biologist in consultation with CDFW shall first be disturbed by various means at the direction of the bat biologist at dusk to allow bats to escape during the darker hours, and the roost tree shall be removed or the grading shall occur the next day (i.e., there shall be no less or more than one night between initial disturbance and the grading or tree removal). These actions should allow bats to leave during nighttime hours, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight. • If an active maternity roost is located on the NA, and alternative roosting habitat is available, the demolition of the roost site must commence before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March 1) or after young are flying (i.e., after July 31) using the exclusion techniques described above. MM BIO -7b • Thirty days prior to construction activities in scrub and chaparral habitats, or other suitable habitat a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for American badger. Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed 3.0-11 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 831 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed • If American badgers are present, occupied habitat shall be flagged and ground -disturbing activities avoided within 50 feet of the occupied den. Maternity dens shall be avoided during the pup -rearing season (February 15 through July 1) and a minimum 200 -foot buffer established. This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with CDFW. Maternity dens shall be flagged for avoidance, identified on construction maps, and a qualified biologist shall be present during construction. If avoidance of a non -maternity den is not feasible, badgers shall be relocated either by trapping or by slowly excavating the burrow (either by hand or mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of the biologist, removing no more than 4 inches at a time) before or after the rearing season (February 15 through July 1). Any relocation of badgers shall occur only after consultation with CDFW. A written report documenting the badger removal shall be provided to CDFW within 30 days of relocation. MM BIO -7c • Trapping and relocation for northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and Los Angeles pocket mouse will occur in all areas of soil disturbance and construction, if required by CDFW. MM BIO -7d • If active San Diego desert woodrat nests (stick houses) are identified within the disturbance zone or within 100 feet of the disturbance zone, a fence shall be erected around the nest site adequate to provide the woodrat sufficient foraging habitat at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. Clearing and construction within the fenced area will be postponed or halted until young have left the nest. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to these nests will occur. If avoidance is not possible, the following sequential steps shall be taken: (1) all understory vegetation will be cleared in the area immediately surrounding active nests, followed by a period of one night without further disturbance to allow woodrats to vacate the nest; (2) each occupied nest will then be disturbed by a qualified wildlife biologist until all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge off-site; and (3) the nest sticks shall be removed from the NA and piled at the base of a nearby hardwood tree (preferably a coast live oak or California walnut). Relocated nests shall not be spaced closer than 100 feet apart, unless a qualified wildlife biologist has determined that a specific habitat can support a higher density of nests. All woodrat nests moved shall be documented and a written report provided to CDFW. All Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-12 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 832 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-13 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 833 Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed woodrat relocation shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in possession of a scientific collecting permit. MM 13I0-8 Reptile Clearance Surveys Construction; Planning • A qualified biologist will be present during construction Pre-operation. Director activities immediately adjacent to or within habitat that supports populations of special -status reptile species. Clearance surveys for special -status reptiles shall be conducted by the qualified biologist prior to the initiation of construction each day. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to CDFW in the annual mitigation status report. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits MM 13I0-9 Preconstruction; Planning • The following best management practices shall be Pre-operation. Director implemented to minimize indirect impacts to special -status resources: 1. Biological Monitor. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits, written confirmation that a qualified biologist has been retained to implement the NA's biological monitoring program shall be provided. The letter shall include the names and contact information of all persons involved in the biological monitoring of the NA. The biological monitor shall attend all pre -construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas, and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated NA activities that may be in violation of any permits issued by agencies having jurisdictional authority over the NA. 2. Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to grading and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a WEAP for all construction/contractor personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start of construction shall be maintained on-site, and this list shall be updated as required when new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in the field for more than 5 days without participating in the WEAR The qualified biologist shall provide ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with environmental/permit regulations and mitigation Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-13 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 833 Mitigation Measure measures. The qualified biologist shall perform the following: — Provide training materials and briefings to all personnel working on-site. The material shall include but not be limited to the identification and status of plant and wildlife species, significant natural plant community habitats (e.g., riparian), fire protection measures, and review of mitigation requirements. — A discussion of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other state or federal permit requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance with these acts; — Attend the pre -construction meeting to ensure that timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds, pre - construction surveys, or relocation efforts); — Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps showing the location of special -status wildlife or populations of rare plants, exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and construction crews prior to ground disturbance. This applies to pre -construction activities, such as site surveying and staking, natural resources surveying or reconnaissance, establishment of water quality best management practices, and geotechnical or hydrological investigations; — Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; — Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are sited within grading areas to minimize degradation of vegetation communities adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they shall be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species habitats will be affected); — Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating the limits of all construction activity; Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed 3.0-14 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 834 Mitigation Measure — Ensure and document that required pre - construction surveys and/or relocation efforts have been implemented; — Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading; and — Submit to CDFW an immediate report (within 72 hours) of any conflicts or errors resulting in impacts to special status biological resources. 3. Construction Fencing. The construction limits shall be flagged prior to ground -disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the flagged disturbance limits. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans. 4. Toxic Substances. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, evidence shall be submitted indicating that the use of chemicals or the generation of by-products such as pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, and other substances that are potentially toxic or impactive to native habitats/flora/fauna (including water) shall incorporate measures to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the conservation area within the NA. No trash, oil, parking, or other construction/development-related material/activities shall be allowed outside any approved construction limits. All construction -related activity that may have potential for leakage or intrusion shall be monitored by the qualified biologist. 5. Worker Guidelines. All trash and food -related waste shall be placed in self-closing containers and removed regularly from the site to prevent overflow. Workers shall not feed wildlife or bring pets to the NA. 6. Best Management Practices/Erosion/Runoff. The NA will incorporate methods to control runoff, including a stormwater pollution prevention plan to meet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. Implementation of stormwater regulations are expected to substantially control adverse edge effects (e.g., erosion, sedimentation, habitat conversion) during and following construction both adjacent and downstream from the study area. Typical construction best management practices specifically related to reducing impacts from dust, erosion, and runoff generated by construction activities would be imDlemented. Durine construction. material stockpiles Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed 3.0-15 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 835 Mitigation Measure shall be placed such that they cause minimal interference with on-site drainage patterns. This will protect sensitive vegetation from being inundated with sediment -laden runoff. Dewatering shall be conducted in accordance with standard regulations of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). An NPDES permit, issued by RWQCB to discharge water from dewatering activities, shall be required prior to start of dewatering. This will minimize erosion, siltation, and pollution within sensitive vegetation communities. 7. Noise. To minimize disturbance to wildlife nesting or breeding activities in surrounding habitat, loud construction activities (e.g., pile driving) shall be avoided to the extent feasible from February 1 to August 31. Loud construction activities may be permitted outside of this period from August 31 to February 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Timing Responsible Signature/Date Agency/Monitor Completed 8. Invasive Weeds. The spread of invasive weeds shall be minimized through landscape plans to ensure that the proposed plant palette is consistent with the native species on-site. The landscape plan shall also incorporate a manual weeding program for areas adjacent to the conservation areas of the NA. The manual weeding program shall describe, at a minimum, the entity responsible for controlling invasive species, the maintenance activities and methods required to control invasive species, and a maintenance/ monitoring schedule. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources MM TCUL-1 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources Preconstruction; Planning • In the unlikely event that cultural resources are exposed Pre-operation. Director/Building during construction activities for the proposed EHNCP, all Official construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. MM TCUL-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains Preconstruction; Planning • In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health Pre-operation. Director/Building and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the San Official Bernardino County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or anv nearbv area reasonablv suspected to overlie Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-16 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 836 Mitigation Measure adjacent remains shall occur until the coroner has determined, within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the Property Owner, the disposition of the human remains. MM TCUL-3 Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant • The Project Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC's Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot -holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day's activities, including construction activities, locations, soil, and any cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. • Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Upon discovery of any archaeological resources, cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-17 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Preconstruction; Gabrieleno Band Pre-operation. of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government Proof of agreement to be provided to the Planning Department (Planning Director and/or her designee) Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 837 Mitigation Measure preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takes place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 [f]). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a "historical resource" or "unique archaeological resource", time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and • Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. Any historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. nanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated inerary Objects: • Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. esource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: • Upon discovery, the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant will immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who will call the coroner. 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Meridian Consultants 3.0-18 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 072-004-I8 August2019 Page 838 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed • Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure to prevent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: • If the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the following treatment measures shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times, Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later; other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. • Treatment Measures: — Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities, the land owner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment placed over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available, a 24- hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the qualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully, ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-19 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 839 Mitigation Measure burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. — Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be no publicity regarding any cultural materials recovered. 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed • Professional Standards: Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects will be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. MM TCUL-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources San Manuel • In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Band of Mission project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the Indians-Kizh find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified Nation Tribal archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall Government be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of Proof of the project outside of the buffered area may continue agreement to be during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel provided to the Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department Planning (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR -1, Department regarding any pre -contact finds and be provided information (Planning after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of Director and/or the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with her designee) regards to significance and treatment. • If significant pre -contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-20 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 840 Mitigation Measure within TCR -1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly. • If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100 -foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project. • The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR - 1, of any pre -contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project, should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site. • Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the project. • Any and all interpretive cultural information relating to Native Americans created as a part of the project shall be subject to review and approval by SMBMI. 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Geology and Soils MM GEO-1 Landslides Preoccupancy Building Official The potential for seismically induced landslides and slope instability shall be investigated during future geotechnical studies. If the studies suggest slope instability is a concern, remedial recommendations to limit slope instability, such as construction of slope stability buttresses, installation of soil nails or anchors, or redesign of slopes, should be provided. Appropriate implementation of grading and slope stabilization recommendations is expected to reduce the impact of seismically induced landslides. MM GEO-2 Compressible Soils • Future site-specific geotechnical investigations of planned development shall be conducted. These investigations should identify potentially compressible soils. Implementation of the recommended removal and re - compaction of the near surface soils should mitigate the significant portion of the soils that are prone to compression Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-21 Preconstruction; Building Official Pre-operation. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 841 Mitigation Measure on-site. In addition, if deep artificial fill is to be placed in the abandoned quarry (or in other areas), specific recommendations for placement and settlement monitoring of these fills will be required. Delay in construction while the settlement of the deep artificial fills reduces to acceptable limits may be necessary. Geotechnical studies with recommendations specifically addressing these issues will be required if deep fills are planned. 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed MM GEO-3 Erosion Preconstruction; City Engineer or • The potential for erosion can typically be reduced by Pre-operation. Designee/ appropriate paving of exposed ground surfaces, Building Official landscaping, providing terraces on slopes, placing berms or V -ditches at the tops of slopes, and installing adequate storm drain systems. Graded slopes must be protected until healthy plant growth is established. Typically, protection can be provided by the use of sprayed polymers, straw waddles, jute mesh or by other measures. Temporary erosion control measures must be provided during construction, as required by current grading codes. Such measures typically include temporary catchment basins and/or sandbagging to control runoff and contain sediment transport within the individual project sites. Correct implementation of these erosion control measures is expected to reduce the impact resulting from erosion. MM GEO-4 Rippability and Oversized Rock Preconstruction; City Engineer or • Future site-specific geotechnical investigations of planned Pre-operation. Designee/ development shall be conducted. These investigations must Building Official identify areas of hard rock and oversize rock. Adjusting the grades so as to not encounter the non-rippable rock will reduce the impact from the non-rippable material to less than significant. Oversized rocks should be handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultants of the specific projects. Examples of oversized rock treatment includes placement in deeper fills, nonstructural areas, crushing, or disposed of off-site. MM GEO-S Corrosive Soils Preconstruction; • Testing should be performed prior to construction of the Pre-operation. proposed improvements within the RCA and NA. All concrete in contact with the soil shall be designed based on requirements of the California Building Code. All metals in contact with corrosive soil shall be protected in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer or a corrosion engineer. MM GEO-6 Settlement Preconstruction; City Engineer or • The potential for seismically induced settlement shall be Pre-operation. Designee/ investigated during future geotechnical studies. Based on Building Official these studies, loose, compressible soils prone to seismic settlement must be identified. Recommendations for Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-22 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 842 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-23 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 843 Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed removal and replacement or mitigation of soil prone to seismic settlement should be provided as part of geotechnical reports submitted to the City as part of the review of specific projects. Correct implementation of remedial grading and design recommendations is expected to reduce the impact of seismically induced settlement. MM GEC -7 Stability of Slopes Preconstruction; City Engineer or • Future site-specific geotechnical investigations of the Pre-operation. Designee/ planned development shall be conducted. These Building Official investigations must analyze this potential for slope instability in light of the proposed grading and development plans and underlying earth materials, and present recommendations for construction and adequate stability of manufactured slopes. Slopes shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer for individual projects, California Building Code and City and/or County guidelines. MM GEC -8 Excavation Preconstruction; City Engineer or • Where excavations are made, the excavation wall may be Pre-operation. Designee/ shored, with shoring designed to withstand any additional Building Official loads, or the excavation walls may be flattened or "laid- back" to a shallower gradient. Excavation spoils should not be placed immediately adjacent to the excavation walls unless the excavation is shored to support the added load. Other measures used to reduce the potential for temporary slope failure include cutting and backfilling excavations in sections, and not leaving temporary excavations open for long periods of time. All California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) regulations must be observed for excavations that will be entered by people. Following these measures is expected to reduce the impact posed by temporary slopes. MM GEC -9 Expansive Soils City Engineer or • Testing within hillside areas of the RCA should be performed Designee/ in planned development areas in order to evaluate the Building Official expansion potential of the near surface soil materials and prior to construction of the proposed foundations. Providing the results to the structural engineer will allow them to design a foundation system that is able to withstand the expansive potential of the near surface soil materials. MM GEO-10 Rural Development Design Review Preconstruction; Planning • Development in the Rural/Conservation Area shall be Pre-operation. Director subject to the requirements and review procedures of City Municipal Code 17.16.140 (Hillside Development Review). In addition to those requirements, applications for development in the Rural/Conservation Area shall include a septic system feasibility study prior to each new development as well as to obtain a well drill permit. Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-23 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 843 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-24 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 844 Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed MM GEO-11 Inadvertent Discoveries Construction; Planning • In the event that paleontological resources are exposed Pre-operation. Director and/or during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate her designee vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Ground -disturbing activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as testing or data recovery, may be warranted. Should any prehistoric or historical Native American artifacts be encountered, additional consultation with NAHC-listed tribal groups should be conducted immediately. Greenhouse Gas Emissions MM GHG-1 Operation Planning • Require the use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers Director through the Electric Lawn Mower Rebate Program established by the SCAQMD. MM GHG-2 Construction; Building Official • Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Pre-operation; Measure for Energy efficiency that exceed Title 24 Operation requirements by 15 to 30 percent. MM GHG-3 Construction; City Engineer or • Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Preconstruction; Designee Measure for water conservation to reduce indoor potable Pre-operation. water use by 20 percent by applying water saving fixtures and/or flow restrictors Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1 Preconstruction; Fire Chief and • Future developers and/or contractor must coordinate in Pre-operation of Building Official advance of construction with the Rancho Cucamonga Fire future Projects. District to ensure that road closures (temporary or permanent) are identified that alternate access and evacuation routes are determined in the event of an emergency and/or natural disaster. Preconstruction; MM HAZ-2 Building Official • Before issuance of a grading permit for projects within Plan Pre-operation of Area on any individual project site (i.e., Phase) that contains future Projects. or are known to have historically contained commercial/industrial related uses, the site developer(s) must: • Investigate the project site to determine whether it or immediately adjacent areas have a record of hazardous material contamination via the preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment (ESA), which must be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for review. If contamination is found the report must characterize the site Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-24 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 844 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Timing according to the nature and extent of contamination that is present before development activities precede at that site. • If contamination is determined to be on-site, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in accordance with appropriate agency requirements, must require remediation of the soil and/groundwater conditions on the contaminated site. If further remediation is required, it must be the responsibility of the site developer(s) to complete such remediation prior to construction of the project. • If remediation is required as identified by the local oversight agency, it must be accomplished in a manner that reduces risk to below applicable standards and must be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy permits. Soil remediation methods that could be employed include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: excavation and on- site treatment, such as above ground bioremediation, soil washing, soil stabilization, soil vapor extraction, or high- temperature soil thermal desorption. Groundwater remediation methods that could be employed include, but are not limited to, pumping water to surface, treating, and returning to aquifer; treating groundwater in place by injecting oxidizing agents; and placing membrane in aquifer and using natural flows to trap contaminants. Responsible Signature/Date Agency/Monitor Completed • Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that document the successful completion of required remediation activities, if any, for contaminated soils, must be submitted and approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to the issuance of grading permits for site development. No construction must occur in the affected area until reports have been accepted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga MM HAZ-3 Preconstruction; Building Official • If previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or Pre-operation of groundwater contamination that could present a threat to Future Projects. human health or the environment is encountered during construction within the Plan Area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination must cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan must be prepared and implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post -development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures must include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post -development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Example soil remediation methods that may be Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-25 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 845 Mitigation Measure employed include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: excavation and on-site treatment, such as above ground bioremediation, soil washing, soil stabilization, soil vapor extraction, or high-temperature soil thermal desorption. Example groundwater remediation methods that may be employed include, but are not limited to, pumping water to surface, treating, and returning to aquifer; treating groundwater in place by injecting oxidizing agents; and placing membrane in aquifer and using natural flows to trap contaminants. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies must be notified (e.g., City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and San Bernardino County Environmental Health Division). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements must be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. MM HAZ-4 Fire Protection Plan • To address the risk to residential development, future developers shall prepare fire protection plans that meet the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Development Standards and are consistent with the Master Fire Protection Plan. The Fire Protection Plan shall describe all actions that will be taken to reduce wildfire risks to the structure(s). The plan shall include (1) A copy of the site plan that indicates topographic reference lines; (2) A copy of the approved landscape/vegetation management plan;(3) Methods and timetables for controlling, changing or modifying areas on the property (elements of the plan shall include removal of dead vegetation, litter, vegetation that may grow into overhead electrical lines, certain ground fuels, and ladder fuels as well as the thinning of live trees); and (4) A maintenance schedule for the landscape/vegetation management plan. The Fire Protection Plan for a specific neighborhood or phase of construction shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department for review and approval prior to occupancy permits approval for the first residential structure. MM HAZ-5 Fire Prevention Construction Techniques • Construction within the designated Wildfire -Urban Interface Fire Area is required to be in accordance with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, the California Residential Code and Standard 49-1 of the of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Preconstruction; Pre-operation of Future Projects. Preconstruction; Pre-operation. Fire Chief or designee Fire Chief or designee 3.0-26 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 846 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measure Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Noise MM N-1 Preconstruction; Planning • Prior to the issuance of each permit for grading, the Pre-operation. Director/Building Property Owner/Developer shall submit construction- Official related noise mitigation plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the project. The plan shall demonstrate that the construction plans and specifications include the following noise abatement, notification, and control measures: — All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State -required noise -attenuation devices. — Limiting the number of noise -generating heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously within 50 feet of off-site noise sensitive receptors surrounding the site. — Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. — On-site and off-site construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses, as feasible. — If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. — A "Construction Noise Coordinator" shall be identified. The Construction Noise Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Construction Noise Coordinator shall notify the City within 48 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Planning Department. Signs shall be posted at the construction that include the contact information for the Construction Noise Coordinator. MM N-2 • Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings at the southeast and southwest corners of the Plan Area, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit an acoustical study to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Official that demonstrates that the proposed architectural design would provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less (based Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 Preconstruction; Planning Pre-operation. Director/Building Official 3.0-27 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 847 Mitigation Measure on buildout traffic noise conditions) in all habitable rooms of the proposed buildings facing the SR -210. The Property Owner/Developer shall also submit plans and specifications showing that: — All residential units shall be provided with a means of mechanical ventilation, as required by the California Building Code for occupancy with windows closed. Transportation and Traffic MM TRAF-1 rhe Property Owner/Developer shall implement the following ntersection improvements. Intersection 7: Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. — The improvements identified below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require striping modifications and median improvements. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1595th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: — Modify eastbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through - right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lanes, and one right -turn lane, add right -turn overlap phasing in the eastbound direction. Optimization of cycle length. — This measure shall be implemented prior to completion of 55% when the entire Plan is at full buildout. Intersection 17: Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue. — For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak hour signal timing plans, including a cycle length of 120 seconds. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 2755th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Meridian Consultants 3.0-28 072-004-I8 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Responsible Signature/Date Timing Agency/Monitor Completed Pre-operation. City Engineer Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 848 Mitigation Measure Intersection 19: Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak hour signal timing plans relative to the expected traffic volume demand. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1885th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. — The improvements below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. The improvement is consistent with the proposed mitigation measure in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 150th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: — Modify northbound approach of the intersection from two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right - turn lane to two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one through -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane — Optimization of coordinated splits. MM TRAF-2 • Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the cost of the improvements identified below to mitigate cumulative impacts at these intersections. This fair share contribution will be used by the City with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. Intersection 33: Base Line Road and East Avenue — The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Timing Preconstruction; Pre-operation. Responsible Signature/Date Agency/Monitor Completed City Engineer 3.0-29 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 849 Mitigation Measure improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: — Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through - right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one right -turn lane — Restripe the southbound approach from one dedicated right -turn lane, two through lanes and one left turn late to two dedicated right -turn lanes, one through lane and one left -turn lane 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Timing Responsible Signature/Date Agency/Monitor Completed — Add right -turn overlap phasing in all directions — Optimize signal timing plan coordinated splits. Intersection 35: Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue — Adjust and optimize the PM peak hour signal timing plan and cycle length. MM TRAF-3 Preconstruction; City Engineer • Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Pre-operation. Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share for the following measures required to mitigate Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project conditions. This fair share contribution will be used by the Caltrans with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. • Intersection 34: Baseline Avenue and 1-15 Northbound Ramps. — The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: — Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one left -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane to one left -turn lane and two right -turn lanes. Utilities and Service Systems MM UTIL-1 Sewers Preconstruction; City Engineer • Any improvements to segments of the sewer main system Pre-operation. downstream of the Plan Area determined to be needed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District to provide the capacity needed to accommodate wastewater generated by the project, based on additional modeling and review, shall be Meridian Consultants 072-004-I8 3.0-30 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August 2019 Page 850 3.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 3.0-31 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August2019 Page 851 Responsible Signature/Date Mitigation Measureming Agency/Monitor Completed constructed. Improvements may include installing larger sewer lines or constructing parallel lines to provide additional capacity. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 3.0-31 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan August2019 Page 851 RESOLUTION NO. 19-083 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00749 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundarywith Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary that is largely in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. The City has caused to be prepared General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749 (the "General Plan Amendment"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to incorporate the Specific Plan into the City's land use policies and designations. The General Plan Amendment would: (1) establish density limits within the Specific Plan's Neighborhood and Rural/Conservation Areas; (2) establish the land use designation of "specific plan" for the Neighborhood Area and apply the Rural/Conservation Area's sub -zones in their respective portions of the Project Area; (3) establish new City boundaries upon annexation into the City of the 4,088 acres within the Project Area that are currently in the City's Sphere of Influence; and (5) modify various language, text, tables, and figures in Chapter 2: Managing Land Use, Chapter 3: Community Mobility, Chapter 4: Economic Development, 5: Community Services, 6: Resource Conservation, 7: Public Facilities and Infrastructure, 8: Public Health and Safety, and 9: Housing, to allow the future development under the Specific Plan consistent with the General Plan. 3. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment, concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 19-53, recommending that the City Council approve the General Plan Amendment. 5. On October 2, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment and concluded the hearing on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is herebyfound, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. Attachment 16 Page 852 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-083 EHNCP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2015-00749 October 2, 2019 Page 2 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the General Plan Amendment, and the associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an Initial Study and, based on the information contained in the Initial Study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on certain resources. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study and other technical reports and evidence, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review and comment, and a Final FEIR was reviewed by the City Council. By separate Resolution No. 19-082, the City Council has: (i) made the required CEQA findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; (iii) adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and (d) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 19-082 is incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. 3. Findings. Based upon all available evidence presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing on October 2, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b. Development of the unincorporated portion of the Project Area in the City's sphere of influence is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, or both. C. The EHNCP's Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. The General Plan Amendment is intended to incorporate these two planning areas by, among other things, amending applicable density limits for the areas and establishing land use designations for them. d. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation Area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation area to the Neighborhood Area. The City Council supports the Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Page 853 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-083 EHNCP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2015-00749 October 2, 2019 Page 3 Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal. e. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. The City Council finds that the Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. f. The City Council has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit Q to the City Council staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis and other evidence in the record, the City Council finds that the General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with all other General Plan goals, policies and implementation programs. This finding is more specifically supported by the following evidence: i. The General Plan Amendment would limit development within the EHNCP Specific Plan's Rural/Conservation Area, consistent with the City's conservation goals, as outlined in the General Plan's Resource Conservation Element and including Goal RC-1 ("Encourage stewardship of natural open space areas, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural resources") and its associated policies. ii. The General Plan Amendment would make way for the implementation of the EHNCP Specific Plan. The EHNCP Specific Plan's Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. This is consistent with General Plan Goal LU-9 ("Foster a cohesive, healthy community through appropriate patterns and scales of development, including complementary transitions between districts, neighborhoods, and land uses") and its associated policies. g. For the reasons described in this Resolution, approval of the General Plan Amendment is in the public interest and would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. h. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the City Council. 4. Decision. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby adopts General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00751, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." The General Plan Amendment shall take effect on the effective date of the ordinances implementing Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752 and Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459. 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution Page 854 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-083 EHNCP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2015-00749 October 2, 2019 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 855 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-083 EHNCP GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DRC2015-00749 October 2, 2019 Page 5 Exhibit A General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749 Page 856 Table LU -3: Build -Out Summary' Baseline: 2009' General Plan Build Out: 2030 Change Percent (total only) Change City SOIZ Total City SOIZ Total Dwelling Units 55,608 91 55,699 62,196 1,057 63,253 7,554 13.6% Population 179,200 300 179,500 200,400 3,400 203,800 24,300 13.5% Non -Residential 80,030,000 0 80,030,000 Square Feet 99,797,000 0 99,797,000 19,767,000 24.7% Employment 77,350 0 77,350 103,040 0 103,040 25,690 33.2% Notes: 1. 2009 Baseline data is based on Existing Land Use Geographical Information Systems land use data. 2. S01: Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence. 3. Does not include build out from the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN LU -33 Page 857 LU -34 Table LU -4: Land Use Plan Summary -Residential Designations' City Area Sphere of Influence Totals Land Use Designations Density, Target Target Total Factor Dwelling Dwelling Total Total Target Acres z Dwelling Acres z Dwelling Dwelling Units Units 3 Units Units a Acreage Units Dwelling Units Residential Designations Hillside (0.1-2.0 du/ac) 1.29 133 13 to 268 151 695 70-1,400 831 828 83-1,668 982 Very Low (0.10-2.0 du/ac) 1.29 4,007 401 to 8,029 7,394 - - - 4,007 401-8,029 7,394 Low (2.0-4.0 du/ac) 3.25 4,371 9,194 to 18,080 18,050 4,371 9,194-18,080 18,050 Low Medium 6.50 1,852 7,739 to 15,100 13,320 7,739-15,100 13,320 (4.0-8.0 du/ac) 1,852 Medium (8.0-14.0 du/ac) 11.75 790 6,270 to 10,837 9,283 790 6,270-10,837 9,283 Medium High 20.25 367 5,237 to 8,915 7,432 5,237-8,915 7,432 (14.0-24.0 du/ac) 367 High (24.0-30.0 du/ac) 27.75 44 1,376 to 1,713 1,221 44 1,376-1,713 1,221 Mixed Use Varies 294 3,942 to 6,936 5,694 294 3,942-6,936 5,694 Open o OSpace 0.10 483 0 to 48 5 2,496 0-250 226 2,979 0-298 226 ( ) `RESIDE��- Notes: 1. The Density Factor is based upon actual development that has occurred in the City and represents a level midway between 50% and 75% of the range. It is used to calculate the target number of dwelling units. This factor is only applied to vacant developable lands. A different Density Factor was applied to existing development to obtain an accurate baseline number. 2. The range of dwelling units is derived by multiplying the lower and upper threshold of density/intensity range by the number of acres, and rounded to the nearest whole number. This range represents the theoretical potential. Some development will produce densities at or near the top of the range, however, most will not. 3. Target dwelling units is the probable level of development based on historical development patterns, except for Mixed Use Residential, which is based primarily on a target density. 4. Mixed Use allows both residential and non-residential uses. 5. Open Space is generally a non-residential category that permits a very limited number of residential units on privately owned properties. Within the City, Open Space applies to the golf courses and the Pacific Electric Trail. In the northwest quadrant of the City, a few properties are designated Open Space and could yield residential units. However, any such development would be limited to a density of 0.1 units per acre (or one unit per parcel on lots less than 10 acres in size) and would be subject to the slope, drainage, flood zones, and fault zone analysis at a minimum under the Hillside Overlay Ordinance, further limiting any residential development potential. 6. Does not include build out from the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 858 Table LU -5: Land Use Plan Summary -Non -Residential Designations' Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RAN C H O CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 859 LU -35 Acres Square Feet Probable Square Fee a Use Designations (in thousan (in thousands) loymentnd kCityOnly) Total Acres city SOI (City Onlds & (City Only) Non-Residential2 Office (0.40-1.0 FAR) 80 1,396 to 3,485 1,396 3,180 80 Neighborhood Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) 164 1,785 to 2,500 1,785 3,030 164 Community Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) 119 1,292 to 1,810 1,292 1,970 119 General Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) 446 6,220 to 6,799 6,220 10,020 446 Subtotal 809 10,693 to 14,594 10,693 18,200 809 Mixed Use (0.25-1.0 FAR)' 667 6,923 to 27,699 12,757 20,270 667 Subtotal 667 - 6,498 to 25,996 12,757 20,270 667 Industrial Park (0.40-0.60 FAR) 559 9,739 to 14,610 9,739 6,610 559 - Haven Overlay (0.40-1.0 FAR) 202 3,518 to 8,798 3,518 7,950 202 General Industrial (0.50-0.60 FAR) 1,974 42,993 to 51,592 42,993 29,220 1,974 Heavy Industrial (0.40-0.50 FAR) 891 15,523 to 19,405 15,523 15,820 891 Subtotal 3,626 _ 71,773 to 94,405 71,773 59,600 3,626 Open Space (0.0-0.10 du/ac) 483 2,496 - - - 2,979 Conservation 353 983 - 1,336 Flood Control/Utility Corridor 1,711 1,753 - 3,464 Subtotaj � � EWF - Civic/Regional (0.40-1.0 FAR) 130 2,265 to 5,662 2,265 1,050 130 Schools (0.10-0.20 FAR) 558 2,430 to 4,861 2,430 3,920 558 Parks 445 - - - - 445 Subtotal - 4,695 to 10,523 4,695 4,970 =33 Notes: 1. The range of square footage is derived by multiplying the probable lower and upper threshold of intensity range by the number of acres, and rounded to the nearest hundred. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RAN C H O CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 859 LU -35 LU -36 2. Non-residential FAR Range: lower number is the probable FAR on average, but in some cases it may be lower. Higher number is the maximum FAR allowed for any specific project. 3. Employment is calculated by using the Probable Square Feet and employment factors for each non-residential land use designations. 4. Mixed Use allows both residential and non-residential use. 5. Does not include build out from the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 860 Table LU -6: Build Out Summary by Land Use' "Land Use Designations Hillside Residential (0.1-2.0 du/ac) Very Low Residential (0.1-2.0 du/ac) Low Residential (2.0-4.0 du/ac) Low Medium Residential (4.0-8.0 du/ac) Medium Residential (8.0-14.0 du/ac) Medium High Residential (14.0-24.0 du/ac) High Residential (24.0-30.0 du/ac) Mixed Use Office (0.40-1.0 FAR) Neighborhood Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) Community Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) General Commercial (0.25-0.35 FAR) Industrial Park (0.40-0.60 FAR) - Haven Ave Office Overlay (0.40-1.0 FAR) General Industrial (0.50-0.60 FAR) Heavy Industrial (0.40-0.50 FAR) Open Space (0.0-0.1 du/ac) Conservation Flood Control/Utility Corridor Civic/Regional 0.40-1.0 FAR) Schools (0.10-0.20 FAR) Parks Acres' Tarnits Probable Non -Residential Percent (City Only) Cit SOI Y Total of Total Cit �-I Total Square Feet re Feet) Employment 133 695 828 3.1% 151 831 982 4,007 - 4,007 15.1% 7,394 - 7,394 4,371 4,371 16.5% 18,050 18,050 1,852 1,852 7.0% 13,320 13,320 790 790 3.0% 9,283 9,283 367 367 1.4% 7,432 7,432 44 44 0.2% 1,221 1,221 - 961 961 3.6% 5,694 5,694 12,755 20,270 80 80 0.3% - - 1,393 3,180 164 164 0.6% 1,785 3,030 119 119 0.4% 1,292 1,970 446 446 1.7% 6,220 10,020 559 559 2.1% 9,739 6,610 202 202 0.8% 3,518 7,950 1,974 1,974 7.4% 42,993 29,220 891 891 3.4% - 15,523 15,820 483 2,496 2,979 11.2% 226 226 - - 353 983 1,336 5.0% - - 1,711 1,753 3,464 13.0% - - 130 - 130 0.5% - 2,265 1,050 558 558 2.1% - 2,430 3,920 445 445 1.7% - - - - &26,551- � - - � - 99,914 103,040 Notes: 1. Acres include existing development and undeveloped vacant properties. 2. Mixed Use allows both residential and non-residential uses. 3. Does not include build out from the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RAN C H O CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 861 LU -37 LU -44 tremendous opportunity for Rancho Cucamonga to maintain its leadership in the environmental arena. The vision for this focus area includes: ■ Concentrating heavy industrial uses Supporting infrastructure improvements to attract industrial, manufacturing, and green technology uses ■ Preventing encroachment of conflicting uses that would diminish the utility of the area for heavy industry Hillsides The Hillside Focus Area is in unincorporated San Bernardino County, adjacent to Rancho Cucamonga's northern border; it a portion lies within the City's Sphere of Influence. Most of the area consists of undeveloped hillsides, although large -lot residential subdivisions have been established in the areas designated Hillside Residential (0.1 to 2.0 du/ac) and Open Space (0.0 to 0.10 du/ac). The area also has significant land set aside for resource conservation in Day and East Etiwanda Canyons, where no development is allowed. Hillside development in Rancho Cucamonga is regulated by the Hillside Development Ordinance, which applies to all projects on land with natural slopes of eight percent grade or greater, with some exceptions, as indicated in the Ordinance. The Hillside Overlay District, as depicted on the Development District Map in the Development Code, defines the boundaries. The Hillside Overlay District also applies to areas outside of this focus area. The Ordinance includes a comprehensive set of guidelines and standards that seek to allow for reasonable development of hillside areas while minimizing the adverse effects of grading, protecting environmentally sensitive areas, and providing for public health and safety. The Ordinance contains basic design guidelines and minimum development standards. The intent is to encourage innovative and alternative development solutions, as well as to establish minimum acceptable criteria. Clustering of units is encouraged where feasible, and positioning the units to "fit" the land and minimize grading is required. The most significant provisions of the Ordinance involve the use of: Slope development standards, which require development integration with the slope and increasingly restrictive grading and structural design as the slope increases ■ A slope density formula, which limits the maximum possible density allowed based upon the slope gradient ■ Building envelopes, which limit the maximum allowable building height to 30 feet, as measured from the finished grade. Different standards apply in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Area Table LU -8: Slope Development Guidelines establishes the design, grading, and development criteria associated with various slope conditions. These guidelines are further defined in the Hillside Development Ordinance. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources ANCHO CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 862 LU -48 These Specific Plans are no longer stand-alone documents. A summary of each is provided below. Table LU -9: Adopted Specific Plans and Planned Communities Name Acreage Date Adopted Specific Plans Etiwanda North Specific Plan 6,850 1992 Etiwanda Specific Plan 3,000 1983 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 560 1987 Industrial Area Specific Plan 5,000 1981 Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan (Empire Lakes) 380 1994 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation 4,393 2019 Plan Planned Communities Caryn Planned Community Development Plan 244 1986 Terra Vista Community Plan 1,321 1983 Victoria Community Plan 2,150 1981 Etiwanda North Specific Plan The same development pressure that prompted the 1983 Etiwanda Specific Plan also necessitated the need for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted in 1992. The plan area is located just north of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. A portion of the Specific Plan area lies outside the City and outside the Sphere of Influence. Open space is the most prominent feature of the Etiwanda North area, which is comprised of a gently sloping alluvial fan and chaparral habitat situated on the lower slopes of the foothills. Drainage courses throughout the Etiwanda North area support a variety of tree species, including oak, sycamore, and walnut, among others. A unique feature of the area is a freshwater marsh, approximately 11 acres in size, located in the northwestern portion of the area. Open space is expected to remain a prominent feature even after development occurs. The Specific Plan builds upon the unique character and charm of the Etiwanda Specific Plan area by providing a land use pattern that extends the low-density character of Old Etiwanda into the Etiwanda North area. Etiwanda Specific Plan Etiwanda can be described as a rural community, characterized by large land parcels, eucalyptus tree rows, remnants of citrus groves and vineyards, stone curbs, and other elements that convey its unique and historic sense of place. The Specific Plan area is located within the northeast corner of the City and is roughly bounded by the 1-15 to the southeast, the City's Sphere of Influence to the north, the Victoria Planned Community to the west and the City's industrial area to the south. The Specific Plan project area encompasses over 3,000 acres. The main purpose of the Specific Plan is to ensure the continued rural character of this portion of the City. Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan provides a balanced and unified pattern of development along Foothill Boulevard by taking advantage of opportunities in future community growth. The plan calls for a series of activity centers and gateways, linked through a unifying suburban parkway design. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources ANCHO CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 863 LU -52 An additional purpose is to capture and reflect the historic significance of this route as part of the legendary Route 66 that linked Los Angeles and Chicago for several critical decades during the twentieth century. Such landmarks as the Sycamore Inn and the Magic Lamp Restaurant symbolize that memorable period in the emergence of Southern California as a mecca for families seeking a better life. The combination of use patterns, development standards, and design guidelines of the plan testify to the area's complex planning issues and the need for creative regulatory devices. Ultimately, the goal of the Specific Plan is to give this critical centerpiece of the City the prominence it deserves. Industrial Area Specific Plan The Industrial Area Specific Plan is a particularly significant specific plan due to its successful role in the development of the City's industrial base (which is a critical component of an overall long-term balance of uses). Part of this success can be attributed to the quality standards incorporated into the Specific Plan and the protection those standards afford to business investors in this area. The Specific Plan, encompassing nearly 5,000 acres, has been divided into three zones and 19 subareas. The subareas represent specific land use characteristics and development constraints which can be dealt with on a subarea basis rather than through the application of broadly applied development standards. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to establish specific standards and guidelines that will be used for development throughout the City's industrial area. Industrial Area Specific Plan Sub -Area 18 Plan (Empire Lakes) The purpose of the Sub -Area 18 Specific Plan is to provide for a broader mix of land uses than was originally permitted within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The plan was expanded to include such uses as recreational, hotel/conference center, retail, restaurant, and entertainment, as well as office, research and development, and light industrial uses. A subsequent amendment to further expand the use list included multi -unit residential development to maximize potential use of the Metrolink Station near Milliken Avenue. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan represents a unique opportunity to permanently preserve unspoiled views of the San Gabriel foothills and mountain, permanently conserve rural open space and habitat resources, secure recreational access to the foothills, while providing unique new neighborhoods that reflect Rancho Cucamonga's heritage. This Plan has been prepared to guide land use and shape new development within the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Area. The community-based vision is for large quantities of conserved rural and natural open space in the northern portion of the Plan Area, underwritten by and in balance with high quality neighborhoods development in the southerly areas already surrounded by existing neighborhoods. This area had long been under San Bernardino County's jurisdiction, and the County must manage millions of acres of rural land. The City has the interest and the focus to prepare and implement a very special plan for the future of this portion of rural land, taking control of it for future generations. Adopted Planned Communities Caryn Planned Community Development Plan The Caryn Planned Community Development Plan, now completed, lies north of the Victoria planned community. The community's special identity is provided by an elementary school, single -unit residential development, and walking trails that tie the community together. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources ANCHO CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 864 Table LU -10: General Plan Special Boulevards Street Street Segment Name Haven North City boundary to Pacific Avenue Electric Trail Pacific Electric Trail to Foothill Foothill to 4th Street Milliken � H'0^-,��de to ,°t' -Street Wilson ,�-� Avenue Avenue to Kenyon Way 19t" Kenyon Way to Base Line Road Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard Foothill Boulevard to 4th Street Day Creek SR -210 Freeway to Foothill Boulevard Boulevard Base Line Haven Avenue to Rochester Road Avenue Rochester Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard Day Creek Boulevard to Etiwanda Avenue Implementation Haven Avenue Beautification Master Plan Terra Vista Planned Community and Haven Avenue Beautification Master Plan Industrial Area Specific Plan and Haven Avenue Beautification Master Plan Caryn Planned Community and Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Victoria Planned Community and Milliken Avenue Beautification Master Plan Terra Vista Planned Community and Milliken Avenue Beautification Master Plan Industrial Area Specific Plan and Milliken Avenue Beautification Master Plan Day Creek Boulevard Scenic/Recreation Corridor Master Plan Terra Vista Planned Community and Base Line Road Beautification Master Plan Day Creek Boulevard Scenic/Recreation Corridor Master Plan Community and Base Line Road Beautification Master Plan Victoria Planned Community Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue Etiwanda Specific Plan Community and Base Line Road Beautification Master Plan West of Haven Avenue Base Line Road Beautification Master Plan Foothill Grove Avenue to Eastern Boulevard boundary of Subarea 3 of Foothill Foothill Specific Plan Specific Plan; and 1-15 to East Avenue Western boundary of Industrial Area Specific Plan to Day Creek Industrial Area Specific Plan Boulevard Day Creek Boulevard to 1-15 Victoria Specific Plan Freeway Arrow Highway Grove Avenue to East Avenue Church Haven Avenue to Day Creek Street Boulevard Day Creek Boulevard to eastern boundary of Victoria Planned Community 6th Street West of Haven Avenue to Hellman Avenue 4th Street West of Archibald Avenue to City boundary Industrial Area Specific Plan and adjacent development for segment between Archibald Avenue and Haven Avenue Victoria Planned Community Industrial Area Specific Plan and 6th Street Beautification Master Plan 4th Street Beautification Master Plan Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN LU -79 Page 865 LU -80 Table LU -10: General Plan Special Boulevards Street Street Segment Name Archibald Northern boundary of City to Avenue Arrow Highway Arrow Highway Route to 4c" Street Rochester Base Line Road to Foothill Avenue Boulevard Foothill Boulevard to southern City limits Banyan Street to Wilson Avenue Miller Eastern boundary of Victoria Avenue Planned Community to East Avenue Implementation Archibald Avenue Beautification Master Plan Industrial Area Specific Plan and Archibald Avenue Beautification Master Plan Terra Vista Planned Community Industrial Area Specific Plan Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Etiwanda Specific Plan Etiwanda Wilson Avenue to Arrow Highway Etiwanda and Foothill Specific Plans Avenue East Avenue Wilson Avenue to Foothill Etiwanda Specific Plan Boulevard Wilson Haven Avenue to Milliken Adjacent Development and Etiwanda Heights Avenue Avenue Day Creek Boulevard Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Victoria Park Milliken Avenue to Base Line Victoria Planned Community Lane Road Beautification Master Plans During the late 1980s and into the early '90s, Rancho Cucamonga prepared Beautification Master Plans for many of the Special Boulevards. These plans sought to provide consistent direction to development and establish attractive design themes that would reinforce the City's high design standards. In general, the Beautification Master Plans go beyond the typical parkway street tree concept and integrate street enhancement plans into a broader landscape fabric within the entire parkway setback area. Most of the concepts incorporate background or accent trees, rockscape, and even perimeter walls. Design objectives of the Beautification Master Plans are to: ■ Provide identifiable themes along major streets ■ Provide attractive, enduring, and maintainable streetscapes ■ Complement other community improvements ■ Protect the public's health, safety, and welfare These plans are being successfully implemented throughout the City. Table LU -12 lists the Beautification Master Plans and the design focus of each concept. Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 866 Table CM -1: Classifications of General Plan Roadways' East/West Street Collector Streets Day Creek Boulevard East Avenue Hillside Road Banyan Street Church Avenue 9th Street 8th Street 7th Street Victoria Street Highland Avenue Jersey Boulevard Vintage Drive Town Center Drive W. Elm Avenue Mountain View Drive Boundaries West Day Creek Boulevard Etiwanda Avenue Western City Boundary Western City Boundary Hermosa Avenue Grove Avenue Grove Avenue Hellman Avenue East Avenue Kenyan Way Haven Avenue Day Creek Boulevard Haven Avenue Town Center Spruce Avenue East Etiwanda Avenue Wilson Avenue Haven Avenue Youngs Canyon Road Archibald Avenue Archibald Avenue Haven Avenue Archibald Avenue 1-15 Freeway East Avenue Rochester Avenue Etiwanda Avenue Spruce Avenue Church Avenue Terra Vista Parkway Modified Collector with Median Victoria Park Lane Fairmont Way Base Line Road Secondary Streets Wilson Avenue 19th Street Church Avenue Church Avenue Miller Avenue 6th Street 6th Street Civic Center Drive Poplar Street Carnelian Avenue West City Boundary Archibald Avenue Rochester Avenue Etiwanda Avenue Hellman Avenue 1-15 Freeway Haven Avenue Church Avenue Day Creek Boulevard San Benito Avenue Haven Avenue Victoria Park East Avenue Haven Avenue Etiwanda Avenue White Oak Avenue Rochester Avenue Community Mobility RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN North/South Street Sapphire Avenue Baker Avenue Carnelian Avenue Beryl Street Hellman Avenue Amethyst Avenue Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue Santa Anita Avenue Wardman Bullock Road Terra Vista Parkway Carnelian Street Vineyard Avenue Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue Hermosa Avenue Haven Avenue Buffalo Avenue Etiwanda Avenue East Avenue Spruce Avenue Etiwanda Avenue Red Oak Street White Oak Avenue Mayten Avenue E. Elm Avenue Victoria Park Lane Boundaries North Almond Street Foothill Boulevard Almond Avenue Reales Street Hillside Road Almond Street City Boundary City Boundary 6th Street City Boundary Church Avenue Banyan Street Carnelian Street Foothill Boulevard Hillside Road Banyan Street City Boundary 6th Street Base Line Road Wilson Avenue Base Line Road City Boundary Arrow Highway Arrow Highway Church Avenue Church Avenue Base Line Road Page 867 South 19th Street 8th Street Banyan Street Base Line Road Foothill Boulevard Base Line Road Hillside Road Banyan Avenue 4th Street Wilson Avenue Town Center Drive Vineyard Avenue 8th Street 4th Street Wilson Avenue 4th Street Wilson Avenue 4th Street Foothill Boulevard Foothill Boulevard Red Oak/White Oak Wilson Avenue Spruce Avenue Spruce Avenue Foothill Boulevard White Oak Avenue Day Creek Boulevard CM -11 Table CM -1: Classifications of General Plan Roadways' CM -12 Community Mobility RANCHO CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 868 Boundaries Boundaries East/West Street North/South Street West East North South Modified Secondary with Median Wilson Avenue Wardman Bullock Cherry Avenue Wardman Bullock Road Wilson Avenue Cherry Avenue Church Avenue Victoria Park Lane Etiwanda Avenue Church Avenue Haven Avenue Rochester Avenue Terra Vista Parkway Church Avenue Church Avenue Major Arterials Base Line Road West City Boundary Haven Avenue Archibald Avenue Hillside Road 4th Street Arrow Highway Grove Avenue East Avenue Rochester Avenue Highland Avenue 6th Street 4th Street Hellman Avenue Archibald Avenue Etiwanda Avenue Foothill Boulevard 4th Street Modified Major with Median Wilson Avenue Day Creek Boulevard Wardman Bullock Road Day Creek Boulevard Wilson Avenue SR -210 Freeway Wilson Avenue Cherry Avenue 1-15 Freeway Cherry Avenue Wilson Avenue 1-15 Freeway Church Avenue Day Creek Boulevard Victoria Park Lane Milliken Avenue Wilson Avenue Banyan Street Major Divided Arterials Base Line Road Haven Avenue Etiwanda Avenue Haven Avenue Wilson Avenue Trademark Parkway Foothill Boulevard Grove Avenue Day Creek Channel Milliken Avenue Banyan Street 4th Street Foothill Boulevard 1-15 Freeway East Avenue Day Creek Boulevard SR -210 Freeway Foothill Boulevard 6th Street Haven Avenue Rochester Avenue 4th Street Archibald Avenue Etiwanda Avenue Major Divided Highways Base Line Road Etiwanda Avenue East Avenue Milliken Avenue 5th Street 4th Street Foothill Boulevard Day Creek Channel 1-15 Freeway Haven Avenue Trademark Parkway 4th Street Note: 1. Refer to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan for classifications of roadways within the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Area. CM -12 Community Mobility RANCHO CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 868 Table CM -2: Roadway Functional Design Guidelines' Number of Median Lanes Local Road No median. Centerline 2 lanes striping typically not included. Collector Access Restriction Intersection Spacing Direct residential access is Intersection/access encouraged. spacing approximately 200 feet. Curbside Parking Parking may be restricted at intersections to meet line -of - sight requirements. Additional RIW or Easement N/A Undivided. Centerline Parking may be prohibited to May be considered at selected striping. Provide left -turn Direct access from private Intersection/access provide a left -turn lane at intersections where heavy 2 lanes pockets at intersections residential properties spacing approximately intersections or to meet line- traffic requires a separate right - with collector or higher level should be avoided. 200 feet. of -sight requirements. turn lane. streets. Secondary Arterial 4 lanes Striped median where feasible. Major Arterial 4 lanes Painted. Used for left -turn movements. Direct access from private residential properties should be avoided. Local residential streets should not have direct access from major arterials. No residential driveways. Intersection spacing approximately 330 feet 1/8 mile for principal intersections. Left -turn restrictions to be considered at minor unsignalized driveways if desired spacing not feasible. Not permitted along segments where a striped median is provided. Should be considered at selected intersections where heavy traffic requires a separate right -turn lane. May be considered at Not permitted. intersections to accommodate full -width right -turn lanes or dual left -turn lanes. Major Divided Arterial Raised. Used for dual left- Left -turn access allowed at 6 lanes turn movements at key signalized intersections 1/4 mile as a minimum.' Not permitted. intersections. only. No residential driveways. Major Divided Highway Raised. Used for dual left- Left -turn access allowed at 8 lanes turn movements at key signalized intersections 1/4 mile as a minimum. Not permitted. intersections. only. No residential driveways. CM -16 May be considered at intersections to accommodate full -width right -turn lanes or dual left -turn lanes. May be considered at intersections to accommodate full -width right -turn lanes or dual left -turn lanes. Community Mobility RANCHO CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 869 Table CM -2: Roadway Functional Design Guidelines' Number of Median Lanes Modified Collector With Median 2lanes Raised. Modified Secondary With Median Access Restriction Intersection Spacing Curbside Parking Additional R/W or Easement May be considered at selected No residential driveways. 1/8 mile. Not permitted. intersections where heavy traffic requires a separate right - turn lane. May be considered at selected 4 lanes Raised. No residential driveways. 1/8 mile. Not permitted. intersections where heavy traffic requires a separate right - turn lane. Modified Major With Median May be considered at selected 4 lanes Raised. No residential driveways. 1/4 mile. Not permitted. intersections where heavy traffic requires a separate right - turn lane. Note: 1. Median breaks less than % mile spacing on Major Divided Arterials are subject to a detailed traffic analysis and require City Engineer approval in order to permit a signalized intersection located less than the standard 1,320 feet intersection spacing requirement. 2. Refer to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan for design guidelines for roadways within the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Area. Community Mobility RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 870 CM -17 Proposed Park Facilities One new community park, one new special use facility, and two new neighborhood parks are planned. The new community park will be built along northern Mail' A.,, Rue r eaF Les Oses High SGheel Banyan Street between Rochester Avenue and the Day Creek Channel as part of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan improvements. The new special use facility, Napa Soccer Complex, is anticipated to be located in the southeastern portion of the City near Etiwanda Avenue. This center is planned to help alleviate the limited sports fields available for use by youth leagues. The two proposed neighborhood parks are meant to provide recreational facilities in the southwestern portion of the City, with one park being proposed along the Cucamonga Creek Channel south of Base Line Road, and another park in the vicinity of Arrow Highway and Madrone Avenue. There are also plans, as described above, to complete the additional phases of Central Park and expand Etiwanda Creek Park. Both park expansions will add significant acreage to the existing park system. Parks Standards and Guidelines Park standards determine how many parkland acres the City should develop based on population levels, locations of parks, and existing parks. Park guidelines determine the recommended facilities and amenities that are developed in parks. All parks and park facilities in Rancho Cucamonga incorporated standards and guidelines that were current at the time the facilities were built. Park Standards The City maintains a park standard of 5.0 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. State law (known as the Quimby Act) enables the City to collect 3.0 acres of parkland or in -lieu fees from new residential subdivisions for every 1,000 residents, and accordingly, the City adopted a Local Park Ordinance to implement its park and recreational land dedication requirements. However, in order to reach the standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents, the City must pursue alternative funding sources for the additional park acreage and/or park improvements that exceed the State standard. Alternative funding sources include general fund revenues, developer impact fees, State and Federal grants, user group contributions, and school district joint -use contributions. Other methods for supplementing the City's park system include encouraging the development of private open space and recreational amenities (beyond public park requirements) within large residential projects. The City also seeks to improve access and facilities at local school sites so schools can accommodate a greater demand for certain activities such as sports leagues. School grounds and facilities are an important part of the recreational system and can be applied, to a limited degree, toward meeting the City's park standard. The City will continue to pursue the joint -use (or ultimate use) of utility district and County Flood Control District lands for both parks and trails. As of 2009, the City's population was 179,200' residents. Based on the park standard of 5.0 acres for every 1,000 persons, the City required 896.0 acres of parkland in 2009 to respond to the variety of sports facilities and activities pursued by residents. With a total of 642.2 acres of parkland/trails/special use facilities in 2009, the deficit of parkland is calculated to be 253.8 acres (Table CS -2: Park Standards). 1 Source: Hogle-Ireland, Inc. Existing Land Use Database, 2009. Community Services RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN CS -9 Page 871 CS -14 The needs ratios in Table CS -6 will be used as a guide in preparing master plans for future park sites and upgrade plans for existing park sites. The Recreation Study also identifies planned neighborhood and community parks, based on the adopted standards and facility needs ratios described above. The planned parks shown on Figure CS -1 are generally located and dispersed throughout the community based on the adopted service ratios. Exact locations will be determined based on site availability over time. Table CS -6: Recreation Facility Needs Ratio for Rancho Cucamonga' Facility M Softball Fields Baseball Fields Football Fields Soccer Fields Basketball Courts Recreational Swimming Pools Competitive Swimming Pools Tennis Courts Golf Courses Equestrian Trails (miles) Facility Needs RatioI Total Facility Demand (facility per populatio at Build Out Acres 1/6,500 31 1/3,500 57 1/48,400 4 1/3,400 59 1/9,000 22 1/23,950 8 1/34,000 6 1/3,100 65 1/85,800 2 1/8,500 24 Roller Hockey Facilities 1/65,650 3 Community Centers and Senior Centers 1/55,800 4 Notes: 1. This does not include the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. 2. The Total Facility Demand at Build Out Acres is based on the population projected in this General Plan. Hiking and Riding Trails Rancho Cucamonga's climate and terrain create perfect conditions for moving about the City on foot or bicycle. The rural residential environment along the hillsides and proximity to wilderness areas allow for equestrian use. Trails within the hillside land preserves allow access into open space areas, where users can enjoy the natural environment. Urban trails — consisting primarily of sidewalks and paths within linear parks — increase connectivity by providing direct access to neighborhoods and destinations. The Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan provides for a network of interconnecting off-road urban and wilderness trails. Hiking and riding trails are intended to connect the City's residential and commercial activity centers, as does the system of on -street bicycle trails. Details on bike routes can be found in Chapter I Community Mobility. Hiking and riding trails are primarily for recreational purposes — horseback riding, hiking, jogging, running, and walking for pleasure. Such trails may also incorporate bicycling into their design (both for street bikes and mountain bikes) where feasible. Community Services RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 872 The regional trails traversing the commercial and industrial areas of the City also provide a safe and convenient alternative for bicycling to work or to shopping centers. The ultimate system of hiking and riding trails will provide over 100 miles of recreational enjoyment throughout the developed community and open space areas. Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan The system of regional and community trails is identified in the Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan (Figure CS -3) and includes both existing and proposed trails. Trail location is based on the criteria of safety, function, aesthetics, trail linkage needs, important land use connections, and the feasibility of land acquisition and/or dedication. The Master Plan identifies necessary bridges and street undercrossings, as well as trail heads to access the trail system at key locations throughout the City. Trail heads function as staging points for hikers, bikers, and riders, and will be equipped with facilities such as restrooms, drinking fountains, parking for cars and trailers, watering troughs for horses, bike racks, benches, shade, and other trail amenities. Trail Classifications The City utilizes three hiking and riding trail classifications, in addition to special classifications in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan area. Each trail performs different functions and has different development standards. Regional Multi -Purpose Trails. Regional multi-purpose trails serve as the backbone of the public trail system, covering long distances and connecting to regional parks, open space preserves, the San Bernardino National Forest, and other regional trails leading beyond Rancho Cucamonga. Regional multi-purpose trails primarily follow flood control channels and utility corridors. Joint -use agreements with the appropriate public and private agencies will allow public access. These multi-purpose trails provide for equestrian, pedestrian, and bicycle use concurrently. The right-of-way standard for regional multi-purpose trails is 30 feet minimum width. ■ Community Trails. Community trails are intended to provide convenient off- road access to community facilities such as parks, schools, and shopping centers. Community trails function as collectors that link local feeder trails in subdivisions to the regional trail system. When completed, these trails will provide multiple trail route possibilities, from short jaunts to long loops throughout the community. Community trails follow streets, utility corridors, Community Services RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Equestrian trail in Etiwanda. CS -15 Page 873 Pedestrian paths and bicycle trails are included along the trail in the Terra Vista community. CS -16 and easements. They are intended for equestrian and pedestrian use. The minimum right of way standard width is 20 feet for community trails. Local Feeder Trails. These trails are contained within residential subdivisions in the Equestrian/Rural Area. Local feeder trails are generally not mapped in the General Plan or Trails Implementation Plan, but are established as private easements at the time of subdivision review. The intent of local feeder trails is to provide access from the rear of every lot, wherever feasible, to a community or regional multi-purpose trail. Local feeder trails can also provide logical riding loops within subdivisions. The right-of-way standard for local feeder trails is 15 feet minimum width. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Trails. These trails provide an extensive network of multipurpose trails, providing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian access throughout the neighborhoods and connecting into the foothills above. Three new trail types are proposed in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, in addition to those Regional and Community Trails already present in the Plan area. Refer to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan for the trail classifications in this Plan area. Trails Implementation Plan The Trails Implementation Plan includes detailed design standards for each trail type, aspects of trail implementation, and administration of the trail system by the City. The Implementation Section includes an inventory of trails, along with a priority list of capital improvement projects related to existing and proposed trails. Established Trails As of 2009, Rancho Cucamonga has already completed an extensive network of multi -use trails throughout the community. Neighborhoods in Alta Loma and Etiwanda include a network of equestrian trails that traverse along private properties and public roadways, providing connections to parks, hillsides, and other neighborhoods. Many private trail easements along the rear of developed lots connect to community and regional multi-purpose trails. The Victoria Park Lane Trail and the Terra Vista Greenway provide pedestrian and bike connections between schools and parks through the Victoria and Terra Vista neighborhoods. Community Services RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 874 Pacific Electric Trail In 2007, the City opened the first segment of the 21 -mile Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail. This regional multi-purpose trail follows the east -west route of the old Pacific Electric Railroad. The trail serves as an alternative transportation/recreation corridor shared by bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, and equestrians. The trail has two pavement surfaces: the concrete trail is intended for pedestrians and bicyclists, while the softer granite trail is intended for joggers and equestrians. The trail is lighted at night for safety from end-to-end, and has drought -tolerant landscaping. There are also trash receptacles, doggie bags at intersections, horse hitching posts, and drinking fountains along the entire route. Three trail heads with parking are proposed: one at Amethyst Street (already constructed) and the other two at Foothill Boulevard (east of the new bridge) and Etiwanda Avenue by the Pacific Electric Railroad Depot. Access throughout the corridor is critically important. The project is expected to be completed by Spring 2010. When fully complete, the Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail will connect the cities of Claremont, Montclair, Upland, Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, and Rialto. Rancho Cucamonga, as the lead agency, partnered with the San Bernardino Association of Governments and surrounding cities to develop a master plan for the 21 -mile long trail. The Pacific Electric Inland Empire Trail Master Plan is the basis for pursuing a range of funding sources including Federal and State funds, grants, and private donations to build the trail. North Etiwanda Preserve Trail In 2009, the North Etiwanda Preserve Trail was opened to the public. This interpretive trail system is designed to provide over three miles of public trail access through the Northern Etiwanda Preserve. The North Etiwanda Preserve is a conservation area in the City City's Sphere of influence that protects sensitive wildlife species. This trail will allow hikers to explore the alluvial fan sage scrub habitat within designated trails, and view interpretive signs providing information about the history of the area and biological benefits of the North Etiwanda Preserve. The trail will connect local points of interest including historic water delivery system and pumping station remnants, early settlers ruins, a Native American cultural site, riparian wetlands, and a fresh water cienega. The trail includes a trail head with a parking area and additional amenities. Community Services RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN A bicyclist pedals easily along the Pacific Electric Trail. CS -17 Page 875 CS -18 Planned Trails The General Plan Update policies continue to support implementation of new trails and improvements to established trails in accordance with the Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan (Figure CS -3: Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan), and the Trails Implementation Plan. Regional multi-purpose trails are planned to provide connections along the Demens Creek, Deer Creek, Cucamonga Creek, and Day Creek drainage channels. Other regional multi-purpose trails are planned along the entire span of the Sphere of Influence, connecting to the North Etiwanda Preserve Trail and the San Bernardino National Forest. The Pacific Electric Trail will complete the east -west connection through the center of the City. Proposed community trails in Alta Loma and Etiwanda will complete the trail network within these neighborhoods by filling in the gaps where many trails do not currently connect. In addition, new multi-purpose trails are proposed in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan area. Refer to this Plan for descriptions of these planned trails. Trail Dedications The dedication of trails by a developer may be eligible for credit towards parkland dedication requirements based on the trail -way acreage and modes of travel provided. This provision underscores the importance of trails as part of the City's overall parks and recreation system. In order for trail -way acreage (average trail width times trail length) to be credited toward the park standard, the trail must accommodate at least one mode of travel (pedestrian, equestrian, or bicycle) and provide a minimum of 50 percent of the total trail width as landscaped area (which is in addition to the needed trail right-of-way). Trails that provide up to three modes of travel and fulfill the landscape requirement may receive up to 100 percent credit toward park dedication requirements, as shown on Figure CS -2: Trail Credit Graph. Figure CS -2: Trail Credit Graph Community Services RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 876 RC -28 type. The State of California considers AFSS to be a very threatened and rare natural community. Riparian and Wetland Areas The greatest diversity of life forms occurs in the area's canyons, including Cucamonga, Deer Creek, Day Creek, East Etiwanda, Henderson, San Sevaine, and Morse Canyons. These canyons are excellent examples of the diversity of the streamside or riparian woodland habitat areas that support wildlife. The dense stands of large oak, sycamore, and toyon trees and native ferns are a demonstration of the natural biological significance of the streamside woodlands. These areas are of great importance as habitats for birds and mammals. A peat bog, created by a fresh water spring, has been identified in the North Etiwanda Preserve. Peat bogs are a type of wetlands with poor drainage that accumulates acidic peat, a deposit of dead plant material. Peat bogs are fed by rainwater and the soil builds up its own water table and acidity. There are many animals and plants that thrive within a bog habitat. The peat bog is an exceedingly rare type of habitat. It is believed that an extensive plant record left by pollens dating back between one and three million years has been preserved within the peat bog. In 1988, the peat bog was declared a Point of Historic Interest by the Rancho Cucamonga City Council. Wildlife Protection Efforts Urbanization is the greatest threat to the remaining sensitive habitat areas. Expanding residential development, sand and gravel mining, and the construction of debris basins and flood control channels have greatly impacted areas of chaparral and Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. With the exception of the Rural/Conservation Area in the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Area, Although nearly all of the area within City limits is either developed or previously disturbed by agricultural activities. Areas within the Sphere of Influence and Rural/Conservation Area of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan are still relatively undisturbed and are still covered with native vegetation. Over the past 10 years, residential development has been extending into the foothills and threatening the long-term viability of sensitive habitat areas. The City has made coordinated efforts with other agencies to protect hundreds of acres in the Sphere and the City from encroaching development through a variety of tools including development agreements and land mitigation banking. The top goal of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan is the permanent conservation and unified management of the largest feasible portion of the of the 3,565 acre Rural/Conservation Area as biologically viable and linked habitat that would otherwise be subject to future development, haphazard management and continued habitat degradation. Conservation Areas The protection and conservation of the Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (AFSS) plant community within the Planning Area is one of the top environmental priorities. The long-term conservation of prime AFSS area has already begun through the establishment of five conservation areas that were created as mitigation banks for private and public works projects (see Figure RC -4). ■ North Etiwanda Preserve. In 1998, the County of San Bernardino created a 760 -acre conservation area in response to impacts to AFSS from the Foothill Resource Conservation RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 877 Freeway (SR -210) project. The Preserve and surrounding lands also contain significant amounts of other rare and threatened habitats that include Sycamore Alluvial Woodland, California Walnut Woodland, and Fresh Water Marsh. ■ San Sevaine Preserve. This 137 -acre conservation area was established by San Bernardino County as mitigation for floodwater diversion structures and debris basins. ■ U.S. Forest Service Conservation Area. This 880 -acre conservation area is located adjacent to the western edge of the North Etiwanda Preserve and includes land purchased by the Metropolitan Water District along Day Canyon and Day Creek as mitigation for the MWD's Inland Feeder Project. The land has been transferred to the U.S. Forest Service and is a part of the San Bernardino National Forest. The majority of this conservation area extends beyond the City's Sphere of Influence, into unincorporated territory. ■ Existing Conservation Area. This approximately 35 -acre conservation area is located within City limits but adjacent to the Sphere of Influence. The area was purchased as mitigation for a housing development and set aside through a conservation easement to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. ■ Other conserved areas, also identified in Figure RC -4, include: — Lennar Preserve — Spirit of the Sage Preserve — Henderson Creek — Rancho Etiwanda Mitigation — CSA 120 Mitigation These five preserves are in close proximity to each other and within a much larger California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Study Area. Combined, this becomes one of the largest AFSS habitats in Southern California. In addition to these existing Conservation Areas, the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan recommends and provides the framework for the establishment of three new Conservation Areas: Etiwanda Heights Preserve, Deer Canyon Preserve, and Clark Preserve. Resource Conservation RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN RC -29 Page 878 The San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR) habitat historically occurs within the flood plains at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains and may occur within foothills in the northern portion of the City and the Sphere of Influence. The SBKR is listed as endangered by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. The City will work closely with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, the County Museum, and other resource agencies to avoid impacts on this species from development within the Sphere, and to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are provided. Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub within the North Etiwanda Preserve provides habitat for various wildlife species. Resource Conservation Issues Key issues relative to resource conservation are: Loss of Open Space Areas. The City must preserve and protect, to the extent possible, open space areas that are devoted to the preservation of natural resources, managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, and/or open space buffer areas for public health and safety. Premature and unnecessary conversion of open space land to urban uses can fragment vital open spaces, increase infrastructure and capital improvement costs, and potentially expose residential uses to natural hazards. Cultural Resources. Although not readily apparent, the record of the ancient past is embodied in archaeological and paleontological resources that may lie hidden in the landform and beneath the surface of the ground. Rancho Cucamonga has become highly aware of these treasures as land is graded to accommodate new development and infrastructure. The City must take care to properly handle, document, and preserve these resources for the scientific and educational enrichment that they offer. Stable and Adequate Water Supply. Water is a precious and limited resource that is essential for a Healthy City. It is important to provide a stable and adequate water supply as the community continues to grow. The City and the Cucamonga Valley Water District must be vigilant in protecting and conserving water supplies through all feasible means. The Cucamonga Valley Water District obtains nearly 60 percent of its water supply from the Metropolitan Water District. This means the City does not have adequate water supplies within its own borders and must rely upon a cooperative agreement with other agencies. It is important to protect water resources Resource Conservation RC -34 RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 879 by ensuring adequate groundwater recharge basins and spreading grounds as the shift toward a greater demand for groundwater supply increases. Water Quality. Household hazardous materials (motor oil, pesticides, solvents, paint, and other similar hazards) should not be disposed of by pouring them down the drain or into the street gutters. When improperly disposed, these materials pass through the local sewage treatment plants, which are not designed to treat these types of materials, and are released into area rivers and streams. Rancho Cucamonga must protect the quality of the water supply and resources, both for the sake of the local water supply as well as for downstream neighbors who are affected by Rancho Cucamonga's actions. Achieving these important objectives will require cooperation and coordination with other agencies and the integration of water quality measures. Energy Consumption. A core value for the City is the need for long-term economic strength and fiscal soundness. This can be accomplished in part by the effective management of energy resources, either directly or indirectly. As energy demand grows and nonrenewable energy resources become more limited with reliance on imported resources becoming increasingly problematic, more aggressive conservation measures and the increased use of innovative new technologies will become a necessity. Aggregate Mining Impacts. With mineral resources available on land within the City's Sphere of Influence, it is important to balance the need for local sources of regionally significant mineral resources against development of the land with uses that are more compatible with encroaching urbanization. The City recognizes the importance of the mineral resources in Rancho Cucamonga, and that once development occurs, these resources are no longer accessible. The City further recognizes its responsibilities to balance the value of these resources, and to consider their regional and statewide importance during the review and consideration of a proposed project that might impact extraction of those resources. The mining of aggregate resources is only active within the City's Sphere of Influence. Once production ends, it will be important to provide mitigation for the reclamation of previously mined areas and limit the impacts to adjacent residential neighborhoods and other sensitive land uses. North Etiwanda Preserve. The North Etiwanda Preserve, located .n the City's Sphere of Influence, -was intended to protect the sensitive habitat and wildlife species in the area. Since the Preserve was first created in 1998, issues such as uncontrolled pedestrian access, illegal dumping, sensitive plant removal, and off-road vehicles have plagued the area. These activities are very destructive to the natural environment located in the Preserve. San Bernardino County, which manages the preserve, anticipates that these issues will diminish as the preserve opened for public access on delineated trails in 2009. Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. Alluvial fan sage scrub is a unique habitat that depends on the occasional flooding and shifting of sediments from canyon waters. However, to protect downstream development, flood control facilities have been built to control the flow of waters and prevent flooding. These facilities have also controlled the water this habitat depends on. It will be important for the City and San Bernardino County, to balance the need for development versus alluvial fan sage scrub habitat protection. Resource Conservation RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN RC -35 Page 880 Discussion: In order to facilitate development within the Planning Area in a manner that is consistent with priorities set forth in this General Plan, areas presently designated for urban use but shown by the State as potential aggregate resources should be carefully evaluated. In areas where significant conflicts could be anticipated to occur with either existing or planned use, the City will petition the State for removal of affected lands from SMARA maps. Policy RC -7.5• In areas that the State of California has designated as Earth regionally significant aggregate resources, the City will require property titles to include notice of the presence of such resources, in accordance with SMARA. Discussion: Property owners may not be fully aware of the potential aggregate resources present on their property. The recordation of a notice of the presence of aggregate resources will be required with all property titles within designated sectors in order to assist in the conservation of appropriately located areas within Rancho Cucamonga. GOAL RC -8: Protect wildlife habitats that support various plants, mammals, and other wildlife species. Policy RC -8.1 • Preserve the integrity of riparian habitat areas, creek Earth corridors, Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, bogs, and sensitive wildlife habitat that supports biological resources. Discussion: In cooperation with other agencies, Rancho Cucamonga will pursue actions that provide appropriate long-term protection of areas within the City and City's Sphere of Influence that contain sensitive habitat, and that are considered of unique value in enhancing the quality of the local environment. These agencies may include, but are not limited to, the County of San Bernardino, the County Flood Control District, the State Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Development within the City boundaries will be subject to development regulations and standards. Policy RC -8.2' Consult with San Bernardino County and other Earth agencies to support the preservation of streamside woodland areas along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, including the North Etiwanda Preserve. Resource Conservation RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN RC -47 Page 881 RC -48 Discussion: The canyons in the northern portions of the City and the Rancho C ca 's City's Sphere of Influence contain the only native trees of the area. Without appropriate protection and assistance from San Bernardino County they may be irreversibly lost. Development proposed in these riparian, or water -related communities, should be allowed only after a site specific investigation is conducted to: 1) define the extent and fragility of the riparian community; 2) determine wetland permit requirements; and 3) propose measures to mitigate any impacts on the resources stemming from land disturbance or other site development. Preservation of mature native woodland trees, prevention of soil erosion, and maintenance of open space are primary concerns. Clustered single-family residential units should be encouraged to avoid destruction of the woodland associations. Roads or buildings should be set back from the riparian corridor to avoid damage to the woodland associations. Policy RC -$.3• utilize innovative measures that will allow the Earth expansion of sensitive biological preserve areas (e.g., North Etiwanda Preserve, Day Creek Preserve, and San Sevaine Preserve) and other important habitat areas. Discussion: Rancho Cucamonga is actively working with the County of San Bernardino, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect sensitive biological resources in the City's Planning Area through the creation of a system of preserves and open space along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. The City will continue to work cooperatively with San Bernardino County for the implementation and management of a mitigation land bank as part of the acquisition process for the Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (AFSS) Preserve. The land bank will be used to offset the impacts of future development while focusing preservation efforts in the critical AFSS habitat areas. Policy RC -8.4' Acquire and/or protect open space areas that provide Earth strategic wildlife corridors and vital connectivity between habitat areas. Discussion: Scientists with the San Bernardino County Museum are continually gathering data on all sensitive habitats and sensitive plant and animal species in the county. In cooperation with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and San Bernardino Association of Governments, San Bernardino County has already created a system of preserves in the City City's Sphere -of influence uence that will become the basis for protecting the rapidly disappearing AFSS habitat located along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. Resource Conservation RAN C H O CUCAMONGA G E N E RAL PLAN Page 882 �San Gabriel Mountains Genera—Roadway_HierarchyPrincipalSecondaryTertiaryFreeway InterchangeDayCanyon RANCHOProposed Freeway Interchange CUCAMONGACanyon EtiwandaCanyon I/ SanSevaine Base LayersCanyonCounty City BoundaryAm dStCITY OF Sphere of InfluenceFONTANA'a WaterwaysSanAntonio .2RailroadsA. Wilson AveC ZL ey Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.CL Coll ean0 ?V..t t19t tCITY OFUPLANDBase Line Rd Base Line Aveoothill Blvd Foothill BlvdU. F ice ter9th St. .. . . . . Jersey Bil Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ra'll=waMetrolink PWIStation:CITY OFWE IkONTANA121CITY OF <ONTARIO .0 EFigure CM-1:MilesOT2 5 0'5 1 General Roadway Hierarchy Community Mobility CM -7 RANCHO CUCA[N0NGA GENERAL PLAN Page 883 Community Mobility RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 884 Circulation Plan I■■■■■■N Collector ----■■■ Modified Collector with Median Secondary � -- Modified Secondary with Median Major Arterial ■■■■■■■ Modified Major with Median ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Major Divided Arterial Major Divided Highway Freeway Intersections Widened beyond Standards ] [ Railroad Grade Separation Freeway Interchange Proposed Freeway Interchange ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Note: Refer to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan for all streets within the Plan area. Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009. Miles „ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure CM -2: Circulation Plan CM -9 Community Mobility RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 885 Bus Transit Primary Transit Corridor/Station (Bus Rapid Transit) Secondary Transit Corridor (Regional Service) TC Transit Center Rail Transit Metrolink Station Potential Relocation of Metrolink Station Potential Gold Line/Station ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence — — Waterways Note: 1. See also Local Transit Services Area (CM -5). Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009. Miles „ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure CM -4: Transit Plan CM -19 20th St CITY OF UPLAND 161h St 1 Base Line Rd 4th St Foothill Blvd m Q w a E U CITY OF ONTARIO m Q Blvd Community Mobility RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 886 St OP 2� SQ% a it a U Base Line Ave / Foothill Blvd Arrow Hwy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Metrolink I ICITY OF FONTANA I San Bernardino Ave I I San Local Transit Service Areas 0 Northwest Area Southwest Area 0 East Area Note: The colors differ where Local Transit Service Areas overlap. ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009. F i Miles „ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure CM -5: Local Transit Service Areas CM -23 San Gabriel Mountains SAN BIl RNA--RDIN0 NAT' O N A L FOREST \ 1 I Day Canyon 1 S P H E R E O F I N F L�U I Deer / % East East \ I, \ r Canyon \• Etiwanda \ \ Canyon \ \ \ .,\ /" San r I Sevaine I I L.._.._.. .■\ .. I \ \ i\ \ \ lyo \ Canyon County7 / \ \ '\ Canyon/11Am d St I \ \ '\ � :77 CITY OF FONTANA San Antonio u Heights ill i e > \yo9 iW\ ' illside R m �Q d P� E 24TH ST \ r. , �- i I m .. / Wilson Ave \� 'o I . 20th St CITY OF UPLAND 161h St 1 Base Line Rd 4th St Foothill Blvd m Q w a E U CITY OF ONTARIO m Q Blvd Community Mobility RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 886 St OP 2� SQ% a it a U Base Line Ave / Foothill Blvd Arrow Hwy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Metrolink I ICITY OF FONTANA I San Bernardino Ave I I San Local Transit Service Areas 0 Northwest Area Southwest Area 0 East Area Note: The colors differ where Local Transit Service Areas overlap. ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009. F i Miles „ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure CM -5: Local Transit Service Areas CM -23 Community Mobility RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 887 Bicycle Plan Class I (Bike Path or Trail) Class II (Bike Lane) — Class III (Bike Street) Bike Routes Outside Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Schools Schools Parks ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence — Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009. Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure CM -7: Bicycle Plan CM -29 Community Mobility RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 888 Truck Routes i Truck Routes Truck Routes (38 -Foot Kingpin Limit) RANCHO CUCAMONGA ------ Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence _ — — — Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009. Miles „ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure CM -8: Truck Routes CM -35 San Antonio Heights 24TH ST 20th St 16th St 4th St c� San Gabriel Mountains SAN B RN"ARDIN0 NATIONAL FREST \I \ r✓ I Al J t \ r 'I / Canyon S P H E R E O F I N F LU Deer\•, i/ East \ Canyon'\ / C wanda \ r%: i �\ `•\ �\ -'•� San Sevaine haw \ � Canyon County Canyon A m d St / \ \'• \ �• \ �" j _' ` I CITY OF FONTANA IU e Y \ \ �Pm:i O I ILill i e /'a'\?-illsidH.- e.. I m Wilson Ave a> E m U CITY OF UPLAND Base Line Rd V r Foothill Blvd t I a> CITY OF - ONTARIO I a € S I� a Community Services RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN 4BWd a> > m = 4th St m d � Y x Page 889 a d U Base Line Ave Foothill Blvd Arrow Hwy Metrolink r I jCITY OF FONTANA I r San Bernardino Ave ' C ' � ; I Sar > d U Summit Ave I Highland Ave Parks and Special Use Facilities �1�;'►�;}1� Central Park i Central Park ////, Additional Central Park Phases Existing Parks and Special Use Facilities (2009) RANCHO Community Park CUCAMONGA Neighborhood Park Special Use Facility Proposed Parks and Special Use Facilities 1 C Community Park Neighborhood Park S Special Use Facility Note: 1. Proposed park sites and Special Use Facilities are considered floating designations until final location of the site is determined. Neighborhood Parks 1. Bear Gulch Park 20. Spruce Avenue Park 2. Beryl Park East 21. Victoria Arbors Park 3. Beryl Park West 22. Victoria Groves Park 4. Church Street Park 23. Vintage Park 5. Coyote Canyon Park 24. West Greenway Park 6. Day Creek Park 25. Windrows Park 7. Ellena Park Community Parks 8. Garcia Park 26. Etiwanda Creek Community Park 9. Golden Oak Park 27. Heritage Community Park 10. Hermosa Park 28. Red Hill Community Park 11. Kenyon Park 12. Legacy Park Special Use Facilities 13. Lions Park 29. Epicenter/Adult Sports Complex 14. Milliken Park 30. Central Park 15. Mountain View Park 31. Confluence Park 16. Old Town Park 32. Lions Center East 17. Olive Grove Park 33. Lions Center West 34. Family Sports Center 18. Ralph M. Lewis Park 35. Victoria Gardens Cultural Center 19. Rancho Summit Park 36. RC Family Resource Center ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary -• Sphere of Influence Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Miles " 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure CS -1: Parks and Facilities Plan CS -7 Community Services RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 890 Trails ^+t'. ■ *+� jr' Regional Multi -Purpose Trails i The Regional Multi -Purpose Trails are the backbone of the public trail system. They are reserved, long-distance corridors, and serve as the main connections to community parks, RANCHO scenic canyons, the National Forest, major CUCAMONGA open spaces, residential, commercial, and industrial areas. These trails mainly follow flood control channels and utility corridors. They are intended as equestrian, pedestrian, and bicycle trails. CommunityTrails Community Trails provide trail users access to community facilities such as parks, schools, and neighborhood shopping centers. These public trails form loops of varying length and act as the link between the local feeder trails in each tract and the Regional Multi -Purpose Trails system. Community Trails follow streets, utility corridors, and easements. They are intended for equestrian and pedestrian users, except equestrian usage is limited to the Equestrian/Rural area. Etiwanda HeightsTrails (See Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan). Trail Connections and Trail Heads Existing Trail Head Proposed Trail Head Bridge Existing Grade Separation Proposed Grade Separation Equestrian/Rural Area Overlay Base Map Features ------ Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----- Sphere of Influence San Bernardino National Forest — — — — Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Miles " 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure CS -3: Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan CS -21 S P H E R E OF IN F L San Art.r. YI Heights 24TH ST CITY OF UPLAND U.. Rd a CITY OF ONTARIO 0 0.5 1 Redevelopment Project Area Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary Sphere of Influence San Gabriel Mountains SAN BP R NA•RD I NO NAT'0 N AL F REST Canyon t East -yo Etiwanda Canyon Wilson A- F� V San S. -n. Canyon CITY Y O )N T ANFA F,,,ttifli — Arrow H" '� Metrolink ITY OF MONTANA I.P7 At; AA S P H E R E OF IN F L San Art.r. H.,ghts ]6TH ST - a, CITY OF UPLAND Base U.. Rd I CITY OF ONTARIO 0 0.5 1 2 San Gabriel Mountains S A N B P R N_A-RD I N 0 N AT'ON AL F R E ST I Day Canyon D.erEast Canyon Et—rd. Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence E Wilson Ave Y� Base Una A- F-thill EHW IF— 'iLa Arrow H" Santa F, Railway Burlington N -he n 4- Metrolink CITY OF NTANA Ave S.-n. Canyon CITY Y O )N T ANFA San Gabriel Mountains \ ( \•.,\ i^ SAN BE�RNARDINO NATY•ONAL FQREST 1 I\ I "erline Rd , County Canyon] ❑ St ILLo❑ ,❑ O� ❑ ��o' San >� ❑ I /'�F_� \„ z Antonio �UUUI�ID❑ ,y' ��� � a � \.'� o D I W ., Heights I ill i e a 1 Q i _> u �El J > F Q❑ 24TH ST El WilsoWilsonAve Chaffey College _ .�❑�D � ❑Oo� �. : a� o a � ... ❑���❑❑❑o ❑❑ c" ULI `I ❑❑❑� rQQQQIDI QQ❑��U�� R�7 0� J�lll �u �� �� � �� ❑ �a A i . 20th St❑_❑��� C �_ Jam■ J ----- ❑� ®❑�®❑ M�00 o��D�❑/ ��C� CSS i b . ❑❑ ❑ t / o �d �� QC�QD 0 ��] �D : ❑ o� D I a� a \9\Z��So [o p 0 i/oo�ooa�_❑❑���oa CITY O F \ �a� D ".® uuu QQ�❑' b�°a QQ �QOn ❑@�� ❑ u��� UPLAND ��0 / a❑ O I 16th St Base Line Rd �i]QEs[�'M 14 �A',,I-' ' D�S �(�❑�J ase i P Base Line Ave \0 JJJ❑��0 E❑❑ �i� DGQ❑ s ° �� ZI�� 1� i QQ���❑tJ Ch �'J ®®/ �o❑ a o ❑ QQ 1 ❑u ❑ 2�/ a❑� Q°D�❑I�❑❑❑❑i❑I ❑❑_�1\ �Q❑❑ ❑° Imo❑; Foothill Blvd®� C/ %IU �O.I--_ / Foothill Blvd cc V > �_ ❑� Ar _w H / Arrow Hwy ��� ❑ ❑❑ Y B 1_iltlll� �� 9th St 7771 o Q� Burlington Northern Santa Fe Rail wa Metrolink ® M trolink j Station d ❑� �i a' S ❑ j C I T Y OF t FONTANA c 4th St oarah �❑ / j I San Bernardino Ave �eeK'd CITY OF �' ONTARIO i j a 0 I ° > x I / A W i Miles \ 40 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 I San Berms Land Use Designations Residential Very Low (0.1 - 2.0 du/ac) Low (2.0 - 4.0 du/ac) Low Medium (4.0 - 8.0 du/ac) Medium (8.0 - 14.0 du/ac) Medium High (14.0 - 24.0 du/ac) RANCHO High (24.0 - 30.0 du/ac) CUCAMONGA Commercial Office (0.40 - 1.0 FAR) San Neighborhood Commercial (0.25 - 0.35 FAR) Sevaine Canyon Community Commercial (0.25 - 0.35 FAR) General Commercial (0.25 - 0.35 FAR) CITY OF Mixed Use F O N TA N A Mixed Use (0.25 - 1.0 FAR) Industrial - Industrial Park (0.40 - 0.60 FAR) General Industrial ((0.50 - 0.60 FAR) Heavy Industrial (0.40 - 0.50 FAR) Open Space % Hillside Residential (0.1 - 2.0 du/ac) ® Conservation lPrq= Open Space (0 - 0.1 du/ac) Flood Control/Utility Corridor Public Facility � Civic/Regional (0.40 - 1.0 FAR) Schools (0.10 - 0.20 FAR) Parks ® Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Neighborhood Planning Area 1. Victoria Gardens 7. Foothill Blvd & Mayten Ave 2. Town Center 8. Industrial Area Specific Plan (Foothill Blvd & Haven Ave) (Sub -Area 18) 3. Terra Vista 9. Foothill Blvd & Deer Creek Channel 4. Foothill Blvd 10. Haven Ave & Church St Site (Hermosa Ave & Center Ave) 11. Western Gateway 5. Foothill Blvd (Bear Gulch Area) (Archibald Ave & Hellman Ave) 12. Foothill Blvd -Cucamonga Channel Site 6. Foothill Blvd 13. Historic Alta Loma (Helms Ave and Hampshire St) (Amethyst Site) Overlays Schools and Parks Haven Avenue Office Elementary School Equestrian/Rural Area Junior High School Master Plan High School College P Proposed Park (1) Base Layers ---- City Boundary Freeway -- Sphere of Influence Roads Waterways Railroads Note: (1) Location of proposed parks are not fixed, and may be adjusted to accommodate future planning needs. Source: Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Figure LU -2: Land Use Plan Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 894 LU -11 Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 895 LU -23 S P H E R E O F I N F L'IU 1 f County F Canyon A m d St / San Antonio y' Heights II ill i e r c. 24TH ST s 20th St CITY OF UPLAND 16th St Base Line Rd I1 1 1 Foothill Blvd N' 3 S]. E 16 v m a' j San Gabriel Mountains \ SAN BE�RNA-RDIN0 NATY,ONAL F Q R E S T 1 1 l I Foothill Blvd itrolink Station 4th St ora'' 4th St j Focus Areas . . CITY OF Foothill Boulevard ONTARIO a 0 x u d = Q South Haven Avenue Q Hillsides Miles I :\ Q Southeast Rancho Cucamonga RANCHO 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Q Southwest Rancho Cucamonga CUCAMONGA N ¢' d U Base Line Ave I�O/ i ti�P �1 / Foothill Blvd Arrow Hwy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railw Metrolink a, I ¢' CITY OF t FONTANA I San Bernardino Ave \--- Figure LU -4: San Berna rdiao Freeway Focus Areas Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 896 LU -43 j Focus Areas . . Foothill Boulevard Q South Haven Avenue Q Hillsides :\ Q Southeast Rancho Cucamonga RANCHO Q Southwest Rancho Cucamonga CUCAMONGA % San Sevaine Canyon Base Layers \ �,•; •� I = ; ---- City Boundary % ICITY OF — Sphere of Influence \--� F O N TA N A — Waterways i o Freeway Roads X, E Wilson Ave Railroads Source: Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. N ¢' d U Base Line Ave I�O/ i ti�P �1 / Foothill Blvd Arrow Hwy Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railw Metrolink a, I ¢' CITY OF t FONTANA I San Bernardino Ave \--- Figure LU -4: San Berna rdiao Freeway Focus Areas Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 896 LU -43 20th St j I I I I [ Ill NFW-7 anned-Community Developmen Plan F an 16th St IIrEIM CITY OF Base Lim, se' S ee� E L 4th St n ■ Base Line Ave CITY OF leew I 4th St 1i 1■n� �� ��~� g � �: ' � 15 � San Gabriel Mountains >, Y SAN BERN-9:I\DIN0 NATIONAL FOREST ' - � �� � ° I iii • II��° Foothill Blvd Foothill Blvd ■��,P�■ SPHERE OF INFL�u - pf]m�: \ �•.\ % Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood / San n 8r ConservatioPlan Sevaine If \ I \ Ft Canyon Count / \ Canyon., A in d St I �, j. �- ' CITY OF FONTANA san Etiwanda North, Y �. Antonio Heights >' ' 4 Specific Plan �'yo ;,, ; e / �9 m illside R \.1 24TH ST t /� L d .. F Wilson Av Wilso ve m v Summit Ave 20th St j I I I I [ Ill NFW-7 anned-Community Developmen Plan F an 16th St IIrEIM CITY OF Base Lim, se' S ee� E L 4th St n ■ Base Line Ave CITY OF leew I 4th St 1i 1■n� �� ��~� g � �: ' � 15 � $ >, Y ' - � �� � ° I iii • II��° Foothill Blvd Foothill Blvd ■��,P�■ - pf]m�: Arrow Hwy m Q D 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources R A N C H O CU CAM ONGA G E N E RAL P L A N Page 897 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Metrolink m Q CITY OF r 'ONTANA San Highland Ave I Planned Communities 0 Caryn Q Foothill i Terra Vista Q Victoria Specific Plans RANCHO Q Etiwanda CUCAMONGA Q Industrial Area Q Etiwanda North Q Sub -Area 18 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Base Layers -- City Boundary -- Sphere of Influence Waterways Freeway Roads Railroads Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009. Figure LU -5: Adopted Specific Plans and Planned Communities LU -51 se' S ee� Sub' Area 78 % Specific Plan 4th St �d�d• CITY OF leew I 4th St %.. o- I ° ONTARIO $ >, Y D 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources R A N C H O CU CAM ONGA G E N E RAL P L A N Page 897 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Metrolink m Q CITY OF r 'ONTANA San Highland Ave I Planned Communities 0 Caryn Q Foothill i Terra Vista Q Victoria Specific Plans RANCHO Q Etiwanda CUCAMONGA Q Industrial Area Q Etiwanda North Q Sub -Area 18 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Base Layers -- City Boundary -- Sphere of Influence Waterways Freeway Roads Railroads Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009. Figure LU -5: Adopted Specific Plans and Planned Communities LU -51 Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 898 LU -75 -------- a IHillside Rd. ' Wilson Ave. Wilson Ave. 1 d rn a> Ban on St. Ban on St. d T �. > N M K d 1 P, Y r o Q o 3 w W ¢ m a' v o i B x Church Ave. ,AQ G Foothill Blvd. R a I Arrow Hwy, Arrow Hwy, 8th St. T: 6th St. 4th Rt E D Feet „ A B C o 2,000 4,000 s,000 8,000 - Entry Monuments Major Gateway Entry Monuments Secondary Gateway Foothill Boulevard Entry Monuments Standard Entry - 3 Corners Standard Entry - 2 Corners Standard Entry - 1 Corners Mid -Block Entry Monument Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 900 LU -109 San Antonio Heights 24TH ST 20th St 16th St / San Gabriel Mountains \•.,\ i^ SAN BE\RNA�RDIN0 NATY,ONAL FQREST Da Canyon SPHERE OF INFLU East Deer Canyon Etiwanda t % \ ( Canyon \ County Canyoni: A�monld St I I i m I Q N 7 Q E m U CITY OF UPLAND Base Line Rd 1 L J, Foothill Blvd ; Q d Foothill Blvd Wilson Ave P Jersey BI trolink P I r Station I j 4th St"°doh i St �• ,% San 4th \ Sevaine P" CITY OF \ j �/II CITY OF FONTANA ONTARIO 3 Y �IW, v y9 m x Z 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 a' d U Base Line Ave i e°j / I� Foothill Blvd Arrow Hwy rthern Santa Fe Metrolink Public Facility Land Use Designations Civic/Regional (Max. 1.0 FAR) Schools (Max. 0.20 FAR) Parks Flood Control/Utility Corridor Schools and Parks Elementary School Junior High/Middle School High School College P Future Park d Dog Park Public Safety Facilities Fire Station Future Fire Station Sheriffs Station Sheriffs Sub -Station San Bernardino Government Facilities Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse West Valley Detention Center City Facilities Animal Care and Adoption Center Archibald Library Central Park: Senior and Community Centers City Corporate Yard Civic Center Epicenter/Adult Sports Complex Lions Center East and West RC Family Resources Center RC Family Sports Center Victoria Gardens Cultural Center (Theater/Library) Base Layers ---- City Boundary --- Sphere of Influence Waterways Freeway Roads r==k Railroads I CITY OF t Notes: (1) Location of future parks are not fixed and may be adjusted to F O N TA N A accommodate future planning needs. I San Bernardino Ave Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Figure PF -1: Public Facilities Public Facilities and Infrastructure RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 901 PF -7 �• ,% San \ \ Sevaine P" \ Canyon \ j �/II CITY OF FONTANA Y 3 Y �IW, v y9 m .y I I 11 Z a' d U Base Line Ave i e°j / I� Foothill Blvd Arrow Hwy rthern Santa Fe Metrolink Public Facility Land Use Designations Civic/Regional (Max. 1.0 FAR) Schools (Max. 0.20 FAR) Parks Flood Control/Utility Corridor Schools and Parks Elementary School Junior High/Middle School High School College P Future Park d Dog Park Public Safety Facilities Fire Station Future Fire Station Sheriffs Station Sheriffs Sub -Station San Bernardino Government Facilities Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse West Valley Detention Center City Facilities Animal Care and Adoption Center Archibald Library Central Park: Senior and Community Centers City Corporate Yard Civic Center Epicenter/Adult Sports Complex Lions Center East and West RC Family Resources Center RC Family Sports Center Victoria Gardens Cultural Center (Theater/Library) Base Layers ---- City Boundary --- Sphere of Influence Waterways Freeway Roads r==k Railroads I CITY OF t Notes: (1) Location of future parks are not fixed and may be adjusted to F O N TA N A accommodate future planning needs. I San Bernardino Ave Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Figure PF -1: Public Facilities Public Facilities and Infrastructure RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 901 PF -7 r� County San Antonio Heights 24TH ST 20th St I \' 1 San Gabriel Mountains r % School Districts Alta Loma School District i .. S A N B E� R N A.12 D I N G N A T 1 O N A L F Q R E S T �' /"' l; j j' \ Central School District j- _ Cucamonga School District I ^1 �— -� -�- 1 �":�--,_1\_-- Etiwanda School District Day I \ 1 School Types RANCHO Canyon ` 1 I'\ E Elementary School CUCAMONG P H E R E O F I N F LU Deer '( ( East \ \ `l yon Etiwanda / Etiwanda 1 \ \ I Junior High/Middle School Can y \ % Canyon \ \ r % San IIIIIII High School i \ Alta Loma; Extension Area \ i \ \ Canyon M ` ,\ �\ � '1 Canyon 111111© Chaffey Community College Am dSt\ \ A(`� \ \ LU.I �•- Wo�� '\F� Y `�. �I BaseLayers —Layers a/ ` WFONTANA Cit B ounda ry/ Sphere of Influence encelta' Loma ill i e j > \92Q y II Waterways p/: •7 illside R W \9 0 FreewaY E I E 6 j' m Wilson Av Wilson Ave ,`O� v Roads U) _ > a E « I I > •�� Railroads .a ate: � m � /• � v �ly .. > i A :Z /;• n a = ¢ E _ = E E - Anyon St I �."!" Sources: Etiwanda School District; Alta Loma School District; Cucamonga School District, and c Central School District. 11 I I III J I l n ve , 1 .. _ ' Etiwanda .1 J Figure PF -2: Schools and School Districts Public Facilities and Infrastructure RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 902 PF -11 C; . \y�2� E E / I d m 000 ria CITY OF E J s UPLAND \', E / d I 16th St Base Line Rd Base L rie Q?• Base Line Ave V: \ Z E E a I > \ J oq/ E `\ Ch r S eb E Q Central � hurc s / J� / E of W Foothill Blvd r ' 66 > /I Foothill Blvd r Foothill Blvd a' 66 a> Q. 4-= V wy Ar w H Epice ter o W % Arrow Hwy ) 1 EE 9th St I j \ Jersey BI Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railwa _ \ I Metrolink Metrolink I -- Station j m >® Cucamonga ? I a % CITY OF d t FONTANA sdOe 5 e 4th St Ah St San Bernardino Ave CITY OF ONTARIO I j" a > W � San Berms 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 I Figure PF -2: Schools and School Districts Public Facilities and Infrastructure RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 902 PF -11 Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 903 Fire Protection Responsibility Areas N' \\\\\N Federal and State Responsibility Areas 0 Local Responsibility Areas (LRA) - Incorporated Rancho Cucamonga Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA) Fire Stations Existing Fire Stations (2009) 1. Fire Station No. 171 2. Fire Station No. 172 3. Fire Station No. 173 4. Fire Station No. 174 5. Fire Station No. 175 6. Fire Station No. 176 7. Fire Station No. 177 (�) Future Fire Station 8. Fire Station No. 178 Base Map ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Notes: The Rancho Cucamonga Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA) is inclusive of all Cal Fire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designations in the State Responsibility Area (SRA) within the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designations based on recommendations from Cal Fire, and other areas designated by the Fire District to be at significant risk from wildfires based on local fire history, weather, and vegetation. Source: Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, 2010. Miles „ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure PS -1: Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area PS -5 Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 904 Fault Zones Existing Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone Proposed Expansion of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone 1 Proposed Special Studies Zone 1 Low Ground Rupture Potential Zone 2 Active Faults Cucamonga Fault Fault Accurately Located Fault Approximately Located ........ Fault Inferred ............• Fault Concealed Tlrrrrr-m Fault Scarp (ticks indicate downthrown side) Etiwanda Avenue Fault Scarp Fault Accurately Located Red Hill Fault -------- Fault Inferred - - - ? - - - Fault Queried (uncertain) Base Map ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Notes: 1. All proposed structures for human occupancy within these zones shall require special fault hazard studies. 2. Associated with the uncertain segment of Red Hill Fault, special studies/foundations recommended for essential/critical facilities. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2008 and Earth Consultants International, 2000. Miles „ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure PS -2: Fault Hazards PS -13 % San Gabriel Mountains I' (I j j • 1 \•-.\ / S A N B R N A !2 D I N O N A T Y O N A L F Q R E S T Da Canyon S P H E R E O F I N F L' U Deer ( East \ \ I I \ /I Etiwanda I \-- i T—' r / % \•,\ Canyon Canyon \ \'•\ \ �•.,\ I %I San \ Sevaine r •--------�-�----•-1-- ', \ PQw!\ I 1 r Canyon County M A m Canon _ y i d St CITY OF �. _� \ �- \ FONTANA San > / j. 3 i Antonio y: \ o' \ o Heights ,I ill i e j > �9yo II ? p/; illside R E 24TH ST\•,r 6 i'' m Wilson Av Wilson Ave m Cha eyFJ E > Coll ge %I A n a = ¢ A Banyan - Banyon St I X, . I A j 20th St 'iState Route r � i > w 19th St I I d I N ° Vict ria St I � CITY OF r UPLAND \` / 16th St Base Line Rd -kBase L e Q= Base Line Ave v: i. I / �k > ® Ch r S �a I \ e Jr / hurc„ S A: s a / Foothill Blvd r / /I°I W I ' ss Foothill Blvd � �/ Foothill Blvd 00 TF� Q Q Q Q• / > Q Q i CL cc 0 V wy 4-= Ar w H Epice ter o w / Arrow Hwy ' ) r \ 9th St \ Jersey BI • \ � Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railwa Metrolink Metrolink --- Station j ® 'E I I % !CITY OF d FONTANA 4th St�a°doh a /I 4th St - / I San Bernardino Ave a j /... �..—..--...� � CITY O F � � a Lu ONTARIO j j cc a E > ° ® /O II I w i Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 905 ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and Earth Consultants International 1999. „�� Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure PS -3: Geotechnical Hazards PS -17 i. Landslides r Potential for seismically -induced rockfall. Based on slope steepness and the presence of granitic boulders. RANcxo CUCAMONGA — Liquefaction Potential liquefaction areas. Groundwater is locally perched within 50 feet of the ground surface. Potential for regional seismic settlement ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and Earth Consultants International 1999. „�� Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure PS -3: Geotechnical Hazards PS -17 Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 906 Slopes - Slopes greater than 30% Recommended to remain as open space to reduce the potential for slope instability and debris flows. 1. - Slopes between 10%-30% Region where hillside design and grading guidelines should be implemented (see text)?. Slopes less than 10% No special hillside recommendations are required. ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Notes: 1. Slope steepness is based on regional mapping and specific sites near boundaries should be checked by the project engineer. 2. Refer to Rancho Cucamonga Development Code regarding slopes greater than 8% for hillside development regulations. Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2008 and Earth Consultants International, 2000. Miles „ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure PS -4: Slopes PS -19 San Gabriel Mountains / y J QAN BL,RN,A.,R.DIN0 NAT'kONAL F6 -----------� --t•1 -- —__�. - ----- San Antonio Heights 24TH ST 20th St C \2 CITY OF UPLAND 16th St Base Line Rd m a> N 7 Q E U 4th St 1 I ♦1 Foothill Blvd �I CIT Yj OF ONTARIO 1 Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Central Park Foothill Blvd IT itrolink Station Q Y 2 Page 907 R E S T Day 1 r 1 Canyon East Etiwanda Canyon 1 \ �. ,/ Sa Sevain ;\ �W I ` Canyon CITY OF "`• II I FONTAN Y d \� O IW\I dL Wilson Ave \mFa v I I 61, v a> d L U Base Line Ave N 1 r SPHERE OF INF .' U 7 , Deer' / N ' Canyon Foothill Blvd San Antonio Heights 24TH ST 20th St C \2 CITY OF UPLAND 16th St Base Line Rd m a> N 7 Q E U 4th St 1 I ♦1 Foothill Blvd �I CIT Yj OF ONTARIO 1 Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Central Park Foothill Blvd IT itrolink Station Q Y 2 Page 907 R E S T Day 1 r 1 Canyon East Etiwanda Canyon 1 \ �. ,/ Sa Sevain ;\ �W I ` Canyon CITY OF "`• II I FONTAN Y d \� O IW\I dL Wilson Ave \mFa v I I 61, v a> d L U Base Line Ave N 1 r V� , Qe N ' W Foothill Blvd 3 Arrow Hwy Lu Metrolink d a CITY OF L' ONTANA 1 1 San Bernardino Ave Flood Hazard Zones a Special Hazard Area (100 -year Floodplain) — 1% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard Area Moderate Hazard Area (500 -year Floodplain) 7� 0.2% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard Area RANCHO CUCAMONGA — Protected by Levee Minimum Hazard Area (500 -year Floodplain) Area Outside of 0.2% Annual Chance of Flood Hazard Base Map ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary -- Sphere of Influence Waterways Critical Facilties Elementary School Junior High/Middle School High School College Fire Station Sherrif's Station Sherrif's Sub -Station San Bernardino Government Facilities City Facilities Note: The National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) data used to create this map incorporates all Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) databases published by FEMA, and any Letters Of Map Revisions (LOMRs) that have been issued against those databases since their publication date.The published effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) and DFIRM maps are issued as the official designation of the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs). For official FIRM visit FEMA's Website: http://msc.fema.gov Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga, 2008 and Federal Emergency Management Agency, DFIRM published August 28, 2008. Miles „ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure PS -5: Flood Hazard Zones PS -23 San Antonio Heights 24TH ST 20th S r// 16th St 4th St Cucamonga Creek �- Debris Bas'in4 Base Line Rd San Gabriel Mountains V S A N B E\ R N AR D I N 0 N A T 1 0 N A L F Q R E S T Cucamonga Creek Inundation Area RANCHO CL E CUCAMONGA r — — — — — — — — — — -- 0cc - — -- — - . .... Day S X Canyon u S P H E R E 0 F I N F LIU DCe e r C'a n y on '00 0 ;e Deer Foothill Blvd East 66 I Debris Basin Debris Basin Canyon Day Cr Creek k Debris Basin Etiwanda Canyon Demen -am County Debris Basin Canyon/," A /a Th Epice ter '0' -5 Ar w 1-11%� Etiwanda San Antonio Heights 24TH ST 20th S r// 16th St 4th St Cucamonga Creek �- Debris Bas'in4 Base Line Rd CITY OF ONTARIO Alta Loma Basin Public Health and Safety RANCHO C U C A M O N G A GENERAL PLAN Debris Basin Wilson Ave San Sevaine Basins Central Park Base Line Ave LlW:i V Foothill Blvd Cucamonga Creek Inundation Area RANCHO CL E CUCAMONGA 500 -year Flood Zone Area Protected by Levee 0cc San Antonio Dam Inundation Area CITY OF ONTARIO Alta Loma Basin Public Health and Safety RANCHO C U C A M O N G A GENERAL PLAN Debris Basin Wilson Ave San Sevaine Basins Central Park Base Line Ave Page 908 San Sevaine Canyon I CITY OF IFONTANA LlW:i V Alta Loma Basin Inundation Area Cucamonga Creek Inundation Area RANCHO CUCAMONGA 500 -year Flood Zone Area Protected by Levee San Antonio Dam Inundation Area S 4Y, u Foothill Blvd Foothill Blvd 66 -am Th Epice ter '0' Arrow Hwy Ar w 1-11%� i Uj Jersey Bi d Burlington Northern Santa Fe Metrolink Metrolink Station !CITY OF FONTANA 4th St San Bernardino Ave AM r Page 908 San Sevaine Canyon I CITY OF IFONTANA ------ Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. 4 Miles Oi 0.25 0i5 1 1.5 2 Figure PS -6: Dam Inundation Hazards PS -27 Inundation Areas Dams/Catch Basins Alta Loma Basin Inundation Area Cucamonga Creek Inundation Area RANCHO CUCAMONGA 500 -year Flood Zone Area Protected by Levee San Antonio Dam Inundation Area ------ Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. 4 Miles Oi 0.25 0i5 1 1.5 2 Figure PS -6: Dam Inundation Hazards PS -27 San Gabriel Mountains \ / >AN B6RNA-RDIN0 NATIONAL F(�IREST .'l i \ Day >� \1 ► \ I 1 / Canyon I \ 1 -- S P H E R E O F I N F LI'I U \1 , Deer East �— % East / I l Canyon \, / Etiwanda \ j Canyon \ \ \ San 1� \ � \ ( I \ ;1 i \ �w \Sevaine Canyon County - C_ --�•-- \ \ \, \ �:--, I I '1 iF Canyor�y+1 Am dSt % \ \, \ �' I a/I CITY OF 1 I / �; \ — —zr \ FONTANA San i ' ;\ % nl a. I v�'•� x \"fig I Antonio i -.. e )•. I Heights ill i e illside R 24TH ST WilsonAv Wilson Ave •.F m \ Q i m E Call ge / I n an = aanyan - Banyon St �" x x j.. ♦y % ve 20th St `\• State Route 19th St /• , \ 1 1 % Q ° Yct ria It CITY OF / I t UPLAND �\ I a, 16th St Base Line Rd -, f • ase L 1' Base Line Ave U 1 2: 000 -hutch S Y I m s o`P��! %. ' 1 Foothill Blvd i !Q I Q. � w Foothill Blvd 66 Foothill Blvd e' > Q � > a % y Th v wy x x Ar w H F Epice ter o w Arrow Hwy •1 91th St I Jersey BI MOM_ Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway _ Metrolink I 1 `177---1, Metrolink 1 400 Station ` pfith 9I CITY OF LLONTANA m t c b F '� sa y ` 4th St 4th St II ♦ I San Bernardino Ave CITY OF hat I / v — --" m ONTARIO j a ° _ x ®' ;/c f/• a x \ I San Ber reewa Miles i „ 0 025 0.5 1 Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 909 Airspace Protection Areas FAA Height Notification Area (1) FAA Obstruction Surfaces (2) Base Layers ---- City Boundary --- Sphere of Influence Waterways Freeway Roads Railroads Notes (1) Based on FAR Part 77, Subpart B, which requires that the FAA be notified of any proposed construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending 100 feet outward and 1 foot upward (slope of 100 to 1) for a distance of 20,000 feet from nearest point of any runway. Beyond FAA Height Notification Area boundary, any object taller than 200 feet requires FAA notification. (2) FAR Part 77 Obstruction Surfaces: Based on FAR Part 77, Subpart C, which establishes standards for determining obstructions to air navigation. Highland Ave Source: Ontario General Plan, Figure LU -6: Airport Environs, 2009; Exhibit 1-7, Compatibility Factors: Airspace. Mead & Hunt, Inc. 2009. Figure PS -7: Airspace Protection Areas PS -31 4th St CITY OF ONTARIO Miles *0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Public Health and Safety RANCHO C U C A M O N G A GENERAL PLAN Metrolink 'CITY OF FONTANA I San Bernardino Ave Figure PS -9: my M LU Existing Noise San Bern Freeway Contours: 2009 Page 910 PS -41 jI San Gabriel Mountains Noise Contours SANiI B E\R N A -R D I N 0 N ATIO N A L F REST 70 dBA CNEL 65 dBA CNEL r____---_—_-- r - — -- — -- 60 dBA CNEL I1 I,J Day 55 dBA CNEL J, Canyon Freeway Noise Contours RANCHO S P H E R E 0 F I N F 11-11 U Deer\ East CUCAMONGA Canyon Etiwanda 70 dBA CNEL i Canyon San Sevaine r .... I L ---- 1 65 dBA CNEL P" Canyon [7- 60 dBA CNEL County Canyon/," AI�D�d St CITY OF 55 dBA CNEL 'aFON-TANA- San Base Map Antonio Heights illi 41i N -Ax OU City Boundary e� illside R i > r Z, Sphere of Influence :24TH ST Wilson Av Wilson Ave E Waterways — ------------------------------------ -- ----- -- ------------ ox Freeway CL Cha Roads CC. F-4 Coll e >Banyan 10 2 Banyon St Railroads t7t--L n v. Note: The CNEL contours on this map do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers 20!h St or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. f -T UlAor Source: Mestre Greve Associates, 2009. 7t, 0 %A, Vitfir CITY OF L , UPLAND - / 1� - ./ ---------- 16th St Base Line Rd 1V Park base L e Base Cine Ave L > AmEMEM F q/ L j tire Fi Jam~ Foothill Blvd Foothill Blvd U LU Foothill Blvd 66 CL E S The Fnirtp ter I I 'a r Arrow Hwy 4th St CITY OF ONTARIO Miles *0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Public Health and Safety RANCHO C U C A M O N G A GENERAL PLAN Metrolink 'CITY OF FONTANA I San Bernardino Ave Figure PS -9: my M LU Existing Noise San Bern Freeway Contours: 2009 Page 910 PS -41 jI San Gabriel Mountains \ `I i' l � Noise Contours 1 \• / SAN B iI R N A_!2 D I N G N A T Y O N A L F REST / /'' t 1 \. 70 dBA CNEL "�. % - �• 1 ' \ti / \. 65 dBA CNEL \ r____---_—_�i T —__—_ ���- •��.�� \j I�--lrt---�-•� 60 dBA CNEL j- • --•..I;\ I \•\ I I1 I,1 � �\ I r 1 i' '�_-�..�-''� '••,� \':j �'•, 55 dBA CNEL Day I \ 1 \`t I \ : Canyon RANCHO _�_ 1' r \ l__ J / •� I \ ! \, Freeway Noise Contours S P H E R E O F I N F LU Deer' ` ( East \ I CUCAMONGA \l Canyon\•, / Etiwanda 1 \ \ \ \ I LI 70 dBA CNEL %San �____I \ % Canyon \ / S va ne L----1 i *� �\ � ' \ '•.\ : '\ \ �: 65 dBA CNEL --------- '------_=-_--•-I-- - \ RQ?" 1 r Canyon L----1 60 dBA CNEL County - \ \•• \ \� • I I /'' Canyon/," A m d st / \ \ _ \ \ ��•, :I y %' 55 dBA CNEL 1 CITY OF _zl I FONTANA San \ iL I Base Map Antonio �,.•y'N ° \ 9 0 Iw' /��- ---- City Boundary Heights ,I 411ie >> yo II illside R \9 M�y �; / / --- Sphere of Influence 24TH sr 1� ~ / - - - - - - - WilsonAv - - - - T Wilson Ave -------- \- - o' �: / i•• - - - Waterways - - - \ �, - , a I I > lr, ♦')' i //�/� / Freeway ai' m e Cha ey / I 'a—Roads /// " = Coll e E 9 / - _ A / Railroads Sao�roo_SL-1 i I/ /® / If 40 �• I _ R r i ♦ / Note: The CNEL contours on this map do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers ------ 20th St i j - - 'date Route + ® t 1 or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. �4* �i�f � Source: Mestre Greve Associates, 2009. Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 911 PS -45 Burlington Northern Santa Fe ai wa \I -I I UPLAND \ sssN l etrolink Station i I % ♦ __I Centrale/%/ i 16th St Base Line Rd " Park base Lrie I j Base Line Ave I l l I ---------- .. __ FONTANA aye j I i t I 4th St4th Ch s l1 I l F1 San Bernardino Ave wee > - > >> ♦ /FFI � I CITY OF ay N �� Figure PS -10: ,� ONTARIO j j r d = Y J�j Foothill Blv � �I / 66 � // / / / W / F,Oothill Blvd a j` 10, Future Noise CLA i`• -♦ r d / / / c / v �wv Fr T / .------.,... Fn Pr6tar o i _ .I!/ �>�� Arrow Hwy Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 911 PS -45 Burlington Northern Santa Fe ai wa \I -I Metrolink sssN etrolink Station i I % __I 'E I l l I j CITY OF t FONTANA aye j I i t I 4th St4th StL l1 I l San Bernardino Ave wee > - > >> ♦ /FFI � I CITY OF ay N �� Figure PS -10: ,� ONTARIO j j r d = Y ® %`q% j a j` Future Noise -♦ - " Miles 'I I San Bern Freeway Contours: 2030 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 I Public Health and Safety RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 911 PS -45 San Gabriel Mountains f SAN B E\R N AR D I N 0 N A T 1 0 N A L F R E S T 4.1 ay Canyon 0 East Etiwanda Canyon San Sevaine Canyon County Canyon/` AImDnd St CITY OF FONTANA San Antonio Heights e A. I 11 T-1 ill 1 e R E Wilson Ave 24TH ST Wilson v P 20th St Resource Conservation RANCHO C U C A M O N G A GENERAL PLAN Page 912 Open Space and Conservation Areas Hillside Residential (0.1 to 2 du/ac) Conservation Open Space (0 to 0.1 du/ac) Flood Control/Utility Corridor Parks P Proposed Park Base Features ____ Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Note: 1. Some proposed parks sites are not parcel -specific as of 2009. Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. �mmmm] Miles 00 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure RGI: Open Space and Conservation Plan RC -5 ictoria St CITY OF UPLAND _LL 16th St Base Line Rd Base L e Base Line Ave b Ch r S o ,3rc s V ctj Foothill Blvd 66 LL, Foothill Blvd (j. wm Foothill Blvd L 66 W W m -a ---c c AFI-" j E cc c u Th wy -1 x Epice u o Arrow Hwy \ 9th St Jersey BI d Burlington Northern Santa Fe RallwaX PI Metrolink M -r— r J! 'E 6th S %CITY OF FONTANA r \ j > i 4th StAh St San Bernardino Ave --- — --- c i -- /�� I CITY OF /__< m W c ONTARIO o AM R Lu San B2Ea_WA Resource Conservation RANCHO C U C A M O N G A GENERAL PLAN Page 912 Open Space and Conservation Areas Hillside Residential (0.1 to 2 du/ac) Conservation Open Space (0 to 0.1 du/ac) Flood Control/Utility Corridor Parks P Proposed Park Base Features ____ Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Note: 1. Some proposed parks sites are not parcel -specific as of 2009. Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. �mmmm] Miles 00 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure RGI: Open Space and Conservation Plan RC -5 Resource Conservation RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 913 Aggregate Resource Sectors — A-4: Lytle Creek Fan — A-7: Lytle Creek Fan — C-1: Upper Cucamonga Fan C-2: Upper Cucamonga Fan D-1: Deer Creek Fan D-3: Deer and Day Creek Fans D-16: Day Creek Fan Location Outside Planning Area Built Over Sector Built Over By Development Base Features ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Note: Refer to Table RC -1 for Resource Sector Information. Source: California State Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Miles 00 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure RC -2: Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources RC -9 I \. f %I San Gabriel Mountains �•.-\ i^ SAN BE\RNA�RDINO NATX,ONAL F EST r-------------- \ ay Canyon SPHERE OF INFL'•U `l / p.� s Sot East Etiwanda \ t \,• / I �% Canyon \ `\ \ .,\ % San Sevaine \ �� Canyon Count •---------�-. --1—. ', - Canyon/ A m d St CITY OF FONTANA San Antonio Heights�I illi a C-2 p/: illside R 24TH ST 6 j " m Wilson Av Wilson Ave :m} \� U) - > a > a Cha ey v �Z �, E �' toll A-4 `9 n a = a = Banyan - I Banyon StTP \, = y n ve \I N i W 20th St `� State Ro r j' > ��• 19t St I � ° \A-7 \ Vict ria CITY OF \; UPLAND j 16th St Base Line Rd ' Base L eQ? Base Line Ave v: 01 � v• \ Ch r S eb gyp% hurch s 11! M s Foothill Blvd r /66 /I Foothill Blvd o f a / W I ' ,/ Foothill Blvd Q I `m a CL E I / Th v_ = Ar w H Epice ter o w % Arrow Hwy \ 4 9th St '\ Jersey Bh dj ton Northern Santa Fe RFF- ailwa \Burlin - I Metrolink Metrolink i Station m r i I a j % CITY OF T , FONTANA sd'ee 121 4th St 4th St I % I San Bernardino Ave j-- —----4 1w, A - - -- - -- c CITY OF a c ONTARIO j j a 0 > Y ° 414 Resource Conservation RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Page 913 Aggregate Resource Sectors — A-4: Lytle Creek Fan — A-7: Lytle Creek Fan — C-1: Upper Cucamonga Fan C-2: Upper Cucamonga Fan D-1: Deer Creek Fan D-3: Deer and Day Creek Fans D-16: Day Creek Fan Location Outside Planning Area Built Over Sector Built Over By Development Base Features ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Note: Refer to Table RC -1 for Resource Sector Information. Source: California State Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. Miles 00 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure RC -2: Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources RC -9 j i I I ♦♦♦ x♦ ,�' ♦�. ti % ,moi San Gabriel Mountains \. (♦♦�_-���j �, �� Upper Cucamonga' \--Canyon Watershed ; S ;JAI B R N A�l2\D I N O N A T 1, NAL F Q R E spay ; �,,,�. •--+�•♦ •.\ rI ---„.—� \, I ` I �.��>♦� I I Canyon 7 \ ",San rtS` aen- -S—eva-i"Watershed.Deer Canyon ♦-ne ai ♦% ? ,� �♦ \ -- ��T . , i , i Watershed %;I �. \,..t %♦ Watershed �, Can n ,♦ __ ♦ \ Lower �._. , ` `♦ .� j \ Cucamonga - S P HIE R E O F I N F L� U Deer 'h�� %” (' ��� East \• \ g / r �♦ `1 �1.c7DY4►� Etiwan \ Canyon _ r I ;/ % \, ( Canyon \, / San Watershed Etiwanda`. ♦`��'� Y S vain S `readiriyon `\, ••\ p .. g •�:-•� j San SevaineyCreek County _ Grounds �.: Spreading Canyo Am d Sq I ` \' ` ' Grounds j Cucamonga CITY OF �`�•- � •�•- � I �- F O N TA N A ♦ SanaI Y -, \.o.nio � Groundwateghts ill i e Basi nlside R W 9dTF1,Sf �,. ~ , ., / 1- wa��� n� , e Wilson Ave ,Cucamonga I % Spreading %Grounds 20th St /Cucamonga OF %Spreading D Ah St CITY OF ONTARIO Loma ,Turner,Basin Resource Conservation RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN 'Ch iho r'oundw /Basin Station JI I I Ah St Q Q V d x - r 1- ;reek Bas St Q> Victoria r Basin Base Line Ave ul �/ Foothill Blvd 3 / % w Arrow Hwy Metrolink I Q % CITY OF t `I FONTANA Etiwanda Creek Basin J, Foothill Blvd ; I w Q CL E W CITY OF ONTARIO Loma ,Turner,Basin Resource Conservation RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN 'Ch iho r'oundw /Basin Station JI I I Ah St Q Q V d x - r 1- ;reek Bas St Q> Victoria r Basin Base Line Ave ul �/ Foothill Blvd 3 / % w Arrow Hwy Page 914 San Sevaine Basin Groundwater Basins Chino Basin Cucamonga Basin Recharge Basins and Spreading Grounds ® Recharge Basins ® Spread ingGrounds -------- Watersheds Base Features ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Source: California Department of Water Resources, 1997 and California Resources Agency, 2006. „�� Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure RC -3: Water Resources RC -19 Metrolink I Q % CITY OF t `I FONTANA Etiwanda Creek Basin San Bernardino Ave I Q Page 914 San Sevaine Basin Groundwater Basins Chino Basin Cucamonga Basin Recharge Basins and Spreading Grounds ® Recharge Basins ® Spread ingGrounds -------- Watersheds Base Features ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Source: California Department of Water Resources, 1997 and California Resources Agency, 2006. „�� Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure RC -3: Water Resources RC -19 "I S P H E R E O F I N F LU 1 / I rf–�-4—A"m:dST7777, / San Antonio Heights 24TH ST 20th St 4th St CITY OF ONTARIO a' San Gabriel Mountains SAN BB.RN9.RDIN0 NAT't0N L F"f EST CITY OF A UPLAND 16th St Base Line Rd 1 1 CITY OF r�l 'FONTANA .1 Foothill Blvd --T w lw\ Q E Iz I v 4th St CITY OF ONTARIO a' San Gabriel Mountains SAN BB.RN9.RDIN0 NAT't0N L F"f EST Resource Conservation RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN St a I e Page 915 East wanda 3 UJ Ave 0 0 /1 San A o d � r Q x Resource Conservation RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN St a I e Page 915 East wanda 3 UJ Ave 0 0 /1 San Sevaine 1 Canyon 1 1 CITY OF 'FONTANA t� lw\ Iz I �I� I d a' z d U Base Line Ave �` N 1 W I j Foothill Blvd i 1 Arrow Hwy R Burlington Northern Santa Fe 1,1 Metrolink I I ICITY OF fONTANA I I San Bernardino Ave Conservation Areas CSA 120 Mitigation 0 Henderson Creek r . Lennar Preserve — North Etiwanda Preserve Rancho Etiwanda Mitigation (CSA 120) RANCHO CUCAMONGA San Sevaine Preserve 0 Spirit of the Sage 0 USFS Conservation Area 0 Existing Conservation Area ® Proposed EHNCP Preserve Proposed Conservation Area Habitat Areas ------- Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Habitat ------- Delh iSoils Area Boundary Base Map Features ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence San Bernardino National Forest _ — — — Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001; San Bernardino County North Etiwanda Preserve and County Service Area 120, 2008; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000; and San Bernardino County Museum. Note: The AFSS habitat extends beyond the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Area boundary and into adjacent jurisdictions. 0 P= 1 Miles 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure RC -4: Sensitive Biological Resources RC -31 Table 4.10-2 General Plan Consistency Analysis GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Goal LU -1: Ensure established residential neighborhoods are preserved and protected, and local and community - serving commercial and community facilities meet the needs of residents. Consistent. As discussed further below, the Plan would create a pattern of new planned neighborhoods in the NA that would complement the existing neighborhoods to the west, east, and south and further protect the neighborhoods to the west and east of the NA by creating new preserve areas and limiting the amount of development in the RCA. Policy LU -1.1 Protect neighborhoods from the Consistent. As discussed in the analysis presented in this encroachment of incompatible Draft EIR, there would not be any long-term local activities or land uses that mayhave impacts to the existing residential neighborhoods a negative impact on the residential located east, south and west of the NA (e.g., aesthetics, living environment. air quality, noise) associated with incompatible activities or land uses. The project proposes residential uses next to existing residential uses as well as preserving current open spaces adjacent to existing residential and open space uses. The proposed Plan includes a network of open space corridors in the NA that provide buffers from the existing neighborhoods. The permitted density of residential development in the new neighborhoods in the NA is consistent with the density of the adjacent neighborhoods to create a compatible pattern of land uses. The Plan would allow for the completion of the street network in the area and provide bicycle and pedestrian connections to new parks and trails in the Plan Area that would enhance the living environment in the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Policy LU -1.2 Designate appropriate land uses to Consistent. The Plan would allow for the development serve local needs and be able to of a range of single family detached and attached homes respond to regional market needs, intended to meet regional housing needs. The Plan as appropriate. would allow the limited development of shops and restaurant planned to meet the daily local needs of residents of the new neighborhood and the existing neighborhoods surrounding the NA. Policy LU -1.3 Encourage commercial centers that Consistent. The Plan would allow the limited serve a broad range of retail and development of shops and restaurant planned to meet service needs for the community. the daily local needs of residents of the new neighborhood and the existing neighborhoods surrounding the NA. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-1 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 916 4.10 Land Use and Planning GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Policy LU -1.5 Development of densities and Consistent, as amended. As discussed in Section 3, intensities shall be implemented Project Description, the proposed Plan involves a within the ranges specified in the General Plan Amendment including revisions to the General Plan; neither higher nor text, tables, and figures in the General Plan to allow the lower than the limits of the range. proposed intensity of development the Plan would allow in the NA. The Plan would be adopted as a Specific Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment and the adoption of the Plan as a Specific Plan are consistent with the General Plan as indicated by the General Plan Consistency analysis in this table. Policy LU -1.6 Encourage small -lot, single -unit Consistent. As proposed, the Plan would permit the attached and/or detached development of single -unit attached and/or detached residential development (5,200- residential homes in appropriate locations in the new square -foot lots or smaller) to neighborhoods in the NA. The residential densities locate in areas where this density allowed at the edges of the new neighborhoods are would be compatible with adjacent limited to be consistent and compatible with the residential neighborhoods. densities in the existing adjacent neighborhoods. Goal LU -2: Facilitate sustainable and attractive infill development that complements surrounding neighborhoods and is accessible to pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles. Consistent. As discussed further below, the Plan would create a pattern of new planned neighborhoods in the RCA that would complement the existing neighborhoods to the west, east, and south and establish a multi -modal on and off-street circulation system that would include connections to the existing neighborhoods around the NA. Policy LU -2.3 Provide direct pedestrian Consistent. A primary feature of the proposed Plan in connections between development the new neighborhoods in the NA is a pedestrian projects where possible. network that provides access throughout the Plan Area and also provides connections to the existing surrounding neighborhoods to facilitate pedestrian access to the open space, parks, public facilities, and neighborhood shops and restaurants the Plan would allow. Goal LU -3: Encourage sustainable development patterns that link transportation improvements and planned growth, create a healthy balance of jobs and housing, and protect the natural environment. Consistent. The Plan would include extending Wilson Avenue and extending and improving Rochester and Milliken Avenues, which would complete the City's street circulation network in this portion of the City. Additionally, the Plan would create the new Etiwanda Heights Preserve, reduce the amount of development allowed in the RCA, and establish a conservation strategy and transfer of development rights program to provide the opportunity for additional protection of the natural resources in the RCA. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-2 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 917 4.10 Land Use and Planning GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Policy LU -3.4 Promote development that is Consistent. The Plan would allow the development of sustainable in its use of land and that new neighborhoods in the NA on land no longer needed limits impacts to natural resources, for flood control purposes, establish a new Etiwanda energy, and air and water quality. Heights Preserve, immediately north of the NA, and implement the City's existing General Plan designations in the RCA by limiting the number of new homes allowed to 100 and establishing a Rural Zone that includes additional development standards that would supplement the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and other existing regulations. The Plan also includes a conservation strategy and transfer of development rights program, whereby development rights from the Conservation Area could be transferred to the Neighborhood Area as mutually beneficial to future developers of the NA and private property owners in the RCA. This program provides the opportunity for additional protection of the natural resources in the RCA. Policy LU -3.5 Work toward a sustainable jobs- Consistent. The Plan would allow for the development housing balance by accommodating of range of single family detached and attached homes a range and balance of land uses intended to help meet regional housing needs while also within Rancho Cucamonga. providing neighborhood -oriented retail commercial development that would generate local job opportunities that would contribute to the balance of jobs and housing in the City. Policy LU -3.6 Create focused, pedestrian -friendly Consistent. The Plan includes a Neighborhood Open neighborhoods that are reminiscent Space Framework Plan that defines a network of open of the qualities found in earlier spaces planned to define the character of the proposed days, particularly within the original neighborhoods. The design standards in the Plan will communities of Cucamonga, Alta result in the new neighborhoods in the NA being Loma, and Etiwanda, and along pedestrian oriented neighborhoods consistent with the Historic Route 66 (Foothill character found in the original community of Etiwanda. Boulevard). Policy LU -3.8 Implement land use patterns and Consistent. The proposed Plan includes a planned policies that incorporate smart network of open spaces and street designs that growth practices, including emphasize pedestrian movement and will create an placement of higher densities near integrated connected pedestrian network. transit centers and along transit corridors, allowing Mixed Use development, and encouraging and accommodating pedestrian movement. Policy LU -3.11 New development should be Consistent. The Plan would permit the development of permitted especially where it is new neighborhoods in the southern portion of the NA, logical to extend existing adjacent to existing neighborhoods with utilities that infrastructure improvements and can be extended to serve the new planned Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-3 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 918 4.10 Land Use and Planning GENERAL PLAN GOAL/POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS includes housing of varied densities. neighborhoods, as identified in Chapter 6, Infrastructure, in the Plan. COMMUNITY DESIGN Goal LU -8: Encourage visually attractive hillsides where the natural environment is protected, a sustainable level of development is ensured, and appropriate measures to protect against hazards are in place. Consistent. As discussed further below, the Plan limits residential development on private property in the RCA to a maximum of 100 units, establishing new development standards and review process for any new homes built in the RCA, and a conservation strategy and transfer of development rights program to provide the opportunity for additional protection of the natural resources in the RCA. Policy LU -8.1 Regulate development on Consistent. The Plan implements the natural slopes of eight percent existing General Plan land use designations grade or greater through the in the hillside areas in the RCA. The Rural City's Hillside Development Zone is sub -divided into 4 Sub -Zones that Ordinance. correspond with the existing General Plan Land Use designations: (1) Hillside (R -H), (2) Open Space (R -OS), (3) Flood Control/Utility Corridor (R-FC/UC), and (4) Conservation (R- Q. The intent of the Rural zone is open space with allowance for limited amounts of very low-density single-family housing on privately owned property in the RCA sited and designed to integrate into the existing rural landscape of the foothills. Grading is strictly minimized, roadways and buildings conform themselves to the natural terrain, buildings, landscaping and other site improvements are simple and rural in character and designed for fire resistance. These proposed standards would supplement the standards in the Hillside Development Ordinance, which would also apply, and a development review process would also be established for homes proposed on private property in the RCA to ensure the impacts of development of homes in the RCA are minimized. Policy LU -8.2 Approve only those residential Consistent. As evaluated in Section 4.14: densities that do not exceed the Public Services, the City and other public ability to reasonably provide agencies can provide the level of public public services and adequate services needed by the development that public safety. would be permitted by the Plan. In addition, the City has prepared a Fiscal Impact Analysis that shows the revenues generated on an annual basis will be sufficient to pay for the public services required. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-4 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 919 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy LU -8.3 Require adequate access for Consistent. The circulation master plan emergency vehicles and included in the Plan will complete the evacuations. circulation system in the area by extending and improving existing major streets that currently end at the NA including Wilson Avenue, Rochester Avenue, and Milliken Avenue. Completion of the circulation system with these improvements will provide access for emergency vehicles and evacuations for the new neighborhoods planned in the NA and enhance access in the existing surrounding neighborhoods. Policy LU -8.4 Prohibit extensive disturbances Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis and scarring of ridgelines and for Policy LU -8.1. The development other distinctive landforms in the standards for the Rural Zone in the Plan will hillsides. minimize grading in hillside areas in the RCA. The Plan would concentrate development in new neighborhoods in the NA in a portion of the Plan Area with slopes under 10% that do not contain any distinctive landform features, such as ridgelines. Policy LU -8.5 Protect natural resources and Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis sensitive habitat areas, and avoid for Policies LU -3.4 and 8.1. The Plan encroachment from new hillside implements the existing General Plan land development. use designations for the RCA, which are protective of the natural resources and sensitive habitat areas in the hillside areas. The Plan also limits the number of new homes to 100 in the RCA and establishes a conservation strategy and transfer of development rights program to provide the opportunity for additional protection of the natural resources in the RCA. Policy LU -8.6 Require that hillside Consistent. The Plan would limit grading for development minimize alteration development of new homes in the RCA and of natural landforms, and requires the clustering of new rural homes encourage clustering where into a homesite when more than one home feasible to retain maximum open is proposed on an existing parcel, or space. combined from multiple parcels in a cooperative development arrangement. This standard complements an amendment the City will be processing to the Hillside Residential zone to allow clustering. The intent of the Rural Zone is to permit limited amounts of very low-density single-family housing that is gently integrated into the existing rural landscape of the foothills. No mass grading will be permitted for homes built on private property in the RCA. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-5 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 920 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy LU -8.7 Blend hillside development with Consistent. The Regulating Rural Zone natural surroundings through development standards for the Hillside (R -H) architecture and the use of and Open Space (R -OS) subzones appropriate construction supplement the protection provided by the materials, colors, and natural City's Hillside Development Ordinance to vegetation ensure the limited amount of rural residential development allowed by the Plan in the RCA will blend with the natural surroundings. Policy LU -8.8 Provide conveniently located Consistent. The Plan includes a trail master places to experience nature in plan with connections to the new the northerly reaches of the neighborhoods in the NA with trailheads to Planning Area, particularly provide convenient access for residents of through trail extensions and the new planned neighborhoods and educational programs. existing adjacent neighborhoods. The Plan would implement the City's existing General Plan, including the Master Plan of Trails, in the RCA. Policy LU -8.9 Restrict intensive uses and Consistent. The Plan limits development in activities in areas where they the RCA to a maximum of 100 units on would be threatened by natural private property in the RCA and will create a or man-made hazards. compact pattern of development of new neighborhoods in the southern portion of the NA with a defined defensible development edge at the northern edge of these neighborhoods to minimize wildfire risk. Policy LU -8.10 Hillside development shall be Consistent. The Plan includes customized controlled by customized regulations for the Hillside (R -H) and Open regulations. Space (R -OS) subzones in the Rural Zone in the RCA to supplement the City's Hillside Development Ordinance. Goal LU -9: Foster a cohesive, healthy community through appropriate patterns and scales of development, including complementary transitions between districts, neighborhoods, and land uses. Consistent. As discussed further below, the Plan would define a compact pattern of new neighborhoods in the NA scaled and designed within an open space network, including buffers with existing surrounding neighborhoods and uses. Policy LU -9.2 Integrate districts and Consistent. The Plan will integrate new neighborhoods into the overall neighborhoods in the NA with the existing City structure and image. surrounding neighborhoods by connecting existing streets through the Plan Area and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle access. The density of development permitted at the edges of the new planned neighborhoods is also regulated to match the density of the adjacent existing neighborhoods to integrate the new and existing neighborhoods. The Plan also Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-6 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 921 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-7 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 922 provides enhanced streetscape designs for the streets designated as Special Boulevards in the General Plan. Policy LU -9.3 As the City revitalizes areas Consistent. The Plan will establish the new through redevelopment and infill Etiwanda Heights Preserve immediately development, provide a north of the NA and includes a network of transition between the open spaces in the new planned developed and natural (unbuilt) neighborhoods to provide linkages and a environment through transition to the hillside open space areas in landscaping techniques, open the RCA. The plan also limits the amount of space linkages, preservation of residential development in the RCA and landforms, sensitive site includes development standards for the RCA planning, architectural design, that will preserve the existing hillside and public art. landforms. Goal LU -10: Encourage sustainable landscaping and streetscape design. Policy LU -10.3 Promote low water usage, and Consistent. The landscape design guidelines emphasize fire -safe defensible in the Plan limit turf and high-water demand space. plants. Additionally, appropriate building separations would be provided consistent with the building code to promote defensible space. The Plan would establish an open space framework in the new neighborhoods in the RCA that would establish an open space buffer at the northern edge of the NA that would create a wildland fire defensible space. Policy LU -10.4 Encourage streetscape design Consistent. The Plan includes streetscape and landscaping programs for design standards for the neighborhood commercial frontages that create shops and restaurants district that includes vibrant places which support a multi-purpose/equestrian trail along the walking, bicycling, transit, and south side of Wilson Street in front of the sustainable economic shops, and courtyards and paseos development. connecting from Wilson Street through to the parking lots behind commercial uses in this district. Goal LU -11: Ensure that community aesthetics are maintained through appropriate regulations. Policy LU -11.2 Continue to require the Consistent. The Plan requires that all new undergrounding of utility lines and existing utility service lines will be and facilities wherever feasible placed underground as feasible, to the to minimize the unsightly extent allowed by the utility companies. appearance of overhead utility lines and utility enclosures. Goal LU -12: Foster a variety of travel routes that are enjoyable ways to experience Rancho Cucamonga. Consistent. As discussed further below, the Plan includes a multi -modal transportation network and streetscape design standards that will create a variety of enjoyable travel routes through the Plan Area. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-7 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 922 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy LU -12.1 Ensure that streetscape design Consistent. Chapter 5, Development along roadways creates a strong Standards and Design Guidelines in the Plan landscaped edge, provides a includes streetscape designs for streets in coherent high-quality the new neighborhoods in the NA consistent appearance along each route, with this policy. and enhances the image of adjacent development. Policy LU -12.3 Support development projects Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis that are designed to facilitate for Policy LU -3.8. The Plan includes a convenient access for comprehensive multi -modal circulation pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and plan. automobiles. Goal LU -13: Take full advantage of view lines and vista points with carefully designed development. Policy LU -13.1 On north -south roadways, open Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.1: space corridors, and other Aesthetics, the network of open spaces locations where there are views included in the Plan, the streetscape design of scenic resources, trees, and concepts and standards, and the structures, encourage framing development standards would result in and orientation of such views at framing views from Wilson Avenue, which is key locations, and endeavor to designated as a scenic corridor in the keep obstruction of views to a General Plan and would not substantially minimum. obstruct views from scenic corridors and special boulevards designated in the General Plan. Goal LU -14: Support public art as an important amenity of a beautiful City. Consistent. As discussed below, the Plan is consistent with this goal, which is not applicable to single-family residential development. Policy LU -14.2 Continue to promote the Consistent. The Plan includes master establishment of entry streetscape designs that will include entry monumentation as a means of monumentation. identifying communities, districts, and neighborhoods. COMMUNITY MOBILITY Goal CM -1: Provide an integrated and balanced multi -modal transportation network of Complete Streets to meet the needs of all users and transportation modes. Consistent. As described below, the Plan would create a multi -modal network of complete streets consistent with this goal. Policy CM -1.1 Provide a safe and efficient street Consistent. The Plan includes a system in the City to support comprehensive multi -modal circulation plan mobility goals, all transportation in the NA that will facilitate all modes of modes, and the goals of the travel and through connections to the Managing Land Use, Community existing surrounding neighborhoods, Design, and Historic Resources improve bicycle and pedestrian access for Chapter. these neighborhoods. The extension of Wilson Avenue through the Plan Area and the improvement and extension of Milliken Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-8 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 923 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-9 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 924 and Rochester Avenues will also complete the circulation network in the foothill neighborhood area, which will enhance both the safety and efficiency of the existing circulation system. Transit service is currently provided on Banyan Street in the southwest corner of the planning area. The street designs in the Plan for Banyan Street and Wilson, Rochester, and Milliken Avenues would also accommodate transit service. Policy CM -1.2 Provide an integrated network of Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis roadways that provides for for Policy CM -1.1. convenient automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation movement around the City. Policy CM -1.3 Complete the circulation system Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis by constructing new roadway for Policy CM -1.1 facilities and freeway interchanges pursuant to the Circulation Plan (Figure CM -2). Policy CM -1.5 Implement street design Consistent. The Plan includes street design standards. Modified standards standards on arterial streets in the Plan Area may be applied where to accommodate all travel modes and appropriate on arterial corridors reinforce the structure of new relating to transit, bicycle neighborhoods and districts that would be facilities, sidewalks, and on- established by the Plan. street parking to be context sensitive to adjacent land uses and districts, and to all roadway users, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Goal CM -2: Plan, implement, and operate transportation facilities to support healthy and sustainable community objectives. Consistent. As described below, the Plan would create a multi -modal transportation network consistent with this goal. Policy CM -2.1 Facilitate bicycling and walking Consistent. The Plan would enhance citywide. bicycling and walking by providing pedestrian and bicycle connections to the existing surrounding neighborhoods and trail connections to provide access to appropriate locations in the RCA. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-9 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 924 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy CM -2.2 Encourage all feasible measures Consistent. While the Plan would increase to reduce total vehicle miles the total amount of VMT in the City, the VMT traveled by automobiles, analysis provided in Section 4.15: including enhanced transit access Transportation, concludes the mix of uses and land use approaches that the Plan would allow and the configuration provide compact and focused development along major transit of the new neighborhoods would reduce corridors. VMT in comparison to the average for the City and surrounding area. Transit service is currently provided on Banyan Street in the southwest corner of the planning area. The street designs in the Plan for Banyan Street and Wilson, Rochester, and Milliken Avenues would also accommodate transit service and a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the NA would facilitate access to transit services. By providing a balance mix of uses and a multi -modal transportation network, the Plan would accommodate growth in the City while minimizing the total VMT in the City. Goal CM -3: Provide a transportation system that includes connected transit, bicycle, and pedestrian networks. Policy CM -3.7 Continue to develop and Consistent. The proposed Plan includes a maintain a citywide bicycle comprehensive master -planned network of network of off-street bike paths, streets, sidewalks, bike paths and trails that on -street bike lanes, and bike will connect the existing surrounding and streets to provide connections new residential neighborhoods to the parks between neighborhoods, and open spaces, neighborhood shops and schools, parks, civic restaurants, K-8 school and other public center/facilities, recreational facilities in the Plan Area. facilities, and major commercial centers. Policy CM -3.8 Continue to encourage the Consistent. All individual development provision of bicycle facilities, projects in the Plan Area will be required to such as bicycle lockers and secure provide bicycle facilities in accordance with bike parking, throughout the the City's standards. City. Policy CM -3.10 Continue to complete the Consistent. The Plan includes an extensive installation of sidewalks and system of sidewalks and trails to serve require new development to residents of the new planned provide sidewalks neighborhoods and also provide connections to the existing surrounding neighborhoods. Sidewalks are required on Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-10 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 925 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-11 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 926 both sides of streets in all zones that would be established by the Plan, unless the street only has home on one side of the street, in which case a sidewalk is required on that side of the street. In the Neighborhood Estates zone, sidewalks are required on one side of the street and a multi-purpose trail is required on the other side of the street. Policy CM -3.11 Continue to require pedestrian Consistent. The streetscape design amenities on sidewalks on major standards included in Chapter 5, streets that are key pedestrian Development Standards & Design routes, including the provision of Guidelines, of the Plan include pedestrian benches, shade trees, and trash amenities along both major and cans. neighborhood streets, with specific focus on providing pedestrian amenities in the neighborhood Shops and Restaurant zone, including mid -block paseos and crosswalks to provide easy access to parking lots behind the shops, and encourage visitors to shop both sides of the street. The sidewalks provide room for street furnishings and cafe dining areas. Pervious curbside parking lanes with in -street planters will further soften the streetscape and provide additional shade and enclosure. Policy CM -3.12 Continue to require that the Consistent. The development framework siting and architectural design of that would be established by the Plan new development promotes includes an emphasis on creating a network safety, pedestrian -friendly of pedestrian facilities in the plan area that design, and access to transit would promote safety in the new facilities. neighborhoods and neighborhood shops and restaurants district. The network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the NA would facilitate access to existing transit service on Banyan Street and any newtransit route service that may be provided in the future on Wilson, Rochester, and Milliken Avenues in the Plan Area. Goal CM -4: Maximize the operational efficiency of the street system. Consistent. The Plan would maximize the operational efficiency of the existing street system by extending and improving major arterial streets thought the Plan Area and mitigating the impacts of the project on the City's street system. Policy CM -4.2 Continue to design and operate Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.15: arterials and intersections for the Transportation, improvements have been safe operation of all modes of identified to mitigate project impacts; and transportation, including transit, the project would pay its fair share for bicyclists, and pedestrians. cumulative impacts, as applicable; and would pay the required city-wide Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-11 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 926 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-12 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 927 transportation development impact fees. Goal CM -5: Require that new development mitigate transportation impacts and contribute to the improvement of the City's transportation system. Consistent. The impacts of the Plan on the City's Transportation System will be mitigated. Policy CM -5.1 Continue to require that new Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.15: development participates in the Transportation/Traffic, the Property cost of transportation mitigation Owner/Developer would be required to and improvements necessitated implement certain roadway improvements by new development, including to mitigate project impacts; would pay its non- automobile solutions. fair share for cumulative impacts, as applicable; and would pay the required city- wide transportation development impact fees. Policy CM -5.2 Require evaluation of potential Consistent. A Traffic Impact Analysis has traffic and transportation been prepared for the project, and is impacts associated with new summarized in Section 4.15: development prior to project Transportation/Traffic. In addition to multi - approval, and require adequate modal circulation facilities included as part mitigation measures, including of the proposed Plan, mitigation measures non -automobile solutions prior are identified to reduce potentially to, or concurrent with, project significant impacts. development. Policy CM -5.3 Require that new and Consistent. An existing transit route passes substantially renovated office, through the southwest corner of the Plan retail, industrial, and multi -family Area on Banyan Street. The Plan provides for developments implement transit the provision of transit amenities if transit amenities, including bus service is expanded to other major streets in turnouts, transit shelters, and the Plan Area. other streetscape elements, as appropriate. Policy CM -5.4 Require that new and Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis substantially renovated office, for Policy CM -1.1. The Plan includes a retail, industrial, institutional and comprehensive multi -modal circulation plan multi -family developments in the NA that will facilitate all modes of include bicycle and pedestrian travel and through connections to the amenities on site and/or in the existing surrounding neighborhoods, vicinity of the development to improve bicycle and pedestrian access for facilitate bicycling and walking, these neighborhoods. Sidewalks are including on-site bike paths required on both sides of streets in all zones where appropriate, secure off- that would be established by the Plan, unless street bicycle parking, sidewalk the street only has home on one side of the improvements, and benches. The street, in which case a sidewalk is required City will encourage such on that side of the street. In the Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-12 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 927 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-13 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 928 developments to provide bicycle Neighborhood Estates zone, sidewalks are facilities including showers and required on one side of the street and a changing rooms. multi-purpose trail is required on the other side of the street. The Plan requires new parking areas to accommodate convenient access and parking for bicycles. Bicycle lanes are also required on Milliken Avenue, Rochester Avenue, and Wilson Avenue in the Plan Area and all streets meeting the Neighborhood Avenue 2 street design as defined in the Plan. Policy CM -5.6 Evaluate proposed parking and Consistent. A new school site is identified circulation plans for new school north of Wilson Avenue near the center of sites, and coordinate with school the new neighborhoods that would be districts to provide for safe established by the Plan. This school is pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular bordered on the west by the Central access to and around schools. Greenway and the street design for Wilson Avenue includes a wide landscaped parkway to create an attractive pedestrian and bicycle environment. Goal CM -6: Coordinate with other jurisdictions on regional transportation issues. Consistent. As described below, the Plan is consistent with applicable regional plans. Policy CM -6.3 Maintain consistency with the Consistent. Consistency with South Coast Air South Coast Air Quality Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Management District air quality requirements is discussed in Section 4.2: Air mandates, SANBAG's Congestion Quality. Consistency with the Congestion Management and Nexus Management Plan (CMP) and payment of Programs, and SCAG's Regional required fees to address regional Mobility Plan requirements. transportation needs is discussed in Section 4.15: Transportation. Consistency with SCAG's 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals is discussed above in Table 4.10-1. The VMT analysis provided in Section 4.15: Transportation, concludes the mix of uses the Plan would allow and the configuration of the new neighborhoods would reduce VMT in comparison to the average for the City and surrounding area. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Goal ED -1: Achieve and maintain a diverse and sustainable economic base. Consistent. The Plan would add to the range of housing opportunities available in the City served by neighborhood shops and restaurants that would meet the daily needs of residents of the area. Policy ED -1.4 Create opportunities for Consistent. The Plan would establish a residents and workers to have Regulating Neighborhood Shops and local access to the full range of Restaurant zone at the intersection of retail needs in appropriate areas Wilson and Rochester Avenues planned to throughout the City. meet the daily needs of residents of the new Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-13 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 928 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-14 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 929 planned neighborhoods and adjacent neighborhoods. Policy ED -1.5 Support housing opportunities Consistent. The Plan would allow for workers of all income ranges. development of a range of single family attached and detached homes. Goal ED -2: Maintain local long-term fiscal sustainability. Policy ED -2.2 Diversify the City's retail base. Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis for Policy ED -1.4. The Plan includes a neighborhood -oriented Shops and Restaurants zone. Goal ED -3: Continue to emphasize quality as a core community value as it applies to local workers and residents. Consistent. The Plan would create new neighborhoods with a high level of open space amenities and a multi- modal transportation network. Policy ED -3.2 Provide community and cultural Consistent. The Plan would provide a range amenities. of community and cultural amenities including an open space and trail network, a range of parks, new school, and also allow the development of a new community facility in the Shops and Restaurant zone. Policy ED -3.4 Improve internal circulation for Consistent. The street designs included in all modes of transportation, Chapter 5, Development Standards & Design consistent with the concept of Guidelines, in the Plan, provide for all modes "Complete Streets." of travel, including not only pedestrians, bicycles, automobiles, transit vehicles, but also equestrians in certain areas of the plan. Goal ED -4: Implement consistent high-quality standards for all future development. Consistent. The Plan would establish high-quality development standards as discussed below. Policy ED -4.3 Improve connectivity between Consistent. The Plan includes the extension development projects to create a of Wilson Avenue through the Plan Area and more cohesive atmosphere. the improvement and extension of Milliken and Rochester Avenues, which will connect the neighborhoods surrounding the NA. The Plan also includes an open space, trail and street network that would knit together new development in the NA creating a cohesive atmosphere. COMMUNITY SERVICES Goal CS -1: Provide attractive, high-quality community services facilities that adequately meet the community's need. Consistent. The Plan would provide an amount of parkland that exceeds the City's standard and would configure this parkland in a variety of park types. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-14 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 929 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy CS -1.1 Provide adequate park and Consistent. Based on the projected recreational facilities that meet population of 9,090 for the Plan, the City standard of 5.0 acres of approximately 44 acres of parkland would parkland (including trails and be required. The Plan includes special facilities) for every 1,000 approximately 85 acres of parkland, persons. including 33 acres of neighborhood parks, 45.5 acres of community park area and 7 acres of park area in neighborhood greens. Policy CS -1.2 Develop parks that contribute to Consistent. The Plan would provide a wide active and healthy lifestyles, and range of park facilities, including a allow for a balanced Community Park with sports fields at the commitment to both organized intersection of Banyan Street and Rochester recreation activities and passive Avenue, neighborhood parks and smaller park environments. open space areas throughout the new planned neighborhoods in the NA, a network of open space corridors with trails in the NA and trails consistent with the General Plan Trail Master Plan in the RCA. Policy CS -1.5 Continue to require new Consistent. Parks will be provided as development to provide needed identified in the Plan as part of the park facilities through the various development of the planned residential measures and tools available to neighborhoods. the City (e.g., in -lieu fees and/or land dedication). Policy CS -1.7 Encourage public safety and Consistent. The Plan locates the planned compatibility with adjacent uses community park at Banyan Street and through park location and design, Rochester Avenue to facilitate access from including the location of the new planned neighborhoods and buildings, lighting, parking, public existing neighborhoods surrounding the NA. transit, emergency access, and The new neighborhoods have been planned pedestrian/bicycle access. around the open space and park network to ensure both access and compatibility. Policy CS -1.8 Continue to build, renovate, and Consistent. Refer to the consistency analysis maintain parks in a manner that for Policy CS -1.1. is environmentally sustainable. Policy CS -1.9 Develop intermediate sized (10- Consistent. Community playfields would be 12 acre) parks with lighted provided in the park located on the athletic fields and appropriate southwest corner of Rochester Avenue and parking to accommodate Banyan Street. community sports programs. Goal CS -6: Provide a safe, comprehensive network of interconnecting off-road trails with amenities that connect neighborhoods, parks, schools, open space, employment areas, retail services, other activity areas, and areas outside the City. Consistent. The Plan includes a network or off-road trails as described below. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-15 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 930 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy CS -6.1 Provide a comprehensive, Consistent. The Plan includes an extensive interconnected off-road trail system of trails to serve residents of the new system that provides alternative planned neighborhoods in the NA and also mobility choices throughout the provide connections to the existing entire City and increases surrounding neighborhoods. These trails connectivity. provide connections to neighborhood and community parks and the K-8 school site. Connections to trails in the RCA are also provided. Policy CS -6.2 Connect trails in Rancho Consistent. The Plan includes connections to Cucamonga to trails in the San trails in the RCA and a park at the northeast Bernardino National Forest and corner of the NA that will provide a other hillside open space areas. trailhead. The trail plan in the Plan is These trails shall include designed to provide access through the RCA trailheads with vehicle parking to connect to appropriate trails in the and other amenities. National Forest while not providing additional access to preserve areas, including the North Etiwanda Preserve, in order to balance recreational and conservation goals for the Conservation Area. Policy CS -6.3 Continue to incorporate, where Consistent. The Plan Area includes existing feasible, regional and community utility corridors. The Plan incorporates trails trails along utility corridors and in these corridors into the trail plan. drainage channels. Policy CS -6.4 Continue to maintain and pursue Consistent. The trail plan in the Plan includes the development of planned trails suitable for equestrian use. trails and facilities for equestrian use within the Equestrian/Rural Area designation. Policy CS -6.6 Require new development to Consistent. The Plan includes a network of provide access to adjacent trails trails in the NA that will provide a variety of and provide appropriate trail amenities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and amenities (e.g., benches, equestrians. drinking fountains, hitching posts, bike stands, and other amenities) for all new projects located adjacent to regional or community trails. Goal CS -7: Encourage healthy lifestyles for all Rancho Cucamonga residents. Policy CS -7.1 Consider all opportunities to Consistent. The open space plan in the Plan, encourage community gardens defines a range of park and open space areas and similar community gathering that will serve as community gathering places. places. The Plan would also establish a community garden area in the utility corridor on the eastern edge of the Plan Area between Wilson Avenue and Banyan St. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-16 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 931 4.10 Land Use and Planning RESOURCE CONSERVATION Goal RC -1: Encourage stewardship of natural open space areas, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural resources. Consistent. As described below, the Plan would limit development and maximize the preservation of natural open space areas and environmentally sensitive lands within the RCA as defined in the Plan. Policy RC -1.2 Develop measures to preserve Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.1: and enhance important views Aesthetics, the network of open spaces along north -south roadways, included in the Plan, the streetscape design open space corridors, and at concepts and standards, and the other key locations where there development standards would result in are significant views of scenic framing views from Wilson Avenue, which is resources. designated as a scenic corridor in the General Plan and would not substantially obstruct views from scenic corridors and special boulevards designated in the General Plan. Policy RC -1.3 Protect visually prominent Consistent. The Plan would limit natural landforms and other development of neighborhoods to the NA, sensitive land resources of between existing neighborhoods and limit citywide significance through development in the RCA to 100 rural homes measures such as design on private property. The Plan would standards, hillside grading establish a Rural Zone in the RCA with controls, and suitable land use additional development standards to designations as documented in supplement the City's Hillside Development the Managing Land Use, Standards to preserve the existing visual Community Design, and Historic character of the RCA. The Plan includes a Resources Chapter of this Conservation Incentive TDR Program General Plan. allowing for the voluntary transfer of residential density from privately -owned properties in the RCA to the NA in exchange for financial or other negotiated compensation to the RCA property owner. The number of units that could be developed on the RCA parcel considering the maximum density allowed based on the zone, slope, and other environmental constraints (e.g., fault zone, wildfire and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI), riparian or streambed environs, flood zone, etc.) will be the basis of the development rights transfer under the TDR program. Goal RC -3: Support the use of water that is both efficiently consumed and recycled to minimize waste and maximize supplies. Consistent. As described below, the Plan will facilitate the efficient use of water. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-17 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 932 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy RC -3.1 Require the use of cost-effective Consistent. The Plan Area incorporates methods to conserve water in progressive techniques in water conservation new developments, and promote technology and practices through careful appropriate water conservation planning and thoughtful design and engineering and efficiency measures for by promoting on-site infiltration. existing businesses and residences. Goal RC -4: Encourage the use of energy resources that are efficiently expended and obtained from diverse and sustainable sources, in an effort to minimize greenhouse gas and other air emissions. Consistent. As described below, the Plan will create and land use pattern the reduces the effects of development on energy resources. Policy RC -4.4 Reduce operational energy Consistent. The Plan would create an requirements through interconnected multi -model circulation sustainable and complementary network in the new neighborhoods in the land use and circulation planning. NA. These neighborhoods would include a Support implementation of State variety of parks and open space areas along mandates regarding energy with a new K-8 neighborhood school and a consumption and greenhouse neighborhood shops and restaurant district gas reduction, including AB 32 scaled to meet the day to day needs of and SB 375. residents for commercial services and recue the need to travel to other areas of the City to access these services. The VMT analysis provided in Section 4.15: Transportation, concludes the mix of uses the Plan would allow and the configuration of the new neighborhoods would reduce VMT in comparison to the average for the City and surrounding area. Goal RC -7: Protect aggregate mining resources that are sustainably mined and managed, and that minimize impacts to surrounding areas. Consistent. As described below, the Plan is consistent with the current General Plan policies related to aggregate resources. Policy RC -7.1 Consider the community value Consistent. The Plan Area primarily consists and benefit of designated of an alluvial fan formed by Day and Deer regionally significant aggregate Creeks that contains sand and gravel resources prior to approving any designated as valuable mineral resources. such designated lands for other The NA includes a closed sand and gravel types of development mine. Consistent with the designation of regionally significant aggregate resources in the Deer and Day Creek Fans, the Plan would permit, subject to additional environmental review and the issuance of permits, consistent with Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, within the Deer Creek and Day Creek Alluvial Fans, sectors D-1 and D-6, as shown in Figure RC -2 in the Resource Conservation Chapter of the General Plan. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-18 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 933 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy RC -7.3 Ensure effective restoration of Consistent. The Plan incorporates a closed expended mining sites in a sand and gravel mine and the concept manner that is aesthetically grading plan provides for recontouring the attractive. mine site to make it suitable for residential development. Policy RC -7.4 Where the City has determined Consistent. The City will coordinate with the that urban use is a priority over State Mining and Geology Board to update the preservation of potential the SMARA maps to remove sector D-3, sites for aggregate recovery, the which includes the NA, as shown in Figure City will consider seeking the RC -2 in the Resource Conservation Chapter removal of such areas from of the General Plan. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) maps. Goal RC -8: Protect wildlife habitats that support various plants, mammals and other wildlife species. Consistent. As described below, a primary objective of the Plan is to preserve the higher quality habitat areas in the RCA. The Plan reduces the development potential in the RCA, and includes a Conservation Plan in Chapter 3 of the Plan that proposes three new preserve areas and a voluntary Transfer of Development Rights Program to further reduce the amount of development in the RCA. Policy RC -8.1 Preserve the integrity of riparian Consistent. A primary objective of the Plan habitat areas, creek corridors, is to preserve higher quality habitat areas in Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage the RCA, including riparian habitat areas, Scrub, bogs, and sensitive wildlife creek corridors, and Riversidian Alluvial Fan habitat that supports biological Sage Scrub present in the RCA, by resources. concentrating new development in a compact neighborhood pattern in the southern portion of the Plan Area on degraded habitat located between existing neighborhoods The Plan also limits development in the RCA and includes a conservation strategy and transfer of development rights program to provide the opportunity for additional protection of the natural resources in the RCA.. Policy RC -8.2 Consult with San Bernardino Consistent. The City consulted with other County and other agencies to public agencies throughout the planning support the preservation of process for the Plan, including San streamside woodland areas Bernardino County, to develop the Plan. A along the foothills of the San primary objective of the Plan is to preserve Gabriel Mountains, including the higher quality habitat areas in the RCA by North Etiwanda Preserve. focusing urban development in the lower habitat areas in the NA. Policy RC -8.3 Utilize innovative measures that Consistent. The Plan includes a conservation will allow the expansion of and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) sensitive biological preserve strategy formulated to preserve land in the areas (e.g., North Etiwanda RCA to complement these existing preserve Preserve, Day Creek Preserve, areas. and San Sevaine Preserve) and other important habitat areas. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-19 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 934 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-20 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 935 Policy RC -8.4 Acquire and/or protect open Consistent. A primary objective of the Plan space areas that provide is to preserve open space areas in the RCA, strategic wildlife corridors and which also would preserve areas for wildlife vital connectivity between movement in the foothills. habitat areas. Policy RC -8.6 Consult with the Fire District, San Consistent. The City consulted with the Fire Bernardino County, and State District during the planning process for the agencies to develop plans that Plan. The Plan would establish a compact protect open space from fire neighborhood development pattern in the hazards. NA that would replace open space areas that pose an existing fire hazard to the surrounding neighborhoods. The new neighborhoods would have an open space buffer along the edge of the neighborhoods that would create a defensible boundary in the event of wildfire events. Additionally, a Master Fire Protection Plan will be created for the Plan Area and neighborhood specific fire protections plan will be developed as the NA is constructed as proposed by the phasing plan. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE Goal PF -1: Provide state-of-the-art public and community facilities that support existing programs, accommodate future needs, and are accessible to all members of the community. Consistent. The Plan provides a range of community facilities, including neighborhood parks, a community park with sports fields, a comprehensive network of trails, and a multi-purpose community facility in the Wilson Square neighborhood shops and restaurant district. Policy PF -1.2 Promote community facilities as Consistent. The open space framework plan focal points for gatherings, in the Plan includes a range of park areas in events, and celebrations. the NA that would provide focal points for events. The Plan also allows a Community Facility in the Neighborhood Shops and Restaurants zone. Goal PF -2: Improve access for all Rancho Cucamonga residents to high quality educational opportunities that satisfy each individual's needs, desires, and potential. Consistent. The Plan provides for new school facilities and would create new neighborhoods that are compatible with existing schools. Policy PF -2.2 TCo7nsiicder the needs of the school Consistent. The Plan includes a site for a istrts that serve Rancho new K-8 Etiwanda School District school and Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-20 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 935 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-21 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 936 Cucamonga in future planning includes linear parks and greens along the and development activities. perimeter of the adjacent Los Osos High School to ensure the new neighborhood development is compatible with this existing school. Goal PF -6: Provide adequate and reliable wastewater collection and treatment facilities to meet current and future needs. Consistent. Adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities will be available to serve the proposed uses. Policy PF -6.1 Continue to ensure an adequate Consistent. Based on consultations with the treatment and collection system Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and capacity for Rancho Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Cucamonga's wastewater that is the Plan includes a conceptual sewer conveyed to the Inland Empire facilities plan. Section 4.16: Utilities and Utilities Agency water Service Systems discusses existing and reclamation facilities, while planned wastewater treatment capacity. protecting water quality and CVWD has sufficient treatment capacity public health and minimizing available to treat the wastewater that would adverse impacts to the be generated by the planned uses in the NA. environment Policy PF -6.2 Consult with the Inland Empire Consistent. Based on consultations with the Utilities Agency and the Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) and Cucamonga Valley Water District Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), to ensure that the treatment the Plan includes a conceptual sewer facility has sufficient capacity to facilities plan. Section 4.16 Utilities and meet future wastewater Service Systems discusses existing and treatment needs. planned wastewater treatment capacity. CVWD has sufficient treatment capacity available to treat the wastewater that would be generated by the planned uses in the NA. Goal PF -7: Minimize the volume of solid waste that enters regional landfills and encourage recycling. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Goal PS -1: Plan, promote, and demonstrate a readiness to respond and reduce threats to life and property through traditional and innovative emergency services and programs. Consistent. The Plan would establish new neighborhoods with a defensible edge treatment to mitigate fire risks. Policy PS -1.1 Reduce the loss of life, property, Consistent. The Plan would establish a and injuries incurred as a result compact neighborhood development of fires by offering and pattern in the NA that would replace open supporting comprehensive fire space areas that pose an existing fire hazard prevention, public education, to the surrounding neighborhoods. The new and emergency response neighborhoods would have an open space programs buffer along the northern edge of the neighborhoods that would create a defensible boundary in the event of wildfire events. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-21 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 936 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy PS -1.2 Strive to limit loss of life and Consistent. The Plan would establish a property as a result of wildland compact neighborhood development fires through adequate wildland pattern in the NA that would replace open fire protection services, space areas that pose an existing fire hazard education and enforcement of to the surrounding neighborhoods. The new defensible space and brush neighborhoods would have an open space clearance requirements, and buffer along the edge of the neighborhoods wildland fire evacuation and that would create a defensible boundary in preparedness plans. the event of wildfire events. Additionally, a Master Fire Protection Plan will be created for the Plan Area and neighborhood specific fire protections plan will be developed as the NA is constructed as proposed by the phasing plan. The Plan would also include the extension of Wilson Avenue through the Plan Area and the extension and improvement of Milliken and Rochester Avenues, which would complete the circulation network in the foothill neighborhoods, which will provide routes for evacuation of the existing and new neighborhoods during a wildfire event. Policy PS -1.9 Require adequate water supply Consistent. The Plan includes a conceptual and fire flow throughout the City water facilities plan developed in to meet fire demand during times consultation with CVWD and includes a 2 - of peak domestic water demand million -gallon water tank to meet fire and through a cooperative domestic demands. relationship with the Cucamonga Valley Water District. GOAL PS -5: Minimize the potential damage to structures and loss of life that may result from earthquakes and other seismic hazards. Consistent. The Plan would concentrate development in the southern portion of the Plan Area and limit development in the RCA to minimize risk. Policy PS -5.1 Require geological and Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.6: geotechnical investigations in Geology and Soils, a preliminary areas of potential seismic or geotechnical review was conducted to geologic hazards as part of the inform the planning effort. The RCA contains environmental and development existing faults and development is limited in review process for all structures the portion of the Plan Area in response to proposed for human occupancy. this condition. Additionally, supplemental geotechnical investigations would be required for future development in the Plan Area. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-22 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 937 4.10 Land Use and Planning Policy PS -S.2 Establish minimum setbacks for Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.6: any structure proposed for Geology and Soils, a preliminary human occupancy within the geotechnical review was conducted to Special Studies Zones identified inform the planning effort. The RCA contains on the Fault Hazard Map, based existing faults and development is limited in on minimum standards the portion of the Plan Area in response to established under State law and this condition. Additionally, supplemental recommendations of the project geotechnical investigations would be geologist and City Engineer. required for future development in the Plan Area. Policy PS -5.6 During the environmental and Consistent. Future development allowed by developmental review process, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment promote alternative project would comply with existing seismic safety designs that incorporate low- regulations, as discussed in Section 4.6: intensity land uses in areas Geology and Soils. determined to have significant seismic or geologic constraints. Goal PS -6: Minimize the potential damage to structures and loss of life that may result from geologic hazards. Consistent. The Plan would limit development in the steeper portions of the RCA to minimize risks from geologic hazards. Policy PS -6.1 Continue enforcement of the Consistent. The Plan limits development in Hillside Development Guidelines the RCA to 100 homes and would establish a to allow for prudent Regulating Rural Zone with additional development and development standards to supplement the redevelopment of all properties Hillside Development Guidelines. located on slopes greater than 10 percent, and continue to preserve as open space properties located on slopes greater than 30 percent. Goal PS -7: Provide adequate and appropriately designed storm drainage and flood control facilities to minimize the risk of flooding. Consistent. The Plan drainage master plan would provide for adequate drainage to avoid flooding risks. Policy PS -7.1 Continue to upgrade and expand Consistent. The Plan includes a drainage the flood control system so that master plan for the NA designed to accept the community is protected from and accommodate storm runoff from the flooding. RCA, and provide adequate drainage for the NA to prevent flooding. Policy PS -7.5 Continue cooperative working Consistent. The Plan is a planning effort relationships among public being conducted in cooperation with the San agencies with responsibility for Bernardino County Flood Control District to flood control. address surplus Flood Control District property. Goal PS -10: Maintain good local air quality, and reduce the local contributions of airborne pollutants to the air basin. The Plan would facilitate use of alternative transportation modes and would not result in localized air quality Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-23 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 938 4.10 Land Use and Planning impacts on surrounding uses. Policy PS -10.2 Integrate air quality planning Consistent. The VMT analysis provided in with land use, economic Section 4.15: Transportation, concludes the development, and transportation mix of uses the Plan would allow and the planning. configuration of the new neighborhoods would reduce VMT in comparison to the average for the City and surrounding area, which will assist in meeting air quality planning targets. Policy PS -10.3 Consider surrounding land uses Consistent. The Plan includes a site for a new K-8 when locating sensitive receptors school located in a central location in the new such as schools, hospitals, and planned residential neighborhoods in the NA. The residential uses so they are not neighborhood plan in the NA includes open space unreasonably exposed to uses buffers at the edges of the Plan Area and densities that generate pollutants at the edges of the new neighborhoods planned considered detrimental to to be consistent with the existing densities of the human health. surrounding neighborhoods. The Plan would limit development around Los Osos High School to single family residential uses that would not generate substantial amount of pollutants. The Plan also includes linear parks and greens along the perimeter of Los Osos High School to ensure the new neighborhood development is compatible with this existing school. Goal PS -11: Reduce the volume of pollutants generated by motorized vehicles. Consistent. The Plan would facilitate use of alternative transportation modes to reduce use of motorized vehicles. Policy PS -11.1 Implement the policies in the Consistent. The Plan includes a multi -modal Community Mobility Chapter to transportation network, including a trail foster a healthy and sustainable network in the NA to promote pedestrian community and promote and bicycle transportation, and foster a transportation choices otherthan healthy and sustainable community the private automobile. Policy PS -11.2 Minimize vehicle emissions by Consistent. The Plan would establish an encouraging alternative land use alternative land use pattern in the NA that patterns that reduce the need for includes a multi -modal transportation automobile trips. network, including a trail network in the NA to promote pedestrian and bicycle transportation as an alternative to automobile use. Policy PS -11.4 Support regional and local Consistent. The VMT analysis provided in transportation and housing Section 4.15: Transportation, concludes the programs that reduce vehicle mix of uses the Plan would allow and the emissions by decreasing vehicle configuration of the new neighborhoods miles traveled (VMT). would reduce VMT in comparison to the average for the City and surrounding area. Policy PS -11.6 Pursue strategies and capital Consistent. The Plan includes a complete improvements that allow safe street designs in the NA along with an off - Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-24 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 939 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-25 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 940 routes for children to walk or street trail system that will provide safe bike to school to reduce the need routes to the new K-8 school in the center of for automobile trips. the new planned neighborhoods. Goal PS -12: Mitigate against climate change. Consistent. The Plan would facilitate use of alternative transportation modes to reduce the effects of new development. Policy PS -12.3 Encourage development of Consistent. The Plan would allow the transit- oriented and infill development of a compact set of new development, and encourage a neighborhoods infilling an area between mix of uses that foster walking existing neighborhoods. The Plan also and alternative transportation. includes a neighborhood shops and restaurant district in the NA around the intersection of Wilson and Rochester Avenues, designed and scaled to meet the day to day needs of residents in a location accessible by pedestrians and bicyclists. Policy PS -12.4 Provide enhanced bicycling and Consistent. The Plan includes a multi -modal walking infrastructure, and transportation network, including a trail support public transit, including network in the NA to complement complete public bus service, the Metrolink, street designs. Transit service is currently and the potential for Bus Rapid provided on Banyan Street in the southwest Transit (BRT). corner of the planning area. The street designs in the Plan for Banyan Street and Wilson, Rochester, and Milliken Avenues would also accommodate transit service and a network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the NA would facilitate access to transit services. Policy PS -12.7 Support tree planting, planting Consistent. A primary objective of the Plan more vegetation (including is the preservation of open areas in the RCA. native and drought -resistant The landscape guidelines for the NA planting), and preservation of promote native and drought -resistant open space. planting. The Plan would establish an open space network in the NA including a Central Greenway, a mile -long, undulating park space, ranging in width from 200 to 400 feet, connecting the neighborhoods of Etiwanda Heights to each other and to the Rural/Conservation open space to the north. This greenway would provide a naturalistic "dry creek" channel lined with cobbles and boulders to convey seasonal stormwater from the neighborhoods into the Day Creek Channel, include trails for hikers, runners, bicyclists and equestrian, and a variety of active and passive park spaces adjacent to the neighborhoods Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-25 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 940 4.10 Land Use and Planning Goal PS -13: Minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the community, and adopt appropriate noise level requirements for all land uses. Consistent. The Plan would be consistent with applicable noise policies as described below. Policy PS -13.1 Consider the compatibility of Consistent. Impacts related to noise are proposed land uses with the discussed in Section 4.12: Noise. The primary noise environment when and highest noise levels within the Plan Area preparing or revising community will be from traffic on Wilson, Rochester, and/or specific plans and when and Milliken Avenues. With adherence to reviewing development applicable requirements in the California proposals. The contour map Building Code (CBC, e.g., interior noise levels depicting future noise levels of 45 A -weighted decibels [d BA] or less), (Figure PS -10) should be used by incorporation of solid walls in appropriate the City as a guide to land locations, residential development in the NA use/noise compatibility. will be consistent with the established land use/noise compatibility standards identified in the General Plan. Policy PS -13.3 Consider the use of noise barriers Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.12: or walls to reduce noise levels Noise, of this Draft EIR, the Plan will not generated by ground subject new planned land uses to noise transportation noise sources and levels form ground transportation sources industrial sources. that will require the use of noise barriers. The Plan Area is not located near to, or subject to, noise from any industrial sources. Policy PS -13.6 Implement appropriate standard Consistent. Section 4.12: Noise, identifies construction noise controls for all mitigation measures that are required to be construction projects. implemented to reduce construction - related noise and vibration. HOUSING Goal HE -1: Allow and create new opportunities that enable a broad range of housing types, maintain a balanced supply of ownership and rental units, and provide sufficient numbers of dwelling units to accommodate expected new household formations. Consistent. The Plan would add to the range of housing types and increase the supply of housing available in the City. Objective HE -1.1 Ensure a wide range of housing Consistent. The General Plan encourages alternatives and enable the City housing in a variety of price ranges. The Plan to achieve its share of the RHNA would allow a variety of single family through the utilization of land detached and attached housing units in the use distribution and new neighborhoods in the NA that would development standards to add to the range of housing opportunities encourage a mix of housing available in the City. types, including mobile homes and apartments, within a variety By annexing the Plan Area and the approving of price ranges. the Plan, the City would be adding to the inventory of residential land in the City and allow for the development of approximately 2,000 homes not accounted for in the City's current General Plan or Housing Element. Affordable housing could be developed in the Plan Area and the Plan would not Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-26 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 941 4.10 Land Use and Planning Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-27 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 942 obstruct the City from providing affordable housing through the variety of programs contained in the Housing Element of the General Plan. Goal HE -2: Provide housing opportunities that meet the needs of all economic segments of the community including very low-, low-, and moderate -income households and special needs groups. Consistent. The Plan would increase the supply, and add to the range of housing opportunities available in the City for all economic segments of the community. Objective HE -2.4 Recognize the unique Consistent. All housing developed in the characteristics of elderly and Plan Area would meet ADA (Americans with handicapped households and Disabilities Act) standards. The Plan would address their special needs. allow the development of a variety of attached and detached residential units, including units designed to meet the special needs of elderly and handicapped households. Meridian Consultants 072-004-18 4.10-27 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Draft EIR April 2019 Page 942 ORDINANCE NO. 958 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundarywith Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary that is largely in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. The City has caused to be prepared Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459 (the "Development Code Amendment") in order to amend Section 17.114.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to add a description of the EHNCP Specific Plan as an official specific plan of the City. Upon approval of the Development Code Amendment, the EHNCP Specific Plan will be codified in Section 17.114.020 in the same manner as other specific plans adopted by the City Council. 3. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Development Code Amendment and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Development Code Amendment, concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 19-51, recommending that the City Council approve the Development Code Amendment. 5. On October 2, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Development Code Amendment and concluded the hearing on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Findings. 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the Development Code Amendment, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review and comment, and a Final FEIR was reviewed by the City Council. By separate Resolution No. 19-082, Attachment 18 Page 943 ORDINANCE NO. 958 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 October 2, 2019 Page 2 the City Council has: (i) made the required CEQA findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; (iii) adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and (d) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 19-082 is incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to the City Council during the above - referenced public hearing on October 2, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b. Development of the portion of the Project Area in the City's sphere of influence is currently governed bythe San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, or both. C. The majority of the unincorporated Project Area is currently pre -zoned under the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which includes zoning designations for Utility Corridor, Flood Control/Riparian, Resource Conservation, Very Low Residential Estate, Very Low Residential, Low Residential, Hillside Residential Estate, Hillside Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Fault Zone, and Open Space. The remainder of the unincorporated Project Area in the City's Sphere of Influence is not currently pre -zoned by the City. The Project Area located within the City's boundaries is zoned Flood Control north of Banyan Street and Residential -Medium south of Banyan Street. d. The Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. Each planning area is governed by a regulating zone that carries specific regulatory requirements intended to implement the Specific Plan's vision. e. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. The Rural/Conservation Area consists of a single regulating zone known as Rural, which is subdivided into the following sub -zones that correspond to existing General Plan open space land use designations: (1) Hillside; (2) Conservation; (3) Open Space; and (4) Flood Control. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential Page 944 ORDINANCE NO. 958 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 October 2, 2019 Page 3 units from the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area. The City Council supports the Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal. f. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Neighborhood Area consists of the following regulating zones: (1) Neighborhood Estate; (2) Neighborhood General 1; Neighborhood General 2; (3) Shops and Restaurants; and (4) Central Greenway Overlay. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. The City Council finds that the Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. g. The City Council has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit Q to the City Council staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis, the City Council finds that in conjunction with the related documents and approvals associated with the EHNCP (General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750, and Annexation DRC2015-00732), the Development Code Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation programs of the General Plan and will not conflict with any specific plan applicable to the Project Area. This finding is more specifically supported by the following evidence: i. The Development Code Amendment would facilitate implementation of the EHNCP Specific Plan, including its limitation on development within the Specific Plan's Rural/Conservation Area, consistent with the City's conservation goals, as outlined in the General Plan's Resource Conservation Element and including Goal RC -1 ("Encourage stewardship of natural open space areas, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural resources") and its associated policies. ii. The Development Code Amendment would facilitate implementation of the EHNCP Specific Plan Neighborhood Area, which is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. This is consistent with General Plan Goal LU - 9 ("Fostera cohesive, healthy community through appropriate patterns and scales of development, including complementary transitions between districts, neighborhoods, and land uses") and its associated policies. h. Approval of the Development Code Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. C. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows Page 945 ORDINANCE NO. 958 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 October 2, 2019 Page 4 1. Section 17.114.020 ("Specific Plan Descriptions") of Chapter 17.114 ("Special Planning Area Map and Descriptions") of Article VI ("Special Planning Areas") of Title 17 ("Development Code") of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is herebyamended to add a new Subsection D to read as follows: "D. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP). The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan was adopted by the city council in 2019. The plan area is located along the northeastern edge of the city at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains; west of State Route 15, north of State Route 210, and north of existing residential neighborhoods in the City. The plan area includes 4,393 acres. The plan represents a unique opportunity to permanently preserve unspoiled views of the San Gabriel foothills and mountains, permanently conserve rural open space and habitat resources, secure recreational access to the foothills, while providing unique new neighborhoods that reflect the city's heritage. This plan has been prepared to guide land use and shape new development within the plan area. The community-based vision is for large quantities of conserved rural and natural open space in the plan's 3,603 -acre rural/conservation area, underwritten by and in balance with high quality neighborhood development in the 790 -acre southerly neighborhood area already surrounded by existing neighborhoods. This area had long been under San Bernardino County's jurisdiction, and the City's interest is to implement this plan for the future of this portion of rural land, preserving much of the foothills for future generations. Please refer to the adopted Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan maintained by the planning department and city clerk for comprehensive details." 2. The title of Chapter 17.38 ("Overlay Zoning Districts") of Article III ("Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards") of Title 17 ("Development Code") of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby renamed as "Overlay Zoning Districts and Other Special Planning Areas." 3. A new Section 17.38.070 entitled "Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan" is hereby added to Chapter 17.38 ("Overlay Zoning Districts and Other Special Planning Areas") of Article III ("Zoning Districts, Allowed Uses, and Development Standards") of Title 17 ("Development Code") of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows: "Section 17.38.070 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. The Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Specific Plan is broken into a Neighborhood Area and a Rural/Conservation Area with regulating zones and sub -zones governing development within each area. The allowed land uses and corresponding permit requirements within each regulating zone and sub -zone are identified in Table 17.38.070-1 ("Allowed Uses") below. Unless otherwise noted, definitions of each use are found in Chapter 17.32. If a word or phrase used in this section is not defined in Chapter 17.32 or the specific plan's glossary, the Planning Director shall make a determination on its meaning, giving deference to common usage. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, in the event of any conflict between this section and the specific plan, the development code shall prevail. Page 946 ORDINANCE NO. 958 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 October 2, 2019 Page 5 Table 17.38.070-1 Allowed Uses Allowed Land Uses and Permit Requirements for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Key P Permitted PU Permitted upstairs C Requires Conditional Use Permit (CUP) F Permitted on the ground floor of an Attached Flex Building Type (see Chapter 5.4.12) N Not permitted Page 947 Neighborhood Area (NA) Rural/Conservation Area (RCA)' Regulating Zones/Sub-zones SR NG -2 NG -1 NE R -OS R -H R-FC/UC R -C Residential Uses Adult Day Care Home N P P P N P N N Caretaker Housing N C C C P C P N Dwelling, Multi-Family2 N N N N N N N N Dwelling, Single-Family2 N P P P P P N3 N Dwelling, Single -Family Attached P P N N N N N N Emergency Shelter N N N N N N N N Family Day Care Home, Large N C C C N N N N Family Day Care Home, Small N P P P N N N N Guest House N N P P N N N N Group Residential N C C C N C N N Home Occupations N P P P P P N N Live -Work Facility P P N N N N N N Manufactured Home N N N N N N N N Mobile Home Park N N N N N N N N Residential Care Facility C C C N N N N N Residential Care Home P P P P N P N N Single -Room Occupancy Facility N N N N N N N N Transitional Housing P I P P P N P N N Agriculture and Animal -Related Uses Agricultural Uses N N N P C C C N Animal Keeping, Domestic Pets6 P P P P P P P N Animal Keeping, Exotic Animals6 N N C C N C N N Animal Keeping, Insects6 N N N P P P P N Animal Keeping, Livestock N N N P C C C N Animal Keeping, Poultry6 N N N P C C C N Equestrian Facility, Commercial N N N N N N N N Page 947 ORDINANCE NO. 958 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 October 2, 2019 Page 6 Equestrian Facility, Hobby N I N P I P7 I P P N N Recreation, Resource Preservation, Open Space, Education, and Public Assembly Uses Assembly Use C N N N C C N N Cemetery/Mausoleum N N N N N N N N Community Center/Civic Use C N N N N N N N Community Garden P P P N N N N N Convention Center N N N N N N N N Golf Course/Clubhouse N N N N N N N N Indoor Amusement/ Entertainment Facility N N N N N N N N Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility - Large N N N N N N N N Indoor Fitness and Sports Facility - Small P N N N N N N N Library and Museum P N N N C N N N Outdoor Commercial Recreation N N N N N N N N Park and Public Plaza P N N N N N N N Public Safety Facility P N N N P P N N Resource -Related Recreation P P P P C C N N School, Academic (Private) C C C C N N N N School, Academic (Public) P P P P N N N N School, College/University N N N N N N N N School, College/University (Public) N N N N N N N N Schools, Specialized Education and Training/Studio P N N N N N N N Theaters and Auditoriums C N N N N N N N Tutoring Center - Large N N N N N N N N Tutoring Center - Small P I F N N I N N N N Utility, Transportation, Public Facility, and Communication Broadcasting and Recording Studios I N N N N N N N N Park and Ride Facility N N N N N N N N Parking Facility N N N N N N C N Transit Facility N N N N N N N N Utility Facility and Infrastructure - Fixed Based Structures N N N N N N C N Utility Facility and Infrastructure - Pipelines N N N N N N C N Wind Energy System—Small N N N N N N N N Retail, Service, and Office Uses Page 948 ORDINANCE NO. 958 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 October 2, 2019 Page 7 Adult Day Care Facility N N N N N N N N Adult -Oriented Business N N N N N N N N Alcoholic Beverage Sales C N N N N N N N Ambulance Service N N N N N N N N Animal Sales and Grooming P N N N N N N N Art, Antique, Collectable Shop P F N N N N N N Artisan Shop P F N N N N N N Bail Bonds N N N N N N N N Banks and Financial Services P N N N N N N N Bar/Nightclub N N N N N N N N Bed and Breakfast Inn C C N N N N N N Building Materials Store and Yard N N N N N N N N Business Support Services P N N N N N N N Call Center N N N N N N N N Card Room N N N N N N N N Check Cashing Business N N N N N N N N Child Day Care Facility/Center C N N N N N N N Commercial Cannabis Activity N N N N N N N N Consignment Store P N N N N N N N Convenience Store N N N N N N N N Crematory Services N N N N N N N N Drive -In and Drive -Through Sales and Service N N N N N N N N Equipment Sales and Rental N N N N N N N N Feed and Tack Store N N N N N N N N Furniture, Furnishing, and Appliance Store P N N N N N N N Garden Center/Plant Nursery N N N N C N C N Grocery Store/Supermarket C8 N N N N N N N Gun Sales N N N N N N N N Hookah Shop N N N N N N N N Home Improvement Supply Store P9 N N N N N N N Hotel and Motel N N N N N N N N Internet Cafe N N N N N N N N Kennel, Commercial N N N N N N N N Liquor Store N N N N N N N N Maintenance and Repair, Small Equipment P N N N N N N N Massage Establishment N N N N N N N N Page 949 ORDINANCE NO. 958 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 October 2, 2019 Page 8 Massage Establishment, Ancillary N N N N N N N N Medical Services, Extended Care N N N N N N N N Medical Services, General PU N N N N N N N Medical Services, Hospitals N N N N N N N N Mobile Hot Food Truck P N N N N N N N Mortuary/Funeral Home N N N N N N N N Office, Business and Professional PU F N N N N N N Office, Accessory PU F N N N N N N Pawnshop N N N N N N N N Personal Services P F N N N N N N Restaurant, No Liquor Service P F/C N N N N N N Restaurant, Beer and Wine P F/C N N N N N N Restaurant, Full Liquor Service C N N N N N N N Retail, Accessory P F/C N N N N N N Retail, General P9 F/C N N N N N N Retail, Warehouse Club N N N N N N N N Secondhand Dealer N N N N N N N N Shooting Range N N N N N N N N Smoke Shop N N N N N N N N Specialty Food Store P F/C N N N N N N Tattoo Shop N N N N N N N N Thrift Store N N N N N N N N Veterinary Facility C N N N N N N N Automobile and Vehicle Uses Auto Vehicle Dismantling N N N N N N N N Auto and Vehicle Sales and Rental N N N N N N N N Auto and Vehicle Sales N N N N N N N N Auto and Vehicle Storage N N N N N N N N Auto Parts Sales N N N N N N N N Car Washing and Detailing N N N N N N N N Recreational Vehicle Storage N N N N N N N N Service Stations N N N N N N N N Vehicle Services, Major N N N N N N N N Vehicle Services, Minor N I N N I N I N N N N Industrial, Manufacturing, and Processing Uses Commercial (Secondary/Accessory) - Industrial N I N I N I N I N I N I N N Commercial (Repurposing) - Industrial N I N N I N I N N N N Page 950 ORDINANCE NO. 958 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 October 2, 2019 Page 9 Fuel Storage and Distribution N N N N N N N N Manufacturing, Custom N N N N N N N N Manufacturing, Heavy N N N N N N N N Manufacturing, Heavy -Minimum Impact N N N N N N N N Manufacturing, Light N N N N N N N N Manufacturing, Medium N N N N N N N N Microbrewery N N N N N N N N Printing and Publishing N N N N N N N N Recycling Facility, Collection N N N N N N N N Recycling Facility, Processing N N N N N N N N Recycling Facility, Scrap and Dismantling Facility N N N N N N N N Research and Development N N N N N N N N Storage, Personal Storage Facility N N N N N N N N Storage Warehouse N N N N N N N N Storage Yard N N N N N N N N Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution - Heavy N N N N N N N N Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution - Light N N N N N N N N Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution - Medium N N N N N N N N Table Notes 1 Aggregate resource extraction maybe permitted, subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, within the RCA only in the Deer Creek Alluvial Fan and Day Creek Alluvial Fan (Sectors D-1 and D-16 as shown in Figure RC -2 in the Resource Conservation Element of the General Plan). 2 Use defined in the glossary of the specific plan (Appendix 3). 3 Any property that is located within the R-FC/UC sub -zone area and is privately owned on the date on which the specific plan becomes effective shall be allowed to construct 1 dwelling unit for each 10 acres of land, and any development rights can be transferred pursuant to the Transfer of Development Rights program described in Chapter 7.4 of the specific plan. 4 Family Day Care Home — Large requires approval of a Large Family Day Care Permit, not a Conditional Use Permit. 5 See additional regulations for home occupations in Section 17.92. 6 See additional regulations for animal keeping in Section 17.88. 7 1 equine is permitted per 10,000 square feet of lot area. See Chapter 5.4.2.J of the specific plan. 8 Limited to 30,000 square feet. 9 Limited to 5,000 square feet. 4. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. Page 951 ORDINANCE NO. 958 EHNCP DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459 October 2, 2019 Page 10 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of October, 2019, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on , 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 952 ORDINANCE NO. 959 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND PREZONING DRC2015-00752 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundarywith Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary that is largely in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. The City has caused to be prepared Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752 (the "Zoning Map Amendment") attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to pre -zone the portion of the Project Area within the City's Sphere of Influence, re -zone the portion of the Project Area within the City's boundaries, and ultimately incorporate the Specific Plan into the City's official Zoning Map. To accomplish this objective, the Zoning Map Amendment would zone the entire Project Area as SP-EHNCP, which would implement the Specific Plan's regulating zones across the Project Area. The entire Project Area is also zoned Equestrian/Rural Overlay District, which would continue to apply to the Project Area under the Specific Plan and annexation of the unincorporated Project Area into the City. 3. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Zoning Map Amendment and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Zoning Map Amendment, concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 19-52, recommending that the City Council approve the Zoning Map Amendment. 5. On October 2, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Zoning Map Amendment and concluded the hearing on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Findings. 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the Zoning Map Amendment, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. Based upon the information contained in the initial Attachment 19 Page 953 ORDINANCE NO. 959 EHNCP ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752 October 2, 2019 Page 2 study, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review and comment, and a Final FEIR was reviewed by the City Council. By separate Resolution No. 19-082, the City Council has: (i) made the required CEQA findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; (iii) adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and (d) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 19-082 is incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to the City Council during the above - referenced public hearing on October 2, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Much of the portion of the Project Area in the City's sphere of influence is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b. Development of the Project Area is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, or both. C. The majority of the unincorporated Project Area is currently pre -zoned under the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which includes zoning designations for Utility Corridor, Flood Control/Riparian, Resource Conservation, Very Low Residential Estate, Very Low Residential, Low Residential, Hillside Residential Estate, Hillside Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Fault Zone, and Open Space. The remainder of the unincorporated Project Area in the City's Sphere of Influence is not currently pre -zoned by the City. The Project Area located within the City's boundaries is zoned Flood Control north of Banyan Street and Residential -Medium south of Banyan Street. d. The Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. Each planning area is governed by a regulating zone that carries specific regulatory requirements intended to implement the Specific Plan's vision. e. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. The Rural/Conservation Area consists of a single regulating zone known as Rural, which is subdivided into the following sub -zones that correspond to existing General Plan open space land use designations: (1) Hillside; (2) Conservation; (3) Open Space; and Page 954 ORDINANCE NO. 959 EHNCP ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752 October 2, 2019 Page 3 (4) Flood Control. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area. The City Council supports the Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal. f. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Neighborhood Area consists of the following regulating zones: (1) Neighborhood Estate; (2) Neighborhood General 1; Neighborhood General 2; (3) Shops and Restaurants; and (4) Central Greenway Overlay. The Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. The City Council finds that the Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. g. As reflected in Exhibit 'A" the Zoning Map Amendment would pre -zone the unincorporated portions of the Project Area within the City's Sphere of Influence as SP-EHNCP. It would also zone the portions of the Project Area within the City as SP-EHNCP. Upon approval of the Zoning Map Amendment, the Specific Plan's regulating zones within both the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood Areas, as described above, would be applied to each parcel in accordance with the Specific Plan. By adopting the Zoning Map Amendment, the City Council desires to implement these regulating zones within the Project Area and thus implement the Specific Plan. h. The City Council has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit Q to the City Council staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis, the City Council finds that in conjunction with the related documents and approvals associated with the EHNCP (General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750, and Annexation DRC2015-00732), the Zoning Map Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation programs of the General Plan and will not conflict with any specific plan applicable to the Project Area. This finding is more specifically supported by the following evidence: i. The Zoning Map Amendment would facilitate implementation of the EHNCP Specific Plan, including its limitation on development within the Specific Plan's Rural/Conservation Area, consistent with the City's conservation goals, as outlined in the General Plan's Resource Conservation Element and including Goal RC -1 ("Encourage stewardship of natural open space areas, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural resources") and its associated policies. ii. The Zoning Map Amendment would facilitate implementation of the EHNCP Specific Plan Neighborhood Area, which is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. This is consistent with General Plan Goal LU - 9 ("Foster a cohesive, healthy community through appropriate patterns and scales of development, Page 955 ORDINANCE NO. 959 EHNCP ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752 October 2, 2019 Page 4 including complementary transitions between districts, neighborhoods, and land uses") and its associated policies. i. Approval of the Zoning Map Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. C. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. Zoning Map. The City Council hereby adopts Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015- 00752. The Official Zoning Map for the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby amended by changing the Project Area to "SP-EHNCP" as more particularly identified in the revised Zoning Map attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. Prezoning. Pursuant to Section 17.22.050 of the Municipal Code, the zoning of the unincorporated portions of the Project Area shall become effective at the time the proposed annexation for the ENHCP becomes effective. Until such time, the Zoning Map shall be revised to show the prezoning classification with the label "PRE DISTRICT" in addition to such other map designation as may be applicable. 3. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. ATTEST: Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of October, 2019, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on , 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 956 ORDINANCE NO. 959 EHNCP ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752 October 2, 2019 Page 5 Exhibit A Amended Zoning Map Page 957 � � i �� 100-' a � �� I � I .u•r•i�i• 'r--- - �Ipp 161 �! '` � 18➢I�_ I ^:x::11: IMS � :ii:Cii:.'ili:'I • . I - e couuouoou /iii�i f(i�� �® 1®16 m �1_ �• -1® 1Y�C ��pp��I MINIM !--------iiiiiiiiiiiliii � • • - 11 1 - _■ W W�I �i��l—ii III���III�lI I � '� i � -� 1 - �'.I�� � ii ___— ' 111111 •. •. • .- . - I fill, 1 � 111 RI 11 � I it =!IE61: � !1 —`I - g119 • � • • " nnn . - . � .- .. mm l,Jrn il� L — — � 1C=11� �i ■ � 1�II1 �� ', III _ mum 1, 7■ � fli6ii■1 .11�� - ��l i � : � `"` �1■=1��R1e�, ; � � Ill��i'//� 111 _ �i MIN �I M" Imo. . I .! 11' %i% IMM -1111,- MINIM MM ORDINANCE NO. 960 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, DRC2015-00751, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "EHNCP Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughlyfrom Haven Avenue easterlyto the City's boundarywith Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary that is largely in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the EHNCP Specific Plan. 2. The City has caused to be prepared an amendment to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, DRC2015-00750 (the "Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, in order to remove portions of the Project Area from the Etiwanda North Specific Plan as those properties will be governed by the EHNCP Specific Plan following final approval of the EHNCP Specific Plan and annexation. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment also involves conforming changes to text, graphics, and maps. 3. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 4. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions adopted Resolution No. 19-53, recommending that the City Council approve the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment. 5. On October 2, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment and concluded the hearing on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Findings. 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an Initial Study and, based on the information Attachment 20 Page 959 ORDINANCE NO. 960 EHNCP ETIWANDA NORTH SP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750 October 2, 2019 Page 2 contained in the Initial Study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on certain resources. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study and other technical reports and evidence, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review and comment, and a Final FEIR was reviewed by the City Council. By separate Resolution No. 19-082, the City Council has: (i) made the required CEQA findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; (iii) adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and (d) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 19-082 is incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. 3. Based upon all available evidence presented to the City Council during the above - referenced public hearing on October 2, 2019, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Much of the Project Area is currently within unincorporated San Bernardino County, with a small portion located within the City's limits. Specifically, 4,088 acres of the Project Area are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City. Approximately 3,494 acres of the Project Area, including portions within the City's Sphere of Influence, are governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, adopted by the City in 1992. b. Development of the unincorporated portion of the Project Area in the City's sphere of influence is currently governed by the San Bernardino County General Plan and zoning regulations, with various portions of the Project Area designated as Resource Conservation, Single Residential, Rural Living, Special Development Residential, Open Space, Institutional, and Floodway under the County General Plan. The portion of the Project Area currently within the City is regulated by the City's General Plan, the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, or both. The unincorporated and incorporated portions of the Project Area that are currently subject to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan are hereinafter referred to as the "Affected Project Area." C. The majority of the unincorporated Project Area is currently pre -zoned under the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, which includes zoning designations for Utility Corridor, Flood Control/Riparian, Resource Conservation, Very Low Residential Estate, Very Low Residential, Low Residential, Hillside Residential Estate, Hillside Residential, Neighborhood Commercial, Fault Zone, and Open Space. The remainder of the unincorporated Project Area in the City's Sphere of Influence is not currently pre -zoned by the City. The Project Area located within the City's boundaries is zoned Flood Control north of Banyan Street and Residential -Medium south of Banyan Street. d. The EHNCP Specific Plan is comprised of two planning areas: (1) the Rural/Conservation Area generally located north of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary and east from Haven Avenue to the City limits; and (2) the Neighborhood Area located south of the Day Creek Diversion Levee to the 210 Freeway and east Page 960 ORDINANCE NO. 960 EHNCP ETIWANDA NORTH SP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750 October 2, 2019 Page 3 from the Day Creek Channel past Milliken Avenue. Each planning area is governed by a regulating zone that carries specific regulatory requirements intended to implement the EHNCP Specific Plan's vision. e. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises approximately 3,603 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards and strategies intended to conserve and manage the areas as open space. The Rural/Conservation Area consists of a single regulating zone known as Rural, which is subdivided into the following sub -zones that correspond to existing General Plan open space land use designations: (1) Hillside; (2) Conservation; (3) Open Space; and (4) Flood Control. Up to 100 residential units could be developed within the Rural/Conservation area under the proposed development standards, with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program that would allow property owners to transfer development rights for up to 300 residential units from the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area. The City Council agrees with the EHNCP Specific Plan's goal of preserving the foothills that comprise the Rural/Conservation Area as open space, along with the standards and strategies intended to achieve that goal. f. The Neighborhood Area comprises approximately 790 acres within the Project Area and is subject to development standards intended to promote appropriate and well- designed residential, limited commercial, and recreational development. The Neighborhood Area consists of the following regulating zones: (1) Neighborhood Estate; (2) Neighborhood General 1; Neighborhood General 2; (3) Shops and Restaurants; and (4) Central Greenway Overlay. The EHNCP Specific Plan permits up to 2,700 residential units in the Neighborhood Area, which may be expanded to 3,000 units depending on property owner participation in the TDR program. Among other amenities, the Neighborhood Area includes a trail network that builds upon the City's existing trail network as identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. Development within the Neighborhood Area is intended to help generate funds to support open space conservation within the Rural/Conservation Area. g. The City Council has independently reviewed the General Plan Consistency Analysis attached as Exhibit Q to the City Council staff report and included as Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. Based on this comprehensive consistency analysis, the City Council finds that, along with the related documents and approvals associated with the EHNCP (General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, and Annexation DRC2015-00732), the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and implementation programs of the General Plan and will not conflict with any other specific plan. This finding is more specifically supported by the following evidence: i. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan would permit a significant amount of residential development within the EHNCP Specific Plan's Rural/Conservation Area that is no longer consistent with the City's conservation goals, as outlined in the General Plan's Resource Conservation Element and including Goal RC -1 ("Encourage stewardship of natural open space areas, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural resources") and its associated policies. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment is intended to avoid such growth in the Rural/Conservation Area that is not consistent with the General Plan. Page 961 ORDINANCE NO. 960 EHNCP ETIWANDA NORTH SP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750 October 2, 2019 Page 4 ii. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment would make way for the implementation of the EHNCP Specific Plan. The EHNCP Specific Plan's Neighborhood Area is well designed and planned and will help promote the Rural/Conservation Area as open space. This is consistent with General Plan Goal LU -9 ("Foster a cohesive, healthy community through appropriate patterns and scales of development, including complementary transitions between districts, neighborhoods, and land uses") and its associated policies. h. Upon approval of the EHNCP Specific Plan, the Project Area will be governed by that EHNCP Specific Plan's land use and development regulations. Therefore, the land use and development regulations within the North Etiwanda Specific Plan will no longer apply to the Project Area and, with respect to the Project Area, need not be comparable in breadth and depth to similar zoning regulations contained in the Development Code. i. Similarly, the administration and permit processes within the North Etiwanda Specific Plan need not be consistent with the administration and permit processes of the Development Code because the North Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment will remove the Project Area from the North Etiwanda Specific Plan. j. Approval of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to adjacent properties. The findings set forth in this Ordinance reflect the independent judgment of the Specific Plan. C. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: 1. Adoption of Specific Plan Amendment. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby adopts Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750, attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 2. Severability. The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. 3. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. L. Dennis Michael, Mayor Page 962 ORDINANCE NO. 960 EHNCP ETIWANDA NORTH October 2, 2019 Page 5 ATTEST: SP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750 Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of October, 2019, and was passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on , 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 963 ORDINANCE NO. 960 EHNCP ETIWANDA NORTH SP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750 October 2, 2019 Page 6 Exhibit A Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750 Page 964 PAGE 1 ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN ERRATA INSERT (after the adoption of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan) ORDINANCE. NO. 493 AN ORDINANCE OF UM CITY COLRKM OF THE QTY OF RANCHO CLXAMC,A, CALIFORNIA, APPFV1D4G SPECIFIC PIAN 90-01, THE EI'IWANDA NOME SPECIFIC PLAN (iii) The Plan ccaprises approximately 6,850 acres located 9 Avesn�e (with a porn on irnth of Highland , south of the National Forest wi onal Forrest), east of -the extension of Milliken , City limit of the City of F reiereliced in the Land Use Map, 1 , Plan. (iii)The Plan comprises approximately 2093.86 acres. A large portion of the Plan will be located north of Wilson Avenue (with a small rectangular portion in the east extending south below Wilson Avenue, north of Highland Avenue), east of Day Creek Channel, and west of San Sevaine Wash, all as referenced in the amended Project Site Map, Exhibit 2, of the Plan. Page 965 PAGE 1-1 PART I COMMUNITY BACKGROUND 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan is to guide land use and community design within the north Etiwanda area. This will be accomplished by a comprehensive set of regulations, incentives and community design guidelines, along with related implementing actions designed to encourage optimum development. PQrttli2ons of this area are in the City of _Rancho Cucamonga an s Sphere -of - I in the County of San e ' o. The goals of the City General Plan and the County General Plan can best be met through the specific plan process. Also, the ideals of both public and private interests can be realized through the specific plan process which provides a link between the General Plan goals and specific implementation actions. It serves as a means of managing the use of land, establishing provisions for detailed community design concepts, and promotes a comprehensive approach to the implementation of these actions. Page 966 PAGE 1-6 2.0 SETTING 2.1 LOCATION The Etiwanda North Specific Plan area is located at the northeasterly boundary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is roughly bounded by Milliken Avenue to the west; San Sevaine Creek on the east; on the south by Highland Avenue and Wilson Avenue (24th Street); and on the north by the San Bernardino National Forest.er to Exhibits 1, 2, , Regional Context, City ntext, and Pr Site. Portions have recently bee nnex nto the City and portions are within the orporated area of the County which are wi 'n the Ci 's Sphere -of - Influence. The cific Plan are c�Sph ies approximatel , 40 acres, of which app r 1,155 a are beyond the City's currenof- uence. The E tiwanda North Specific Plan comprises approximately 2093.86 acres and will roughly be bounded by Day Creek Channel and EHNCP area to the west; San Sevaine Wash and EHNCP area to the east; Wilson Avenue and Highland Avenue to the south; and EHNCP area to the north. Refer to Exhibit 1 and amended Exhibit 2 for Regional Context and Project Site. Page 967 PAGE 1-9 = Approximate Area of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan after the adoption of the EHNCP a z PROJECT SITE 2 0 1 2 3 FILES _ Etiwanda North Specific Plan I-9 City of AMENDED EXHIBIT 2 Page 968 PAGE II -18 M:.: TABLE 1 — ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE STATISTICAL SUMMARY, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF EHNCP PAGE II -19 OIL";Mon 0 )0 TABLE 2 — ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE STATISTICAL SUMMARY BY NEIGHBORHOOD, BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF EHNCP Page 969 RESOLUTION NO. 19-084 A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY WITHIN UNINCORPORATED SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND DETACH SAID TERRITORY FROM COUNTY SERVICE AREA 70 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN A. Recitals 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") desires to initiate proceedings pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for: (1) an annexation of approximately 4,088 acres of unincorporated County territory located within the City's Sphere of Influence; and (2) detachment of the territory from County Service Area 70 (collectively, the "Proposed Annexation"). 2. A description of the boundaries of the territory subject to the Proposed Annexation is set forth in Exhibit A and is more particularly shown in Exhibit B of this Resolution (the "Annexation Area"). Both Exhibits A and B are incorporated herein by this reference. 3. The Annexation Area is currently uninhabited, as that term is defined in Government Code Section 56079.5. 4. The City prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "EHNCP Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary that is largely in the City's Sphere of Influence. Of the entire Project Area, 4,088 acres are located within the City's Sphere of Influence and 305 acres lie within the City's current jurisdictional boundaries. 5. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Proposed Annexation and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. 6. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Proposed Annexation, concluded the hearing on that date, and thereafter, among other actions, adopted Resolution No. 19-55, recommending that the City Council adopt this Resolution of Annexation for the Proposed Annexation and take all actions necessary to annex the Annexation Area. 7. On October 2, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Proposed Annexation and concluded the hearing on that date. Attachment 21 Page 970 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-084 EHNCP RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION DRC2015-00732 October 2, 2019 Page 2 8. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is herebyfound, determined, and resolved bythe City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. CEQA. The EHNCP, the Proposed Annexation, and their associated approvals (collectively, the "Project") have been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an Initial Study and, based on the information contained in the Initial Study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on certain resources. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study and other technical reports and evidence, the City prepared an EIR for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. A Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for public review and comment, and a Final FEIR was reviewed by the City Council. By separate Resolution No. 19-082, the City Council has: (i) made the required CEQA findings and determinations, (ii) certified the Final EIR; (iii) adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and (d) adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. Resolution No. 19-082 is incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein. The documents and other materials that constitute the record on which this determination was made are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. 3. Terms and Conditions. The City requests that the Proposed Annexation be subject to the following terms and conditions: (1) pursuant to Government Code Section 56886(t), all previously authorized charges, fees, assessments, and/or taxes currently in effect by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as the annexing agency, shall be assumed by the annexing territory in the same manner as provided in their original authorization; and (2) the standard terms and conditions imposed by the Local Agency Formation Commission for San Bernardino County (LAFCO). 4. Reasons for Proposed Annexation. The reasons for the Proposed Annexation are to: (1) allow for the implementation of the EHNCP Specific Plan within the Annexation Area; (2) create a logical and orderly extension of the City's boundaries; (3) ensure that the 3,603 acres of the EHNCP Specific Plan designated as Rural/Conservation are subject to development standards that promote conservation and management of the areas as open space; and (4) ensure surplus property currently owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and which is no longer necessary for flood control purposes, is developed in accordance with appropriate City development standards. 5. Sphere of Influence. The Proposed Annexation is consistent with the City's Sphere of Influence. Page 971 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-084 EHNCP RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION DRC2015-00732 October 2, 2019 Page 3 6. Indemnification. The City acknowledges LAFCO's requirement for imposing legal indemnification as outlined in Policy 3 of Chapter 2 of the Accounting and Financial Section of its Policy and Procedure Manual. 7. Request. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby requests that LAFCO initiate proceedings and take all actions necessary to facilitate the Proposed Annexation of the Annexation Area pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code. 8. Authorization and Direction to Staff. The City Council hereby directs and authorizes the City Clerk to forward a certified copy of this Resolution to the Executive Officer for LAFCO and for the City Manager to take all actions necessary to submit a complete application for the Proposed Annexation to LAFCO and any other such actions as may be necessary to complete LAFCO's annexation process. 9. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Page 972 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-084 EHNCP RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION DRC2015-00732 October 2, 2019 Page 4 Exhibit A Description of Annexation Area The Annexation Area is 4,088 acres in size and is located along the northeastern edge of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains. It is entirely within the City's Sphere of Influence (SOI) in unincorporated San Bernardino County. The Annexation Area boundaries are generally Haven Avenue (if it was extended north) to the west, City of Fontana to the east, San Gabriel Mountains (San Bernardino National Forest) to the north, and the existing City limits to the south. The southern portion of the Annexation Area is surrounded by residential neighborhoods in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on the west, south, and east, and is bounded by the Deer Creek Channel to the west and the Day Creek Channel to the east. Page 973 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-084 EHNCP RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION DRC2015-00732 October 2, 2019 Page 5 Exhibit B Map of Annexation Area Page 974 MM C3City Annexation Area SOURCE: LAFCO, 2017 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga is RANCHO CMAMOWA City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA EHNCP Area National Forest FIGURE 6 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annexation Boundary Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) Page 975 GENERAL PROCEDURES FOR CHANGES IN BOUNDARIES OR ORGANIZATION TO BE PROCESSED BY THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION The procedures for proposals considered by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) are guided by the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.), and any proposal submitted must conform to the requirements outlined in the Act. The procedures outlined below represent broad guidelines as to the steps required: 1. INITIATION: Generally, proposals for changes in boundaries, formations, or changes of organization can be submitted for the consideration of LAFCO by petition of the registered voters or affected landowners; however, prior to the circulation of any petition, a "Notice of Intent to Circulate" must be presented to the LAFCO Executive Officer. A proposal may also be initiated by a resolution adopted by the governing body of any related public body (county, city, or special district). The proposal must be submitted on forms available from the LAFCO staff office, or on the LAFCO website (www.sbclafco.org), along with the applicable number of maps, legal descriptions, and filing fees to cover the proposal submitted. 2. LAFCO REVIEW PROCESS: Upon receipt of a complete application, the LAFCO staff does several things concurrently: * It prepares a "Notice of Filing" and mails this to all affected and interested public bodies, including school districts, and sends a copy to the County Assessor and County Auditor -Controller. * It submits the item for environmental review; and * It schedules the item for review by the "Departmental Review Committee." a. Notice of Filing: This notice alerts the affected agencies of the item proposed, and requests from the Assessor and Auditor- Controller the ad valorem tax information pertinent to the proposal. Attachment 22 Page 976 When the LAFCO staff office receives the tax information related to the proposal, it mails this information to the County Administrative Office and each affected city and/or special district. NOTE: The proposal cannot be considered by the Commission until LAFCO receives from the County Board of Supervisors (for itself and affected districts) and any affected city, a resolution approving any changes in ad valorem tax distribution which is caused by the proposed change. b. Reauest for Environmental Review: LAFCO contracts with the firm of Tom Dodson and Associates for the initial environmental assessment of LAFCO proposals. The LAFCO review process cannot continue without a determination that the proposal: (1) qualifies for an exemption as defined within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Commission's environmental guidelines; (2) receives a Negative Declaration which indicates that, if approved, the project will have no adverse effects; or (3) there is a completed Environmental Impact Report submitted for the project. Environmental determinations are reviewed and considered prior to Commission evaluation of the proposal. C. Departmental Review Process: Basic information related to each proposal is mailed to every agency affected by the item and to the County Assessor, Auditor -Controller, Registrar of Voters, Planning, Surveyor, and Transportation Departments, etc. Each department or agency is requested to comment on the proposal and submit information relating to it. Then a Departmental Review Committee (DRC) meeting is held (normally the second Thursday of the month), and all information and concerns are reviewed. Applicants are encouraged to attend in order that steps to rectify any problems discovered can be outlined. 3. The LAFCO Executive Officer prepares and distributes a report making a recommendation to the Commission relating to the proposal. 4. The item is considered by the Commission, and it either approves or denies the proposal. Page 977 * If the Commission denies the proposal, than it is legally terminated. * If the Commission approves the proposal, LAFCO staff will provide a published Notice of Protest Proceeding announcing the date for consideration of protest and the procedure and requirements for a valid written protest to the proposal. 5. The LAFCO staff will consider the item at the time and date indicated on the protest hearing notice, and it will make a determination of the level of protest submitted. A recommendation for action to approve, deny, or submit the proposal to an election based on the amount of written protest received shall be submitted to the Commission at its next available hearing date. 6. Upon the successful completion of this protest process, the Clerk to the Commission files a "Certificate of Completion" with appropriate bodies. The date of this Certificate is the effective date of the action. Page 978 STANLEY R. HOFFMAN A 5 S U .. ATES Memorandum 11661 San Vicente Boulevard Suite 306 Los Angeles, California 90049-5111 P: 310.820.2680, F: 310.820.8341 www.stanleyrhoffman.com To: Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner, City of Rancho Cucamonga Ms. Jean Ward, Community Planning Services Manager, Civic Solutions cc: Mr. Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager, Economic and Community Development Ms. Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager, Administrative Services Mr. Jason Welday, Engineering Services Director Mr. Rob Ball, Fire Marshall, Rancho Cucamonga Fire District Mr. David Sargent, Principal, Sargent Town Planning Mr. John Baucke, President and CEO, New Urban Realty Advisors From: Marcine Osborn, Senior Associate Date: September 12, 2019 Project: Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP) SRHA Job # 1276 This memorandum presents the projected fiscal impacts for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP). Fiscal Impacts after Buildout As shown in Figure 1, a recurring surplus is projected to the City General Fund, the City Gas Tax Fund and the City Library Fund for the total EHNCP after buildout. A recurring surplus is also projected to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District after buildout of the total EHNCP. Figure 1 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) $1,800,000 $1,600,000 $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 Attachment 23 Projected Recurring Surplus after Buildout $1,065,677 :>L11,2Su1 $150,048 M— General Fund Gas Tax Fund Library Fund Fire District $1,587,516 Page 979 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 2 of 19 Table 1 summarizes the projected fiscal impacts to the City Funds and the Fire District allocated between the Current City Area and the Annexing County Area of the total EHNCP after buildout. Property tax allocations of the basic one percent levy are different for property currently located in the City and property that will be annexed into the City. Appendix Table A-3 presents the City area share and the County area share for the General Fund, the Library Fund and the Fire District. General Fund. A recurring surplus of about $1.07 million is projected to the General Fund after buildout of the EHNCP. The surplus is based on the projected surplus of $231,406 for the Current City Area of the EHNCP combined with the projected recurring surplus of $834,271 for the Annexing County Area. The projected surplus to the General Fund assumes maintenance costs of the new streets; community parks; central open space; neighborhood parks and greens; and trails and paseos are to be covered through a Community Facilities District (CFD) special tax or homeowners' associations (HOAs) dues. Gas Tax Fund. Total projected recurring revenues after buildout for the Gas Tax Fund are $211,801 and include recurring revenues projected at $26,646 for the Current City Area and $185,155 for the Annexing County Area. Library Fund. A total recurring surplus of $150,048 is projected for the Library Fund after buildout, with a surplus of $39,281 projected for the Current City Area and a surplus of $110,767 projected for the Annexing County Area. Fire District. After buildout of the EHNCP, a recurring annual surplus of about $1.59 million is projected to the Fire District, with $317,845 of this total projected for the Current City Area and about $1.27 million projected for the Annexing County Area. Table 1 Summary of Projected Recurring Net Fiscal Impacts after Buildout Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Deputy City Manager City Planning Staff, September 11, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Page 980 Total EHNCP after Buildout Current Annexing City Fund or District City Area County Area Total General Fund Annual Recurring Surplus $231,406 $834,271 $1,065,677 Gas Tax Fund Annual Recurring Revenues $26,646 $185,155 $211,801 Library Fund Annual Recurring Surplus $39,281 $110,767 $150,048 Fire District Annual Recurring Surplus $317,845 $1,269,671 $1,587,516 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Deputy City Manager City Planning Staff, September 11, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Page 980 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 3 of 19 Phased Fiscal Impacts Projected fiscal impacts for three 5 -year periods from 2021 to 2035 are presented in Table 2. A recurring surplus is projected to the City General Fund and to the City Library Fund for all three periods in the Neighborhood Area. The projected deficit to the General Fund for the Rural/Residential in the third period is offset by the cumulative surplus from the Neighborhood Area, so that by buildout, a recurring surplus of about $1.07 million is projected to the City General Fund. A surplus is projected to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District for the Neighborhood Area for all three time periods of the EHNCP. With development of the Rural/Residential, a deficit is projected for period three of the development plan. However, the cumulative surplus from the Neighborhood Area offsets the projected Rural/Residential deficit, resulting in a projected surplus of about $1.59 million to the Fire District after buildout. Detailed fiscal projections and supporting fiscal tables for the City Funds and the Fire Protection District are included in Appendix A. Upon entitlement, the fiscal impacts for the first five years of development will be projected. Table 2 Summary of Phased Fiscal Impacts Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Deputy City Manager City Planning Staff, September 11, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Development Descriptions The development descriptions are summarized in Table 3 and Appendix B presents the detailed project descriptions and supporting tables. Page 981 Net Fiscal Impacts Neighborhood Area Rural/Residential TOTAL EHNCP City Funds and Fire District A. FIVE-YEAR PERIOD TOTALS (2021-2025) (2026-2030) (2031-2035) (2031-2035) General Fund Recurring Surplus or (Deficit) $218,813 $896,460 $199,958 ($249,554) $1,065,677 Gas Tax Fund Revenues $26,854 $151,991 $25,416 $7,540 $211,801 Library Fund Recurring Surplus $28,634 $94,704 $21,079 $5,631 $150,048 Fire District Recurring Surplus or (Deficit) $262,908 $1,148,805 $239,403 ($63,600) $1,587,516 B. CUMULATIVE TOTALS (2021-2025) (2021-2030) (2021-2035) (2021-2035) General Fund Recurring Surplus $218,813 $1,115,273 $1,315,231 $1,065,677 Gas Tax Fund Revenues $26,854 $178,845 $204,261 $211,801 Library Fund Recurring Surplus $28,634 $123,338 $144,417 $150,048 Fire District Recurring Surplus 1 $262,908 $1,411,713 $1,651,116 $1,587,516 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Deputy City Manager City Planning Staff, September 11, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Development Descriptions The development descriptions are summarized in Table 3 and Appendix B presents the detailed project descriptions and supporting tables. Page 981 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 4 of 19 Acres. As shown in Panel A of Table 3, the total EHNCP includes about 4,394 acres, with about 790 acres in the Neighborhood Area and the remaining 3,604 acres in the Rural/Residential area. Units and Population. The maximum number of units for the total EHNCP after buildout is 3,000. As shown in Panel B of Table 3, a conservative estimate of 2,800 total housing units are included in the fiscal analysis for the EHNCP, with 2,700 units located in the Neighborhood Area and a maximum of 100 units estimated in the Rural/Residential Area. Total population after buildout is projected at 8,652 for the 2,800 units based on the January 1, 2019 Citywide average of 3.09 persons per household reported by the California Department of Finance. Office, Restaurant and Commercial Square Feet and Employment. As shown in Panel C of Table 3, there are 181,938 square feet of office, restaurant and retail space included in the EHNCP. Based on discussion with City staff, restaurant uses are assumed for 15 percent of the total 163,744 retail square feet. On-site employment is estimated at 424 after buildout. Street Linear Miles. A total of 25.3 linear miles of streets are planned for the EHNCP, as shown in Panel D of Table 3. Based on discussion with City staff, all streets will be maintained through a Community Facilities District (CFD) or homeowners' associations (HOAs), as shown in Appendix Table B-1. Park Acres. As also shown in Panel D of Table 3, a total of 118.4 acres of parks are included in the EHNCP. All parks, open space and greens are assumed to be maintained through a CFD or HOAs, as shown in Panel A of Appendix Table B-2. Trails and Paseos. About 93,483 lineal feet of trails and paseos are planned for the EHNCP. Of this total, about 67,029 lineal feet of multi -use trails are estimated to be maintained by a CFD and 21,169 lineal feet of horse trails are estimated to be maintained by HOAs, as shown in Panel B of Appendix Table B-2. The remaining 5,285 lineal feet of mid -block paseos are estimated to be maintained through HOAs. Phasing and Market Valuation The phasing and market valuation estimates have been provided by the project team consisting of urban planners and market consultants. Major City One -Time Development Impact Fees As shown in Table 4, major one-time City DIFs are estimated at about $61.52 million after buildout of the EHNCP. Based on information from the City Engineer, the General City Drainage Fee is not estimated because the EHNCP is outside the boundary for the fee and the EHNCP will not create a need for new capacity. Any construction of drainage improvements would be covered by the master developer or potentially an infrastructure CFD. Development impact fees for undergrounding utilities are not included as it is assumed that the proposed EHNCP will require all undergrounding of future utilities. Processing fees, such as application, construction, and planning fees are not estimated. The calculations of the major one-time development impact fees for the EHNCP are shown in Appendix Table C-1. Page 982 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 5 of 19 Table 3 Development Summary after Buildout Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) 1. Based on discussion with City staff, restaurant space is estimated at 15 percent of the total designated retail space of 163,744 square feet. 2. Based on discussion with City staff, all streets and parks will be maintained through a community Facilities District (CFD) or a homeowners' association (HOA). Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City Administrative Staff, September 11, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Page 983 Neighborhood Area Rural/Residential Total Current Annexing Annexing Category City Area County Area TOTAL County Area EHNCP A. Gross Acres 233 557 790 3,604 4,394 B. Residential Development Residential Development Acres 159 434 593 480 1,073 Estimated Units 352 2,348 2,700 100 2,800 Estimated Population (@ 3.09 persons per unit) 1,088 7,256 8,344 308 8,652 C. Non -Residential Development Non -Residential Development Acres 0 13 13 0 13 Non -Residential Building Square Feet Office 0 18,194 18,194 0 18,194 Restaurant 1 0 24,561 24,561 0 24,561 Retail 0 139,183 139,183 0 139,183 Total Non -Residential Building Square Feet 0 181,938 181,938 0 181,938 Estimated Employment Office (@ 250 square feet per employee) 0 72 72 0 72 Restaurant (@ 350 square feet per employee) 0 72 72 0 72 Retail (@ 500 square feet per employee) 0 280 280 0 280 Total Estimated Employment 0 424 424 0 424 D. Maintained Streets, Parks and Open Space 2 Street Linear Miles CFD Maintained Streets 0.81 3.24 4.05 0.00 4.05 HOA Maintained Streets 4.87 16.42 21.29 0.00 21.29 Total Street Linear Miles 5.68 19.66 25.34 0.00 25.34 Park Acres CFD Maintained External Community Parks 40.6 17.9 58.5 0.0 58.5 CFD Maintained Internal Parks and Spaces 11.3 19.8 31.1 0.0 31.1 HOA Maintained Internal Parks and Spaces 6.5 22.3 28.8 0.0 28.8 Total Parks and Paseo Acres 58.4 60.0 118.4 0.0 118.4 Trails and Mid -Block Paseos Linear Feet CFD Maintained Multi -Use Trails 2,935 3,909 6,844 60,185 67,029 HOA Maintained Horse Trails 7,008 14,161 21,169 0 21,169 HOA Maintained Mid -Block Paseos 1,513 3872 5,285 0 5,285 Total Parks and Paseo Linear Feet 11,456 21,842 33,298 60,185 93,483 1. Based on discussion with City staff, restaurant space is estimated at 15 percent of the total designated retail space of 163,744 square feet. 2. Based on discussion with City staff, all streets and parks will be maintained through a community Facilities District (CFD) or a homeowners' association (HOA). Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City Administrative Staff, September 11, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Page 983 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 6 of 19 Table 4 Summary of Estimated Major One -Time City Development Impact Fees after Buildout Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga EHNCP Fee Category' Buildout Transportation Development Fees Library Impact Fees Animal Center Impact Fee Police Impact Fee Park/Recreation Fees Total City Major One -Time Development Impact Fees $33,292,880 $1,560,489 $336,065 $630,133 $25,701,712 $61,521,279 1. Major development impact fees are included in this table. Based on information from the City Engineer, the General City Drainage Fee is not estimated because the EHNCP is outside the boundary for the fee and the EHNCP will not create a need for new capacity. Any construction of drainage improvements would be covered by the master developer or potentially an infrastructure CFD. Development impact fees for undergrounding utilities are not included because it is assumed that the proposed EHNCP will require undergrounding of all future utilities. Application, construction and planning fees are not estimated. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services, City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Fees, Updated March 1, 2019 City of Rancho Cucamonga, General Plan, Chapter 2 Page 984 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 7 of 19 APPENDIX A DETAILED FISCAL PROJECTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS City Funds Detailed fiscal projections to the City Funds are included in Appendix Table A-1. General Fund. Panel A of Table A-1 presents the projected recurring revenues and costs to the City General Fund. • Recreation Fund program revenues and costs are accounted for in a separate fund from the General Fund and are removed as these costs are assumed to be covered with non - General Fund revenues of program fees and contributions. • The analysis assumes that all streets are to be maintained through a Community Facilities District (CFD) or Homeowners' Associations (HOAs), as shown in Appendix Table B-1. • This fiscal analysis assumes that public parks, trails, and open space maintenance services are covered by a combination of Community Facilities District (CFD) special tax and homeowners' associations (HOAs). Appendix Table B-2 identifies the estimated amounts maintained by the CFD or HOAs. Gas Tax Fund. Panel B of Table A-1 presents the projected recurring revenues to the City Gas Tax Fund which accounts for the State gasoline tax allocated to the City and earmarked for road related expenditures provided by the City Pubic Works' Department. These revenues for the EHNCP are projected at $24.48 per capita. Library Fund. Panel C of Table A-1 presents the projected recurring revenues and costs to the City Library Fund. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District The projected recurring revenues and costs to the Fire Protection District are presented in Appendix Table A-2. Assessed Valuation and Property Tax The estimated valuation and property tax for the EHNCP is included in Appendix Table A-3. Sales and Use Tax Sales and use tax is projected for both the on-site retail taxable sales and for the retail taxable sales that will be captured in the City from off-site purchases made by the future residents of the Etiwanda Heights Plan area. Appendix Table A-4 presents the calculation of the sales and use tax for the EHNCP. Page 985 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 8 of 19 Table A-1 (page 1 of 2) City Funds Detailed Projected Annual Net Fiscal Impacts after Buildout Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) Page 986 Total EHNCP after Buildout Current Annexing Percent Category City Area County Area Total of Total A. GENERAL FUND Annual Recurring Revenues Property tax $111,111 $476,660 $587,771 16.1% Property transfer tax -turnover 7,318 38,779 46,097 1.3% Property tax in lieu -VLF 241,545 1,286,765 1,528,310 42.0% On-site retail sales and use tax 0 214,225 214,225 5.9% Off-site residential retail sales and use tax 143,436 653,018 796,454 21.9% Proposition 172 Sales Tax -Public Safety 2,636 15,938 18,574 0.5% Franchise fees 25,252 188,429 213,681 5.9% Business licenses 0 14,615 14,615 0.4% Animal licenses and fees 2,133 14,825 16,958 0.5% Fines and forfeitures 5,464 39,800 45,263 1.2% Current services 1,371 9,530 10,901 0.3% Motor vehicle in lieu tax 522 3,631 4,153 0.1% Other revenues 8,740 63,663 72,403 2.0% Transfers in - Municipal Utility 6,596 48,045 54,641 1.5% Interest on General Fund invested revenues 2,455 13,541 15,996 0.4% Total Recurring Revenues $558,580 $3,081,464 $3,640,044 100.0% Annual Recurring Costs Police protection $124,884 $1,066,203 $1,191,087 46.3% Animal control and services 20,724 144,010 164,734 6.4% Economic and community development 13,075 57,405 70,480 2.7% Building and safety 23,850 104,710 128,559 5.0% Engineering services 25,665 112,679 138,344 5.4% Public works -City vehicle and facilities maintenance 23,292 102,261 125,554 4.9% Public works -street maintenance 1 0 0 0 0.0% Public works -park maintenance z 0 0 0 0.0% Community services 33,741 234,470 268,211 10.4% General government for General Fund 32,200 221,164 253,364 9.8% Subtotal Recurring Costs $297,430 $2,042,902 $2,340,332 90.9% Contingency/reserves (@ 10% of recurring costs) 29,744 204,291 $234,035 9.1% Total Recurring Costs $327,174 $2,247,193 $2,574,367 100.0% General Fund Annual Net Recurring Surplus or (Deficit) $231,406 $834,271 $1,065,677 Page 986 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 9 of 19 Table A-1 (page 2 of 2) City Funds Detailed Projected Annual Net Fiscal Impacts after Buildout Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) 1. Streets are assumed to be maintained through a Community Facilities District (CFD) special tax or a homeowners' association (HOA). The maintenance responsibility for each street is included in Appendix Table B-1. 2. Maintenance of parks are assumed to be covered by a CFD special tax or a HOA. The maintenance responsibility for parks, trails and paseos is included in Appendix Table B-2. 3. State gasoline taxes are earmarked for street related expenditures. These revenues are projected at $24.48 per capita based on the current budget amount of $4,392,770 and the City population estimate of 176,671. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Page 987 Total EHNCP after Buildout Current Annexing Percent Category City Area County Area Total of Total B. GAS TAX FUND Annual State gasoline tax s $26,646 $185,155 $211,801 C. LIBRARY FUND Recurring Revenues Property tax $60,993 $261,660 $322,653 86.5% Library fees, charges and other income for services 6,356 44,171 50,527 13.5% Total Recurring Revenues $67,350 $305,831 $373,181 100.0% Recurring Library Services Costs $28,069 $195,064 $223,133 Library Fund Annual Net Recurring Surplus $39,281 $110,767 $150,048 1. Streets are assumed to be maintained through a Community Facilities District (CFD) special tax or a homeowners' association (HOA). The maintenance responsibility for each street is included in Appendix Table B-1. 2. Maintenance of parks are assumed to be covered by a CFD special tax or a HOA. The maintenance responsibility for parks, trails and paseos is included in Appendix Table B-2. 3. State gasoline taxes are earmarked for street related expenditures. These revenues are projected at $24.48 per capita based on the current budget amount of $4,392,770 and the City population estimate of 176,671. Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Page 987 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 10 of 19 Table A-2 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Detailed Projected Annual Net Fiscal Impacts after Buildout Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Page 988 Total EHNCP after Buildout Current Annexing Percent Category City Area County Area Total of Total Recurring Revenues Property tax $420,132 $2,271,055 $2,691,187 88.4% CFD 88-1 special tax: residential 47,238 228,838 276,076 9.1% CFD 88-1 special tax: commercial 0 2,913 2,913 0.1% Licenses, fines, fees, charges and other revenues 4,234 30,841 35,075 1.2% Interest on invested revenues 6,059 32,557 38,616 1.3% Total Recurring Revenues $477,665 $2,566,204 $3,043,869 100.0% Recurring Costs City fire protection costs $159,820 $1,164,591 $1,324,411 90.9% Cal Fire contract (wildlands) 0 131,942 131,942 9.1% Total Recurring Costs $159,820 $1,296,533 $1,456,353 100.0% Fire District Annual Net Recurring Surplus $317,845 $1,269,671 $1,587,516 Revenue/Cost Ratio 2.99 1.98 2.09 Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Page 988 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 11 of 19 Table A-3 Assessed Valuation and Property Tax after Buildout Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) Category Neighborhood Area Rural/Residential Area TOTAL A. NET NEW VALUATION New Valuation Current City Area $332,618,001 $0 $332,618,001 Current County Area 1,681,783,149 80,909,150 1,762,692,299 Total New Valuation $2,014,401,150 $80,909,150 $2,095,310,300 minus Current Valuation Current City Area $1,734,159 $0 $1,734,159 Current County Area 0 0 0 Total Current Valuation $1,734,159 $0 $1,734,159 equals Net New Valuation Current City Area $330,883,842 $0 $330,883,842 Current County Area 1,681,783,149 80,909,150 1,762,692,299 Total Net New Valuation $2,012,666,991 $80,909,150 $2,093,576,141 B. PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX Annual 1 Percent Property Tax Levy (@ 1% of net new valuation) Current City Area $3,326,180 $0 $3,326,180 Current County Area 17,170,792 809,092 17,170,820 Total 1 Percent Property Tax Levy $20,496,972 $809,092 $20,497,000 Share of Annual General Fund Property Tax 3 1% Levy City Area 3.340% $111,111 $0 $111,111 County Area 2.651% 455,210 21,450 476,660 Total Annual General Fund Property Tax $566,321 $21,450 $587,771 Annual Library Fund Property Tax 3 City Area 1.834% $60,993 $0 $60,993 County Area 1.455% 249,885 11,775 261,660 Total Annual Library Fund Property Tax $310,878 $11,775 $322,653 Annual City Fire District Property Tax City Area 12.631% $420,132 $0 $420,132 County Area 12.631% 2,168,858 102,197 2,271,055 Total Annual City Fire District Property Tax $2,588,990 $102,197 $2,691,187 C. PROJECTED PROPERTY TAX VLF Total Projected Property Tax In Lieu VLF (@ $730 per $1,000,000 Net New Assessed Valuation) Current City Area $241,545 $0 $241,545 Current County Area 1,227,701 59,064 1,286,765 Total Property Tax VLF $1,469,246 $59,064 $1,528,310 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 Page 989 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 12 of 19 Table A-4 Sales Tax after Buildout Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey Page 990 Neighborhood Rural/Residential Category Area Area TOTAL A. ON-SITE RETAIL SALES AND USE TAX Retail Commercial Square Feet 163,744 0 163,744 Retail Commercial (@ $233 per square foot) $38,152,445 $0 $38,152,445 On -Site Retail Projected Sales and Use Tax to City Sales Tax (@ 1% of taxable sales) $381,524 $0 $381,524 Use Tax (@ 12.3% of sales tax) $46,926 LO 46,926 Total Projected On -Site Sales and Use Tax $428,450 $0 $428,450 minus 50% Estimated from Off -Site Existing Shoppers $214,225 $0 $214,225 equals Net New Household On -Site Sales and Use Tax $214,225 $0 $214,225 B. OFF-SITE RESIDENTIAL SALES AND USE TAX New Residential Valuation $1,992,153,381 $80,909,150 $2,073,062,532 Household Income (@ 24% of residential valuation) $475,856,883 $19,418,196 $495,275,079 Retail Taxable Sales (@ 32% of household income) $152,274,202 $6,213,823 $158,488,025 Residential Proiected Sales and Use Tax to City Sales Tax (@ 1% of captured taxable sales) $1,522,741 $62,138 $1,584,879 Use Tax (@ 12.3% of sales tax) $187,296 7 643 $194,939 Total Projected Residential Sales and Use Tax $1,710,037 $69,781 $1,779,818 minus Net New Household On -Site Sales and Use Tax $214,225 $0 $214,225 equals Net Projected Off -Site Residential Sales and Use Tax $1,523,126 $69,781 $1,592,907 Projected Off-site Residential Retail Sales Tax Captured $761,563 $34,891 $796,454 in City (@ 50% of net protected residential retail sales) C. TOTAL SALES AND USE TAX Estimated Net New Household On -Site $214,225 $0 $214,225 Estimated Off -Site from Project Households $761,563 $34,891 $796,454 Total Sales and Use Tax $975,788 $34,891 $1,010,679 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey Page 990 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 13 of 19 Table A-5 Estimated CFD 88-1 Special Tax Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Community Facilities District No. 88-1, Resolution No. FD -XXX Establishing Annual Special Taxfor Fiscal Year2019/20 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department, Fire Marshall Page 991 Total EHNCP after Buildout Current City Area Annexing County Area Total Number of Estimated Number of Estimated Number of Estimated Units or Special Units or Special Units or Special EHNCP Category CFD 88-1 Special Tax Category Square Feet Tax Square Feet Tax Square Feet Tax A. Residential Units Average Square Feet Special Tax per Unit per Unit Rural (R/C-1) 3,000 Class III (2,564 to 3,076 sq. ft.) $88.69 0 $0 39 $3,428 39 $3,428 Residential (R/C-2) 3,000 Class III (2,564 to 3,076 sq. ft.) $88.69 0 0 61 5,431 61 5,431 SFD Estate 4,000 Class I (over 3,590 sq. ft.) $144.12 46 6,630 14 2,018 60 8,647 SFD XL 3,875 Class I (over 3,590 sq. ft.) $144.12 99 14,268 201 28,968 300 43,236 SFD 8,000 3,733 Class I (over 3,590 sq. ft.) $144.12 144 20,753 440 63,413 584 84,166 SFD 5,000 2,816 Class III (2,564 to 3,076 sq. ft.) $88.69 63 5,587 653 57,915 716 63,502 SFD 3,000 2,086 Class V (2,051 to 2,307 sq. ft.) $66.52 0 0 767 51,021 767 51,021 SFA 1,849 Class VI (1,795 to 2,050 sq. ft.) $60.97 0 0 273 16,645 273 16,645 Total Residential 352 $47,238 2,448 $228,838 2,800 $276,076 B. Non -Residential Square Feet Special Tax per Acre/ Square Foot Commercial Commercial $221.72 0 $0 13 $2,913 13 $2,913 (per acre) Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Community Facilities District No. 88-1, Resolution No. FD -XXX Establishing Annual Special Taxfor Fiscal Year2019/20 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department, Fire Marshall Page 991 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 14 of 19 Table A-6 (page 1 of 2) Estimated City Fire and Cal Fire Costs Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) A. CITY ESTIMATED FIRE COSTS AFTER BUILDOUT Estimated City Service Calls by Land Uses Land Use Cate Commercial (sf) Commercial -Office (sf) Industrial (sf) Institutional (sf) Multi -Family (units) Parking (NA) Recreation/Open Space (acres) ROW/Road (Freeway) Single -Family (sf) Vacant (sf) Total Calls Allocation of Calls to Residential and Non -Residential Land Uses Total 3 -Year Calls Total Annualized $37,144,160 Calls per Building Calls per 1,000 Allocated to Major Calls Allocated to Square Feet Square Feet or Building Square Feet Land Uses Major Land Uses or Housing Units per Housing Unit or per Housing Unit 3,589 1,196 8,369,867 0.000143 0.142894 2,285 762 5,229,676 0.000146 0.145707 4,568 1,523 40,955,018 0.000037 0.037187 846 282 NA NA NA 8,642 2,881 18,556 0.155260 0.155260 0 0 NA NA NA 582 194 NA NA NA 703 234 NA NA NA 21,454 7,151 40,762 0.175433 0.175433 387 129 NA NA NA 43,056 14,352 Total EHNCP Fire Calls after Buildout 512 Estimated Average City Fire Cost per Service Call Total City Fire Costs: FY 2019-20 $37,144,160 divided by Total Annual City Fire Calls 14,352 equals Annual City Fire Cost per Call $2,588.08 EHNCP Estimated City Fire Service Calls EHNCP Estimated Calls after Buildout EHNCP Calls per 1,000 Units and Calls per Land Use Category Calls per Unit Square Feet Square Feet Land Use Single Family Residential 0.175 2,527 443 Multi Family Residential 0.155 273 42 Office 0.146 18,194 3 Retail 0.143 163,744 23 Total EHNCP Fire Calls 512 EHNCP Estimated City Fire Costs after Buildout Total EHNCP Fire Calls after Buildout 512 times Average City Cost per Call $2,588.08 equals EHNCP City Costs after Buildout $1,324,411 Page 992 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 15 of 19 Table A-6 (page 2 of 2) Estimated City Fire and Cal Fire Costs Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga (In Constant 2019 Dollars) B. CAL FIRE ESTIMATED FIRE COSTS AFTER BUILDOUT Cal Fire Wildland Fire Contract Cost per Acre Estimated 2019-2020 Fire Costs Acres in Contract Total Cost of $37 per Acre $37 Acres in Contract Outside Neighborhood Neighborhood Total Area Area 4,088 3,566 522 times Estimated Cal Fire Contract Costs after Buildout 1 For Acres Outside Neighborhood Area $151,2561 $131,9421 $19,314 $131,942 1. Based on information from the Fire District staff, the neighborhood area is considered wildland fire area until construction is completed. Therefore, the Cal Fire contract will decrease from $151,256 at the beginning of construction to the amount of $131,942 is constructed. The $151,256 represents the currently estimated annual buildout amount for Cal Fire wildland protection, and may change in future years based on contract changes. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department, Fire Marshall Rancho Cucamonga GIS Supervisor City of Rancho Cucamonga, Fiscal Vear2019120 Adopted Budget Page 993 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 16 of 19 APPENDIX B PUBLICALLY AND PRIVATELY MAINTAINED INFRASTRUCTURE Table B-1 Publicly and Privately Maintained Streets Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City Planning Staff, July 25, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Page 994 Maintenance Responsibility Community Facilities Homeowners' Total Category District Association EHNCP Street Linear Feet (includes left turn lanes) 946 0 946 Milliken Neighborhood Avenue 1 7,788 0 7,788 Neighborhood Avenue 2 3,355 0 3,355 Neighborhood Avenue 3 2,052 0 2,052 Main Street 1,691 0 1,691 Neighborhood Street 1 0 79,747 79,747 Neighborhood Street 2 0 10,416 10,416 Edge Drive 18,736 0 18,736 Edge Lane 0 9,064 9,064 Total Street Linear Feet 34,568 99,227 133,795 Street Linear Miles (includes left turn lanes) 0.18 0.00 0.18 Milliken Neighborhood Avenue 1 1.48 0.00 1.48 Neighborhood Avenue 2 0.64 0.00 0.64 Neighborhood Avenue 3 0.39 0.00 0.39 Main Street 0.32 0.00 0.32 Neighborhood Street 1 0.00 15.10 15.10 Neighborhood Street 2 0.00 1.97 1.97 Edge Drive 3.55 0.00 3.55 Edge Lane 0.00 1.72 1.72 Total Street Linear Miles 6.55 18.79 25.34 Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City Planning Staff, July 25, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Page 994 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 17 of 19 Table B-2 Publicly and Privately Maintained Parks and Trails Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga 1. Based on discussion with City staff, the fiscal analysis assumes maintenance of all parks, trails and paseos will be funded through a community facilities disctrict or homeowners' associations. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City Planning Staff, September 11, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Page 995 Maintenance Responsibility 1 Total Community City Facilities Homeowners' Category General Fund District Association EHNCP A. Park Acres Community Parks (External of Neighborhoods) 0.0 58.5 0.0 58.5 Central Open Space 0.0 31.1 0.0 31.1 Neighborhood Parks & Greens 0.0 0.0 28.8 28.8 Total Park Acres 0.0 89.5 28.8 118.4 B. Trails and Paseos Linear Feet Trails -Multi Use 0 6,844 0 6,844 Trails -Horse 0 0 81,354 81,354 Mid -Block Paseos 0 0 5,285 5,285 Total Lineal Feet 0 6,844 86,639 93,483 1. Based on discussion with City staff, the fiscal analysis assumes maintenance of all parks, trails and paseos will be funded through a community facilities disctrict or homeowners' associations. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City Planning Staff, September 11, 2019 Sargent Town Planning, August 7, 2019 New Urban Realty Advisor, August 7, 2019 Page 995 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 18 of 19 APPENDIX C ESTIMATED MAJOR ONE-TIME CITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Table C-1 (page 1 of 2) Estimated Major One -Time City Development Impact Fees Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga A. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Fee Category 1 EHNCP Unit Category Fee Schedule Land Use' Acres New Units Fee per Unit Total Fees Transportation Development Fees SF Rural, Estate, XL, Large, Medium Residential, Single Family n/a 1,760 $10,854 $19,101,823 SF Small, SFA Residential, Single Family n/a 1,040 $10,854 11,288,160 Total Transportation Development Impact Fees $30,389,983 Library Impact Fees SF Rural, Estate, XL, Large, Medium Residential, Single Family n/a 1,760 $632 $1,112,249 SF Small, SFA Residential, Multi Family n/a 1,040 $431 448,240 Total Library Impact Fees $1,560,489 Animal Center Impact Fee SF Rural, Estate, XL, Large, Medium Residential, Single Family n/a 1,760 $136 $239,345 SF Small, SFA Residential, Multi Family n/a 1,040 $93 96,720 Total Animal Center Impact Fees $336,065 Police Impact Fee SF Rural, Estate, XL, Large, Medium Residential, Single Family n/a 1,760 $182 $320,300 SF Small, SFA Residential, Multi Family n/a 1,040 $207 215,280 Total Police Impact Fees $535,580 Park Land Acquisition Impact Fee (In Subdivisions) Residential, Single Family n/a 1,760 $5,722 $10,070,078 SF Rural, Estate, XL, Large, Medium SF Small, SFA Residential, Multi Family n/a 1,040 $3,898 4,053,920 Total Park Land Acquisition Fees $14,123,998 Park Improvement Impact Fee SF Rural, Estate, XL, Large, Medium Residential, Single Family n/a 1,760 $2,788 $4,906,567 SF Small, SFA Residential, Multi Family n/a 1,040 $1,900 1,976,000 Total Park Improvement Impact Fees $6,882,567 Community and Recreation Center Impact Fee SF Rural, Estate, XL, Large, Medium Residential, Single Family n/a 1,760 $1,902 $3,347,307 SF Small, SFA Residential, Multi Family n/a 1,040 $1,296 1,347,840 Total Park Improvement Impact Fees $4,695,147 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL FEES $58,523,828 Page 996 Stanley R. Hoffman Associates September 12, 2019 Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner Fiscal Analysis of Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Page 19 of 19 Table C-1 (page 2 of 2) Estimated Major One -Time City Development Impact Fees Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, Rancho Cucamonga B. NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 1. Major development impact fees are included in this table. Based on information from the City Engineer, the General City Drainage Fee is not estimated because the EHNCP is outside the area for the fee and the EHNCP will not create a need for new capacity. Any construction of drainage improvements would be covered by the master developer or potentially an infrastructure CFD. Development impact fees for undergrounding utilities are not included because it is assumed that the proposed EHNCP will require undergrounding of all future utilities. Application, construction and planning fees are not estimated. 2. The City fee schedule land use category which most closely represents the proposed EHNCP land use is used. Based on information from the City Engineer, the Single Family Dwelling Unit fee of $10,854 per unit for the Residential Transportation Development Fee would apply to all units because of the design of the EHNCP. For the remaining fee categories, the allocation of residential units to single family and multi family is based on the City established General Plan densities where medium residential (8.0 to 14.0 dwelling units per acre) and above are considered multi family units. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services, City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Fees, Updated March 1, 2019 City of Rancho Cucamonga, General Plan, Chapter 2 Page 997 Fee per Fee 1,000 Category EHNCP Fee Schedule Land Use' Acres Feet Foot Total Fees Transportation Development Fees Office Office/Business Park n/a 18,194 $13,025 $236,975 Restaurant Commercial 24,561 $16,281 399,878 Retail Commercial n/a 139,183 $16,281 2,266.045 Total Transportation Development Fees $2,902,898 Police Impact Fee Office Office n/a 18,194 $130 $2,365 Restaurant Commercial/Retail 24,561 $563 13,828 Retail Commercial/Retail n/a 139,183 $563 78.360 Total Police Impact Fees $94,553 TOTAL NON-RESIDENTIAL FEES $2,997,451 C. TOTAL CITY MAJOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES $61,521,279 1. Major development impact fees are included in this table. Based on information from the City Engineer, the General City Drainage Fee is not estimated because the EHNCP is outside the area for the fee and the EHNCP will not create a need for new capacity. Any construction of drainage improvements would be covered by the master developer or potentially an infrastructure CFD. Development impact fees for undergrounding utilities are not included because it is assumed that the proposed EHNCP will require undergrounding of all future utilities. Application, construction and planning fees are not estimated. 2. The City fee schedule land use category which most closely represents the proposed EHNCP land use is used. Based on information from the City Engineer, the Single Family Dwelling Unit fee of $10,854 per unit for the Residential Transportation Development Fee would apply to all units because of the design of the EHNCP. For the remaining fee categories, the allocation of residential units to single family and multi family is based on the City established General Plan densities where medium residential (8.0 to 14.0 dwelling units per acre) and above are considered multi family units. Sources: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc. City of Rancho Cucamonga, Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services, City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga, Engineering Fees, Updated March 1, 2019 City of Rancho Cucamonga, General Plan, Chapter 2 Page 997 Shawn Judson, Ed.D. Superintendent Douglas M. Claflin Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Terry Embleton Assistant Superintendent of Personnel Services Charlayne Sprague Ass€stant Superintendent of Instruction/Pupil Services September 5, 2019 6061 East Avenue, Etiwanda, California 91739 www.etiwanda.k12.ca.us (909) 899-2451 FAX (909) 803-3022 Matt Burris Deputy City Manager City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Burris, Board of Trustees Brynna Cadman Robert Garcia Dayna Karsch David W. Long Mondi M. Taylor SEI' 0 9 2019 Buttutng Department r of Rancho Cucamo. Thank you for taking time to speak with me regarding the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP). While it is understood that the EHNCP is still in the conceptual phase, the Etiwanda School District is pleased to see that an approximate 30 -acre school site has been included/identified in the plan, with a location that appears to be conveniently positioned within the proposed residential community(s). During our conversation, you stated that the current plan proposal does not include extending Milliken Avenue to the foothills because it would create a small area on the west side of such an extension which may not be conducive for development. However, I wanted to bring to your attention that the Legal Boundary Descriptions for both the Etiwanda School District (ESD) and the Alta Loma School District (ALSD) use the Milliken Avenue projection to the foothills as the division line for separation of attendance boundaries. This legal description has been in place for numerous years— possibly since the inception of both districts back in the 1880s. The changing of school attendance boundaries is not only a monetary consideration, but also a citizen/community concern that neither district would venture into lightly. Even if an agreement could be reached to make a boundary change, it would take several years to implement. Given the facts outlined above and our current understanding of the proposed EHNCP, administrators for the Etiwanda School District have elected to take this opportunity to make you, the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Bernardino aware of our concerns early -on while the planning for Neighborhood #1 within the EHNCP is still progressing: Attachment 24 Page 998 The utmost care will need to be taken in order to create a clear, easily understood and recognized boundary line division for ESD and ALSD within Neighborhood #1. The positioning of streets, lot lines, and housing should be carefully considered with respect to the split of this residential area between the two elementary districts. Our concern here is that in lieu of fully extending the roadway, it is proposed that Milliken Avenue will curve or turn prior reaching the foothills. This will result in "gray area" that overlaps both districts, from the standpoint of having residents/housing on the same street divided --meaning that the children of one residence will attend ALSD, while the children of his immediate next door neighbor will be required to attend ESD. • As this planned community progresses, it is extremely important that all developers and all potential future homeowners are made aware of the fact that there will be two elementary school districts servicing this area, thus, it is imperative that a "clear" boundary line be developed as quickly as possible, which does not create a "two -district" street/neighborhood. We are looking to you for guidance and support to ensure that these concerns will continue to be addressed with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the County of San Bernardino and associated agencies during all phases of EHNCP development. Please keep us informed as to how our concerns will be addressed, as well as any potential homeowner issues that may arise in the future. Sincerely, Do galas M. Clafli Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Etiwanda School District C'. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council John Gillison, City Manager, City of Rancho Cucamonga Janice Rutherford, 2nd District Supervisor Page 999 Mnvn. I Ilonnic Mirk„ol I Mnvn. P- Ton, Ix nno R IConnork September 24, 2019 Douglas M. Claflin Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Etiwanda School District 6061 East Avenue Etiwanda, CA 91739 Dear Mr. Claflin, Thank you for your letter dated September 5, 2019, regarding the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP). As you identify in your letter, the EHNCP identifies a site for a K-8 school in the Etiwanda School District (ESD) that is conveniently and centrally located within the planned proposed residential neighborhoods to support the future population ENCHP area. Your letter also outlines your concerns regarding the design of the neighborhoods in relation to the boundary between the Etiwanda School District (ESD) and the Alta Loma School District (ALSD). As we have discussed and identified throughout our planning process, the design of the neighborhood in northwest portion of the EHNCP does not include extending Milliken Avenue north. This decision was made to facilitate the best possible neighborhood design. The proposed neighborhoods of Etiwanda Heights have been thoughtfully designed to provide a variety of housing choices, with a mixture of lots sizes, in a walkable environment. Neighborhood edges nearest existing residential neighborhoods include homes with larger lots sizes for compatibility. In particular, the community expressed a strong desire for quarter- and half -acre lots in the northwest portion of the Plan area to maintain continuity with the Deer Creek and Haven Views neighborhoods to the west. This was identified as a priority by the community during our engagement process and in community surveys. The design of this neighborhood has been crafted to provide not only large lots, but a semi -rural character with equestrian trails in the streetscape and larger rear yards to accommodate horses. In addition, an approximate 250 -foot greenway has been provided along the west side of this neighborhood to provide a buffer between neighborhoods and to improve views of the mountains for residents in the Deer Creek neighborhood. As such, the extension of Milliken Avenue north to the foothills is not conducive to creating a well-designed neighborhood that meets the desires of the community because it would result in a very narrow strip of neighborhood on the west side of such an extension that would be just a few parcels in width. Such a design would not only isolate this portion of the neighborhood, but also lessen the rural character and curving street design in the rest of the Plan area. We recognize that this design does not perfectly match the current boundary between ESD and ALSD, and understand that it could result in a situation in which residents on the same street are potentially attending different school districts. For these reasons, an implementing action of the EHNCP is to coordinate efforts with the County of San Bernardino, ESD and ALSD regarding adjustment of boundaries for the mutual benefit of the School Districts, current Rancho Cucamonga residents, and future residents of the Plan area. The intent would Attachment 25 Page 1000 Douglas M. Claflin, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Etiwanda School District September 24, 2019 be to avoid creating a "two -district street or neighborhood", as well to minimize construction of new schools in one District if space is available at facilities in another District. Currently, ALSD would have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the new students' estimated in the Plan area, and ESD is already over current capacity and would need new schools in order the meet the Plan's demand. Chapter 5 of the California Department of Education School District Organization Handbook (dated September 2016) lays out the foundation for the process of forming or abolishing school districts, consolidating school districts, transferring territory from one district to another, and unifying school districts. An action to reorganize districts includes an action to transfer territory, including the transfer of all or part of an existing school district to another existing school district. Certain changes to school district's boundaries are not considered reorganization of districts. These changes are merely corrections and relocations of boundary lines that conflict or are incorrectly described or that are indefinite or conflict with lines of assessment because of re -subdivision of land or other property change. In areas where a proposed territory transfer is uninhabited, the approval process is streamlined and does not involve the community in an election. Because the EHNCP is a programmatic, long range planning document, new development is not immediate and there is ample time to adjust the boundaries prior to the approval of Precise Neighborhood Plans and tract maps for each Subarea in the EHNCP. As previously stated, the City is committed to facilitating coordination efforts with both school districts, the County, and associated agencies regarding adjustment of boundaries. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this matter as we move forward with all phases of EHNCP development. Sincerely, John R. Gillison City Manager Cc: Mayor L. Dennis Michael and Council 2 Page 1001 Item A - Revised Staff Report 9/30/2019 DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager Elisa C. Cox, Deputy City Manager Anne McIntosh, Planning Director SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00749, ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2015-00750, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DRC2015-00752, ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN DRC2015-00751, ANNEXATION DRC2015-00732, AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2019-00459. THE PROJECT WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE 2010 GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY DELETING, ADDING, AND/OR REVISING TEXT, GRAPHICS, AND EXHIBITS AND CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF CERTAIN PARCELS IN ORDER TO INTEGRATE THE PROPOSED ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN'S (EHNCP) SPECIFIC PLAN (HEREAFTER THE "SPECIFIC PLAN") INTO THE GENERAL PLAN. THIS INCLUDES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF MULTIPLE PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY THAT HAVE A COMBINED AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 305 ACRES AND MULTIPLE PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE THAT HAVE A COMBINED AREA OF 4,393 ACRES IN A PROJECT AREA EXTENDING FROM HAVEN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE CITY'S BOUNDARY WITH FONTANA, AND FROM THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS TO THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY IN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (HEREAFTER THE "PROJECT AREA"), AND WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, TO LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THAT ALLOW CONSERVATION, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND/OR CIVIC USES. A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN BY DELETING, ADDING, AND/OR REVISING TEXT, GRAPHICS, AND EXHIBITS WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN IN ORDER TO REMOVE THOSE PARCELS PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN AND MAKE OTHER CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. A PROPOSAL TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED EHNCP SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WILL APPLY TO MULTIPLE PARCELS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA TO ALLOW CONSERVATION, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND CIVIC USES Page 274 FOR A PROJECT AREA EXTENDING FROM HAVEN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE CITY'S BOUNDARY WITH FONTANA, AND FROM THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS TO THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY IN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (SOI), IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN. A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY DELETING, ADDING, AND/OR REVISING TEXT AND GRAPHICS WITHIN THE ZONING MAP, AND CHANGE THE ZONING/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA TO ZONING/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THAT ALLOW CONSERVATION, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND/OR CIVIC USES CONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFIC PLAN (PREZONING THE PROJECT AREA WITHIN THE SOI). A PROPOSAL TO ANNEX MULTIPLE PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE THAT HAVE A COMBINED AREA OF 4,088 ACRES FOR A PROJECT AREA EXTENDING FROM HAVEN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE CITY'S BOUNDARY WITH FONTANA, AND FROM THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS TO THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY IN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN. A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE ALLOWED USE TABLE FOR THE SPECIFIC PLAN. THIS PROPOSAL WILL APPLY TO THE PROJECT AREA IN ORDER TO PERMIT ZONING/LAND USE DESIGNATIONS THAT ALLOW CONSERVATION, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, AND/OR CIVIC USES CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN. THE PROJECT AREA EXTENDS FROM HAVEN AVENUE, EASTERLY TO THE CITY'S BOUNDARY WITH FONTANA, AND FROM THE NORTHERLY CITY LIMITS TO THE SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY IN THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE - APN'S: 0201-033-32, -35 THROUGH -40, -43, AND -44, 0201-191-27 AND -28, 0201-272-14 THROUGH -18, 0201-281-02,-04 THROUGH -10, -13, -14, -16 THROUGH -22, 0225-091- 03, 05, AND -06, 225-092-01, 0225-101-32, 0225-152-06 THROUGH -11, AND -17, 0225-161-42, 0226-061-03, -07, -16, -20, -26, -27, -28, -33, -47, -56, -57, -61 THROUGH -71, -73 THROUGH -78, 0226-082-08, -19, -20, -21, AND -30, 1074- 351-01, -04, -05, AND -06, 1087-051-02 THROUGH -14, -16 THROUGH -27, 1087-061-01 THROUGH -21, AND 1087-071-01 THROUGH -14, AND -16 THROUGH -21. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommended the City Council take the following actions: 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2017091027) for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan, make findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Page 275 2. Approve each of the following: • Adoption of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Specific Plan DRC2015- 00751 with the following changes: • Allow density requirements at 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres in the Rural Open Space SubZone and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in the RH SubZone; • Permit Animal Keeping for Livestock and Poultry in the Rural/Conservation Area by right as specified in the Development Code; • Adoption of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749; • Adoption of Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750; • Adoption of Zoning Map Amendment and Prezoning DRC2015-00752; • Adoption of Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459; and • Approve and direct staff to process through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Annexation DRC2015-00732. BACKGROUND: A. The City's Vision As described in the General Plan, the City has long held a vision for the conservation of the alluvial fan and foothills between our northern most neighborhoods and the National Forest. The proposed Specific Plan presents an opportunity for detailing and codifying that vision. This detailed vision for the unincorporated foothills above the neighborhoods of Etiwanda was developed after an extensive multi- year process that included analysis of various development and conservation options, a thorough review of the goals and policies described in the General Plan, review by the Planning Commission, directions from City Council, and extensive participation and input from the overall community. Through the Specific Plan, the community has articulated a vision for extensive conservation of the alluvial fans, foothills, and drainage areas that border the City to north, enabled and supported by high quality, complete, walkable neighborhoods that reflect the rural history of Etiwanda and provide a range of housing opportunities to the south. This vision is unlikely to be seen without gaining local control through annexation of this land currently in the City's sphere of influence (SOI) - identified in Attachment 1 - but governed by the County's much more lenient development standards. Guiding principles of the Specific Plan include maintaining local control over land currently in the City's SOI, conserving open space, providing opportunities for active healthy living, maintaining fiscal responsibility, providing public safety, and creating a unique sense of place. B. Etiwanda North Specific Plan In 1992, the City Council adopted the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). The ENSP was adopted to establish pre -zoning and development standards for the Etiwanda area of the Sphere of Influence (SOI). Doing this was an effort to ensure that when development of properties within the ENSP was proposed, such development would follow the City's standards and, therefore, be in conformance with the pre -zoning document and be consistent with the goals of annexation. The current ENSP permits a significant amount of residential development in the proposed Rural/Conservation Area (R/CA) and permits a limited amount of residential development in the proposed Neighborhood Area (NA) while maintaining a substantial portion of this area as Flood Control. The ENSP also established two "floating", i.e. approximate, locations for commercial uses. The size and scope of such development would be determined based on a market analysis of the number of households that would support commercial uses. C. North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal In 2007, the County of San Bernardino (County) informed the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) intended to sell up to 1,070 acres of surplus property on the northern edge of the City. The area had an overall area of 1,212 acres that had previously been needed for Page 276 flood control purposes. In 2008, the City offered to assist the County and distributed a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for developers who wished to be considered for a potential joint venture with the County to entitle the land partially located within the City Limits and partially within the SOI, i.e. the unincorporated area of the County. However, the County discontinued the potential joint venture in 2009 due to the economic downturn that occurred around that time period. City leadership recognized that development on the County's land would occur in the future and wanted to be prepared for the eventual sale of this surplus property by the County. Therefore, in January 2015, the City Council reaffirmed the goal of pre -zoning and annexing 4,088 -acres of the City's SOI. This land is currently regulated by the County's zoning and, therefore, allows residential and commercial development that would be subject to the County's development regulations. In May 2015, the City Council approved an agreement with Sargent Town Planning (STP) to prepare the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal. Between the summer of 2015 and the fall of 2017, the City developed an initial plan for the 4,393 -acre Project Area, including the 4,088 acres currently located outside of the City, but within the City's SOI. This initial plan identified the 3,176 -acre Upper Sphere Area as a "Conservation Priority Area" and focused potential development in the 1,217 -acre Lower Sphere Area, identified as the "Neighborhood Priority Area." D. Initial Community Engagement In the fall of 2017, the City conducted four community meetings to solicit comments from interested individuals and community groups on the initial planning concepts. Participants had many questions and concerns about the process, the preliminary concept, including the number and type of residential units proposed, particularly multi -family units, and the amount and type of commercial uses. In addition, there were concerns about fire safety and habitat associated with the configuration of open space in the heart of the neighborhood. Due to the level of concern, the City set aside the preliminary concept and conducted further outreach to better understand the priorities of the Rancho Cucamonga community. During the first half of 2018, City staff worked with the community through a series of meetings and online engagements to consider whether or not to: • Halt planning and annexation efforts and allow the land to develop under County standards; • Raise funds through a new parcel tax to purchase the land for permanent open space conservation, or; • Prepare a plan for new neighborhoods that would allow for conservation of much of the open space. Throughout the community engagement process, the majority of participants continually supported local control and some sort of neighborhood development as a mechanism for achieving local control through annexing the land into the City. At the May 16, 2018 City Council meeting, the Council directed Staff to work toward a neighborhood and conservation plan that would facilitate the community's direction to achieve this outcome. A copy of the staff report and minutes are attached as Attachments 2 and 3, respectively. E. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan As this effort moved into the next phase of creating a plan, the City established a name for the Specific Plan: "Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan" (EHNCP) which both communicates the location of the planning area within the City and the intended purpose of the plan. The name reflects the City's intent to balance the community's priorities for conservation in the rural northern portion of the planning area, and appropriate development in the southern neighborhood area that lies between two existing neighborhoods in the City. After the May 16, 2018 City Council meeting, Staff continued the community engagement process, received and evaluated the community's input, and began to draft the plan. F. Continued Community Engagement Page 277 In the Summer of 2018, the City started an extensive public engagement process to learn more about the community's priorities and how to best balance them in order to create a community-based plan. The public engagement process included small group meetings, pop-up events, multiple online surveys, and a large, well -attended public open house where attendees provided feedback on an initial concept plan. The Public Review Draft EHNCP was developed in response to the community's feedback received during this period. The following highlights the outreach efforts: • July, August, and September 2018 — The City hosted popup outreach. At each popup, the City went to stakeholders at events planned for the community. The popups were intended to raise awareness, to distribute accurate information, and to promote later public engagement opportunities, including the online survey and public Open House. Through nine popups events, the City staff and consultant team interfaced with approximately 839 people. • August 21 through August 29, 2018 — The City met with four different small groups to learn about their preferences for various types of housing, parks, and neighborhood amenities. The groups represent unique perspectives on the future of the Project Area. Small group meetings were held with Campeones para la Comunidad (Community Champions), Healthy RC Steering Committee, Healthy RC Youth Leaders, and several home owners associations (HOAs) that include residents who live to the west of the Project Area. • August 28 through September 24, 2018 — The City hosted an online survey to gather input on emerging priorities and concepts under consideration for the EHNCP. A total of 1,099 respondents participated. • September 21, 2018 — The City hosted an open house at the Victoria Gardens Cultural Center Courtyard to share concepts and gather input for the EHNCP. The open house attracted approximately 200 people and was organized around five stations spotlighting the main planning topics. • October 2018 through February 2019 — Staff engaged over 200,000 digital impressions and reached nearly 89,000 through various digital survey tools such as Facebook LIVE, Facebook posts, Twitter, Instagram, Nextdoor, videos, and eNews. • The City has maintained a website for the EHNCP that includes access to all materials related to the process. The website address is: www.cityofrc.us/Etiwanda Heights. A summary of the community outreach events described above is attached to this staff report as Attachment 4, along with a fact sheet called "What We've Heard" that explains and clarifies some of the key topics raised during the outreach process. In addition to the outreach and engagement with the general public described above, staff conducted the following outreach and engagement that included, or were conducted directly with, property owners in the Sphere of Influence: • Notification mailers in Fall 2017 and Spring 2018 • Fall 2017 community meetings: • October 26, 2017 • November 2, 2017 • November 9, 2017 • November 16, 2017 • Spring 2018 community meetings • March 22, 2018 • April 19, 2018 Page 278 • Meetings with small groups and individuals as of September 23, 2019 (meetings ongoing): • April 25, 2018 • May 17,2018 • June 12, 2018 • July 11, 2018 • August 29, 2018 • October 10, 2018 • October 16, 2018 • October 29, 2018 • December 13, 2018 • February 2, 2019 • May 29, 2019 • August 15, 2019 • August 22, 2019 • September 18, 2019 • September 19, 2019 • September 23, 2019 • September 25, 2019 G. Public Review Draft EHNCP The Public Review Draft EHNCP was developed from Fall 2018 to Spring 2019 and was developed in response to the input received during the community engagement period described previously. The overarching goal and organizing framework of the EHNCP is to generate a limited amount of unique, high-quality neighborhoods that are in balance with, and supportive of, large amounts of contiguous open space and habitat. As such, the EHNCP is organized around two areas: the Rural/Conservation Area, which increased in size from the previous draft to 3,565 acres; and the Neighborhood Area, the southern 828 -acre area that lies between two existing neighborhoods in the City. (Note that the Rural/Conservation Area further increased in size, along with a further decrease in Neighborhood Area size, in the subsequent Public Hearing Draft EHNCP, as described subsequently in this staff report.) The EHNCP establishes six guiding principles, along with development standards, design guidelines and regulatory provisions to facilitate implementation of the guiding principles. The Public Review Draft EHNCP was made available to the public on April 15, 2019. H. Planning Commission Meeting At the April 24, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented a Director's Report updating the Commission on the development of the Specific Plan. Staff provided background on the Specific Plan, a detailed summary of the various components of the Specific Plan, and the community engagement process. The Commission reviewed and discussed the draft Specific Plan document, which was provided to them prior to the meeting for their review. The Planning Commission received public testimony and made several recommendations for improvements and clarifications to the Draft Specific Plan. Overall, the Planning Commission expressed support for the Specific Plan. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Attachments 5 and 6, respectively). The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was subsequently presented to the Planning Commission on May 22, 2019 and is discussed under the Environmental Assessment section of this report. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Attachments 7 and 8, respectively). Trails Advisory Committee Meeting On July 10, 2019, the Trails Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed trail design standards and requirements in the Public Review Draft EHNCP. There were minimal questions which Staff answered to the Committee's satisfaction. The Committee requested some revisions and clarifications, which have been incorporated into the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan, and recommended approval to the Page 279 Planning Commission and City Council with the addition of the requested modifications. A copy of the minutes from the Trails Advisory Committee are attached (Attachment 9). Planning Commission Hearing At the August 28, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, Staff presented the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan and Final EIR for review and consideration by the Planning Commission. Staff provided background on the Specific Plan, a detailed summary of the various components of the Specific Plan, summarized changes made to the Specific Plan since the Public Review Draft Specific Plan was presented to the Planning Commission on April 24, 2019, and summarized the conclusions of the Final EIR. The Commission reviewed and considered the Specific Plan document and Final EIR, and received public testimony. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the Council's adoption of the Specific Plan and associated approvals, certification of the Final EIR, and adoption of the resolution for annexation. A copy of the Staff Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the public hearing are attached (Attachments 10 and 11, respectively). ANALYSIS: A. Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan The Specific Plan being presented to the City Council with this report is the culmination of the process described previously in the Background section of this report and includes changes and revisions that respond to input from City Staff, Planning Commission, Trails Advisory Committee, and comments received from agencies, organizations, and the general public during Draft EIR public review period. The Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan is attached as Attachment 12 (with the Ordinance for adoption). As directed by the City Council, the Specific Plan was developed with direct input from the community to develop the guiding principles that set the foundation of the EHNCP. The Community Vision and Guiding Principles were developed from community input, City Council direction, and General Plan policies. The Community Vision and Guiding Principles balance the primary goal to conserve the large quantities of natural open space in the EHNCP's northern area (Rural/Conservation Area) with high- quality neighborhoods in the EHNCP's southerly area (Neighborhood Area) which complement the existing neighborhoods to the east and west. The six Guiding Principles are: local control, open space conservation, active healthy living, fiscal responsibility, public safety, and a unique sense of place. The development standards, design guidelines and regulatory provisions of the EHNCP, were, in turn, developed to facilitate implementation of the guiding principles. The Specific Plan is both a vision document and regulatory tool. The Specific Plan specifies a vision for a series of walkable, traditional neighborhoods designed to incorporate the rural heritage of our foothill neighborhoods. The proposed neighborhoods would be comprised of a range of single-family houses, from half -acre equestrian estates to smaller starter homes to active adult living options. The plan reflects the full extent of our experience and expertise with designing and delivering world-class neighborhoods. Every home would be within a two- to four -minute walk of a park or trail. A small "Main Street" shopping area would provide residents with shopping and dining opportunities within walking and biking distance of their homes. The new neighborhoods would be built around a new K-8 school (the Specific Plan allows for additional school facilities within residential areas if needed), and connected via a network of small, traditionally sized blocks and tree -lined streets. Furthermore, a missing segment of Wilson Avenue will be completed and Rochester Avenue will be extended. This will increase much needed roadway capacity and provide accessibility into the foothill neighborhoods bringing residents traffic relief and improve first responders' ability to access area neighborhoods. The Specific Plan emphasizes design for people and improved accessibility. Initial analysis indicates these neighborhoods will generate at least 15% less traffic per person than existing neighborhoods in the area. In part, the reduced need for cars is achieved by the extensive multi-purpose trails proposed within the Project Area. These trails will connect to, and complete, the City's trail network in the area. The Specific Plan enhances recreational opportunities for those with horses, bicyclists, hikers, and Page 280 runners by providing for more than 11 miles of new trails. Within the 790 -acre Neighborhood Area, the Specific Plan now proposes 2,700 homes, 85 acres of parks, and 180,000 square feet of shops, retail, and community center. (Note that the number of homes in the Neighborhood Area could be up to 3,000 if the full transfer of development rights as allowed by the Specific Plan occurs. (This is discussed in more detail below in the section that describes the Rural/Conservation Area). This proposed development will help achieve the overarching goal of widespread conservation of the "front country" adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest. The remaining 3,603 acres (an increase from the previous draft) are proposed as Rural/Conservation and would provide for a mix of conserved habitat mitigation lands and open space, existing open space preserves, and very low-density rural residential. The Rural/Conservation Area comprises 82% of the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan proposes to do this by, first, prioritizing and directing new mitigation land into the creation of three new preserves. Second, the Specific Plan applies the City's General Plan land uses, proposed for this area ten years ago, onto the front country, applying stronger hillside design standards to undeveloped lands, and providing for no more than 100 new homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. The Specific Plan further defines and clarifies these standards, including requiring clustering of houses, smaller roadways, and vegetation buffers, so as to further minimize the impact of potential new development and reduce fire risks to new homes. Third, the Specific Plan establishes a voluntary transfer of development rights program. This program would provide an incentive and a mechanism for land owners within the Rural/Conservation Area to sell the development potential of their lands to developers in the Neighborhood Area, providing Rural/Conservation Area land owners with a way of increasing the value of their lands without having to undergo all of the efforts necessary to development those lands first. Such a program is intended to deliver more conserved open space without infringing on anyone's property rights and without using eminent domain to acquire any open space or conservation land. Finally, the City's proposed trail network will thread through both the Neighborhood Area and the Rural/Conservation Area, tying the new open spaces and neighborhoods together and connecting them to the City's existing foothill neighborhoods. The policy framework and regulating provisions of the Rural/Conservation Area and Neighborhood Area are described below: Rural/Conservation Area: The City has had a long-standing vision for the foothills in its Sphere of Influence, and, through the implementation of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan, set forth specific Open Space Land Use designations devoted to the preservation of the natural resources and open space opportunities. The Specific Plan builds on the General Plan to enhance the efforts of conservation and open space preservation. The Rural/Conservation Area's primary focus is centered around these conservation efforts. The key strategies in the Specific Plan are intended to continue efforts to conserve additional land and restore habitat. This will, in part, be achieved through developer incentives in the Neighborhood Area to underwrite conservation as mitigation to offset impacts of that development. Additionally, conservation will be accomplished with property owner incentives within the Rural/Conservation Area through the voluntary, market-driven transfer of development rights to the Neighborhood Area, and then setting aside the property for additional mitigation and conservation. Although there are large areas of the Rural/Conservation Area that are currently considered Open Space or Conservation, not all properties are actively managed and do not have permanent or adequate funding to continue to maintain and manage the habitat. Chapter 3 of the Specific Plan sets forth clear objectives for conservation management with appropriate implementation measures. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the existing biological setting, a vision for the future of this vital area, a framework of land use regulation and conservation incentive and funding programs to encourage and enable public agencies and private property owners to work together to systematically conserve as much of the Rural/Conservation Area as feasible. Page 281 Section 5.9 of the Plan establishes four regulating sub -zones for properties in the Rural/Conservation Area that are consistent with the intent of the existing land use designations in the General Plan. The regulating subzones in the Rural/Conservation Area are as follows: • Hillside: Allows for limited rural residential development to protect the unique character and resources of natural and rural open space, protect against wildland fire, fault, and flooding hazards, and protect natural resources such as water, plant, and animal life. New development in this sub -zone is subject to the Hillside Ordinance and standards in Section 5.9. • Open Space: Allows for very limited rural residential development in steeper terrain and areas of high fire, geologic, seismic, or flood hazards through restriction of intensive uses, and promotes the retention and preservation of rural open spaces that protect natural features. New development in this sub -zone is subject to the Hillside Ordinance and standards in Section 5.9. • Flood Control/Utility Corridor: Includes lands primarily used for flood control purposes and to support public utilities, consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation. Habitable structures are not permitted to provide a high level of public safety, this sub -zone should be left natural for the most part, offering residents the additional benefits of a scenic and recreational resource with limited development potential. • Conservation: Consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation, includes lands to be managed to preserve and protect sensitive habitat, wetland resources, and sensitive plant and animal species potentially occurring in designated areas. This area has high scenic values, limited or no infrastructure facilities, steep terrain, and limited access. Parcels within this sub -zone are owned and managed by a variety of public and private non-profit entities to maximize preservation of open space, watershed and wildlife habitat areas. The land is to be maintained as habitat in perpetuity. As additional land is set aside for conservation in the Rural/Conservation Area, such properties will be rezoned to Conservation. The Specific Plan also establishes design and development standards (Section 5.9) that will regulate development in the Rural/Conservation Area which are intended to preserve the rural character of the foothills. The development standards require avoidance of resources on the site, clustering of structures and homes, minimally improved streets and infrastructure, and fuel modification buffers, as well as design elements that include minimal lighting and appropriately - scaled massing. Development in the Rural/Conservation Area is regulated so as to minimally impact natural terrain and habitat, while taking into consideration potential site constraints, natural hazards, and limited services. As discussed above, the primary focus of the Specific Plan is to maximize open space and conservation. The Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program will encourage the preservation of land within the Rural/Conservation Area without placing new tax burdens on existing residents. As outlined in Section 1.5, Guiding Principles, one objective for conservation of the Rural/Conservation Area was that new development must make preservation of natural landscapes feasible and fiscally self-sustaining. The Specific Plan has been developed with this in mind to enable enough development of new residential units and sales tax -generating retail and restaurants in the Neighborhood Area, and through the process of transferring development rights. The process of transferring development rights is set forth in Section 7.4 and would allow for a privately -owned property in the Rural/Conservation Area to voluntarily sever the right of residential development associated with land ownership from the land itself and other property rights, and convert it into a marketable commodity, allowing the transfer of the value of the residential development rights to the Neighborhood Area, in exchange for financial or other negotiated Page 282 compensation. The value of the residential development rights subject to transfer would be determined by appraisal based upon the maximum density allowed on the property based on the regulating zone, slope, and other environmental constraints. The TDR program requires that the owners of Rural/Conservation Area privately -owned property be fully compensated for the residential development rights being severed and all cost of participation in the TDR program. A multiplier will be used to balance the difference in values between the sending property and the value to the proposed receiving development based on product type. When a parcel is abutting a permanently preserved property (e.g. the North Etiwanda Preserve), the multiplier may be adjusted to further incentivize the transfer of density from the Rural/Conservation Area. The multiplier would be determined by the City or a qualified entity established by the City (TDR Authority). However, the Specific Plan's total yield would not be allowed to exceed the maximum proposal of 3,000 residential units. An infographic on the TDR process is attached to this staff report as Attachment 13. Neighborhood Area: Section 5.2 of the Specific Plan establishes four regulating zones for properties in the Neighborhood Area. The regulating zones in the Neighborhood Area are as follows: • Neighborhood Estate (NE): The Neighborhood Estate regulating zone is for large homes on large lots, with large setbacks and yards, and expansive views of the mountains to the north and/or valley to the south. A semi -rural, equestrian design character is envisioned to provide for opportunities for equestrian living, with curbless streets that lead directly to multipurpose trails to the foothills. • Neighborhood General 1 (NG -1): This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached homes on a range of lot sizes, knitted together by a connective network of landscaped pedestrian -oriented streets, parks, and trails. Well -landscaped front yards and private rear and side yard areas for family activities surround each home. • Neighborhood General 2 (NG -2): This walkable neighborhood regulating zone includes single-family detached and attached homes, knitted together by a network of pedestrian - oriented streets and Paseos, and in proximity to neighborhood parks or squares for family. • Shops & Restaurants (SR): This two -block area centered on the intersection of Wilson and Rochester Avenues has a classic Southern California small-town "Main Street" character with a distinctly rural twist. Neighborhood -serving shops and restaurants have large shopfronts and wide sidewalks for strolling, dining, and visiting. Parking is provided on the street and in rear parking lots that are accessed by courts and Paseos. For each regulating zone, the Specific Plan establishes development standards that will regulate development in the Neighborhood Area. These standards will be applied to each project through the "Precise Neighborhood Plan" process (Section 7.7). The standards for each regulating zone are calibrated to generate the physical form and character in accordance with the Vision described in Chapter 4. The development standards address: 1) layout of new blocks and lots; 2) building types, including lot size, setbacks, height, and massing for each building type; 3) private frontages; 4) signage; and 5) architectural and landscape guidelines. The Specific Plan also contains development standards for public realm improvements, including streets and open space. Allowed uses are contained in Appendix 1, which will be incorporated into the Development Code. The Neighborhood Area is divided into nine Sub -Areas (Figure 5.3). The purpose of this is to 1) phase development and 2) ensure the intended distribution and mixture of building types. Page 283 The types of housing allowed per the Specific Plan are single-family (attached and detached), and the development standards noted above result in average gross densities in the Sub -Areas of the Neighborhood Area ranging from approximately 1.5 dwelling units per gross acre (in the estate lots), up to approximately 5.5 dwelling units per gross acre. There is no high-density housing permitted in the Specific Plan Area. Open space, views, and access to trails and recreation space was identified as a significant priority during the public engagement process and is a primary focus of the General Plan. The Specific Plan's overarching goal is to provide for just enough development in order to support the larger goal of conserving large amounts of permanent open space and habitat conservation. The Specific Plan establishes a network of trail connections building on the existing trail network and trails identified in the General Plan and Trail Implementation Plan. It also proposes to improve the trail connections where there is a lack of connection and create unique walkable neighborhoods. A design feature of the Plan is that every residence is within a 5- to 7 -minute walk of the Deer Creek Greenway, Day Creek Trail and/or, the central greenway, named Camino de las Alturas, which all lead to the foothill trail network. (Note that the "central greenway" was renamed by the community to Camino de las Alturas through additional engagement in May and June 2019.) The Specific Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the area; rather, it supports and enhances the Equestrian Overlay through the provision of connected trails, amenities and equestrian lots within the Project Area. A phasing plan is provided in Section 7.3 in order to achieve orderly build -out of the community based upon market and economic conditions and provide adequate infrastructure and public facilities concurrent with development of each phase. The Neighborhood Area is anticipated to develop in nine phases over a period of approximately 13 years, including entitlement and construction. The phase numbers correspond to an anticipated sequence of Neighborhood Area development, with development of land in Phase 1 expected to occur relatively early, as Phase 1 is adjacent to existing streets, infrastructure, and utilities. The order, however, of phased development may change over time, and individual phases may overlap or develop concurrently. The extension and improvement of Milliken Avenue and associated infrastructure (Phase 2) will facilitate the development of higher -priced estate homes in Phase 3 that will take longer to absorb. A summary of the distribution of dwelling units, commercial square footage, and acreages for parks by phase is in Table 7.3 (Phasing Summary) of the Specific Plan. Sub -areas that have no development potential are Sub -area 10, which encompasses a utility easement, and Sub -area 12, which encompasses the North Etiwanda Preserve. Tentative map, phased final map, improvement plan, and building permit approvals will be required for development. Each of these plans, maps, and permits are subject to City review for consistency with the Specific Plan and approval. Phased infrastructure improvements, as required and approved by the City Engineer to support each phase, will be installed by the Master Developer/Builder or Neighborhood Builder(s)/Developer(s). Development phasing will occur as appropriate levels of infrastructure, community facilities, and open space dedications are provided. B. Substantive Changes to the Public Review Draft Plan Since the Public Review Draft EHNCP was presented to the Planning Commission on April 24, 2019, changes were made to the Specific Plan in response to input from City Staff, the Planning Commission, Trails Advisory Committee, and comments received from agencies, organizations, and the general public during Draft EIR public review period. Minor clean-up edits, clarifications and updates were also made throughout the Specific Plan to further refine the document. The substantive changes and those that respond to environmental concerns received during the Draft EIR review period are discussed below: • Reduction of Neighborhood Area Footprint: The overall acreage of the Neighborhood Area was Page 284 reduced from 828 acres to 790 acres, with the remaining 38 acres being added to the Rural/Conservation Area, zoned Rural -Open Space, and intended to become part of the future Etiwanda Heights Preserve. The change occurs in Sub -Area 3 (Figure 5.3), with a reduction in gross acreage of that sub -area from 155 to 117 acres. This change is an approach to respond to comments received from community input and environmental organizations, and results in multiple benefits: • Biological resource benefits: With a reduced development footprint on the north edge of the Neighborhood Area, there are several benefits associated with biological resources, which include: an increase in the size of the Etiwanda Heights Preserve by 38 acres; a decrease in impacts to scale broom scrub by 21.15 acres; a decrease in impacts to non -wetland waters or streambeds by 5.46 acres and that acreage would be added to the Etiwanda Heights Preserve for conservation; reduced impacts to three special -status plant species (i.e. 1 Plummer's mariposa lily, 4 intermediate mariposa lilies, and 882 Parry's spineflower); these individuals would be conserved within the Etiwanda Heights Preserve. • Improved viewshed benefits: As there were still some community concerns about edge conditions on the west side, the revised plan widens the Deer Creek Greenway along the west edge of Sub -Area 3 by approximately 100 feet to provide an additional buffer between neighborhoods and to improve views of the mountains for residents in the Deer Creek neighborhood. • Addition of equestrian standards and amenities to support the Equestrian Overlay: The Specific Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the Project Area; rather, it supports and enhances the Equestrian Overlay through the provision of connected trails, amenities and equestrian lots within the Project Area. With the revision to Sub -Area 3, additional development standards were added to Section 5.4 to ensure equestrian housing is permitted on a wider variety of lot sizes, while still ensuring compatibility with adjacent residences. In addition, with a greater mix of lots sizes in Sub - Area 3, which now range from large single-family lots up to estate lots, the projected financial feasibility of the development improves, which could leverage more amenities. As such, a three -acre equestrian park, flanking the west side of Camino de las Alturas, has been added to the Specific Plan. • Trails: Section 6.1.4 was amended to expand the trail network to provide an additional east -west connection in the Neighborhood Area, and to provide more detail for users of the Specific Plan to ensure that equestrian and multi -use trail needs are met. Updates include the addition of an east/west multi -use trail along the residential street that connects the Day Creek Greenway to Camino de las Alturas, and better descriptions of the type, purpose, and available amenities/features at the various points of access to the trail network. The revisions clearly demonstrate that the trails and points of access are for all users, i.e. is multi-purpose (pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists), and identifies where horse trailer parking is proposed. The Specific Plan also more clearly illustrates the existing/proposed trails as described in the General Plan and the proposed trails as described in the Specific Plan, as well as provides additional text that states that when the Specific Plan does not discuss the design and/technical requirements for a trail element or feature, those implementing the Specific Plan shall refer to the City's requirements, standard drawings, relevant governing documents, etc. that apply to the trails located elsewhere in the City. The Specific Plan does not change the existing Equestrian Overlay as it currently applies to the area; rather, it supports and enhances the Equestrian Overlay through the provision of connected trails, amenities and equestrian lots within the Project Area. • Rural Development Standards: In response to comments received from the Endangered Habitats League (EHL), Section 5.9 was revised using existing successful programs in San Diego County and San Luis Obispo as models. The revised Section 5.9, Rural Development Standards, sets forth goals and principles for any development in the Rural/Conservation Area and adds specific Page 285 quantitative standards for the avoidance of environmental resources, as well as additional requirements for minimizing site disturbance and maximizing open space. Additional design standards for roads in the Rural/Conservation Area were also added. • Conservation and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR): In response to comments received from the Planning Commission and environmental agencies and organizations, and with input from a nationally -recognized TDR consultant, the discussion of conservation and TDR (Section 7.4) was expanded and clarified. This includes modifications to further incentivize the use of TDR as a conservation mechanism, and to provide more clarity to the user as to the density transfer process and the administration and management of the program. The total number of baseline, or "non -TDR" residential units permitted in the Neighborhood Area has been reduced from 2,900 to 2,700, with the maximum number of residential units permitted with TDR remaining at 3,000 so to motivate builders to acquire development rights from Rural/Conservation Area property owners through the TDR Program. The Specific Plan would continue to allow development of up to 3,000 units in the Neighborhood Area through use of the TDR Program. This program would allow for the transfer of development rights for the 100 units allowed in the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area. In addition, the TDR Authority that would be established would hold an allocation of development rights for 200 additional units which will be used to equalize the relative values of the properties involved in the TDR transaction (sender, receiver). Supplemental language has also been added to more clearly describe the 3:1 "global" ratio, which is used as a method for tracking the progress of the neighborhood, with a value -based program on the "sending" property owner side, so the values between the sending (Rural/Conservation Area) sites and receiving (Neighborhood Area) sites can be equalized and take into account the wide-ranging values of the sending development rights, the differences between product types, and the developer/builder's willingness to pay the TDR processing cost. See Attachment 14, TDR Value/Equalization Balancing, attached to this staff report. The 3:1 value ratio was determined to be appropriate on an overall basis, since it can be expected that some portion of the 100 residential units allowed in the Rural/Conservation Area will be built by the owners, or they simply will not participate in the TDR program. In addition, it has been assumed that some of the properties with development rights in the Rural/Conservation Area will be directly acquired by the Master Developer and Neighborhood Builders for direct habitat mitigation and will not be part of the TDR program. The TDR equalization ratio will be set administratively by the TDR Authority on a transaction basis so as to meet the objectives of the Specific Plan. As currently stated in the TDR program, the TDR Authority is allowed to increase the multiplier to further incentivize the density from priority areas. The Specific Plan also includes a re -visiting clause to amend the program if the program is not meeting the intended objectives. In addition, until such time that TDR from the Rural/Conservation Area has been accomplished, units will not be permitted to move between subareas in order to further incentivize the transfer of units from the Rural/Conservation Area. A table and map of parcels within the Project Area that have recorded Conservation Easements was included as Appendix 4 of the Plan for future tracking and monitoring of the TDR program. • Healthy Development Checklist: The Healthy Development Checklist was created by the Riverside University Health System, Public Health, in 2017 and developed collaboratively with agencies in the Inland Empire. It is the most up-to-date, best practices tool for connecting broad - level healthy community policies with the details that occur with neighborhood planning and development review. It was developed as a toolkit for making the connection from policy framework to neighborhood design in creating healthy neighborhoods. Creating healthy neighborhoods is in line with Rancho Cucamonga's core values; therefore, the Healthy Development Checklist has been included in the Specific Plan as a framework for the Neighborhood Area. The Checklist has been incorporated into Chapter 4, and the vision for the Plan carefully considers and addresses each of the six categories of the Healthy Development Checklist with strengths and amenities uniquely derived from its location. The Healthy Page 286 Development Checklist was developed to provide criteria for healthy development practices; therefore, a provision was also added to Section 7.7 to require that every Precise Neighborhood Plan application shall include a completed Healthy Development Checklist to demonstrate how the Precise Neighborhood Plan complies with as many of the criteria as possible to promote health through the development project. The Checklist is intended to be used as a tool to judge the overall health performance and supportiveness of new development projects. • Allowed Uses: In response to comments received by the Planning Commission, Table A-1.1, Allowed Uses, was broadened to permit and conditionally permit additional commercial uses in the Shops and Restaurants (SR) Regulating Zone, while still maintaining the "Main Street" intent of small-scale retail shops and restaurants in this zone. The changes include the addition of business support services, furniture and appliances stores, home improvement supply stores with a maximum size of 5,000 square feet, repair shops for small equipment, medical services permitted on upper floors only, and veterinary clinics with a conditional use permit. The additional allowable commercial uses that were added to Table A-1.1 do not create any additional environmental impacts. The changes noted above concerning the reduced Neighborhood Area footprint and lower number of total baseline dwelling units have been reviewed from a CEQA perspective, and as discussed below, do not result in any changes in the conclusions reached in the Draft EIR, although certain impacts are reduced as a result of the changes. Please refer to the Final EIR, Appendix F, Analysis of Revised Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan. Since the Planning Commission Hearing on August 28, 2019, two additional minor edits were made to the Public Hearing Draft EHNCP. Language was added to Chapters 5, 6 and 7 to clarify maintenance and operation of public facilities, and language was added to Section 7.7 to clarify that request of transfers of non -TDR units between Neighborhood Area Subareas shall not be permitted until such time that the City Council has made the finding that all available development rights in the Rural/Conservation Area have been transferred through the TDR Program to the extent feasible. C. Request for Changes to Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan Allowed Density in Rural -Open Space (R -OS) and Rural -Hillside (R -H) Sub -Zones The Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan allows the development of a maximum of 100 homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. The EIR analyzes the potential impacts associated with development of 100 homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. The 100 -home limit in the Specific Plan was a conservative analysis based on a base density of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres in the R -OS Sub -Zone and 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in the R -H Sub -Zone. In response to a recent request of several residents in the Rural/Conservation Area, staff investigated whether changing the regulations in the EHNCP (Table 5.9.3A, Allowed Density Per Regulating Sub - Zone) to allow 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres in the R -OS Sub -Zone and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in the R -H Sub -Zone. These densities follow the current framework of General Plan densities for these land use designations, and would continue to rely on the City's Hillside Ordinance (Chapter 17.52 of the Development Code) to determine site specific density based on steepness of terrain, as well as the requirements of the EHNCP and building code related to other site specific constraints such as geologic hazards and water and riparian features. The residents explained to staff they prefer the existing General Plan framework of base densities, used in conjunction with the site specific analyses required by the Hillside Ordinance and other code requirements, because they are more familiar with the framework and feel that it ultimately provides more flexibility in designing appropriate locations for homes on individual sites. At the residents' request, staff conducted a programmatic analysis of the scenario where the R -OS Sub -Zone has a base density of 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres and the R -H Sub -Zone has a base density Page 287 of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres. Our programmatic analysis estimates the yield of units under this scenario would be approximately 78 units in the Rural/Conservation Area, which is well within the range of 100 units allowed by the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan and analyzed in the EIR. Because the estimated yield would not exceed the number of units analyzed in the EIR, the change to more closely calibrate these densities to the General Plan densities would not result in any additional environmental impacts or changes to the conclusions reached in the EIR. Staff supports the residents' request to change the allowed density requirements in the EHNCP to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres in the R -OS Sub -Zone and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in the R -H Sub -Zone. We recommend the City Council consider this request and direct staff to make this change with the adoption of the Specific Plan. Use Requirements for Animal Keeping Also at the recent request of two residents in the Rural/Conservation Area, we were asked to revisit the use requirements for animal -related uses set forth in Table A-1.1 of the EHNCP, in particular, the requirement for a conditional use permit for Animal Keeping for Livestock and Poultry. The intent of the EHNCP is to preserve and maintain the existing rural residential lifestyle of the residents living in the Rural/Conservation Area, and the intent of the EHNCP Use Table, which also refers to and is used in conjunction with the regulations for animal keeping in Chapter 17.88 of the Development Code, is to maintain consistency with the County's regulations for animal keeping as an accessory use, which is permitted by right up to a certain number of animals. The residents explained to staff that they prefer to maintain the existing framework under which animal keeping is permitted, and therefore requested that Animal Keeping for Livestock and Poultry be permitted by right, within the number of animals set forth in Chapter 17.88, which is consistent with the requirements of the County's code. Staff agrees with the residents that animal keeping is reasonable and expected use in a rural area and supports the residents' request to change the EHNCP Use Table to allow by -right animal keeping consistent with the County's regulations. We recommend the City Council consider this request and direct staff to make this change with the adoption of the Specific Plan. D. General Plan The majority of the Project Area is designated as Flood Control/Public Utilities, Conservation, Hillside Residential, and Open Space per the General Plan, Figure LU -2. With the exception of a 33 -acre parcel located south of Banyan Avenue and west of the Deer Creek flood control channel, the majority of the proposed Neighborhood Area is currently designated as Flood Control/Utility Corridor. The remaining 3,603 acres of the Project Area are within the Rural/Conservation Area and the Specific Plan would rezone this area consistent with the existing Open Space Land Use designations in the General Plan. An amendment to the General Plan is required to change the land use designations within the Neighborhood Area, as well to provide other changes to General Plan maps and text to memorialize the Specific Plan in the General Plan. The proposed General Plan map, text and table amendments (with the Resolution for adoption) are attached as Attachment 16. The General Plan Amendments are contingent upon approval of the annexation application from the San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), and will be implemented once the annexation process is complete. Per Section 65454 of the California Government Code, specific plans must be consistent with the jurisdiction's General Plan. The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan was approved in 2010, and as subsequently amended, serves as the main land use policy document for the City. Therefore, all future development in the City must comply with the General Plan's goals and policies, unless amended. The vision, goals, development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan are consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and Housing Element. The General Plan Consistency Analysis prepared as part of the EIR provides an analysis of the consistency of the Plan, including the proposed amendment to the General Plan to incorporate the Plan into the General Plan, with applicable goals and policies in the adopted Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. The General Plan Consistency Analysis (Table 4.10-2 of the EIR) is attached to this staff report as Attachment 17. In addition, the City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre SOI area to Page 288 identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP is being prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. E. Development Code and Zoning Map The Development Code will be amended to add a description of the Specific Plan and the Allowed Use table for the Specific Plan within the Development Code. This proposal will apply to the Project Area to permit zoning/land use designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the Specific Plan. The proposed Development Code Amendments (with the Ordinance for adoption) are attached to this staff report as Attachment 18. The Zoning Map will be amended to change the zoning of multiple parcels within the Project Area, including the areas proposed to be annexed into the City, to zoning designations that allow conservation, residential, commercial, and/or civic uses consistent with the Specific Plan. The proposed Zoning Map Amendments (with the Ordinance for adoption) are attached to this staff report as Attachment 19. F. Etiwanda North Specific Plan As identified in the Background section of this report, most of the project area (approximately 3,494 acres) is within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP). During the preparation of the annexation, it was determined that a new specific plan was necessary as the ENSP does not provide for conservation, does not "pre -zone" the entire project area, permits a significant amount of development where it should not occur, and does not adequately address development where it could occur. Thus, the ENSP needs to be amended to remove the EHNCP area from that Specific Plan. The proposed amendments to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (with the Ordinance for adoption) are attached to this staff report as Attachment 20. G. Environmental Assessment Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2017091027), and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), and Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. The City Council must consider the proposed findings required by CEQA and a Statement of Overriding Considerations before the EHNCP can be adopted. The purpose of an EIR is to inform the public about any significant impacts to the physical environment resulting from a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, and promote public participation. The contents of the EIR becomes an informational tool for the Planning Commission and City Council to use in determining the appropriate and best land use for the project site. This document addresses the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with development of the proposed Specific Plan, as well as identifies feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that may be adopted to reduce or eliminate these impacts. All environmental categories are being evaluated in EIR. The intent of this EIR is to evaluate the broad -scale impacts of the Specific Plan. Any future proposed projects within the Plan Area will be reviewed on their own merit. The following summarizes key points in the environmental review process: Notice of Preparation A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report was prepared and circulated on December 4, 2018 to the State Clearinghouse, and to public agencies that have discretionary approval power over the project, i.e. "Responsible Agencies", as well as to Tribal Governments. Also, the NOP was made available for review at the Archibald and Paul A. Biane Libraries, at City Hall, and on the City's website. Consistent wtih State law, the comment period ended 49 days after the date of Page 289 circulation on January 21, 2019. The NOP serves as public notification that an EIR is being prepared and requests comment and input from responsible agencies and other interested parties regarding environmental issues to be addressed in the document. In addition to the NOP, CEQA recommends conducting a scoping meeting for the purpose of identifying the range of potential significant impacts that should be analyzed within the scope of the Draft EIR. As discussed below, a scoping meeting was held for the Project. The City received comments from eight public agencies, two organizations, two native American tribes, and 43 individual members of the community. The NOP and the comments that were received are contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Agencies or interested persons, whether they responded during the public review period of the NOP or not, also had an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the public review period and during public hearings as discussed below. Further, as required under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18, tribal notification letters were sent in January 2019 by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The City complied with AB 52 and PRC Section 21080.3.1 and initiated and concluded consultation with the tribes that responded to the letters, as discussed in the Final EIR. Public Scoping Meeting The City conducted a noticed Public Scoping meeting during a Planning Commission meeting on December 12, 2018. The notice for this scoping meeting appeared in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and notification was provided in various social media platforms. The intent of the Public Scoping Meeting was to receive public testimony on those issues that the public would like to have addressed in the EIR as it relates to the project and environment. Following a brief explanation of the environmental review process, comments were received from the public and the Commission. Public comments included opposition to the development of the area, preferring to keep the land as a conservation area; opposition due to a perceived loss of property value for the northern portion of the project site; concern with the location of the proposed school; concern about potential for fire and flood events; concern about increased traffic and noise; and concern about relocation of the fire station. The public and the Commission requested that a broad spectrum of potential alternatives to the project be considered and analyzed in the EIR. Draft EIR Preparation and Circulation The Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR (SCH No. 2017091027) were prepared and distributed to all Responsible and Trustee agencies, and individuals who had expressed interest in the project and/or had previously requested copies. The NOA was also provided on the City's webpage for the project, on the City's "eNewsletter" (which has 18,000 subscribers), and an email was sent to approximately 1,200 individuals who subscribe to the EHNCP topic. The NOA was also advertised in various social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Nextdoor. The 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR began on April 29, 2019 and ended on June 14, 2019. During the public review period, the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review at: • The Archibald Library - 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; • The Paul A. Biane Library - 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739; • The Planning Counter at City Hall - 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730; and • www.cityofrc.us/etiwandaheights Comment letters were received from ten agencies and organizations, and thirty-three members of the public, as well as comments from the Planning Commission, during the public comment period for the Draft EIR. The list of commenting parties and comment letters are included in the Final EIR. Written responses to all significant environmental issues raised have been prepared and made available in the Final EIR. Planning Commission Page 290 At the May 22, 2019 Planning Commission meeting, Staff presented to the Commission a Director's Report regarding the DEIR. Staff and the CEQA consultant provided background on the Specific Plan, a detailed summary of the DEIR and topics analyzed in the DEIR. The Commission reviewed and discussed the DEIR document, which was provided to them prior to the meeting for their review. The Planning Commission received public testimony. A copy of the Director's Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the meeting are attached (Attachments 7 and 8). Subsequently, and as described previously, at the August 28, 2019 Planning Commission hearing, Staff presented the Public Hearing Draft Specific Plan and Final EIR for review and consideration by the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the Council's adoption of the Specific Plan and associated approvals, certification of the Final EIR, and adoption of the resolution for annexation. A copy of the Staff Report (without exhibits) and the minutes from the public hearing are attached (Attachments 10 and 11, respectively). At this hearing, some members of the public and Planning Commission raised questions about the flood risk to the Specific Plan area, and the Planning Commission requested further information and explanation about how the historical documentation on flood conditions relates to current documents and conditions. The following discussion provides this information: Flood Control Studies Comments were submitted during the preparation of the EIR that referenced past comments on the hydrology and design studies conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) on the Deer Creek Debris Basin and channel built by the ACOE in 1983 and the Day Creek Debris Basin and channel system, including the Day Creek Diversion Levee, built by San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD) in 1990. The comments submitted included comments from 2000 that indicated the 310 -acre foot design capacity of the Deer Creek Debris Basin was too small and that the basin as constructed had a capacity that was less than the 310 acre foot design capacity. The Final EIR includes information from the SBCFCD on the capacity and performance of the Deer Creek Debris Basin in Topical Response 3, Flood Conditions. As stated in this response, the ACOE and SBCFCD completed a variety of improvements and maintenance activities on the Deer Creek Debris Basin between 2004 — 2007 that increased the capacity of this basin. In 2011, the Deer Creek and Day Creek debris dams were mapped and analyzed for their existing debris storage capacity by SBCFCD. The net -available storage capacity was determined at that time to be 322 acre -ft for the Deer Creek Basin and 465 acre -ft for the Day Creek Basin, which exceeds the original design capacity for these basins. The ACOE designed the Deer Creek Debris Basin to accommodate a 100 -year storm. Comments also questioned the 5,400 cubic foot per second (CFS) peak runoff volume used as the basis of defining a 100 -year storm for the Deer Creek Watershed. These comments state that the ACOE lowered the definition of the 100 -year design storm event from 8,000 cfs to 5,400 cfs and lower and, for this reason, the basin and channel do have sufficient capacity to accommodate storm events. SBCFCD installed a rain gauge in the Deer Creek watershed in 1994. The highest intensity of rainfall recorded to date by this gauge is 1.4 inches per hour, recorded on July 24, 2005, which results in a flow rate of 3,348 cubic feet per second. A nearby gauge in Day Creek watershed, installed in 1987, has recorded the highest intensity of rainfall to date as 1.6 inches per hour on March 1, 1991, which results in a flow rate of 3,383 cubic feet per second. During the flood of 1938, which was one of the greatest floods in history, the flow rate in Deer Creek was measured at 4,200 feet per second. It should be noted and corrected that, while some comments indicate changes to the Day Creek Diversion Levee have been proposed by this plan, no changes to this levee are actually proposed. The comments also question the median size of boulders in the Deer Creek Watershed assumed by the ACOE in the design of the basin. Following the 2003 Grand Prix Fire and subsequent storms, SBCFCD did not encounter any boulders larger than 5 -feet in diameter in the basin and no debris left the basin over the spillway in the following years after the fire. These comments reference historical Page 291 information considered by the ACOE and SBCFCD in the design of the Deer and Day Creek Debris Basins and channels and the Day Creek Diversion Levee. The sufficiency of the capacity of both basins was demonstrated in 2003 during the winter storms that followed the Grand Prix fire. Analysis of Project Revisions As noted above, the revisions made to the Specific Plan in response to various comments were assessed to determine whether any new or more severe impacts might result. As discussed in detail in Appendix F to the Final EIR, most environmental impacts of the Original Plan that are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. Impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and potentially unavoidable. Implementation of the Revised Specific Plan would incrementally reduce, but not substantially reduce these impacts when compared to the Original Plan. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) In compliance with CEQA, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared. The MMRP is a reporting program that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-2 for the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Avenue was revised since the Final EIR was prepared. The technical memorandum from Fehr & Peers (included as Appendix I of the Final EIR) identifies the revisions to this mitigation measure. As explained and documented in the attached technical memorandum, the revised measure for this intersection would achieve the required capacity at the intersection and would be equally effective as the measure identified in the Draft EIR for this intersection. With the improvements identified in the revised mitigation measure, this intersection will operate at an acceptable level of service during the PM peak hour and the significant impact identified in the EIR will be mitigated to less than significant. Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations If significant unavoidable environmental impacts result with a project, the City must balance the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, the City may adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15025(c), the Planning Commission must consider the EIR in either its draft or final form before making its recommendations. The findings that the City Council needs to make to certify the EIR are set forth in the Resolution attached this staff report (Attachment 15). The Final EIR, including Appendix F, concludes that with implementation of the Specific Plan and all recommended mitigation measures, air quality emissions generated by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan would remain significant and contribute to cumulative impacts, and would not be consistent with Southern California Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for this reason. The EIR identifies a program of mitigation for impacts to biological resources in both the Neighborhood Areas and for potential impacts from development of up to 100 homes in the Rural/Conservation Area. Because the number and location of homes that may be developed in the Rural/Conservation Area cannot be determined at this time, potential impacts, even with the development standards and review procedures defined in the Plan, may remain significant. While the Plan identifies the preservation of land in the Rural/Conservation Area as mitigation for impacts to habitat, including riparian and wetland habitat and habitat for sensitive species in the Neighborhood Area, if a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, impacts would remain significant. Thus, as a conservative approach, the Final EIR concludes that there may be significant unmitigable impacts to sensitive wildlife species, riparian and other sensitive natural communities, and state or federally protected wetlands. Page 292 Greenhouse gas emissions that would be generated by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan are considered significant, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, because the growth allowed by the Specific Plan is not fully accounted for in current regional growth projections and the total amount of estimated emissions exceeds the threshold of significance used in the analysis. Because the Specific Plan would permit development of an area identified as containing aggregate (sand and gravel) resources of regional value that would preclude access to these resources, this impact is identified as significant and unavoidable. As stated above, because the growth allowed by the Specific Plan is not fully accounted for in current regional growth projections, the population and housing impacts of the Specific Plan are also identified as significant and unavoidable. Also, traffic generated by the uses allowed by the Specific Plan would also contribute to projected cumulative impacts on segments of the 1-15 and SR -210 that would require improvements not identified in current regional plans. For this reason, the impacts of the Specific Plan on freeway traffic conditions are identified as significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the City is required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with CEQA Section 21081. A statement of Overriding Considerations is attached to this staff report as part of Attachment 15 for consideration by the City Council before approving the EHNCP. The Statement of Overriding Considerations balances the following project benefits against the remaining significant environmental impacts identified above: Project Benefit #1: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP has been prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. Project Benefit #2: The City desires to take local land use control of the Project Area to ensure that future conservation and limited development meet with the City's high standards. Project Benefit #3: Implementation of this Specific Plan will help achieve the overarching goal of widespread conservation of the "front country" adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest. underwritten by and in balance with high quality neighborhood development in the southerly portion of the Project Area already surrounded by existing neighborhoods. The Specific Plan defines a strategy for development to ensure that conservation and neighborhood development pay their own way and do not place new tax burdens on existing residents. Project Benefit #4: Implementation of the Specific Plan will extend the City's pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trail networks to connect existing and new neighborhoods to one another and to the foothill open spaces above. Project Benefit #5: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide a range of housing opportunities for families of many ages, sizes and lifestyles. Project Benefit #6: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide connections from existing neighborhoods and streets into the Project Area, ensuring access and prioritizing multi -modal safety — designated bike lanes, pedestrian -friendly sidewalks, and limited equestrian paths — while designing safe neighborhoods, complete stormwater management plans and natural fire -safety buffers to mitigate risks of wildfire spread. Project Benefit #7: The Specific Plan provides high quality design standards to ensure that the buildings and landscapes of Etiwanda Heights reflect the unique heritage of Etiwanda and Alta Loma, and that new neighborhood edges are compatible with existing adjacent neighborhoods and respect existing viewsheds. Project Benefit #8: The Specific Plan emphasizes design for people and improved accessibility and initial analysis indicates that the EHNCP neighborhoods will generate at least 15% less traffic (Vehicle Miles Traveled) per person than existing neighborhoods in the area. Page 293 H. Public Notification The Planning Commission public hearing for the proposed project was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. Also, Staff posted notification of the public hearing on the webpage for this project that was created on the City's website, and on social media networks including the City's Facebook page. The City Council public hearing for the proposed project was advertised in the Inland Valley Dailx Bulletin newspaper on September 6, 2019. Also, Staff posted notification of the public hearing on the webpage for this project that was created on the City's website, and on social media networks including the City's Facebook page. Next Steps and Annexation Process Following the City Council's consideration and potential certification the FEIR, adoption of the Specific Plan and associated approvals, and adoption of the resolution for annexation, the San Bernardino County Flood Control District will submit an application for a Tentative Tract Map for the surplus flood control land in the Neighborhood Area for consideration by the Planning Commission. Also, if the City Council adopts the resolution for annexation (attached to this staff report as Attachment 21), the City will submit an annexation application to San Bernardino County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for approval of the annexation of 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. The annexation process is described in Attachment 22, LAFCO Proceedings. FISCAL IMPACT: The fiscal impact of the plan preparation is expected to be neutral as the City can recover costs of preparing the plan through a specific plan maintenance fee paid for by the future development of the area. The fiscal impact of the EHNCP after buildout is analyzed in the Fiscal Analysis of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP), dated September 12, 2019, and prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman Associates. In summary, a recurring surplus is projected to the City General Fund, the City Gas Tax Fund, and the City Library Fund for the total EHNCP after buildout. A recurring surplus is also projected to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District after buildout of the total EHNCP. These projected surpluses indicate that existing residents will not bear any tax burden for the new development. This analysis is attached to this staff report as Attachment 23. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP has been prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Location Map Attachment 2 - May 16, 2018 City Council Staff Report Attachment 3 - City Council Meeting Minutes Attachment 4 - "What We've Heard" Fact Sheet and Summaries of Community Outreach Events Attachment 5 - April 24, 2019 Planning Commission Director's Report on Specific Plan Attachment 6 - April 24, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 7 - May 22, 2019 Planning Commission Director's Report of DEIR Attachment 8 - May 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 9 - July 10, 2019 Trails Advisory Committee Meeting Action Agenda Attachment 10 - August 28, 2019 Planning Commission Hearing Staff Report (without exhibits) and Resolutions (without exhibits) Page 294 Attachment 11 - August 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 12 - Ordinance No. 957 to Adopt the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan with Public Hearing Draft Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan attached thereto Attachment 13 - Infographic on Transfers of Development Rights (TDR) Attachment 14 - Graphic on TDR Value/Equalization Balancing Attachment 15 - Resolution No. 19-082 to certfy the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2017091027) Attachment 16 - Resolution No. 19-083 to Adopt General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749 with Proposed General Plan Amendments attached thereto Attachment 17 - Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis Attachment 18 - Ordinance No. 958 to Adopt Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459 with Proposed Development Code Amendments attached thereto Attachment 19 - Ordinance No. 959 to Adopt Zoning Map Amendment and Prezoning DRC2015- 00752 with Proposed Zoning Map Amendments attached thereto Attachment 20 - Ordinance No. 960 to Adopt Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015- 00750 with Proposed Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendments attached thereto Attachment 21 - Resolution No. 19-084 to Approve Annexation DRC2015-00732 Attachment 22 - LAFCO Proceedings Attachment 23 - Fiscal Analysis of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Attachment 24 - Letter from Etiwanda School District Attachment 25 - Letter from City to Etiwanda School District Page 295 October 2, 2019 City Council Meeting - ITEM J1 - Revisions RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSERVATION PLAN, MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") prepared the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (EHNCP) DRC2015-00751 as a specific plan (the "Specific Plan") to regulate development in an area comprising approximately 4,393 acres extending roughly from Haven Avenue easterly to the City's boundary with Fontana, and from the northerly City limits to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary that is largely in the City's Sphere of Influence (the "Project Area"). The Project Area is more particularly described in Section 2.2 of the Specific Plan. 2. In addition to the Specific Plan, the EHNCP requires the following additional approvals: Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00751, General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC 2015-00750, Annexation DRC2015-00732, as well as a forthcoming tentative tract map or maps (collectively, the "Project"). 3. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA guidelines, the City prepared an initial study for the Project and, based on the information contained in the initial study, concluded that there was substantial evidence that the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several resources. 4. Based upon the information contained in the initial study, the City determined that an EIR must be prepared for the Project in order to analyze the Project's potential impacts on the environment. 5. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, on December 4, 2018, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft EIR for the Project, and circulated the NOP and initial study to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the application for a 49 -day public review period. 6. The City received comments from eight public agencies, two organizations, two native American tribes, and 43 individual members of the community provided comments in response to the NOP. 7. The City also initiated consultation with two tribes in the area, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, in accordance with the City's obligations under AB 52. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 2 8. The City released the Draft EIR for a 45 -day public review period beginning April 29, 2019 and ending on June 14, 2019. During the public review period the City received a total of 33 comment letters on the Draft EIR, and the City has prepared responses to each comment. 9. The EIR concludes that, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, the Project may have a significant and unavoidable impact on several environmental resources. Accordingly, the City Council must adopt a statement of overriding considerations in order to approve the Project. 10. As a result of public comments received during the Draft EIR's public comment period, as well as during public meetings regarding the EHNCP, certain revisions were made to the Specific Plan and included in a revised Public Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan, dated August 7, 2019. These revisions to the Specific Plan included: (1) a 38 -acre reduction in the size of the Specific Plan's Neighborhood Area and a corresponding increase in size of the Rural/Conservation Area, located within the northwest corner of the Neighborhood Area, which reduced the Neighborhood Area's development potential from 155 to 117 acres, and increased in size the Etiwanda Heights Preserve from 337 acres to 375 acres; (2) added a new three -acre equestrian park to the northeast corner of Sub -Area 3; (3) expanded the trail network to provide an additional east -west connection through the Neighborhood Are and additional descriptors for the type and extent of trails within the Project Area; (4) modified the Rural/Conservation Areas' development standards and set quantitative standards for the avoidance of environmental resources; (5) reduced the number of permitted residential units in the Neighborhood Area from 2,900 to 2,700 units; (6) increased the development rights that may be transferred from the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area under the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program; (7) incorporated Riverside University Health Systems' Healthy Development Checklist; and (8) added additional small retail and professional uses to the list of permitted uses in the Shops and Restaurants Regulating Zone. 11. The City prepared an environmental analysis of the changes to the Specific Plan identified in the August 7, 2019 Public Hearing Draft and concluded that they would incrementally reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Draft EIR, but would not change the Draft EIR's overall conclusions. 12. The City prepared a Final EIR in accordance with CEQA, which contains the City's responses to comments, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, the Draft EIR as modified by the Final EIR, and all appendices, including the aforementioned environmental analysis of the Project as modified by the Specific Plan's Public Hearing Draft included as Appendix F. 13. On July 24, 2019, the Planning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and continued the hearing to August 28, 2019. On August 28, 2019, the Planning Commission re -opened the duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and concluded the hearing on that date. Thereafter, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council approve the Project, and specifically adopted Resolution No. 19-54 recommending that the City Council certify the Final EIR, make necessary findings under CEQA, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 3 14. Following the Planning Commission's public hearing, the Public Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan was slightly revised to: (1) clarify the expected maintenance responsibilities of public and private improvements within the Project Area; and (2) to restrict density transfers among residential sub -areas until those density transfers reasonably achieved through the Specific Plan's Transfer of Development Rights Program are completed. 15. A traffic mitigation measure in the EIR applicable to the intersection of Milliken Avenue and Terra Vista Avenue was modified after the Planning Commission mee4nghgarib_q. The modified mitigation measure would avoid reconfiguring the eastbound approach to this intersection, and would instead adjust and optimize the PM peak hour signal timing plan and cycle length. An environmental analysis of this modification was prepared and concluded that the modified mitigation measure would be equally as effective as the prior version of the measure. This environmental analysis is included as an appendix to the Final EIR. 16. Subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing. City staff discussed certain revisions to the allowable density within the Rural/Conservation Area's Hillside and Open Space sub -zones with various residents whoserrooperty would be subject to those density limits upon adoption of the Specific Plan and approval of the annexation. Based on those discussions. City staff understood that the density limits within those sub -zones should better track the maximum permitted density allowable under the current General Plan, even though the initial density limits were within the General Plan's permissible density ranges. Thereafter. the City conducted an analysis of the impacts associated with permitting one dwelling unit per two acres in the Hillside sub -zone and one dwelling unit per ten acres in the Open Space sub -zone. This analysis concluded that, given development constraints in those sub -zones, the proposed increase in density would not result in more than the currently proposed 100 dwelling units to be developed within the Rural/Conservation Area. Accordinaly, staff recommended that the City Council adopt the revised density limits in the final Specific Plan. An environmental analysis of the revisions was prepared and concluded that they would not result in any additional or different impacts than discussion in the Final EIR. This environmental analvsis is included as an appendix to the Final EIR. 17- Prior to the Citv Council's consideration of the Final EIR. the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California provided the Citv with certain revisions to the Final EIR's responses to comments. Those revisions clarified that the Project Area will not be annexed into the Metropolitan Water District's or Inland Empire Utility Agency's service areas at this time. The City Council concurs with those comments, and the necessary revisions have been incorporated into the Final EIR. 1$. 4 -&-.-On October 2, 2019, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project and concluded the hearing on that date. 19. 4-7 All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 4 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR, together with its appendices, and all other available evidence presented to the City Council during the above -referenced public hearing on October 2, 2019, including written and oral staff reports and public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the EIR and the Project. b. The revisions to the Public Hearing Draft of the Specific Plan are minor in nature and do not affect the Planning Commission's recommendation because they do not affect the improvements to be constructed, or the residential density within, the Project Area. C. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written findings for each significant effect identified in the Final EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: i. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR; ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or iii. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. These required findings are set forth in the attached Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. d. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that are found to be less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. e. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but that can be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation, are described in Section V of Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. f. Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section VI of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 5 g. Alternatives to the Project that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. h. Sections 15092 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. i. A discussion of the Project benefits and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level are set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. j. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference. Further, the mitigation measures set forth therein are made applicable to the Project. k. Prior to taking action on the Final EIR and approving the Project, the City Council specifically finds and certifies that: (1) the Final EIR was presented to the City Council; (2) the City Council reviewed and considered the Final EIR and all of the information and data in the administrative record, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings; (3) the Final EIR is adequate and has been completed in full compliance with CEQA; and (4) the Final EIR reflects the City Council independent judgment and analysis. I. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring additional recirculation or additional environmental review of the Project under CEQA. 3. Determination. On the basis of the foregoing and all of the evidence in the administrative record before it, the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR, adopts findings pursuant to the CEQA as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference. 4. Location of Record. The documents and other materials, including the staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, and specifications, that constitute the record on which this Resolution is based are located in the Planning Department and are in the custody of the Planning Director. All such documents are incorporated herein by reference. 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2019. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 6 CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA L. Dennis Michael, Mayor I, Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of October, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 7 Exhibit A CEQA Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Introduction. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq. ("Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("Rancho Cucamonga" or "City") hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (the "Project"). These findings are based upon written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings, comments on the Draft EIR and the written responses thereto, the Final EIR, and reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and the City's environmental consultants. 11. Project Objectives. As set forth in the EIR, objectives that the City seeks to achieve with this Project (the "Project Objectives") are as follows: A. Conserve the natural resources and open space character of the unique foothill area to be governed by the Project. B. Establish local control by annexing this area to the City and adopting a community-based plan that meets the City's high-quality standards. C. Develop an economically feasible, fiscally responsible plan that pays its own way without levying new taxes on existing residents. D. Respect the rights of existing property owners. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 8 E. Provide a range of open space and park areas offering a range of recreation opportunities. F. In the Project's Neighborhood Area, provide for the development of high-quality, single -family neighborhoods with a range of housing opportunities—including equestrian-oriented housing—that are compatible in character with the existing surrounding neighborhoods. Ill. Background. The proposed Project involves the planning, development, and conservation of 4,393 acres located in the northeastern edge of the City at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains ("Project Site"). The Project Site is more specifically located west of State Route (SR) 15, north of SR-210, south of the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest, and north of existing residential neighborhoods in the City. The Project Site include a majority of the existing 652-acre North Etiwanda Preserve. Approximately 305 acres, located in the western edge and southeast corner of the Project Site, are currently within the City and governed by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The remaining 4,088 acres of the Project Site are located in unincorporated San Bernardino County, but within the City's Sphere of Influence. Current General Plan designations within the Project Site include conservation, open space, hillside residential, and flood control/utility corridor. Approximately 35360 acres, or 8482%, of the Project Site is located in the Project's Rural/Conservation Area, which is primarily intended to be preserved in its natural setting with hiking trails and natural features. Approximately 82-8M acres of the Project Site is located in the Project's Neighborhood Area, which is intended for appropriate residential and commercial development associated amenities, such as parks, trails, and bike paths. The Project Site is generally undeveloped, although it includes some rural residential development and the Limei Fang-Ling Yen Mountain Temple. Other features include the Deer and Day Creek debris basins, channels, and levee and a closed sand and gravel mine. The area is characterized by alluvial fans from the San Gabriel Mountains. The Project's Rural/Conservation Area has terrain slopes of 30% or more, with alluvial fans sloping from 20% to 10% to the south. In the Neighborhood Area, slopes range from 7% to 5%. The proposed Project consists of a Specific Plan referred to as the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan, a General Plan Amendment, a Zone Change, a Development Code Amendment, an amendment to the existing Etiwanda North Specific Plan, approval of a large-parcel tentative tract map, and approval of the annexation of the 4,088 acres of the Plan Area currently under the jurisdiction of San Bernardino County. The proposed Project would permit up to 3,000 homes, with a maximum of 100 homes permitted on privately-owned property in the Rural/Conservation Area and 2,9002 single -family detached and attached homes in the Neighborhood Area. The proposed Project also includes a conservation plan for the Rural/Conservation Area, including a transfer of development rights (TDR) program intended to incentivize the transfer of density from the Rural/Conservation Area to the Neighborhood Area. The development rights for up to 300 dwelling units may be transferred from the Rural/Conservation Area toeNeighborhood Area pursuant to the TDR gro rc CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 9 The proposed Project includes a phasing plan divided into nine phases to be developed over approximately 13 years. IV. Effects Determined to be Less than Significant/No Impact in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation The following effects were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study, and were not analyzed in detail in the EIR because they require no additional analysis to determine whether the effects could be significant. A►. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES 1. The Project will not Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. 2. The Project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. 3. The Project will not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). 4. The Project will not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. 5. The Project does not involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. V. Effects Determined to be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR. The EIR found that the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact without the imposition of mitigation on the following environmental topics: Aesthetics, Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Public Services and Recreation. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below, based on the more expansive discussions contained in the Final EIR. A. AESTHETICS 1. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains will not be dramatically altered, since little to no development is expected in the upper elevations of the Project Site, within the Rural/Conservation Area. Development within the Rural/Conservation Area is limited to 100, low-density homes that are subject to strict grading limitations. Although new residential and limited commercial uses are proposed in the lower elevations of the Project Site, within the Neighborhood Area, those uses are expected to blend CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 10 visually with current residential uses in the area that are visually prominent to the west, south, and east of the Project Site. View from the two designated Special Boulevards traversing the Neighborhood Area, Wilson Avenue and Milliken Avenue, would remain substantially the same under the Project. 2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway because there are no designated state scenic highways within, or in proximity to, the Project Site. 3. For the nonurbanized portion of the Project Site, the Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings. The Rural/Conservation Area includes a majority of the existing North Etiwanda Preserve and new preserves where development will not be permitted. The remaining developable portion of the Rural/Conservation Area is limited to 100 homes, subject to grading limitations, infrastructure that conforms to the natural terrain, and buildings that are rural in character. In addition, the TDR Program will help minimize development in the Rural/Conservation Area. Thus, there is little opportunity for development in the nonurbanized Rural/Conservation Area that could degrade its visual character. 4. For the urbanized portion of the Project Site, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The Project's Specific Plan proposes new development standards that would create open space buffers, corridors, and spaces. Future development will conform to these development standards, which are intended to govern scenic quality in the area. 5. The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The proposed Project would increase the intensity and density of development throughout the site, which add new sources of light and glare. However, the Project would result in less than significant light and glare impacts through the Specific Plan's development standards, which limit outdoor fixtures to fifteen (15) feet in height, require lighting to be shielded or recessed, and limit building mounted luminaires to a maximum initial illuminance of 0.05 horizontal and vertical foot-candles. In addition, street light fixtures will be widely spaced and approved as Dark Sky Friendly Fixtures. Adherence to these design standards, and the City's existing lighting ordinances, would result in a less than significant impact. 6. The Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics. The Project implements the General Plan's goals of limiting hillside development and all future projects will be subject to the City's hillside development regulations. Although additional projects may contribute to a visual change in the City, these projects are also subject to applicable development standards and light regulations in applicable specific plans and the Municipal Code. 7. The Project will not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on aesthetics. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 11 B. AIR QUALITY 1. The proposed Project would not result in emissions, such as those leading to odors, that adversely affect a substantial number of people. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1. The proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Rural/Conservation Area does not function as a corridor due to the lack of physical constraints that would prevent wildlife movement. Instead, it functions as an intact large block of habitat for a variety of species — providing all of the necessary life -history needs for these species. There are no wildlife corridors within the Neighborhood Area, but activities proposed within the Neighborhood Area would impact areas identified as the San Gabriel—San Bernardino Connection. The EHNCP proposes establishing three new preserves in the Rural/Conservation Area, totaling approximately 7497M acres. These areas have the potential to be directly connected into national forest lands located to the north, thus being potentially directly connected to very large blocks of contiguous habitat through on-going conservation expansion. Therefore, no significant impacts to wildlife corridors or habitat linkages are anticipated. 2. The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. 3. The proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. D. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 1. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Based on an intensive pedestrian survey of the Project Area, no resources were found to contain information that would qualify them for a finding of significance and/or eligibility for listing under any significance criteria. The site is highly disturbed from high velocity colluvial events and thus has a low sensitivity to the discovery of significant archaeological resources. 2. The proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with the cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k). The EIR did not identify previously recorded built environmental resources in the Project Area, and the pedestrian survey only identified homestead structures, water conveyance systems, remnants of mining operations, and transmission lines. These resources were found ineligible for the California Register of Historic Resources or local listing for tribal cultural resources. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 12 3. The Project will not contribute to any adverse cumulative impacts involving cultural or tribal resources. E. ENERGY 1. The proposed Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. During Project construction, electricity usage and demand would be within the supply and infrastructure service capabilities of the Project's electric utility, Southern California Edison, and equipment would be powered off when not in use. Construction activities typically do not consume natural gas, and while construction activities would require petroleum-based fuel for construction transportation and construction equipment, its usage would comply with all energy efficiency standards and regulations. During Project operation, energy would be used for multiple purposes associated with residential and commercial development, including lighting, air conditioning/heating, and refrigeration. The Project's compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code, including new requirements for rooftop solar in new residential developments, would significantly reduce the Project's electrical and natural gas demand. While the Project would result in the addition of 35,446 trips, further improvements and mandates involving fuel efficiency and alternative transportation options, in addition to mitigation measures intended to reduce miles traveled, would reduce the Project's overall petroleum usage. As a result, the Project's proportional impact on petroleum usage statewide would be negligible. 2. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Construction and operation of the Project would not result in an increase in demand for electricity or natural gas that exceeds available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities that could result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, for which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, Project construction and operation impacts to energy infrastructure capacity would be less than significant. 3. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact on energy usage. Buildout of the Project Site, along with related projects and projected growth, would necessary increase energy usage in Southern California Edison's service area, the total usage is relatively small given the utility's anticipated growth. In addition, all new residential and commercial projects will be required to comply with higher efficiency standards in the State's Green Building Standards Code. A similar analysis and conclusion is reached with respect to SoCalGas in terms of natural gas usage. Furthermore, increases in fuel efficiency will reduce cumulative impacts in petroleum usage to a less than significant level. 4. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on energy infrastructure or resources. F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS 1. The proposed Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 13 area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. Current code restrictions prohibit constructing structures for human occupancy across the trace of activity faults, and no structures would be built within the active portion of the Etiwanda Scarp portion of the Etiwanda Fault. 2. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving strong seismic ground shaking. Regulatory compliance with building codes will not cause the Project to exacerbate existing seismic conditions. 3. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Regulatory compliance with building codes will not cause the Project to exacerbate existing seismic conditions. 4. The proposed Project will not contribute to any adverse cumulative impacts involving geology and soils. G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 1. The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Compliance with standard state and federal regulatory requirements would avoid any potential impacts. 2. The proposed Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The EIR did not anticipate that acutely hazardous materials would be used within the Project Area, but to the extent any are, they would be required to be handled in accordance with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations governing the handling of such materials. 3. The proposed Project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 4. The proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan, but would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area. 5. The proposed Project will not result in any cumulatively considerable effects on hazards and hazards materials. H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 1. The proposed Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Most construction activities associated with buildout of the Project Site will be regulated under the NPDES General Construction Activity Permit (SWRCB Order No. 2012 -0006 -DWG), and each building tract would be required to prepare a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to said permit. Each SWPPP will include a variety of BMPs CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 14 to ensure that construction -based runoff will not degrade water quality. Project operation will incorporate low impact development features, such as bioswales, park ponds, and detention ponds, that limit stormwater runoff. Each project within the Project Site will be required to maintain the BMPs that are incorporated into their projects, pursuant to the City's Code. 2. The proposed Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the China Groundwater Basin. Based on a Project -specific water demand analysis prepared by the Cucamonga Valley Water District, which analyzed potential effects on groundwater supply and recharge, the Project's water demand would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Furthermore, the Project Site contains the Day Creek Spreading Grounds , which retains surface water long enough for it to percolate into the soil. And up to 80 percent of annual rainfall will be filtered and contribute to groundwater recharge using the BMPs discussed above. 3. The proposed Project would not: (1) substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (2) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; (3) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or (4) impede or redirect flood flows. During construction, the preparation and implementation of SWPPPs for each development within the Project Site will reduce the potential for siltation, erosion, and hazardous materials spills. In addition, the implementation each SWPPPs BMPs would reduce on- and off-site flooding and would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial sources of polluted runoff. Operation of the Project would not alter draining flows or flood control features. Project features include detention ponds, park ponds, street -side bioswales, and spillways designed to safely convey existing condition peak flows. Channel grading of the new Day Creek Greenway and modifications to the Deer Creek Greenway will allow runoff to safely be routed to the ultimate discharge location. 4. The proposed Project will not result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation. The San Bernardino County Flood Control District's flood control facilities, including the Day Creek Debris Dam and the Day Creek Spreading Grounds, have been analyzed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and District and determined to be sufficient to avoid flooding. This is true even with the removal of the flood control property that encompasses the Project Site. Furthermore, no portion of the Neighborhood Area, where residential development is most predominant, is located within a 100 -year floodplain. 5. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project will be required to comply with the regional Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), as required by the municipal stormwater permit. In addition, the Chino and Cucamonga Basins are adjudicated basins, and are expressly exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 15 6. The proposed Project would not result in a cumulative impact on hydrology or water quality. Like all other anticipated projects, this Project must comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit and will be required to prepare low impact development BMPs pursuant to the regional WQMP. The proposed storm drain system would provide sufficient volume to treat storm water for water quality purposes and is designed to properly convey the increased runoff attributable to site development. In addition, the Project's drainage system would discharge stormwater flows in a non-erosive manner and therefore would not increase cumulative flooding potential. 7. Hydrology and water quality impacts will not be cumulatively considerable. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. The Neighborhood Area would be developed between two existing neighborhoods in surplus flood control property. By extending Wilson Avenue through the Project Area and improving and extending Milliken and Rochester Avenues, the Project would complement and complete the existing development pattern in the area. J. MINERAL RESOURCES 1. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in the General Plan, the North Etiwanda Specific Plan, or other land use plan. K. NOISE 1. The proposed Project would not generate excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. 2. The proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan. 3. The proposed Project will not result in cumulatively significant noise impacts, including construction and operational noise. L. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1. The proposed Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. M. PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION 1. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection. Based on consultation with the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 16 Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD), the Project Area can be adequately served by existing fire stations and no new or altered facilities are needed to serve the Project's use. The Project's extension of Wilson Avenue, Milliken Avenue, and Day Creek Boulevard would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and residents in the event of an emergency. 2. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection. Although the Project would result in increased demand for police services, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department who have adequate service provided from existing Sheriff's facilities. The Project also includes a police substation as part of the Project's planned Joint Use Public Facility, which would provide additional facilities to meet demand. 3. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools. The need for additional school facilities to accommodate the Project's anticipated 2,188 students is addressed through each individual project's payment of school impact fees to the school districts that will serve the Project Area. 4. The proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for library services. The State service standard for library facilities is 10,000 square feet per 50,000 residents. The City's existing libraries, at 47,350 square feet can serve an estimated population of 236,750, and are therefore adequate to serve the anticipated growth from the Project. 5. The proposed Project would not (1) result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks; (2) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. or (3) include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project would increase park and recreational service demands based on population increases. In order to accommodate these plans, the Project includes the construction and operation of numerous park and recreational facilities, in addition to a proposed Joint Use Public Facility to be shared by the City's Community Services, Library Services, and law enforcement departments. In addition, the Rural/Conservation Area would include new and connecting trails intended to serve the public. According to the EIR, these facilities will not cause a significant adverse impact on the environment. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 17 6. The proposed Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to impacts related to fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. The cumulative impacts of the Project and similar projects that are in various stages of development may cause a need to advance plan for the RCFPD's proposed Station 178, which would reduce the call volume of surrounding fire stations that will be impacted by future growth. As the RCFPD is funded by property taxes, any increase in development will cause the RCFPD to evaluate service demands and direct resources to ensure that service demands are met. New developments must pay a development impact fee to fund new police services and contribute property tax revenue. The City will monitor police staffing levels and facilities to ensure that any future increase in demand is adequately met. Similarly, the payment of school impact, library, and park impact fees in the Project Area and surrounding area will allow the City and school districts to develop facilities to meet increases in demand. 7. The proposed Project will not have cumulatively considerable impacts on public services or recreational facilities. N. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1. The proposed Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The Project Area is not located in an airport land use influence area, nor does the Project include any characteristics that would change air traffic in the area. The additional population generated by the Project would not result in any substantial increase in air traffic levels at regional airports. 2. The proposed Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). The Specific Plan does not include any such specific design features and future development in the Project Area will be reviewed for conformance with safe street and highway design. 3. The proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. The Specific Plan's proposed street network is adequate to provide access for police, fire, and other emergency vehicles into the Project Area. In addition, future development in the Project Area will be reviewed to ensure that access is designed in accordance with emergency access plans developed for the Project. 4. The proposed Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. 5. The proposed Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), criteria for analyzing transportation impacts. Based on Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) guidance provided in the December 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts under CEQA, the Office of Planning and Research recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is 15 percent below that of existing development may indicate that transportation impacts would be less than significant. The Project would generate VMT of approximately 30.40 VMT/service population. This is CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 18 expected to perform better than 15 percent below comparable regions from a VMP perspective, and 19 percent better that than the City and 21 percent better than the San Bernardino County Valley Region. It should be noted that conformance with VMT as a threshold of significance for traffic is not required until July 1, 2020. O. UTILITIES AND SEWER SERVICE 1. Sufficient water supplies are available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. 2. The wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project has determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. 3. The proposed Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. 4. The proposed Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 5. The proposed Project will not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to utilities and sewer service. V1. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Cultural and Tribal Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Utilities and Service Systems. Measures have been identified that would mitigate all of the impacts in this section to a less than significant level. The City Council finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VI. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final EIR as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project, as discussed more fully in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. A. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL RESOURCES 1. Cultural Resources Threshold CUL -2: The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Public Resources Code. a. Findings CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 19 The proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the Public Resources Code. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to such archeological resources as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the unlikely event that cultural resources are exposed during construction activities for the proposed EHNCP, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-3: Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant. The Pro'eci t Applicant shall be required to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC's Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location, This list is provided Indians-Kizh Nation by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing for educational activities are defined by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may_ include, but are not limited to. pavement removal,pot-holing Guidelines Section15064.5 or auguring, rubbin . tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that willrop vide descriptions of the day's activities, including construction activities, locations soil, cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project sitera abing and excavation activities are completed. or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeoloaical Resources: Upon discovery of anv archaeoloaical resources. cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed broject construction activities shall be evaluated b the he qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner re ar .. a treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and, if necessary, mitigation takesIp ace (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 ff). If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a "historical CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 20 resource" or "unique archaeological resource", time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appro rip ate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(8 for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for uniaue archaeological resources. Preservation in place ,i.e., avoidance, is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent IaboratorV processing and analysis. historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as n inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated g grave in PRC 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are hose of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours. the Native American Heritaae Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 hall be followed Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: Upon discov the tribal and/or archaeoloaical monitor/consultant/consultant will immediatel divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manaaer who will call the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure torep vent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American. the coroner will notifv the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: If the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation is designated MLD, the following treatment measures shall be implemented. To the Tribe, the term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times. Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that. as CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 21 part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later: other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Treatment Measures: Prior to the continuation of around disturbina activiti the land owner shall arranae a desianated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully_ documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy uipmentlap ced over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steellap to is - not available. a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping t� he remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the aualified archaeoloaist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully. ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means-as- necessary eansasnecessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once comp1ete. a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerant objects will be stored using o ap Que cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in per etuity. There shall be noup blicit regarding any cultural materials recovered. Professional Standards: Archaeological and Native American monitoring excavation during construction projects will be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, physical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeoloav and have a minimum of 10 vears of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and Qualified. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-4: In the event that cultural resources are discovered duringproject activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a aualified archaeologist meeting CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 22 Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR-1, regarding rding any�pre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined b CEQA by (as amended. 2015. are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI or review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordinalvlf human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, wQrk in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and SafetyC�§7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMII shall be contacted, as detailed in CR-1, of any pre-contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed ianificant, as defined by CEQA (as amended. 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI. and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project. should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project ((isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the pro 0ect. Any and all interpretive cultural information relating to Native Americans created as a part of the project shall be subject to review and approval by SMBMI. b. Facts in Support of Findings Two Built Environment Pedestrian Surveys were conducted for the Neighborhood Area and one such survey was conducted of the southern portion of the Rural/Conservation Area (proposed Etiwanda Heights Preserve) of the Project Site. The surveys identified six archaeological resources, including three historic isolates and three archaeological sites in the Neighborhood Area, but none of these resources qualified for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under any significance criteria. Further, the Neighborhood Area's geology is unlikely to produce significant archaeological resources during ground breaking activities. However, ground breaking activities during construction and development of the Project have a potential to uncover previously unidentified archaeological resources within the Project Site. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 23 Mitigation Measure MM TCLU-1 requires all construction work within 100 feet of an exposed cultural resource to immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the resource and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. If the resources provides significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Through the tribal consultation process under AB 52, Mitigation Measures TCUL-3 and TCUL-4 were incorporated into the Project to address comments raised by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kitzh Nation. This mitigation measure would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to archaeological resources are reduced to less than significant. Threshold CUL -2: The Project has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects to human remains, if any, as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential cultural resource impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the unlikely event that cultural resources are exposed during construction activities for the proposed EHNCP, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the coroner has determined, within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (Neighborhood AreaHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Neighborhood AreaHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 24 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the Property Owner, the disposition of the human remains. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-3: Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant. The Project Applicant shall be reauired to retain and compensate for the services of a Tribal-monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC's Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve around disturbing activities, Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot -holing or auguring, grubbing. tree removals. borincL- grading. excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring loos that willrop vide descriptions of the day's activities, including construction activities. locations. oily cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Unanticinated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeoloaical Resources: Upon discovery of anv archaeoloaical resources. cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed by project construction activities shall be evaluated by the he qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and if necessary, mitigation takes placg=LQEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 �f 1. If a resource is determined b the he qualified archaeologist to constitute a "historical resource" or "unique archaeological resource", time allotment and funding_ sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(8 for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) forunique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance,) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and an sib historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a _public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials. such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 25 accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational {sur op ses. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as n inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associatedrg ave goods in PRC 5097.98. are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 2 hours. the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. G Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: Upon discovery. the tribal and/or archaeological monitor/consultant/consultant will immediately divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor/consultant(s) will then notify the Tribe. the Qualified lead archaeologist. and the construction manager who will call the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains are Native American. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure torep vent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American. the coroner will notify the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLDI. Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: If the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation is designated MLD. the following treatment measures shall be implemented. To the Trib% the term "human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times. Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary objects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later: other items made exclusively for burial pururposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Treatment Measures: Prior to the continuation of ground disturbing activities. the land owner shall arrange a designated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial Gof the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fullv documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy equipment lap ced over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steel plate is not available. a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 26 Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and kee i�na the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the aualified archaeologist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully. ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials, the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary objects. sacred objects and objects of cultural patdMgD_i will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. tuity. There shall be no publicitV regarding any cultural materials recovered. Professional Standards: Archaeological and Native American monitoring and excavation during construction projects will be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, phy sical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeolopyi and have a minimum of 10 years of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-4: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during groiect activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally. the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR -1, regarding anypre-contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find. so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. If significant pre -contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended. 2015, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI for review and comment, as detailed within TCR -1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordinalv�lf human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 27 associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100 -foot buffer of the findl shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed in CR -1, of any pre -contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended. 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologist, in coordination with SMBMI. and all subsgguent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project. should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site. Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project ((isolate records, site records, surveyports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead A e� ncv and/or applicant shall, in good faith. consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the prroroiect.Any and all interpretive cultural information relating to Native Americans created as a part of the project shall be subject to review and approval by SMBMI. b. Facts in Support of Findings No known conditions exist within the Rural/Conservation Area that suggest that human remains are likely to be found. Furthermore, the California Native American Commission's Sacred Lands File does not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the Project Area. There are no formal cemeteries within the Project Area. As a result, it is unlikely that human remains would be encountered during ground disturbing activities associated with the Project. However, the possibility remains that human remains could be encountered within the Project Area during ground disturbing activities, and they must be handled and treated in accordance with applicable laws, including Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5-7055 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-1 requires the completion of an archaeological monitoring plan prior to earth -moving activities and would require a qualified archaeologist to implement procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sample, identification, and evaluation of the remains, as appropriate. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-2 would require notification of the County Coroner within 24 hours of the discovery of human remains so that the Coroner may handle and identify the remains. Through the tribal consultation process under AB 52, Mitigation Measures TCUL-3 and TCUL-4 were incorporated into the Project to address comments raised by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kitzh Nation. These mitigation measures would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to archaeological resources involving human remains are reduced to less than significant. 2. Impacts to Tribal Resources CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 28 Threshold TCUL-2: The proposed Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with the cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the Lead Agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c11) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. a. Findings The proposed Project has a potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with the cultural value to a California Native American tribe. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential tribal resource impacts remain less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-1: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the unlikely event that cultural resources are exposed during construction activities for the proposed EHNCP, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, or data recovery, may be warranted. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if human remains are found, the San Bernardino County Coroner shall be notified within 24 hours of the discovery. No further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains shall occur until the coroner has determined, within 2 working days of notification of the discovery, the appropriate treatment and disposition of the human remains. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (Neighborhood AreaHC) in Sacramento within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Neighborhood AreaHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant (MLD) from the deceased Native American. The MLD shall complete their inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The designated Native American representative would then determine, in consultation with the Property Owner, the disposition of the human remains. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-3: Retain a Native American Monitor/Consultant. The Promeci t Applicant shall be required to retain and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 29 compensate for the services of a Tribal monitor/consultant who is both approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Tribal Government and is listed under the NAHC's Tribal Contact list for the area of the project location. This list is provided by the NAHC. The monitor/consultant will only be present on-site during the construction phases that involve ground disturbing activities. Ground disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation as activities that may include, but are not limited to. pavement removal, pot -holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, within the project area. The Tribal Monitor/consultant will complete daily monitoring logs that willrop vide descriptions of the day's activities, including construction activities, locations, oily cultural materials identified. The on-site monitoring shall end when theproject site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and monitor/consultant have indicated that the site has a low potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural and Archaeological Resources: Upon discovery of anv archaeoloaical resources. cease construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until the find can be assessed. All archaeological resources unearthed b o ect construction activities shall be evaluated b the he qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor/consultant approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation. If the resources are Native American in origin. the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation shall coordinate with the landowner regarda treatment and curation of these resources. Typically, the Tribe will request reburial or preservation for educational purposes. Work may continue on other parts of the project while evaluation and if necessary, mitigation takes lace ,CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5 �f ). If a resource is determined b the he qualified archaeologist to constitute a "historical resource" or "unique archaeological resource", time allotment and funding_ sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures, or appropriate mitigation, must be available. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(8 for historical resources and Public Resources Code Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. An - historic archaeological material that is not Native American in origin shall be curated at a _public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County or the Fowler Museum, if such an institution agrees to accept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, they shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational pur op ses. Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary Objects: Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as n inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects. called associated grave ave goods in PRC 5097.98. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 30 are also to be treated according to this statute. Health and Safety Code 7050.5 dictates that any discoveries of human skeletal material shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner and excavation halted until the coroner has determined the nature of the remains. If the coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours. the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and PRC 5097.98 shall be followed. then appoint a protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may Resource Assessment & Continuation of Work Protocol: Upon discover divert work at minimum of 150 feet and place an exclusion zone around the burial. The monitor/consultant(s) objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot will then notify the Tribe, the qualified lead archaeologist, and the construction manager who will call the coroner. Work will continue to be diverted while the coroner determines whether the remains-are- emainsareNative NativeAmerican. The discovery is to be kept confidential and secure torep vent any further disturbance. If the finds are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notifv the NAHC as mandated by state law who will then appoint a Most Likely Descendent (MLD Kizh-Gabrieleno Procedures for burials and funerary remains: If the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation is desianated MLD. the "human remains" encompasses more than human bones. In ancient as well as historic times. Tribal Traditions included, but were not limited to, the burial of funerary objects with the deceased, and the ceremonial burning of human remains. These remains are to be treated in the same manner as bone fragments that remain intact. Associated funerary obiects are objects that, as part of the death rite or ceremony of a culture, are reasonably believed to have been placed with individual human remains either at the time of death or later. other items made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains can also be considered as associated funerary objects. Treatment Measures: Prior to the continuation of around disturbina activiti the land owner shall arranae a desianated site location within the footprint of the project for the respectful reburial of the human remains and/or ceremonial objects. In the case where discovered human remains cannot be fully documented and recovered on the same day, the remains will be covered with muslin cloth and a steel plate that can be moved by heavy uipmentlap ced over the excavation opening to protect the remains. If this type of steellap to is - not available. a 24-hour guard should be posted outside of working hours. The Tribe will make every effort to recommend diverting the project and keeping the remains in situ and protected. If the project cannot be diverted, it may be determined that burials will be removed. The Tribe will work closely with the aualified archaeoloaist to ensure that the excavation is treated carefully. ethically and respectfully. If data recovery is approved by the Tribe, documentation shall be taken which includes at a minimum detailed descriptive notes and sketches. Additional types of documentation shall be approved by the Tribe for data CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 31 recovery purposes. Cremations will either be removed in bulk or by means as necessary to ensure completely recovery of all material. If the discovery of human remains includes four or more burials the location is considered a cemetery and a separate treatment plan shall be created. Once complete, a final report of all activities is to be submitted to the Tribe and the NAHC. The Tribe does NOT authorize any scientific study or the utilization of any invasive diagnostics on human remains. Each occurrence of human remains and associated funerary objects will be stored using opaque cloth bags. All human remains, funerary obmects, sacred obmects and objects of cultural patrimony will be removed to a secure container on site if possible. These items should be retained and reburied within six months of recovery. The site of reburial/repatriation shall be on the project site but at a location agreed upon between the Tribe and the landowner at a site to be protected in perpetuity. There shall be noup blicit� regarding any cultural materials recovered. Professional Standards: Archaeological and Native American monitoring excavation during construction projects woll be consistent with current professional standards. All feasible care to avoid any unnecessary disturbance, ph) sical modification, or separation of human remains and associated funerary objects shall be taken. Principal personnel must meet the Secretary of Interior standards for archaeology and have a minimum of 10 gears of experience as a principal investigator working with Native American archaeological sites in southern California. The Qualified Archaeologist shall ensure that all other personnel are appropriately trained and qualified. Mitigation Measure MM TCUL-4: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a aualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to assess the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally. the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMI) shall be contacted, as detailed within TCR -1, reaarding any ore -contact finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment. If significant pre -contact cultural resources, as defined b Cv by (as amended. 2015. are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to SMBMI or review and comment, as detailed within TCR -1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordinalvlf human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, wQrk in the immediate vicinity (within a 100 -foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and SafetyC�§7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Cultural Resources Department (SMBMII shall be contacted, as detailed in CR -1, of any pre -contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 32 input with reaards to sianificance and treatment. Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended. 2015), a cultural resource Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeologistin coordination with SMBMI, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents SMBMI for the remainder of the project. should SMBMI elect to place a monitor on-site. Ani all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to SMBMI. The Lead A�eq ncv and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with SMBMI throughout the life of the pro 0ect, Any and all interpretive cultural information relating to Native Americans created as a part of the project shall be subject to review and approval by SMBMI. b. Facts in Support of Findings No previously recorded tribal cultural resources have been identified within the Project Area, based on a review of the Native American Heritage Commission's Sacred Lands File for the Project Area. The resources identified in the Project Area consist of historic era homestead structures, water conveyance systems, remands of mining operations, and transmission lines. The City contacted the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation as part of its outreach and consultation requirements under SB 18 and AB 52. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians informed the City that portions of the Rural/Conservation Area are in the City's ancestral territory and recommended certain mitigation measures to reduce impacts on their tribal resources. Through the tribal consultation process under AB 52, Mitigation Measures TCUL-3 and TCUL-4 were incorporated into the Project to address comments raised by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kitzh Nation. Although ground breaking activities in the Rural/Conservation Area are expected to be minimal, Mitigation Measures MM TCUL-1 through TCUL- 4 would ensure that any potential unanticipated impacts to tribal cultural resources are reduced to less than significant. B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Landslides Threshold GEO-4: The proposed Project has the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslide. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslide. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving landslides as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 33 Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 Landslides. The potential for seismically induced landslides and slope instability shall be investigated during future geotechnical studies. If the studies suggest slope instability is a concern, remedial recommendations to limit slope instability, such as construction of slope stability buttresses, installation of soil nails or anchors, or redesign of slopes, should be provided. Appropriate implementation of grading and slope stabilization recommendations is expected to reduce the impact of seismically induced landslides. b. Facts in Support of Findings The Neighborhood Area is relatively flat and contains minimal rises or elevation changes, with no major slopes or bluffs. As such, the Neighborhood Area would likely not be subject to landslide risks. However, the northern portion of the Rural/Conservation Area is within a moderate to high potential landslide susceptibility zone, and the presence of relatively high topographic relief across the Rural/Conservation Area raises the potential hazards from slope instability. Thus, development within this area must be evaluated during geotechnical investigations for individual projects within the Project Area. To that end, Mitigation Measure MM GEO-1 has been added to the Project in order to require an investigation of seismically induced landslides and slope instability for each individual project. With this measure, the potential for environmental effects associated with landslides are reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Erosion Threshold GEO-5: The proposed Project has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to involving soil erosion as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measures has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-2 Compressible Soils. Future site-specific geotechnical investigations of planned development shall be conducted. These investigations should identify potentially compressible soils. Implementation of the recommended removal and re -compaction of the near surface soils should mitigate the significant portion of the soils that are prone to compression on-site. In addition, if deep artificial fill is to be placed in the abandoned quarry (or in other areas), specific recommendations for placement and settlement monitoring of these fills will be required. Delay in construction while the settlement of the deep artificial fills reduces to acceptable limits may be necessary. Geotechnical studies with recommendations specifically addressing these issues will be required if deep fills are planned. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 34 Mitigation Measure MM GEO-3 Erosion. The potential for erosion can typically be reduced by appropriate paving of exposed ground surfaces, landscaping, providing terraces on slopes, placing berms or V -ditches at the tops of slopes, and installing adequate storm drain systems. Graded slopes must be protected until healthy plant growth is established. Typically, protection can be provided by the use of sprayed polymers, straw waddles, jute mesh or by other measures. Temporary erosion control measures must be provided during construction, as required by current grading codes. Such measures typically include temporary catchment basins and/or sandbagging to control runoff and contain sediment transport within the individual project sites. Correct implementation of these erosion control measures is expected to reduce the impact resulting from erosion. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-4 Rippability and Oversized Rock. Future site specific geotechnical investigations of planned development shall be conducted. These investigations must identify areas of hard rock and oversize rock. Adjusting the grades so as to not encounter the nonrippable rock will reduce the impact from the non-rippable material to less than significant. Oversized rocks should be handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultants of the specific projects. Examples of oversized rock treatment includes placement in deeper fills, nonstructural areas, crushing, or disposed of off-site. b. Facts in Support of Findings Based on field investigations, the upper portion of the surficial soils within the Project Area are expected to be slightly to moderately compressible, which can result in erosion or settlement. The incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-2 for potential removal and re -compaction of the near surface soils would protect existing conditions from compaction -based erosion impacts to a less than significant level. The successful removal and re -compaction of the near surface soils should mitigate the significant portion of the soils that are prone to compression at each project site. The native soils within the Project Area, as well as fill slopes constructed with native soils, will have a moderate susceptibility to erosion, particularly during development. However, the incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-3 into the Project will reduce erosion to a less than significant level by requiring appropriate paving of exposed ground surfaces, landscaping, providing terraces on slopes, placing berms on v -ditches at the tops of slopes, and installation of adequate storm drain systems. Such erosion control measures, when correctly applied, reduce erosion impacts to less than significant levels. Finally, bedrock materials within the Project Area are generally anticipated to be rippable to depths of five to ten feet below ground surface. An impact may be created where heavy ripping or blasting is required for deep cuts in bedrock to allow for future development. Furthermore, oversized materials, including rocks, may need to be removed in order to build over the land. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-4 has been incorporated into the Project in order to mitigate rippability and oversized rock disposal impacts to a less than significant level. It does so by adjusting potential grades so as to not encounter the non-rippable rock. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 35 3. Expansive or Unstable Soil or Geology Threshold GEO-6: The proposed Project has the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving such unstable soil or geology as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measures has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-5 Corrosive Soils. Testing should be performed prior to construction of the proposed improvements within the Rural/Conservation Area and Neighborhood Area. All concrete in contact with the soil shall be designed based on requirements of the California Building Code. All metals in contact with corrosive soil shall be protected in accordance with the recommendations of the manufacturer or a corrosion engineer. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-6 Settlement. The potential for seismically induced settlement shall be investigated during future geotechnical studies. Based on these studies, loose, compressible soils prone to seismic settlement must be identified. Recommendations for removal and replacement or mitigation of soil prone to seismic settlement should be provided as part of geotechnical reports submitted to the City as part of the review of specific projects. Correct implementation of remedial grading and design recommendations is expected to reduce the impact of seismically induced settlement. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-7 Stability of Slopes. Future site-specific geotechnical investigations of the planned development shall be conducted. These investigations must analyze this potential for slope instability in light of the proposed grading and development plans and underlying earth materials, and present recommendations for construction and adequate stability of manufactured slopes. Slopes shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer for individual projects, California Building Code and City and/or County guidelines. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-8 Excavation. Where excavations are made, the excavation wall may be shored, with shoring designed to withstand any additional loads, or the excavation walls may be flattened or "laid-back" to a shallower gradient. Excavation spoils should not be placed immediately adjacent to the excavation walls unless the excavation is shored to support the added load. Other measures used to reduce the potential for temporary slope failure CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 36 include cutting and backfilling excavations in sections, and not leaving temporary excavations open for long periods of time. All California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CaIOSHA) regulations must be observed for excavations that will be entered by people. Following these measures is expected to reduce the impact posed by temporary slopes. b. Facts in Support of Findings With respect to corrosive soils in both the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood areas, soils are expected to have negligible amounts of soluble sulfate contents, but contain mild to moderate amounts of ferrous metal. As a water soluble constituent, this can potentially result in soil corrosion in connection with concrete and create hazards for structure and underground improvements. However, the addition of Mitigation Measure MM GEO-5 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level because it will ensure that concrete and metal improvements meet state Building Code and manufacturer recommended standards, respectively, in areas where sulfates or ferrous metals are identified. The potential for significant seismic settlement is low in the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood areas due to the existence of alluvial fan deposits. However, the Project Site is located in an area of potential seismic settlement and, therefore, the potential for seismically induced settlement is considered potentially significant. As a result, the Municipal Code results that individual projects evaluate the potential for seismic settlement. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-6 has been added to the Project to ensure that correct implementation of remedial grading and design recommendations are applied to individual projects. With the incorporation of this mitigation measure, impacts would not exacerbate existing conditions and would be less than significant. Designed slope cuts into native soil can be prone to instability, depending on the nature of the earth material underlying the slope. Design fill slopes may also be prone to instability if poorly constructed or constructed of unsuitable earth materials. This is the case in both the Neighborhood and Rural/Conservation Areas and results in a potentially significant hazard of unstable manufactured slopes. However, Mitigation measure MM GEO-7 would avoid exacerbating existing conditions by ensuring that slopes are constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. Therefore, the impacts arising out of the stability of manufactured slopes are reduced to a less than significant level. Temporary slopes will be cut for excavations for underground utilities or other structures throughout the Project Area. Unconsolidated soils may occur when temporary slopes are cut and create a potential risk temporary slope failure. This is especially true when temporary slopes are cut at a steeper gradient than manufactured slopes. As a result, Mitigation Measure MM GEO-8 has been incorporated into the Project to ensure that temporary excavations are shored in accordance with specific recommendations to avoid collapse and in accordance with OSHA requirements. This will reduce the potential impact to a less than significant level. Threshold GEO-7: The proposed Project has the potential to be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 37 C. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving such expansive soil identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-9 Expansive Soils. Testing within hillside areas of the Rural/Conservation Area should be performed in planned development areas in order to evaluate the expansion potential of the near surface soil materials and prior to construction of the proposed foundations. Providing the results to the structural engineer will allow them to design a foundation system that is able to withstand the expansive potential of the near surface soil materials. d. Facts in Support of Findings Expansive soils underlying a foundation or slab, if left untreated, can cause damage to a structure. Differential movement in the building can result in damage to floors and walls, as well as door and window frames. Based on investigations within both the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood Areas, the alluvial soils have an Expansion Index in the very low range (less than 20 EI), with some soils in the very low to medium range in the Rural/Conservation Area (less than 90 EI). Because some soils in the hillsides areas of the Rural/Conservation Areas may be expansive, the potential for damage caused by expanding soils has the potential to be significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM GEO-9 has been added to the Project to ensure testing is conducted in these areas to determine whether a site has expansive soils and, if so, a structural engineer will design a foundation system to withstand the soil conditions. With this measure, the potential impact of expansive soils is reduced to less than significant. Threshold GEO-8: The proposed Project has the potential to have soils incapable of adequately supporting use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. e. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to have soils incapable of adequately supporting use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-10 Rural Development Design Review. Development in the Rural/Conservation Area shall be subject to the requirements and review procedures of City Municipal Code 17.16.140 (Hillside CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 38 Development Review). In addition to those requirements, applications for development in the Rural/Conservation Area shall include a septic system feasibility study prior to each new development as well as to obtain a well drill permit. f. Facts in Support of Findings Sewer capacity in both the Rural/Conservation and Neighborhood area is expected to be adequate. No septic tanks or alternative sewer systems are anticipated for the Neighborhood Area. However, some of the rural development of up to 100 residences in the Rural/Conservation Area may rely on septic tanks or alternative sewer systems because there are currently no specific infrastructure plans for new development in this area. As such, it is unknown whether there will be an impact on such infrastructure due to soil stability, and thus the impact is potentially significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-10 has been added to the Project to ensure that septic systems are appropriate for new development and the soils can accommodate the system before drilling occurs. With this measure, impacts are reduced to less than significant. 4. Paleontological and Geological Features Threshold GEO-9: The Project has the potential to directly or indirectly rnpaG tr a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to directly or indirectly m tr a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects involving such unique paleontological or geological features identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM GEO-11 Inadvertent Discoveries. In the event that paleontological resources are exposed during ground -disturbing activities, work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Ground -disturbing activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA, additional work, such as testing or data recovery, may be warranted. Should any prehistoric or historical Native American artifacts be encountered, additional consultation with Neighborhood AreaHC-listed tribal groups should be conducted immediately. b. Facts in Support of Findings There are currently no unique geologic features located in the Project Area, but there is a potential for discovering paleontological resources. Construction in the Project Area will have to adhere to Public Resources Code Section 210833.2, which requires earth -disturbing work to be suspended or redirected if a paleontological resource is identified. In addition, Mitigation CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 39 Measure MM GEO-11 has been incorporated into the project to ensure that any inadvertent discoveries of such resources would result in an immediate halt of construction in the vicinity of the resource until a paleontologist can evaluate the significance of the find. With these measures, the impact to paleontological resources is avoided and reduced to a less than significant level. C. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Release of Hazardous Materials or Substances Threshold HAZ-2. The proposed Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. a. Findings The Project has a potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM HAZA. Future developers and/or contractors must coordinate in advance of construction with the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection TDistrict to ensure that road closures (temporary or permanent) are identified that alternate access and evacuation routes are determined in the event of an emergency and/or natural disaster. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-2. Before issuance of a grading permit for projects within Plan Area on any individual project site (i.e., Phase) that contains or are known to have historically contained commercial/industrial related uses, the site developer(s) must: Investigate the project site to determine whether it or immediately adjacent areas have a record of hazardous material contamination via the preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment (ESA), which must be submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for review. If contamination is found the report must characterize the site according to the nature and extent of contamination that is present before development activities precede at that site. If contamination is determined to be on-site, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, in accordance with appropriate agency requirements, must require remediation of the soil and/groundwater conditions on the contaminated site. If further remediation is required, it must be the responsibility of the site developer(s) to complete such remediation prior to construction of the project. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 40 If remediation is required as identified by the local oversight agency, it must be accomplished in a manner that reduces risk to below applicable standards and must be completed prior to issuance of any occupancy permits. Soil remediation methods that could be employed include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: excavation and on-site treatment, such as above ground bioremediation, soil washing, soil stabilization, soil vapor extraction, or high-temperature soil thermal desorption. Groundwater remediation methods that could be employed include, but are not limited to, pumping water to surface, treating, and returning to aquifer; treating groundwater in place by injecting oxidizing agents; and placing membrane in aquifer and using natural flows to trap contaminants. Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District that document the successful completion of required remediation activities, if any, for contaminated soils, must be submitted and approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga prior to the issuance of grading permits for site development. No construction must occur in the affected area until reports have been accepted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-3. If previously unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human health or the environment is encountered during construction within the Plan Area, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the contamination must cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan must be prepared and implemented that (1) identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post -development and (2) describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site hazards. Such measures must include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long-term monitoring, post -development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Example soil remediation methods that may be employed include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following: excavation and on-site treatment, such as above ground bioremediation, soil washing, soil stabilization, soil vapor extraction, or high-temperature soil thermal desorption. Example groundwater remediation methods that may be employed include, but are not limited to, pumping water to surface, treating, and returning to aquifer; treating groundwater in place by injecting oxidizing agents; and placing membrane in aquifer and using natural flows to trap contaminants. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies must be notified (e.g., City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and San Bernardino County Environmental Health Division). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements must be prepared and in place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated area. b. Facts in Support of Findings CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 41 Based on an investigation of available records involving the Project Area, the only existing potential source of contamination within the Project Area is a now -closed sand and gravel mine that the County has determined poses no risk of environmental contamination. However, other past uses within the Project Area may resulted in hazardous materials contamination that were not identified in the investigation. If any such materials are identified in the Project Area during Project implementation, a remediation and cleanup in accordance with applicable law would commence. To ensure a proper remediation and cleanup is completed and the risk is reduced to a less than significant level, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 has been incorporated into the Project. This measure would ensure that an environmental site assessment is performed for each individual project and, if hazardous materials are found, would require that they be properly handled and the site remediated. A closure report acceptable to the First Protection District must be issued before grading permits could be approved. If hazardous materials are identified during Project implementation, then it is possible that construction works and the public could be exposed to unknown hazardous substances in the soil or groundwater. At this time, it is unknown what types of substances might exist on site or the health and safety risks they would pose, especially if they migrated off-site. In order to avoid this potential risk, Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 has been adopted to ensure that, if such substances are discovered, a Risk Management Plan is prepared and implemented to determine the risk and propose actions to protect works and the public from exposure to the substances. In addition, state environmental regulators may be involved to protect those exposed to the substances. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-3, the potential risks involving hazardous materials is reduced to a less than significant level. Threshold HAZ-3. The proposed Project does not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The Initial Study determined that the Project does not have the potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no mitigation measures were required for this impact area. To the extent that air pollutants will be emitted during Project construction and operation, however, those impacts are analyzed under Section VLA, Air Quality. 2. Emergency Planning Threshold HAZ-6. The proposed Project has the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. a. Findings The Project has the potential to impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to such emergency planning. Specifically, the following measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 42 Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1. Future developers and/or contractors must coordinate in advance of construction with the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to ensure that road closures (temporary or permanent) are identified that alternate access and evacuation routes are determined in the event of an emergency and/or natural disaster. b. Facts in Support of Findings Milliken Avenue, Banyan Street, and Rochester Avenue are main thoroughfares that may be used by emergency responders or evacuees during an emergency. During certain periods of construction, temporary road closures or detours or the transportation of oversized loads may occur, which could slow down or impede traffic. As a result, Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-1 has been added to the Project to ensure that Project development and construction is coordinated with the Fire Protection District so that appropriate alternate evacuation and access routes may be planned. With this measure, the impact to emergency traffic impacts is reduced to a less than significant level. Project implementation should not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans because it would neither reduce nor impede traffic lanes. 3. Wildfires Threshold HAZ-7. The proposed Project has the potential to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. a. Findings The Project has the potential to expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to such emergency planning. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-4: Fire Protection Plan. To address the risk to residential development, future developers shall prepare fire protection plans that meet the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Development Standards and are consistent with the Master Fire Protection Plan. The fire protection plan shall describe all actions that will be taken to reduce wildfire risks to the structure(s). The plan shall include (1) A copy of the site plan that indicates topographic reference lines; (2) A copy of the approved landscape/vegetation management plan;(3) Methods and timetables for controlling, changing or modifying areas on the property (elements of the plan shall include removal of dead vegetation, litter, vegetation that may grow into overhead electrical lines, certain ground fuels, and ladder fuels as well as the thinning of live trees); and (4) A maintenance schedule for the landscape/vegetation management plan. The Fire Protection Plan for a specific neighborhood or phase of construction CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 43 shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure MM HAZ-5: Fire Prevention Construction Techniques. Construction within the designated Wildfire- Urban Interface Fire Area is required to be in accordance with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code, the California Residential Code and Standard 49-1 of the of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. b. Facts in Support of Findings Wildland fires can, and have, occurred in open spaces containing flammable and nonflammable vegetation cover, such as portions of the Rural/Conservation Area. To that end, m^n +me - land within the ProjeGt Area has been identified by Cal Fair as a very high fore hazard severity - zone and the entire Project Area is within the Fire Protection District's designated Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA). According to Government Code Section 51179, once an agency has been notified by Cal Fire that there are Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within the agency's boundaries, it is required to adopt by ordinance a Local Agency Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone map that officially designates the hazard area. The City has adopted a combined Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area map designated areas within the City and beyond the current boundaries of the City. Given the Project's location and fire risks, the impact of wildfires was determined to be potentially significant. The Fire Protection District has adopted Standard 49-1, which defines construction requirements for buildings, fire protection plans, vegetation management and landscaping, roadways, identification of buildings, electrical transmission and distribution lines, storage of firewood and other combustible materials, outdoor fires and cooking appliances, evacuation planning, a fire access plan that conforms to Fire District Standard 5-1, and a water supply plan that conforms to Fire District Standard 5-10. To help reduce the presence of more fire -prone plants in the landscaping proposals, the Fire District has developed a list of undesirable plants and trees included in this standard. Since the adoption of the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area map, all projects in the designated area, including custom single-family homes, have been required to comply with the applicable State and local wildfire safety provisions by submitting for review and approval a document, such as a site-specific fire protection plan or specific plan, that contains all of the required and applicable elements of Standard 49-1 and demonstrates compliance with the applicable State codes. In addition to requiring the designation of a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, Chapter 49 of the California Fire Code also requires hazardous vegetation and fuels to be managed "to reduce the severity of potential exterior wildfire exposures to buildings and to reduce the risk of fire spreading to buildings." Hazardous vegetation and fuels around all applicable buildings and structures are required to be maintained in accordance with existing State laws and regulations including those found in the Public Resources Code and the Government Code. The Project incorporates a buffer/defense line between the natural areas, which are more susceptible to fire, and the Neighborhood Area. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 44 In addition to these required measures, Mitigation Measures MM 4 and 5 have been adopted to further reduce the impact of wildfires to a less than significant level. In the event of a wildfire, the plans required by these mitigation measures will ensure that future developments within the Project Area are properly designed, constructed, and maintained to mitigate the impacts of wildfire. With these measures, and the above existing requirements of State law and the Fire Protection District, this environmental impact is reduced to a less than significant level. D. NOISE Threshold NOI-1: The proposed Project has the potential to generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the General Plan and noise ordinance. a. Findings The Project has the potential to generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the General Plan and noise ordinance. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to noise. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM N-1: Prior to the issuance of each permit for grading, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit construction -related noise mitigation plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the project. The plan shall demonstrate that the construction plans and specifications include the following noise abatement, notification, and control measures: • All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers and other State -required noise -attenuation devices. • Limiting the number of noise -generating heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously within 50 feet of off-site noise sensitive receptors surrounding the site. • Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers. • On-site and off-site construction haul routes shall be designed to avoid noise sensitive uses, as feasible. • If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 45 • A "Construction Noise Coordinator" shall be identified. The Construction Noise Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Construction Noise Coordinator shall notify the City within 48 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the compliant, as deemed acceptable by the Planning Department. Signs shall be posted at the construction that include the contact information for the Construction Noise Coordinator. Mitigation Measure MM N-2: Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings at the southeast and southwest corners of the Plan Area, the Property Owner/Developer shall submit an acoustical study to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building Official that demonstrates that the proposed architectural design would provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less (based on buildout traffic noise conditions) in all habitable rooms of the proposed buildings facing the SR -210. The Property Owner/Developer shall also submit plans and specifications showing that: • All residential units shall be provided with a means of mechanical ventilation, as required by the California Building Code for occupancy with windows closed. b. Facts in Support of Findings Noise impacts from Project construction activities would result from the noise generated by the amount of construction equipment, the location of the equipment, the timing and duration of the noise -generating construction activities, and the relative distance to noise -sensitive receptors. On-site construction activities, such as grading and building construction and finishing, would generate maximum noise levels of 74 dBA to 85 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet. To provide a conservative or "worst-case" analysis, the EIR estimated the equipment noise levels assuming all construction equipment contains in the Project Area would operate simultaneously. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM N-1 would provide noise abatement during construction near adjacent receptors. Mitigation Measure MM N-1 would include the use of optimal muffler systems for all equipment and the break in line of sight to a sensitive receptor would reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10 dB or more.9 In addition, Mitigation Measure MM N-1 would limit the number of noise generating heavy-duty off-road construction equipment (e.g., backhoes, dozers, excavators, loaders, rollers, etc.) simultaneously used on the Plan Area within 50 feet of off-site noise sensitive receptors surrounding the site to no more than one or two pieces of heavy-duty off-road equipment would further reduce construction noise levels by approximately 10 dBA. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM N-1, construction noise would be reduced by, at a minimum, 25 dB, and would not exceed the noise standard of 65 dBA for residential uses and 70 dBA for commercial or industrial uses when measured at the adjacent property line. As such, impacts would be less than significant with this mitigation incorporated. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 46 With respect to off-site construction activities, such as off-site truck travel associated with the hauling of excavated materials and deliveries, the maximum construction trips would be approximately 1,500 trips per day including 492 vendor trips per day. Based on these trips, roadway noise levels would result in 67.8 dBA CNEL at 25 feet from the receptor . The noise level increases from construction trips would not exceed existing noise levels greater than 5 dBA at areas that would exceed 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL or greater than 3 dBA at areas that would exceed 70 dBA Ldn or CNEL. As such, impacts related to off-site construction activities would be less than significant. Operational noise impacts would be primarily generated by vehicle trips associated with the Project. Any noise increase of 5 dBA or greater is potentially significant when it impacts a sensitive land use, such as a residential area, and the noise level at the sensitive land use would exceed 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL. The Project would generate an estimated 35,446 daily trips, which includes both internal trips (4,264) and external trips (31,182). To estimate noise level increase and impacts due to the Project, noise level increases were calculated from the traffic volumes provided in a traffic study. The difference in traffic noise between existing conditions and existing plus Project conditions represents the increase in noise attributable to Project -related traffic. Project -related traffic would cause noise levels along the analyzed roadways to increase by more than 3 dBA at Wilson Avenue west of Day Creek Boulevard (Intersection 7), Day Creek Boulevard south of Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard north and south of Wilson Avenue. However, any noise increases of 5 dBA or greater is potentially significant when it impacts sensitive land uses that would exceed 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL. These intersections exceeding 65 dBA Ldn or CNEL would not result in increases of 5 dBA or greater. Therefore, impacts related to roadway noise levels would be less than significant. The General Plan's Public Health and Safety Element includes noise compatibility guidelines. These guidelines and applicable sections of the State building code are used to evaluate the Project's compatibility with future ambient noise levels. The dominant noise source on the southeast and southwest corners of the Plan area include the SR -210 freeway. Ambient noise levels within this area range from 55.9 — 56.4 dBA. However, there is potential for increased noise levels due to increased traffic along SR -210. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure MM N-2 has been incorporated into the Project in order to require the incorporation of architectural features (such as a sound wall adjacent to the SR -210 freeway) to ensure that residential habitable rooms facing the freeway have interior noise levels of 45 dBA or less, as required by the California Building Code. As such, impacts associated with operation of the Project would be less than significant with this mitigation incorporated. Cumulative Noise Impacts. The proposed Project has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact on roadway noise. C. Findings The Project has the potential to cause a cumulatively considerable impact on roadway noise. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to roadway noise. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 47 Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1: The Property Owner/Developer shall implement the following intersection improvements. Intersection 7: Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements identified below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require striping modifications and median improvements. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS) during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1595th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: Modify eastbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lanes, and one right -turn lane Add right -turn overlap phasing in the eastbound direction Optimization of cycle length This measure shall be implemented prior to completion of 55% when the entire Plan is at full buildout. Intersection 17: Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak hour signal timing plans, including a cycle length of 120 seconds. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 2755th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 19: Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak hour signal timing plans relative to the expected traffic volume demand. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1885th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 48 Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. The improvement is consistent with the proposed mitigation measure in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 150th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: Modify northbound approach of the intersection from two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right -turn lane to two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one through -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane Optimization of coordinated splits d. Facts in Support of Findings Cumulative traffic noise impacts are measured based on projected long-term noise level increases compared to existing conditions. The long-term scenario is the future year (2040) with Project condition, which includes all pending and approved development projects within the City. As shown in the EIR, future (2040) traffic would cause noise levels along the analyzed roadways to increase by more than 3 dBA at Wilson Avenue west of Day Creek Boulevard (Intersection 7). As discussed below in the Traffic and Transportation impact area, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1 would require striping modifications and improvements, which would reduce the level of service at this intersection to acceptable levels during the AM and PM peak hours. Furthermore, the modification would reduce traffic volumes within those intersections and would not result in a doubling of traffic volume. In addition, future traffic at Milliken Street north of Wilson Avenue (Intersection 6) would increase by 4.7 dBA CNEL and 5.3 dBA CNEL during the AM and PM peak hour respectively. However, noise levels at the residences would be below the 65 dBA CNEL threshold. As such, with the addition of these mitigation measures to the Project, cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant. E. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 1. Conflict with Conaestion Manaaement Plan Threshold TRAF-2: The proposed project has the potential to conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to conflict with the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 49 the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the potential conflict with the CMP. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been included to ensure that the Project's conflict with the CMP is less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1: The Property Owner/Developer shall implement the following intersection improvements. Intersection 7: Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements identified below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require striping modifications and median improvements. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1595th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: o Modify eastbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lanes, and one right -turn lane. o Add right -turn overlap phasing in the eastbound direction. o Optimization of cycle length. Intersection 17: Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak -hour signal timing plans, including a cycle length of 120 seconds. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 2755th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 19: Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak -hour signal timing plans relative to the expected traffic volume demand. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 50 during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1885th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. The improvement is consistent with the proposed mitigation measure in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right -turn lane to two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one through -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane. o Optimization of coordinated splits. This measure is estimated to be triggered at 5% when the entire Plan is at full buildout. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the cost of the improvements identified below to mitigate cumulative impacts at these intersections. This fair share contribution will be used by the City with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. Intersection 33: Base Line Road and East Avenue. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one right -turn lane. o Restripe the southbound approach from one dedicated right -turn lane, two through lanes and one left turn late to two dedicated right -turn lanes, one through lane and one left -turn lane. o Add right -turn overlap phasing in all directions. o Optimize signal timing plan coordinated splits. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 51 • Intersection 35: Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Adjust and optimize the PM peak hour signal timing plan and cycle length. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share for the following measures required to mitigate Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project conditions. This fair share contribution will be used by the Caltrans with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. Intersection 34: Baseline Avenue and 1-15 Northbound Ramps. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one left -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane to one left -turn lane and two right -turn lanes. b. Facts in Support of Findings The San Bernardino County CMP defines a network of state highways and arterials; level of service (LOS) standards and related procedures; the process for mitigation of impacts of new development on the transportation system; and technical justification for the approach. The CMP sets the LOS standard for the County's CMP -designated highway system at LOS E for roadway intersections and freeway interchanges in the County's CMP -designated highway system and implements an enhanced transportation management program to ensure that the designated roadways and intersections meet the set standard. The San Bernardino County CMP defines LOS E or better as the acceptable level of service for facilities included in the CMP network. However, it also notes that local agency thresholds should be applied as long as they provide improved service levels compared to the CMP requirements. Because the City and Caltrans have LOS standards that are more stringent than CMP standards, any impacts captured by an analysis using the local standards is captured under CMP analysis as well. As the Project would not have any significant impacts under the more stringent City and Caltrans' thresholds for these locations, with implementation of MM TRAF-1 through MM TRAF-3 for reducing traffic volumes, potential conflicts with the CMP would be reduced to less than significant levels. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 52 F. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Threshold UTIL-1. The proposed Project has the potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. a. Findings The Project has the potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to the construction of new utility services. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that the Project's impacts are less than significant. Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Sewers. Any improvements to segments of the sewer main system downstream of the Plan Area determined to be needed by the Cucamonga Valley Water District to provide the capacity needed to accommodate wastewater generated by the project, based on additional modeling and review, shall be constructed. Improvements may include installing larger sewer lines or constructing parallel lines to provide additional capacity b. Facts in Support of Findings The proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Water, sewer, and other urban services would not be extended to the Rural/Conservation Area where private property owners would be served by private water wells and septic systems. In the Neighborhood Area, a water supply assessment was prepared by the Cucamonga Valley Water District that demonstrates that the District has sufficient capacity to meet the demand for water associated with the Project. A storage reservoir, a 16 -inch water transmission line, and an interconnect between the new storage and existing storage tanks would be constructed. The EIR analyzed the impacts of these new facilities and determined that they would have a less than significant impact. With respect to wastewater, a Backbone Water and Wastewater Plan of Service Technical Report demonstrated that the Inland Empire Utilities Agency would have sufficient capacity to serve the Project Area. A sewer main would be constructed to serve the Project, but is not expected to result in significant impacts. No significant upgrades to electricity, gas, or communications lines are expected to be constructed in order to provide service to the Project Area. There are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. A water supply assessment was prepared by the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) that demonstrates that the District has sufficient capacity to meet the demand for water associated with the Project. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 53 The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. In addition, the Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Residents of the Project Area would generate approximately 31 tons of solid waste per day, or 11,281 tons per year, and the commercial retail shops would generate approximately four tons per day, or 1,460 tons per year. Based on the total amount of remaining capacity at landfills that will serve the Project, the Project's total contribution of 35 tons per day would represent 0.00002 percent of the available remaining capacity. Impacts would therefore be less than significant and capacity would be sufficient. In addition, State law (AB 939) requires a 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills, which the City has achieved with a 57 percent diversion rate. The Project would comply with all management and reduction requirements. The Inland Empire Utilities Agency has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the Agency's existing customers. A Backbone Water and Wastewater Plan of Service Technical Report demonstrated that the Inland Empire Utilities Agency would have sufficient capacity to serve the Project Area. A 21 -inch trunk main would be extended 2.5 miles south from the Neighborhood Area in the existing north -south utility corridor to Foothills Parkway, which would connect to an existing 27 -inch CVWD trunk main with available capacity to accept wastewater flows from the Neighborhood Area. However, some upgrades to downstream sewer mains would be constructed as part of the Project. Any improvements that would cross the SR -210 Freeway would need to be routed through an existing crossing or a new crossing would need to be built under the freeway by horizonal drilling (jack and bore). The undetermined need for such sewer mains could result in a potentially significant impact. Therefore Mitigation Measure MM UTIIL-1 has been added to ensure construction of these improvements to any downstream sewer mains as determined needed by CVWD to provide capacity to accommodate and convey wastewater flows from the Project Area. With the incorporation of this mitigation measure, the impact on utilities is mitigated to a less than significant level. V11. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation. In the environmental areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Transportation and Traffic, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below: A. AIR QUALITY Air Quality Planning and Standards Threshold AQ -1: Implementation of the proposed Project will result in a significant and unavoidable conflict with or obstruction of the Southern California Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan. a. Findings CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 54 Operational emissions arising out of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to construction emissions. Specifically, the following measures have been included in the Project to lessen the impacts. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -1: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet or exceed Tier -34 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Any emissions -control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. The Lead Agency should include this requirement in applicable bid documents. and successful contractor(sl must demonstrate ability to supply compliant equipment prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Additionally. the Lead Agency should require reg and provision of written documentation by contractors to ensure compliance and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. In the event that the Lead Aaencv finds that Tier 4 15364. the Project representative or contractor must use all off-road, diesel powered construction greater than 50 hp that meets Tier 3 off-road emission standards and other technologies/strategies approved by the Lead Aaencv. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to_ reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction egui m limitina the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Proposed Project, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneous)V, if applicable. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -23: Maintain equipment maintenance records for the construction portion of therrooposed Project. All construction equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records fore equipment and their construction contractor(s) should be made available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from com lep tion of construction. Mitigation Measure MM AQ- : The Plan shall be developed in nine phases over approximately 13 years, as described in Section 2.0: Project Description, to minimize concurrent development. In addition, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project's potential operational emissions are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM AQ- 5: Preferential parking for low -emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles shall be provided as specified in CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 55 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code . One- and two-family dwellings and facilities shall be installed to support future electric vehicle charging at each residential building and nonresidential building with 30 or more parking spaces. Installation shall be consistent with the Residential and Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the CALGreen Code. Mitigation Measure MM AQ- 6: Post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 5 minutes). Post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. itiaation Measure MM AQ -7: Reauire the use of zero -emission near -zero emission (NZE,) trucks ,e.g., material delivery, heavy trucks for the commercial and retail uses at the Proposed Project) such as heavy rucks with natural gas engines that meet the CARB's adopted optional NOx emissions standard at 0.02roper brake horsepower -hour (a/bhp-ho. CARIB also adopted the statewide Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. The Regulation rewires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded toto reduce emissions. Newer heavier trucks and buses must meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January11. 2�ghter and older heavier trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. By January 1. 2013, nearly all trucks and buses will need to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.1 Since the construction schedule of the Proposed Project extends into 2035, it is reasonable to assume that 2010 model year trucks will become more widely available commercially. Therefore. South Coast AQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency, at a minimum, require that construction vendors, contractors. an haul truck operators commit to using 2010 model year or newer engines that meet CARB's 2010 engine emissions standards at 0.01 g/bhp hr of particulate matter ,PM) and 0.20 g/bhp-hr of NOx emissions or newer, cleaner trucks. When requiring ZE or NZE on -road haul trucks. the Lead Agency should include analyses to evaluate and identify sufficient power and supportive infrastructure available for ZE/NZE trucks in the Energy and Utilities and Service Systems - Sections of the Final EIR, where appropriate. Additionally. the Lead Aqencv should reauire that operators maintain records of all trucks associated with the Proposed Project's construction and make these records available to the Lead Agencyop n request. The records will serve as evidence to prove that each truck called to the Proposed Project meets the minimum 2010 model year engine emission standards. The Lead Agency should conduct regular inspections of the records to the maximum extent feasible and Dracticable to ensure comDliance with this miti Mitigation Measure MM AQ -8: Provide incentives for employees working at the proposed commercial and retail uses to encourage the use ofup blic transportation or carpooling, such as discounted transit passes or carpool rebates. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -9: Implement a rideshare program for em I�pyrees workingaproposed commercial and retail uses and set a goal to achieve a certain participation rate over a period of time. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 56 Mitigation Measure MM AQ -10: Maximize the use of solar energy including solar panels. Installing the maximum possible number of solar arrays on he building roofs and/or on the Proposed Project site to generate solar energy for the commercial and retail facilities and/or EV charging station at each residential and non-residential building Mitigation Measure MM AQ -11: Require the use of electric landscal)ing equipment. such as lawn mower and leaf blowers. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -12: Require the use of electric or alternatively fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -13: Maximize theIp antina of trees in landscag and parkin Ig ots. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -14: Use light colored paving and roofing materials. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -15: Utilize only Energy Star heating, cooling and lighting devices, and agoliances. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM -AQ -.2 and5 through MM AQ- 15 that would reduce significant impact caused by operational emissions to a less than significant level. Thus, the impact associated with operational emissions remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The primary source of construction related NOx, equipment exhaust and on -road haul truck trips emissions would occur as a result of fugitive dust excavation activities. Primary sources of PM10 activities, excavation and grading operations, const and wind blowing over exposed earth surfaces. CO, and SOx emissions is construction while the majority of particulate matter emissions generated during grading and nd PM2.5 emissions would be clearing -uction vehicle traffic on unpaved ground, The estimated maximum daily emissions for each of the nine phases of the Project do not exceed SCAQMD's regional concentration thresholds. The EIR's analysis is conservative in that it assumes that all of the construction equipment and activities would occur continuously over the day. In reality, this would not occur, as most equipment operates only a fraction of each workday and many of the activities would not overlap on a daily basis. In addition, the emission results did not include implementation of regulatory compliance measures such as SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, which minimize short-term emissions of dust and particulate. Therefore, the EIR's analysis of construction emissions is considered a worst case analysis. Exceedances would occur if concurrent grading and building in each individual phase were to take place. Based on the recommendation provided by the SCAQMD, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ -1 and MM AQ -2 would require the use of Tier 3 off-road diesel -powered construction equipment equipped with any emissions -control device such as a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) if utilizing Tier 4 construction equipment is not feasible. The measure would be expected to reduce diesel particulate matter by approximately 85 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 57 percent or more. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -3 would also require tuning and maintenance of construction equipment for maximum efficiency. SCAQMD Rule 1113 would limit the amount of VOCs in architectural coatings and solvents. In addition, the Project would comply with the applicable provisions of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure regarding idling limitations for diesel trucks. Through mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules and implementation of MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -3. construction -related emission impacts would be less than significant. If construction of all Project phases were to occur concurrently, construction activities would likely exceed regional VOC and NOx concentration thresholds. Again, this is based on a conservative, worst-case analysis that assumes all construction equipment activities would occur continuously over the day and that activities would overlap. This is unlikely to occur. However, Mitigation Measure MM -AQ -24 has been incorporated into the Project to require construction to be phased in accordance with the Project phasing components. As discussed in the prior paragraph, phased development would not exceed regional construction concentration thresholds. As such, construction -related air quality impacts would remain less than significant. The Project's estimated operational emissions are comprised of area, energy and mobile source emissions. Area source emissions would result from the use of consumer products, natural gas fireplaces, landscaping equipment, and periodic repainting of buildings. Consumer products include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics and toiletries. Energy emissions come from the use of natural gas for heating and hot water. All fireplaces would be gas -fueled; in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 445, there would be no wood burning fireplaces. Mobile source emissions are based on Project -related trip generation forecasts. The Project would generate an estimated 35,446 gross tripends per day, which includes both internal and external trips. The EIR's analysis concludes that the Project's operational emissions would exceed daily operational emissions for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5. The primary source of VOC would be from consumer products from residential land uses, an area source. The primary source of NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions would be from the 35,446 gross tripends per day from mobile sources. Compliance with local and State standards are not reasonably quantifiable, but would provide additional emissions reductions that are not accounted for. For example, the Project would be required to comply with California Building Code requirements for energy efficiency which would reduce natural gas emissions. The Project would be designed in accordance with applicable residential and nonresidential sections of the CALGreen Building Code as designed by the City and required by Section 17.50 of the City's Municipal Code. The Project would comply with Section 17.50 of the City's Municipal Code to install recycled water systems for all projects with a total landscape area equal to or greater than 2,500 square feet. The Project would be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. There are no feasible Plan -level mitigation measures for consumer product VOC emission reductions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM AQ -35 would require preferential parking for alternative fueled vehicles and electric vehicle charging facilities for nonresidential buildings, residential buildings, parking garages and parking lots. In addition, this measure would require CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 58 bicycle parking for residential building and parking facilities. Mitigation Measure MM AQ- 6 would limit truck idling and would provide incentives for employees of commercial business to commute by Metrolink or bus. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-7 would require the use of zero-emissions (ZE) or near-zero emission (NZE) trucks for material delivery and heavyduty trucks for the commercial and retail uses to meet CARB's adopted optional NOx emission standard at 0.02romper brake horsepower-hour(a/bhp-hr). Since CARB adopted the statewide Truck and Bus Regulation in 2010. newer heavier trucks and buses would meet particulate matter filter requirements beginning January 1. 2012 and light and older heavier trucks were replaced starting January 1, 2015. The Regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Mitigation Measures MM AQ-8 and MM AQ-9 would provide incentives for emI�oyees workin as t the rrooposed commercial and retail uses to use public transportation, carpooling, or ridesharerroograms. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-10 would maximize the use of solar energy includingsolar olar panels by installing the most feasible number of solar energy arrays on the building roof or install EV charging stations at each residential and non-residential building. Mitigation Measures MM AQ-11 and MM AQ-12 would require the use of electric landscaping �e uipment and electric or alternativeh,i fueled sweepers with HEPA filters. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-13 and MM AQ-14 would maximize planting of trees in landscaping anda�g lot areas and require the use of liaht color paving and roofing materials for cooling and energy costs savings. Mitigation Measure MM AQ-15 would require the use of Energy Star heating, cooling and lighting devices and appliances. Although implementation of Mitigation Measures MM AQ -35 and MM AQ -415 would reduce project -related VMT long-term emissions of mobile source pollutants, estimates of the amount of emissions reductions are not feasible. These measures provide incentives to reduce the number of vehicle trips with fossil -fuel only vehicles, but do not guarantee any reductions. Therefore, operational impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. The EIR includes a discussion of regional health arising out of the significant and unavoidable operational emissions impacts. Threshold AQ -2: The proposed Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of VOC, NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5 and localized PM2.5 for which the project region is nonattainment under applicable federal and state ambient air quality standards. C. Findings NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5 emissions arising out of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable. The South Coast Air Quality Basin is is currently nonattainment for Federal ozone and PM2.5 and for State ozone, PM 10, and PM2.5. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project to substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to these emissions. Specifically, the following measures have been included to lessen this impact. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -1: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet or exceed Tier,34 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 59 California Air Resources Board (CARB). Any emissions -control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. The Lead Agency should include this requirement in applicable bid documents. and successful contractor( must demonstrate ability t\,r o supply compliant equipment prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Additionally, the Lead Agency should require reporting and provision of written documentation by contractors to ensure compliance and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. In the event that the Lead Agency finds that Tier 4 construction equipment is not feasible pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364. the Project representative or contractor must use all off-road. diesel powered construction greater than 50 hp that meets Tier 3 off-road emission standards and other technologies/strategies approved by the Lead Aaencv. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to. reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction egui m limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Proposed Project, and/or limitina the number of individual construction p=roject phases occurring simultaneously, if applicable. tiaation Measure MM AQ -3: Maintain equipment maintenance records for the nstruction portion of the proposed Proiect. All construction eauipment must be maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their construction contractor(s) should be made available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two years from completion of construction. Mitigation Measure MM An_2Mitigation Measure MM AQ -4: The Plan shall be developed in nine phases over approximately 13 years, as described in Section 2.0: Project Description, to minimize concurrent development. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -3- Preferential narking fer 19W emittinn , fuel e Nonresidential Velun �y M suFes of a GA preen Code QRe_ and t��ye family r rvrn�,sra e{� a'ar�-vrc�r rta r��v-rea�rti���rccvr parking spaGes. InstallatieR shall be Gonsistent with the Residential aR4- Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of the GAL Groan GO- -, Mitigation Measure MM AQ -4; Pest signs requiring that trUGI(S shall net be left idlinn fnr nrn*lnnned periods (iT�, OR eXne?s f 5 minter)Pest bus anr Metrelink seheilese. us areas Mitigation Measure MM AQ -516: Preparation of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) of the proposed Sub -Area 1 to the southwest and Sub -Area 8 to the southeast if housing development were to occur within 500 feet of a freeway, CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 60 urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Disclose the potential health impacts to prospective residents from living in a close proximity of 1-210 and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and/or when residents are outdoor (e.g., common usable open space areas). Many strategies are available to reduce exposure, including, but are not limited to: building filtration systems with MERV 13 or better; building design, orientation, location; and vegetation barriers or landscape screening. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -54 and MM AQ -16 that would reduce significant impact caused by the emissions to a less than significant level. Thus, the impact associated with the increased emission of criteria pollutants remains significant and unavoidable. d. Facts in Support of Findings According to SCAQMD, if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed SCAQMD's recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then the project would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants. By applying SCAQMD's cumulative air quality impact methodology, the EIR concludes that implementation of the Project would result in an increase of regional VOC, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 and localized PM2.5. Despite the implementation of Mitigation MEasures MM AQ -1 through MM AQ --5-,4 and MM AQ -16 emissions would contribute to existing violations of the criteria pollutants in exceedance and are considered significant and unavoidable for this reason. 2. Health Risk Exposure Threshold AQ -3: The proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. a. Findings Localized operational emissions arising out of the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and, therefore, would be considered significant and unavoidable. Localized construction impacts would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which attempt to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. Specifically, the following measure has been included to lessen the Project's potential construction emissions. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -516: Preparation of a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) of the proposed Sub -Area 1 to the southwest and Sub -Area 8 to the southeast if housing development were to occur within 500 feet of a freeway, CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 61 urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day. Disclose the potential health impacts to prospective residents from living in a close proximity of 1-210 and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration system when windows are open and/or when residents are outdoor (e.g., common usable open space areas). Many strategies are available to reduce exposure, including, but are not limited to: building filtration systems with MERV 13 or better; building design, orientation, location; and vegetation barriers or landscape screening. However, there are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM AQ -516 that would reduce significant impact caused by operational emissions to a less than significant level. Thus, the impact associated with operational emissions remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Based on the EIR's analysis of localized construction emissions, both by phase and concurrently, emissions would not exceed the localized thresholds for NOx, CO, PM,o, and PM2.5 during construction. The EIR evaluated localized effects from the on-site portion of operational daily emissions at sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the Project according to the SCAQMD's LST methodology. Localized thresholds emissions for NOx, CO, PM,o would not exceed localized operational emissions. However, localized PM2.5 emissions would exceed emissions primarily due to the contribution of area sources (hearth and landscaping) and energy sources (natural gas). The Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rules 201 and 203, which requires that any facility with the potential to emit substantial amounts of air pollutants must receive permits to construct and operate the facility. Depending on the nature of the business and the associated emissions sources and pollutants, Mitigation Measure MM AQ5-16 may require an emissions analysis and/or a health risk analysis to demonstrate that emissions would not exceed SCAQMD specific rules requirements and there would not be unacceptable health risks to on- and off-site receptors. Additional controls on pollutant and odor emissions are provided in Section 17.66.060 of the Development Code. The permitting process thereby ensures that facilities would not emit criteria pollutants that would result in a significant impact. However, reductions associated with compliance with local and state standards are not reasonably quantifiable. Consequently, impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. 3. Cumulative Impacts a. Findings The proposed Project would cause a cumulatively considerable contribution of emissions to air quality. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 62 Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which attempt to avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to air quality impacts on sensitive receptors. Specifically, the following measures have been included to lessen the Project's potential construction emissions. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -1: All off-road diesel -powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet or exceed Tier 34 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Any emissions -control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. The Lead Agency should include this requirement in applicable bid documents. and successful contractors must demonstrate abilityto supply compliant equipment prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Additionally. the Lead Agency should require reporting and provision of written documentation by contractors to ensure compliance and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. In the event that the Lead Agency finds that Tier 4 construction equipment is not feasible pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364. the Project representative or contractor must use all off-road, diesel powered construction greater than 50 hp that meets Tier 3 off-road emission standards and other technologies/strate is es approved by the Lead A eg�ncv. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to. reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction eguipment. limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Proposed Project, and/or limiting the number ofindividual construction �roiect phases occurring simultaneously, if applicable. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -3. Maintain equipment maintenance records for the construction portion of the proposed Project. All construction equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their construction contractor(s) should be made available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two vears from comDletion f construction Mitigation Measure MM Q --Mitigation Measure MM AQ -4: The Plan shall be developed in nine phases over approximately 13 years, as described in Section 2.0: Project Description, to minimize concurrent development. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 63 MitigatiGn Measure MM AQ -4; POSt SigRS requiring that truGks shall not be left Irl mer nv1 pFelee 7ged per�cr'eeds(. o On of 5 minutes). Pest beth bus and Tc—irreiC Ee&Svi-�rrrcrc�.rr-rv�cvv m-va�uncr MetreliRk sashed Iles in nensninweus areae However, there are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM AQ -45 through MM AQ -515 identified above. that would reduce significant impact caused by operational emissions to a less than significant level. Thus, the cumulative impact associated with air quality emissions remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Emissions -based thresholds be used to determine if a project's contribution to regional cumulative emissions is cumulatively considerable, according to SCAQMD. Individual projects that exceed SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts would be considered to cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment. As discussed previously in these findings, operation of the Project would result in an increase of regional VOC, NOx, CO, PM,o and PM2.5 and localized PM2.5. Contribution of these emission to air quality would therefore be considered cumulatively considerable, despite the incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM -1 through MM -5 that seek to reduce emission levels. In the environmental areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population and Housing, and Transportation and Traffic, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed below: B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Adverse Effects on Plant and Wildlife Species Threshold BIO -1: The proposed Project would have a direct, substantial adverse effect on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. a. Findings Due to habitat modifications and other direct impacts, the Project would have a have a direct, substantial adverse effect on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant direct effects on those plant and wildlife specifies. Specifically, the following measures have been included to lessen the Project's direct effects on candidate, sensitive, or special status species. Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1: Management Plan. A total of 752710.12 acres shall be mitigated through preservation of the Etiwanda Heights Preserve and through acquired lands within the Rural/Genseryatien 4reaR A for impacts CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 64 occurring within the N6. Upon adoption of the EHNCP, all lands within the R ira' GE)Rserva+i^n "reaRCA will be subject to a comprehensive Preserve Management and Monitoring Plan to direct management of the entire contiguous block of land, which will include a financial source to pay for management of the entire preserve area. An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the acquired areas within the RL jraVGGRseFya+ion "ro ,RCA A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities in perpetuity. In compliance with Chapter 3, Conservation Plan, Section 3.5, Conservation Objectives, Strategy 5.2, the CMP shall, at a minimum address the following issues: NenNafiveNmNative Plant Management, Post -Flood Management, Public Access and Trail Management, Seed Collection and Dispersal Program, SBKR Habitat Management Program, and Fire Management/Fuel Modification Buffer Zones. Acquired lands within the Rural/cense- +inn AroaRCA will include areas containing suitable habitat specifically for coastal California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat among all other species with potential to occur within the NeighberheGd °roaNA Specifically, lands acquired within the Rura'/Genserya+ion AroaRCA would provide approximately 658M acres of suitable habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as well as conservation of United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat for this species. Since the habitat within the Neighberhee "roaNA is considered low quality, as described in Section 4.4.2, the compensatory mitigation ratio for San Bernardino kangaroo rat shall be 1:1, subject to approval by USFWS. A total of 753721.52 acres of impacts to USFWS Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat would occur within the Neinhberheed °reaN The Recommended Preserve would conserve approximately 550.67586.70 acres of Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and there are approximately 833 acres of Critical Habitat for this species available for acquisition within the Rural/Genserya+inn °reaRCA. Therefore, impacts within the Neighberhe AfeaNA would be fully mitigated through acquisition of lands designated as Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat within the Ri ira'/Genser„a+inn Area550.67RCA - 586.70 acres as part of the Specific Plan, and 282..33134.82 acres of additional preserve acquisition. Mitigation Measure MM BI0-2: Jurisdictional Resources. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits that impact jurisdictional resources, including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, sufficient acreage within Rural/Conservation "roaRCA or elsewhere shall be conserved, enhanced, or restored to cover all impacts to waters of the United States and GD WCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-only areas at a 1:1 ratio (additional mitigation may be required to satisfy agency requirements). An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the conservation areas. Prior to dedication of the conservation area, a Conservation Management Plan will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 65 A total of 74-3865.92 acres of mitigation would be required for impacts to jurisdictional resources within the NeighberhoGdAreaNA. A total of 54-.62-57-08 acres of non -wetland waters or streambeds within the R Fal/GORsepiatmen AFeaRCA Etiwanda Heights Preserve would be conserved with Plan implementation. Therefore, in order to mitigate for impacts to jurisdictional resources, a minimum of 19.7614.30 acres would be acquired within the RCA for conservation and management. As stated previously and shown on Figure 4.3-3, there are approximately 461.53 acres of jurisdictional resources within the Rugal Genseryation /ire RCA. It should be noted that this total does not include the Rural/GeRSen -+inn Ar RCA Etiwanda Heights Preserve since these jurisdictional resources are already accounted for in Table 4.3-13: Minimum Mitigatien Req uiFed f9r !Fnpantc to IUr06din+iena Rose Therefore, acquisition of lands within the AreaRCA to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional resources would be feasible even with slight changes to the impact footprint. Table 4.3 135, Table 5, Minimum Mitigation Required for Impacts o Jurisdictional Resources. of Appendix F of the Final EIR summarizes the mitigatjon required for impacts.to.jurisdictional resources; , , , , , • • , • , • , • , • , Table 4.3-13 Minimum Mitigation Required for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources ; Jurisdictional Resource' Permanent Impacts within NA (acres) Mitigation Ratio' Mitigation Required (acres) RCA Etiwanda Heights Preserve (acres) Other RCA Mitigation Lands (acres) ACOE/RWQCB/CDFW 71.22 1:1 71.22 46.57 -24.65 CDFW-only 0.16 1:1 0.16 5.05 +4.89 Total 71.38 -- 71.38 51.62 19.76 Notes: •' Modeling based on a percent annual chance (25-year)floodpfoin with a minimum depth threshold of 0.2 feet. . P Mitigation ratios are subject to agency approval. Mitigation Measure BSp IO -3: ecial-Status Plant Species Monitoring Plan. For species federally and/or state -listed as threatened or endangered, prior to construction activities occurring within occupied habitat, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be submitted to and approved by the USFWS (for federally listed plants) and/or CDFW (for state -listed plants). Regulatory agency approval is required prior to implementation of the Plan. Prior to Plan implementation, a translocation plan shall be developed and implemented for non -listed plant species, prior to construction activities occurring within occupied habitat for that species. Based on the current impacts within the Neighborhood Area, two special -status plant species (intermediate mariposa lily and Parry's spineflower) would require translocation of individuals. The mitigation and monitoring plan for the transplanted special -status plant(s) shall describe the following as needed based on plant species: (1) the location of feasible mitigation sites; (2) site preparation measures as needed such as topsoil treatment, soil decompaction, erosion CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 66 control, temporary irrigation systems, and removal of non-native species; (3) a schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the mitigation areas; (4) adaptive management measures such as replanting, weed control, or erosion control to be implemented if habitat improvement/restoration efforts are not successful; (5) the source of all plant propagules (seed, potted nursery stock, etc.) and the quantity and species of seed or potted stock of all plants to be introduced or planted into the restoration/enhancement areas; (6) a schedule and action plan to maintain and monitor the enhancement/restoration areas, to include at minimum, qualitative annual monitoring for revegetation success and site degradation due to erosion, trespass, or animal damage for a period no less than two years; (7) as needed where sites are near trails or other access points, measures such as fencing, signage, or security patrols to exclude unauthorized entry into the restoration/enhancement areas; and (8) contingency measures such as replanting, weed control, or erosion control to be implemented if habitat improvement/restoration efforts are not successful. Take of any listed species, or collection and transplantation of any individuals and populations of any listed species, will require approval by the USFWS and/or CDFW and issuance of an Incidental Take Permit. Mitigation Measure MM BIO -4: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys. No clearing, grubbing, grading, or other construction activities shall occur during the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) breeding season (March 1 to August 15). If construction activities cannot be completed outside coastal California gnatcatcher breeding season, then a pre -construction survey shall be conducted in all areas of suitable habitat, by a qualified biologist (possessing a valid Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(a) Recovery Permit). If found during pre -construction surveys, a 500 -foot buffer would be required around the nest site. For potential impacts associated with construction noise, presence or absence of coastal California gnatcatcher would be determined by pre -construction surveys conducted by a qualified biologist adjacent to the Neighborhood Area. Coastal sage scrub outside of the impact area would be flagged to protect it from construction equipment as directed by the biologist. Between March 1 and August 15, no noise -generating construction activities that exceed ambient noise levels would occur in close proximity to occupied habitat. If necessary, other measures shall be implemented in consultation with the biologist as necessary, to reduce noise levels. Measures may include, but are not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and the simultaneous use of equipment. Mitigation Measure MM BIO -5: Burrowing Owl Surveys. Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, and grading permits, an approved biologist to conduct focused pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) shall be retained. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the approved biologist shall CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 67 prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan that outlines appropriate buffering distances and timing and stipulates the passive relocation process. Any impacted occupied burrows would be replaced at a minimum 2:1 ratio proximate to the location of impact. The plan would be subject to review and approval by the wildlife agencies and the City, including any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from construction -related activities. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0-6: Nesting Bird Surveys. Construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be avoided during nesting bird season, from approximately March 15 through September 15, as directed by Section 4.4 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2010a). If construction activities cannot be completed outside the nesting bird season, a pre -construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted. Special attention shall be given during surveys for ground -nesting birds (e.g., killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), lesser nighthawks (Chordeiles acutipennis), northern harriers (Circus cyaneus)) due to the amount of nests observed during field surveys. Surveys shall be conducted within 500 feet of disturbance areas no earlier than 3 days prior to the commencement of disturbance. If construction activities are delayed, then additional pre -construction surveys shall be conducted such that no more than 3 days will have elapsed between the survey and ground -disturbance activities. If active nests are found, clearing and construction shall be postponed or halted within a buffer area, established by the qualified biologist, that is suitable to the particular bird species and location of the nest, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist. The construction avoidance area shall be clearly demarcated in the field with highly visible construction fencing or flagging, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. A biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. The results of the surveys, including graphics showing the locations of any active nests detected, and documentation of any avoidance measures taken, shall be submitted to CDFW and the City within 14 days of completion of the pre -construction surveys or construction monitoring to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. Mitigation Measure MM BIO -7: Small Mammal Trapping and Clearance Surveys. Thirty days prior to construction activities in suitable habitat, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), American badger (Taxidea taxus), northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). Mitigation Measure MM BI0-7a: No earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction activities, a preconstruction survey shall be CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 68 conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active roosts of bats are present on or within 300 feet of the Neighborhood Area disturbance boundaries. Should an active maternity roost be identified (in California, the breeding season of native bat species is generally from April 1 through August 31), the roost shall not be disturbed, and construction within 300 feet shall be postponed or halted, until the roost is vacated and juveniles have fledged. Surveys shall include rocky outcrops, caves, structures, and large trees (particularly trees 12 inches in diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade with loose bark or other cavities). Trees and rocky outcrops shall be surveyed by a qualified bat biologist (i.e., a biologist holding a CDFW collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFW allowing the biologist to handle bats). If active maternity roosts or hibernacula are found, the rock outcrop or tree occupied by the roost shall be avoided (i.e., not removed) by the Neighborhood Area. If avoidance of the maternity roost must occur, the bat biologist shall survey (through the use of radio telemetry or other CDFW approved methods) for nearby alternative maternity colony sites. If the bat biologist determines in consultation with and with the approval of CDFW that there are alternative roost sites used by the maternity colony and young are not present then no further action is required. If a maternity roost will be impacted by the activities proposed within the Neighborhood Area, and no alternative maternity roosts are in use near the site, substitute roosting habitat for the maternity colony shall be provided on, or in close proximity to, the Neighborhood Area no less than 3 months prior to the eviction of the colony. Large concrete walls (e.g., on bridges) on south or southwestern slopes that are retrofitted with slots and cavities are an example of structures that may provide alternative potential roosting habitat appropriate for maternity colonies. Alternative roost sites must be of comparable size and proximal in location to the impacted colony. CDFW shall also be notified of any hibernacula or active nurseries within the construction zone. If non -breeding bat hibernacula are found in trees scheduled to be removed or in crevices in rock outcrops within the grading footprint, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist, by opening the roosting area to allow airflow through the cavity or other means determined appropriate by the bat biologist (e.g., installation of one-way doors). In situations requiring one-way doors, a minimum of 1 week shall pass after doors are installed and temperatures should be sufficiently warm for bats to exit the roost because bats do not typically leave their roost daily during winter months in southern coastal California. This action should allow all bats to leave during the course of 1 week. Roosts that need to be removed in situations where the use of one-way doors is not necessary in the judgment of the qualified bat biologist in consultation with CDFW shall first be disturbed by various means at the direction of the bat biologist at dusk to allow bats to escape during the darker hours, and the roost tree shall be removed or the grading shall occur the next day (i.e., there shall be no less or more than one night between initial disturbance and the grading or tree removal). These actions should allow bats to leave during CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 69 nighttime hours, thus increasing their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation during daylight. If an active maternity roost is located on the Neighborhood Area, and alternative roosting habitat is available, the demolition of the roost site must commence before maternity colonies form (i.e., prior to March 1) or after young are flying (i.e., after July 31) using the exclusion techniques described above. Mitigation Measure MM BI0-7b: Thirty days prior to construction activities in scrub and chaparral habitats, or other suitable habitat a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within the proposed construction disturbance zone and within 200 feet of the disturbance zone for American badger. If American badgers are present, occupied habitat shall be flagged and ground -disturbing activities avoided within 50 feet of the occupied den. Maternity dens shall be avoided during the pup -rearing season (February 15 through July 1) and a minimum 200 -foot buffer established. This buffer may be reduced based on the location of the den upon consultation with CDFW. Maternity dens shall be flagged for avoidance, identified on construction maps, and a qualified biologist shall be present during construction. If avoidance of a non -maternity den is not feasible, badgers shall be relocated either by trapping or by slowly excavating the burrow (either by hand or mechanized equipment under the direct supervision of the biologist, removing no more than 4 inches at a time) before or after the rearing season (February 15 through July 1). Any relocation of badgers shall occur only after consultation with CDFW. A written report documenting the badger removal shall be provided to CDFW within 30 days of relocation. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits. Mitigation Measure MM BI0-7c: Trapping and relocation for northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and Los Angeles pocket mouse will occur in all areas of soil disturbance and construction, if required by CDFW. Mitigation Measure MM BI0-7d: If active San Diego desert woodrat nests (stick houses) are identified within the disturbance zone or within 100 feet of the disturbance zone, a fence shall be erected around the nest site adequate to provide the woodrat sufficient foraging habitat at the discretion of the qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. Clearing and construction within the fenced area will be postponed or halted until young have left the nest. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when disturbance activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts to these nests will occur. If avoidance is not possible, the following sequential steps shall be taken: (1) all understory vegetation will be cleared in the area immediately surrounding active nests, followed by a period of one night without further disturbance to allow woodrats to vacate the nest; (2) each occupied nest will then be disturbed by a qualified wildlife biologist until all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge off site; and (3) the nest sticks shall be removed from the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 70 Neighborhood Area and piled at the base of a nearby hardwood tree (preferably a coast live oak or California walnut). Relocated nests shall not be spaced closer than 100 feet apart, unless a qualified wildlife biologist has determined that a specific habitat can support a higher density of nests. All woodrat nests moved shall be documented and a written report provided to CDFW. All woodrat relocation shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in possession of a scientific collecting permit. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0-8: Reptile Clearance Surveys. A qualified biologist will be present during construction activities immediately adjacent to or within habitat that supports populations of special -status reptile species. Clearance surveys for special -status reptiles shall be conducted by the qualified biologist prior to the initiation of construction each day. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to CDFW in the annual mitigation status report. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper scientific collection and handling permits. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM BIO -1 through MM BIO -8 that would reduce significant direct impact to candidate, sensitive, or special status species. This is particularly true because the extent of the impact is unknown and is dependent on the amount of conservation lands that will be required pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1. Thus, the direct impact to candidate, sensitive, or special status species remains significant and unavoidable. However, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the indirect impact on candidate, sensitive, or special status species to a less than significant level. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been included to ensure that the Project's indirect effects on species habitat are less than significant. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0-9: Indirect Impacts to Special -Status Resources. The following best management practices shall be implemented to minimize indirect impacts to special -status resources: 1. Biological Monitor. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits, written confirmation that a qualified biologist has been retained to implement the Neighborhood Area's biological monitoring program shall be provided. The letter shall include the names and contact information of all persons involved in the biological monitoring of the Neighborhood Area. The biological monitor shall attend all pre -construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas, and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated Neighborhood Area activities that may be in violation of any permits issued by agencies having jurisdictional authority over the Neighborhood Area. Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources, all workers shall be educated by the qualified CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 71 biologist to recognize and avoid those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources. 2. Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to grading and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for all construction/contractor personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start of construction shall be maintained on site, and this list shall be updated as required when new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in the field for more than 5 days without participating in the WEAP. The qualified biologist shall provide ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with environmental/permit regulations and mitigation measures. The qualified biologist shall perform the following: • Provide training materials and briefings to all personnel working on site. The material shall include but not be limited to the identification and status of plant and wildlife species, significant natural plant community habitats (e.g., riparian), fire protection measures, and review of mitigation requirements. • A discussion of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other state or federal permit requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance with these acts; • Attend the pre -construction meeting to ensure that timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds, pre -construction surveys, or relocation efforts); • Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps showing the location of special status wildlife or populations of rare plants, exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and construction crews prior to ground disturbance. This applies to pre -construction activities, such as site surveying and staking, natural resources surveying or reconnaissance, establishment of water quality best management practices, and geotechnical or hydrological investigations; • Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; • Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are sited within grading areas to minimize degradation of vegetation communities adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they shall be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species habitats will be affected); • Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating the limits of all construction activity; CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 72 • Ensure and document that required pre -construction surveys and/or relocation efforts have been implemented; • Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading; and • Submit to CDFW an immediate report (within 72 hours) of any conflicts or errors resulting in impacts to special status biological resources. 3. Construction Fencing. The construction limits shall be flagged prior to ground -disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the flagged disturbance limits. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans. 4. Toxic Substances. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, evidence shall be submitted indicating that the use of chemicals or the generation of by-products such as pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, and other substances that are potentially toxic or impactive to native habitats/flora/fauna (including water) shall incorporate measures to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the conservation area within the Neighborhood Area. No trash, oil, parking, or other construction/development-related material/activities shall be allowed outside any approved construction limits. All construction -related activity that may have potential for leakage or intrusion shall be monitored by the qualified biologist. b. Facts in Support of Findings Direct Impacts Based on geography, topography, vegetation communities, and soils occurring within the Rural/Conservation Area, there are 38 special -status plant species and 27 special -status wildlife species with moderate or high potential to occur. The EIR's Biological Report provides an analysis of special -status plant and wildlife species with potential to occur within the Rural/Conservation Area. Although the exact location and amount of impacts on privately owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area site is unknown, impacts to special -status plant species would be potentially significant. Impacts to three special -status plants species and 20 special -status wildlife occurring or have potential to occur within the Neighborhood Area are potentially significant. The four special status plant species include the intermediate mariposa lily, parry's spineflower, plummer's mariposa lily, and California walnut. Direct impacts to the intermediate mariposa lily and parry's spineflower are significant because these species are rare, threatened, or endangered in California. However, impacts to these species would be reduced to less than significant through conservation of lands within the Etiwanda Heights Preserve , acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, and through translocation of these two species as directed by Mitigation Measure MM BIO -3 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 73 Direct impacts to the Plummer's mariposa lily and California walnut, are not considered significant because these species are of low sensitivity, and the on-site populations are not significant in terms of the ability for this species to persist. In addition, the species do not occur within the Project Area in a population that is considered regionally significant and/or are common in the study area. However, acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1 would provide suitable habitat for these species and reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The 20 special -status wildlife species occurring or have potential to occur within the Neighborhood Area are: coastal California gnatcatcher, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, prairie falcon, Cooper's hawk, southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, Bell's sage sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli), northern harrier, rufous hummingbird, Costa's hummingbird, Lawrence's goldfinch, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), American badger (Taxidea taxus), Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), San Diegan tiger whiptail, southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), and Blainville's horned lizard. Although the San Diego pocket mouse was the only species observed in trapping sites conducted in the Neighborhood Area, the Neighborhood Area contains habitat suitable for the other species to be present on site. The Neighborhood Area and a portion of the Rural/Conservation Area containing the Etiwanda Heights Preserve was surveyed and no coastal California gnatcatcher were observed. Therefore, impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher are not anticipated. However, because the Neighborhood Area supports coastal sage scrub communities and other sensitive habitats, a pre -construction survey would be completed to reduce potential impacts to less than significant pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -5. Nevertheless, should coastal California gnatcatchers be found during pre -construction surveys, consultation with the USFWS would be required. Permanent impacts to suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher would be mitigated through Mitigation Measure MM BIO -4, Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys, and Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would acquire suitable habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher within the Rura/Conservation Area. However, it is possible that a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, and thus the direct impact on the California gnatcatcher would remain significant. San Bernardino kangaroo rat was not observed, but there is potential for this species to occur on site, and approximately 2,813 acres of USFWS Critical Habitat is present within both the Neighborhood Area and Rural/Conservation Area. Permanent impacts to suitable habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat are partially mitigated through Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would acquire suitable habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat within the Rural/Conservation Area. Other possible mitigation opportunities could include future reintroduction of San Bernardino kangaroo rat into conservation areas. All efforts concerning reintroduction would be conducted in consultation with USFWS. Separate from, but inclusive of, impacts to suitable habitat as discussed above, impacts to 757.53721.52 acres of unoccupied USFWS Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat would be significant absent the mitigation provided in Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would require acquisition of lands containing Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat. However, if a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, this impact to the San Bernardino kangaroo rat remain significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 74 Although no burrowing owls were observed within the Neighborhood Area, there is moderate potential for this species to occur. Therefore, Mitigation Measure MM BIO -5, which requires pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl, would be implemented to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Additionally, potential impacts to burrowing owl would be further reduced through acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1. The Neighborhood Area would impact 658.44-623.35 acres of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for loggerhead shrike, Cooper's hawk, southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, Costa's hummingbird, rufous hummingbird, Bell's sage sparrow, and Lawrence's goldfinch. Individual adults of these species are unlikely to be directly killed or injured during construction activities because they are highly mobile and would likely leave the area during construction. However, nesting activities could be disrupted if construction occurs during the breeding season as a result of nest abandonment or reduced reproductive success. Nests, eggs, and young could be directly affected by vegetation clearing and grading. These impacts can be reduced to less -than significant levels through the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -6, which would require preconstruction nesting bird surveys. Additionally, impacts to these species would be further reduced through acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1. Although prairie falcon and northern harrier are not likely to nest on site due to lack of suitable nesting habitat, the Neighborhood Area would impact 658.4�623.35 acres of suitable foraging habitat. Raptor species could forage virtually anywhere on site where prey is available. Permanent impacts to foraging habitat for these species would be significant and would require implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would acquire lands containing suitable foraging habitat and potential nesting habitat within the Rural/Conservation Area. The Neighborhood Area would impact 641-623.35 acres of suitable habitat for pallid bat, American badger, Los Angeles pocket mouse, northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia). Construction could result in direct impacts to foraging and roosting habitat for pallid bat and could directly affect individuals at roost sites. Individual adults foraging on-site are unlikely to be directly killed or injured during construction activities because they are highly mobile and only active at night. Still, individuals could be killed or harmed if active roost sites were removed, either causing direct mortality or more likely causing abandonment during the day. Direct impacts to foraging habitat would be reduced through the acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area (Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1). Direct impacts to individuals, including young, at roost sites, as a result of construction activities would also be significant and would be reduced through Mitigation Measure MM BIO -7a, which would require pre -construction surveys for active bat roosts. American badger was not observed but has moderate potential to occur on site. Individual adults are unlikely to be directly killed or injured during construction activities because they are fairly mobile and should be able to escape from construction areas. The greatest potential for direct impacts to badgers would be mortality of young in a natal den and potentially the mother, which fiercely defends the natal den. While adults are highly mobile and can usually escape human disturbances, young natal dens and females defending natal dens, would be highly vulnerable to injury and mortality during construction. Direct impacts to individuals would be significant absent mitigation provided in Mitigation Measure MM BIO -7b, which would require CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 75 pre -construction surveys for American badgers. Additionally, impacts to these species would be further reduced through acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area (Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1). Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse was observed within all 41 small mammal trapping sites, indicating an abundance of individuals. Los Angeles pocket mouse was not observed during the trapping efforts but has moderate potential to occur due to suitable habitat present on-site. San Diego desert woodrat was observed during the small mammal trapping, and woodrat middens were observed throughout the site. These species could be killed or injured during vegetation clearing and grading. Individuals may escape direct impacts but unless they were able to move into adjacent habitat, their chance of survival upon being flushed from a burrow or midden would be low. Therefore, both adults and young dependent on the nest would be highly vulnerable to injury and mortality during construction. Direct impacts to northwestern San Diego pocket mouse and Los Angeles pocket mouse would be significant absent the mitigation proposed in Mitigation Measure MM BIO -7c, which would require pre -construction trapping surveys. Direct impacts to San Diego desert woodrat individuals would be significant absent mitigation proposed in Mitigation Measure MM BIO -8d, which would require pre -construction clearance surveys. Additionally, impacts to these species would be further reduced through acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area (Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1). The Neighborhood Area would result in impacts to 55:4�623.35 acres of suitable habitat for San Diego tiger whiptail, southern California legless lizard, California glossy snake, and Blainville's horned lizard. Although some individuals can move quickly over short distances in short bursts, they do not move far, and other individuals are cryptic and slow moving on the surface or are otherwise underground. Therefore, these species are all highly vulnerable to injury and mortality during construction. Impacts to special -status reptiles would be reduced to less than significant by the following measures: Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1, which would acquire lands containing suitable habitat within the Rural/Conservation Area; Mitigation Measure MM BIO -8, which would require pre -construction clearance surveys; and Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require worker awareness training by a qualified biologist for all construction personnel. Although most biological impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level by the incorporation of Mitigation Measures MM BIO -1 through MM Bio -9 into the Project, significant direct impacts may still remain for certain plant and wildlife species. Indirect Impacts Short-term indirect impacts to special -status plant would primarily result from construction -related dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, as well as soil erosion and runoff. Long-term indirect impacts on special -status plants would most likely occur as a result of trampling of vegetation by humans and domestic pets, invasion by exotic species, alteration of the natural fire regime, and exposure to urban pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials). If development were to occur on the privately -owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area, indirect effects may include dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, or construction -related soil erosion and runoff. Long-term edge effects could include intrusions by humans and possible trampling of individual plants, invasion by exotic plant and wildlife species, exposure to urban pollutants CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 76 (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials), soil erosion, litter, fire, and hydrologic changes (e.g., surface and groundwater level and quality). Indirect impacts to special -status plants would be significant absent mitigation and would be avoided with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of BMPs and erosion control, control of invasive weeds, and avoidance of toxic substances that could affect plant life. Indirect impacts to special -status wildlife species may include both habitat degradation and effects on individuals. Habitat degradation may occur in the same manner as discussed above. However, it should be noted that over the long term, indirect impacts on wildlife are expected to be limited along the open space—urban interface, because most of the Neighborhood Area is bordered by existing and future development, and there will be a relatively small amount of interface (or "edge") between development and open space. Dust can impact vegetation surrounding the Neighborhood Area, resulting in changes in the community structure and function. These changes could result in impacts to suitable habitat for special -status wildlife species. Wildlife may also be indirectly affected in the short term and long term by construction -related noise, which can disrupt normal activities, cause lasting stress, and subject wildlife to higher predation risks. Trash and garbage from Neighborhood Area -related activities could attract invasive predators such as ravens, gulls, crows, opossums, skunks, and raccoons that could impact the native wildlife species within the adjacent Etiwanda Heights Preserve. Accidental spills of hazardous chemicals could contaminate surface waters and indirectly impact wildlife species through direct or secondary poisoning and other sub -lethal effects (e.g., endocrine impacts), reduced prey availability, or altering suitable habitat. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of BMPs and erosion control, minimizing noise, worker -awareness training, trash removal, and avoidance of toxic substances. As a result, indirect impacts to wildlife would be less than significant. 2. Adverse Effects on Vegetation Threshold BI0-2: The proposed Project would have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. a. Findings The Project would have a have a direct, substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the direct, significant effects on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. Specifically, the following measures have been included to reduce the Project's direct effects on these resources. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0-1: Management Plan. A total of 752:42710.12 acres shall be mitigated through preservation of the Etiwanda Heights Preserve and through acquired lands within the Rural/Conservation nreaRCA for impacts CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 77 occurring within the N6. Upon adoption of the EHNCP, all lands within the R ira' GE)Rserva+i^n "reaRCA will be subject to a comprehensive Preserve Management and Monitoring Plan to direct management of the entire contiguous block of land, which will include a financial source to pay for management of the entire preserve area. An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the acquired areas within the RL jraVGORseFya+ion "ro ,RCA A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities in perpetuity. In compliance with Chapter 3, Conservation Plan, Section 3.5, Conservation Objectives, Strategy 5.2, the CMP shall, at a minimum address the following issues: NenNafiveNmNative Plant Management, Post -Flood Management, Public Access and Trail Management, Seed Collection and Dispersal Program, SBKR Habitat Management Program, and Fire Management/Fuel Modification Buffer Zones. Acquired lands within the Rural/cense- +inn AroaRCA will include areas containing suitable habitat specifically for coastal California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kangaroo rat among all other species with potential to occur within the NeighberheGd °roaNA Specifically, lands acquired within the Rura'/Genserya+ion AroaRCA would provide approximately 658M acres of suitable habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as well as conservation of United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat for this species. Since the habitat within the Neighberhee "roaNA is considered low quality, as described in Section 4.4.2, the compensatory mitigation ratio for San Bernardino kangaroo rat shall be 1:1, subject to approval by USFWS. A total of 73721.52 acres of impacts to USFWS Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat would occur within the Neinhberheed °reaN The Recommended Preserve would conserve approximately 550.67586.70 acres of Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and there are approximately 833 acres of Critical Habitat for this species available for acquisition within the Rural/Genserya+inn °reaRCA. Therefore, impacts within the Neighberhe AfeaNA would be fully mitigated through acquisition of lands designated as Critical Habitat for San Bernardino kangaroo rat within the Ri ira'/Genser„a+inn Area550.67RCA - 586.70 acres as part of the Specific Plan, and 282..33134.82 acres of additional preserve acquisition. Mitigation Measure MM 113I0-9: Indirect Impacts to Special -Status Resources. The following best management practices shall be implemented to minimize indirect impacts to special -status resources: 1. Biological Monitor. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits, written confirmation that a qualified biologist has been retained to implement the Neighborhood Area's biological monitoring program shall be provided. The letter shall include the names and contact information of all persons involved in the biological monitoring of the Neighborhood Area. The biological monitor shall attend all pre -construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 78 to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas, and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated Neighborhood Area activities that may be in violation of any permits issued by agencies having jurisdictional authority over the Neighborhood Area. Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources, all workers shall be educated by the qualified biologist to recognize and avoid those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources. 2. Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to grading and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for all construction/contractor personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start of construction shall be maintained on site, and this list shall be updated as required when new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in the field for more than 5 days without participating in the WEAP. The qualified biologist shall provide ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with environmental/permit regulations and mitigation measures. The qualified biologist shall perform the following: • Provide training materials and briefings to all personnel working on site. The material shall include but not be limited to the identification and status of plant and wildlife species, significant natural plant community habitats (e.g., riparian), fire protection measures, and review of mitigation requirements. • A discussion of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other state or federal permit requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance with these acts; • Attend the pre -construction meeting to ensure that timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds, pre -construction surveys, or relocation efforts); • Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps showing the location of special status wildlife or populations of rare plants, exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and construction crews prior to ground disturbance. This applies to pre -construction activities, such as site surveying and staking, natural resources surveying or reconnaissance, establishment of water quality best management practices, and geotechnical or hydrological investigations; • Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 79 • Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are sited within grading areas to minimize degradation of vegetation communities adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they shall be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species habitats will be affected); • Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating the limits of all construction activity; • Ensure and document that required pre -construction surveys and/or relocation efforts have been implemented; • Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading; and • Submit to CDFW an immediate report (within 72 hours) of any conflicts or errors resulting in impacts to special status biological resources. 3. Construction Fencing. The construction limits shall be flagged prior to ground -disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the flagged disturbance limits. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans. 4. Toxic Substances. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, evidence shall be submitted indicating that the use of chemicals or the generation of by-products such as pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, and other substances that are potentially toxic or impactive to native habitats/flora/fauna (including water) shall incorporate measures to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the conservation area within the Neighborhood Area. No trash, oil, parking, or other construction/development-related material/activities shall be allowed outside any approved construction limits. All construction -related activity that may have potential for leakage or intrusion shall be monitored by the qualified biologist. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM BIO -1 and MM BIO -9 that would reduce significant direct impact to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities. This is particularly true because the extent of the impact is unknown and is dependent on the amount of conservation lands that will be required pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -1. Thus, the direct impact to riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities remains significant and unavoidable. However, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the Project's indirect impact on riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to a less than significant level. Specifically, Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9 has been included to ensure that the Project's indirect effects on species habitat are less than significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 80 b. Facts in Support of Findings Direct Impacts A total of 1,252.84 acres of un -conserved privately -owned lands are located within the Rural/Conservation Area. Of this total, permanent direct impacts to vegetation communities are estimated at 630 acres. Although the exact location and amount of impacts on privately owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area is unknown, six vegetation communities (scale broom scrub, white sage scrub, white sage -California buckwheat, white sage -California sagebrush, California sycamore woodlands, and California sycamore -coast live oak) are considered sensitive. Any impacts to these communities would be potentially significant. As part of the development review and permitting processes in the Rural/Conservation Area, potential impacts would be assessed, and measures would be applied as appropriate to reduce potential impacts. Such measures may be included as conditions of approval to remove a tree under the City's Heritage Tree Ordinance. In addition, if applicable to individual projects in the Rural/Conservation Area, Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9 would apply. In the absence of specific details for future individual home development in the Rural/Conservation Area, adverse effects to sensitive vegetation communities resulting from any future development in the Rural/Conservation Area would result in a potentially significant impact. A total of X2789.90 acres of vegetative communities will be impacted in the Neighborhood Area, including 658.41623.35 acres of scrub and chaparral habitat and 469.401B6.55 acres of disturbed and developed lands. Within the Neighborhood Area, two of the vegetation communities (scale broom scrub (including disturbed) and white sage scrub) are considered sensitive; therefore, impacts to 376.2X355M acres with Neighborhood Area implementation would be potentially significant and would require mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for scale broom scrub (including disturbed) and a 2:1 ratio for white sage scrub. A total of 752:42710.12 acres would be required for mitigation. Mitigation for significant impacts to sensitive vegetation communities would occur through the acquisition of lands within the Rural/Conservation Area pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM - BIO -1. A total of 21238.75 acres of scale broom scrub would be conserved within the Etiwanda Heights Preserve with project implementation. However, if a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, the direct impact to vegetative communities would remain significant. The proposed acquisition approach for mitigation will provide the following benefits: (1) reduce the risk of development within the Rural/Conservation Area, (2) provide a large habitat block with connectivity to existing preserve areas for the protection of sensitive habitat used by special -status species, (3) allow for enhancement of distressed or disturbed vegetation communities within the conserved area, (4) allow for type conversion (restoration) of disturbed or non-native land covers to native communities, (5) include a comprehensive Preserve Management and Monitoring Plan to direct management of the entire contiguous block of land, and (6) include a financial source to pay for management of the entire preserve area. There are areas within the Rural/Conservation Area currently designated by the County of San Bernardino General Plan as Special Development Residential, Hillside Residential and Rural Living, where residential and commercial development are allowed. Without a comprehensive acquisition and management plan, large portions of the existing area would be available for development. Nonetheless, if sufficient land is not conserved, impacts would remain significant. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 81 Indirect Impacts Short-term indirect impacts to vegetation communities would primarily result from construction -related dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, as well as soil erosion and runoff. Long-term indirect impacts on vegetation communities would most likely occur as a result of trampling of vegetation by humans and domestic pets, invasion by exotic species, alteration of the natural fire regime, and exposure to urban pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials). Over the long term, indirect impacts on vegetation communities within the Rural/Conservation Area would increase the amount of interface (or "edge") between development and open space. Indirect impacts to vegetation communities would be significant absent mitigation and would be avoided with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of BMPs and erosion control, control of invasive weeds, and avoiding the use of toxic substances that could affect plant life Short-term indirect impacts to vegetation communities would primarily result from construction -related dust, which could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, as well as soil erosion and runoff. Long-term indirect impacts on vegetation communities would most likely occur as a result of trampling of vegetation by humans and domestic pets, invasion by exotic species, alteration of the natural fire regime, and exposure to urban pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials). Indirect impacts to vegetation communities would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of best management practices (BMPs) and erosion control, control of invasive weeds, and avoiding the use of toxic substances that could affect plant life. 3. Adverse Effects on Wetlands Threshold 113I0-3: Have a substantial adverse direct effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. a. Findings The proposed Project would have a substantial adverse direct effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the direct, significant effects on wetlands. Specifically, the following measures have been included to reduce the Project's effects on these resources Mitigation Measure MM BI0-2: Jurisdictional Resources. Prior to the issuance of any land development permits that impact jurisdictional resources, including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, sufficient acreage within Rural/Gonseryation AneaRQA or elsewhere shall be conserved, enhanced, or restored to cover all impacts to waters of the United States and SD€WCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)-only areas at a 1:1 ratio (additional mitigation may be required to satisfy agency requirements). An easement or deed restriction that precludes development will be recorded on the conservation CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 82 areas. Prior to dedication of the conservation area, a Conservation Management Plan will be prepared that specifically identifies required resource management activities and the entities that will be responsible for managing those activities. A total of 74-.3865.92 acres of mitigation would be required for impacts to jurisdictional resources within the NeighborhoG nr^aNA. A total of -5 -:&257.08 acres of non -wetland waters or streambeds within the R„r-'/r-^..seFv .tis AreaRCA Etiwanda Heights Preserve would be conserved with Plan implementation. Therefore, in order to mitigate for impacts to jurisdictional resources, a minimum of 4614.30 acres would be acquired within the Rural/Genseryatinn 4r^aRCA for conservation and management. As stated previously and shown on Figure 4.3-3, there are approximately 461.53 acres of jurisdictional resources within the Rural/Genseryatien nr^- RCA. It should be noted that this total does not include the Rural/Gond^n, +i^n nr^-,RCA Etiwanda Heights Preserve since these jurisdictional resources are already accounted for in Table 4.3-13: Minimum Mitigation Required for Impacts to li irisdin+iona '�^c^rccveurrc@T. I . Therefore, acquisition of lands within the Rural/Genseryatien AreaRCA to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional resources would be feasible even with slight changes to the impact footprint. Table 4.-3-13. Table 5, Minimum Mitigation Required for Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources. of Appendix F of the Final EIR summarizes the mitigation required for impacts to jurisdictional resources Mitigation Measure MM 113I0-9: Indirect Impacts to Special -Status Resources. The following best management practices shall be implemented to minimize indirect impacts to special -status resources: 1. Biological Monitor. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and/or construction permits, written confirmation that a qualified biologist has been retained to implement the Neighborhood Area's biological monitoring program shall be provided. The letter shall include the names and contact information of all persons involved in the biological monitoring of the Neighborhood Area. The biological monitor shall attend all pre -construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas, and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated Neighborhood Area activities that may be in violation of any permits issued by agencies having jurisdictional authority over the Neighborhood Area. Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources, all workers shall be educated by the qualified biologist to recognize and avoid those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources. 2. Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to grading and construction activities, a qualified biologist shall be retained to conduct a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) for all construction/contractor CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 83 personnel. A list of construction personnel who have completed training prior to the start of construction shall be maintained on site, and this list shall be updated as required when new personnel start work. No construction worker may work in the field for more than 5 days without participating in the WEAP. The qualified biologist shall provide ongoing guidance to construction personnel and contractors to ensure compliance with environmental/permit regulations and mitigation measures. The qualified biologist shall perform the following: • Provide training materials and briefings to all personnel working on site. The material shall include but not be limited to the identification and status of plant and wildlife species, significant natural plant community habitats (e.g., riparian), fire protection measures, and review of mitigation requirements. • A discussion of the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, other state or federal permit requirements and the legal consequences of non-compliance with these acts; • Attend the pre -construction meeting to ensure that timing/location of construction activities do not conflict with other mitigation requirements (e.g., seasonal surveys for nesting birds, pre -construction surveys, or relocation efforts); • Conduct meetings with the contractor and other key construction personnel describing the importance of restricting work to designated areas. Maps showing the location of special status wildlife or populations of rare plants, exclusion areas, or other construction limitations (e.g., limitations on nighttime work) will be provided to the environmental monitors and construction crews prior to ground disturbance. This applies to pre -construction activities, such as site surveying and staking, natural resources surveying or reconnaissance, establishment of water quality best management practices, and geotechnical or hydrological investigations; • Discuss procedures for minimizing harm to or harassment of wildlife encountered during construction and provide a contact person in the event of the discovery of dead or injured wildlife; • Ensure that haul roads, access roads, and on-site staging and storage areas are sited within grading areas to minimize degradation of vegetation communities adjacent to these areas (if activities outside these limits are necessary, they shall be evaluated by the biologist to ensure that no special -status species habitats will be affected); • Conduct a field review of the staking (to be set by the surveyor) designating the limits of all construction activity; • Ensure and document that required pre -construction surveys and/or relocation efforts have been implemented; • Be present during initial vegetation clearing and grading; and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 84 • Submit to CDFW an immediate report (within 72 hours) of any conflicts or errors resulting in impacts to special status biological resources. 3. Construction Fencing. The construction limits shall be flagged prior to ground -disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the flagged disturbance limits. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans. 4. Toxic Substances. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, evidence shall be submitted indicating that the use of chemicals or the generation of by-products such as pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, and other substances that are potentially toxic or impactive to native habitats/flora/fauna (including water) shall incorporate measures to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such materials into the conservation area within the Neighborhood Area. No trash, oil, parking, or other construction/development-related material/activities shall be allowed outside any approved construction limits. All construction -related activity that may have potential for leakage or intrusion shall be monitored by the qualified biologist. There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM BIO -2 and MM BIO -9 that would reduce the Project's significant direct impact to wetlands. This is particularly true because the extent of the impact is unknown and is dependent on the amount of conservation lands that will be required pursuant to Mitigation Measure MM BIO -2. Thus, the direct impact to wetlands remains significant and unavoidable. However, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that reduce the indirect impact on wetlands to a less than significant level. Specifically, the Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9 has been included to ensure that the Project's indirect effects on wetlands are less than significant. b. Facts in Support of Findings Direct Impacts There is an estimated 34 acres of jurisdictional resources on privately owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area: Although the exact location and amount of impacts on privately owned lands located within the Rural/Conservation Area site is unknown, impacts to jurisdictional resources would be significant and would require mitigation. Mitigation for significant impacts to jurisdictional resources on private properties located within the Rural/Conservation Area would be implemented according to the mitigation ratios and measures as determined through separate review and approval by regulatory agencies. New homes are permitted only in the Hillside and Open Space Regulating Sub -zones, require Design Review, and are subject to the Hillside Development Ordinance where applicable (see Chapter 7.7 of the Plan and 17.16.140 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code). The allowance of new homes is controlled by each Sub -area and sub -zone within the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 85 Rural/Conservation Area. Applications will be reviewed for compliance with the standards of this chapter of the Plan. More specifically, as stated under the Rural Regulating zone that applies to the Rural/Conservation Area, no structure may be built within 50 feet of any Blue Line Stream on any current map prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS) or contains significant riparian or streambed environs. There would be permanent impacts to 74-.3,965.92 acres of non -wetland waters or streambeds within the Neighborhood Area. Impacts to jurisdictional resources would be considered significant absent mitigation and would require obtaining the appropriate agency permits. Direct impacts to these jurisdictional resources would remain significant even with Mitigation Measure MM BIO -2, which would require conservation and restoration of jurisdictional resources at a minimum 1:1 ratio (though the ratio may increase through permitting discussions) within the Rural/Conservation Area. Nonetheless, as noted above, if sufficient land is not conserved, impacts would be significant. Indirect Impacts The EHNCP supports jurisdictional resources, which are typically affected in the short term by dust and construction -related soil erosion and runoff. Indirect impacts to jurisdictional resources would be significant absent mitigation and would be avoided with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM BIO -9, which would require impacts to occur only within the disturbance limits, use of BMPs and erosion control, and avoiding the use of toxic substances that could affect waterways. 4. Cumulative Biological Impacts a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to cause a cumulatively significant impact on biological resources. Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the cumulative effects on wetlands. Specifically, Mitigation Measures MM BIO -1 through MM BIO -9, above, have been included to reduce the Project's cumulative biological impacts. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development in the Rural/Conservation Area would be subject to the requirements and review procedures of the City's Hillside Development Review Ordinance. In addition to those requirements, applications for development in the Rural/Conservation Area would include or address site-specific biological resources studies and any required permits from State and Federal regulatory agencies. With compliance with Rural/Conservation Area Development Design Review procedures and implementation of mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Development of the Neighborhood Area has been evaluated and found to be less than significant, with compliance with the existing regulations, mitigation measures BIO -1 though BIO -9, preservation of open space, development standards and the provisions outlined in the Specific Plan. Impacts to jurisdictional features and San Bernardino kangaroo rat habitat in the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 86 Neighborhood Area. However, if a sufficient amount of suitable habitat cannot be acquired, this impact would remain significant. In consideration of the preceding factors, the Project's contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would remain significant. C. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Generation Threshold GHG-1: The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, either direction or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. a. Findings The proposed Project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant GHG impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project in order to reduce the Project's GHG impacts. Mitigation Measure MM GHG-1: Require the use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers through the Electric Lawn Mower Rebate Program established by the SCAQMD. Mitigation Measure MM GHG-2: Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Measure for Energy efficiency that exceed Title 24 requirements by 15 to 30 percent. Mitigation Measure MM GHG-3: Implement the Plan design with CALGreen Voluntary Measure for water conservation to reduce indoor potable water use by 20 percent by applying water saving fixtures and/or flow restrictors. Mitiaation Measure MM AQ -1: All off-road diesel -powered construction- eauioment Greater than 50 horsepower (hp) shall meet or exceed Tier 4 off-road emissions standards. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) devices certified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB,). Any emissions -control device used by—the he contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) for a similar) sized ized engine as defined by CARIB regulations. The Lead Agency should include this requirement in applicable bid documents, and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate ability to supply compliant equipment prior to the commencement of any construction activities. Additionally. the Lead Agency shouldrequire reporting and provision of written documentation by contractors to ensure compliance and conduct regular inspections to the maximum extent feasible to ensure compliance. In the event that the Lead Agency finds that Tier 4 construction equipment is not feasible pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364. the Project representative or contractor must use all off-road. diesel CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 87 powered construction greater than 50 hp that meets Tier 3 off-road emission standards and other technologies/strategies approved by the Lead Aaencv. Alternative applicable strategies may include, but would not be limited to. reduction in the number and/or horsepower rating of construction egui m limiting the number of daily construction haul truck trips to and from the Proposed Project, and/or limiting the number of individual construction project phases occurring simultaneously, if applicable. Mitiaation Measure MM AQ -3: Maintain eauipment maintenance records for the construction portion of the proposed Project. All construction equipment must be tuned and maintained in compliance with the manufacturer's recommended maintenance schedule and specifications. All maintenance records for each equipment and their construction contractor(s) should be made available for inspection and remain on-site for a period of at least two vears from comDletion of construction Mitigation Measure MM AQ -8: Provide incentives for employees working at the proposed commercial and retail uses to encourage the use ofup blic transportation or carpooling, such as discounted transit passes or carpool rebates. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -9: Implement a rideshare program for em workin at the proposed commercial and retail uses and set a goal to achieve a certain participation rate over a period of time. Mitigation Measure MM AQ -10: Maximize the use of solar energyinc�g solar panels. Installing the maximum possible number of solar energ�ws on the building roofs and/or on the Proposed Project site to generate solar energy for the commercial and retail facilities and/or EV charging station at each residential and non-residential building Mitigation Measure MM AQ -13: Maximize theIp anting of trees in landscaping andap rkin log is Mitigation Measure MM AQ -14: Use light colored paving and roofing materials. Mitiaation Measure MM AQ -15: Utilize only Enerav Star heatina. coolina. and htina devices, and a IpD ianc There are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3-and- Mitigation HG-3andMitigation Measures AQ -1 through AQ -3. AQ -8 through AQ -10. and AQ -13 through AQ -15 that would reduce the Project's significant impact on the generation of GHG emissions. Thus, the Project's impact on GHG emissions remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Construction activity is relatively short in duration and contributes a relatively small portion of the total lifetime GHG emissions of a project. In addition, GHG emissions -reduction measures CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 88 for construction equipment are relatively limited. Therefore, SCAQMD recommends that construction emissions be amortized over a 30 -year project lifetime so that GHG reduction measures will address construction GHG emissions as part of the operational GHG reduction strategies. In this case, the Project is anticipated to be constructed in nine (9) phases. Construction assumptions used in the EIR's analysis of GHG emissions conservatively assumed that the Project would be constructed with the most intensive activities occurring on a daily basis. With that conservative assumption, the overall total GHG emissions associated with construction is 19,982 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e). When amortized over a thirty (30) year period, this amount is 666 MTCO2e per year. Once the Project is built out, GHG emissions from mobile and area sources and indirect emissions from energy and water use, wastewater, as well as waste management would occur every year thereafter. Such emissions would include area sources, such as fireplaces and lawnmowers, natural gas heaters, vehicle trips, solid waste generation, and the energy used to operate water and wastewater systems. The EIR attributes GHG emissions estimates for each of these operational energy sources. Without any mitigation, construction and operation of the Project would generate 54,053 MTCO2e per year. Under SCAQMD targets for GHG efficiency, this equates to a per capita efficiency target of 5.69 GHG Efficiency per person per year. SCAQMD's Tier 4 efficiency target for GHG emissions is 6.6 MTCO2 per year in 2020 and 4.1 MTCO2 per year in 2035. Thus, without any mitigation, the Project would exceed the SCAQMD's GHG emissions targets. Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-33, MM AQ- 8 through MM AQ -10. and MM AQ -13 through MM AQ -15 have been incorporated into the Project in an effort to reduce GHG emissions from the Project. When taking into consideration implementation of the requirements set forth in the City's Development Code and the CalGreen Building requirements and Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, the Project's GHG emissions would result in a reduction of 9,928 MTCO2e per year (18 percent). However, even with regulatory compliance and the mitigation measures, the Project would still exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 4.1 MTCO2e per service population during the horizon year of 2035. The SCAQMD recommends that if the Project would generate emissions in excess of the applicable targets, to assess the Project utilizing the Tier 5 approach. The Tier 5 approach recommends implementation of offsite mitigation (GHG reduction projects) to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the proposed screening level. Any offsite mitigation measure that include purchase offsets would require that the project provide offsets for life of the project, which is defined by 30 years. If the project is unable to implement offsite GHG reduction mitigation measures to reduce GHG emission impacts to less than the screening level, then GHG emissions would be considered significant. This remains uncertain. With implementation and enforcement of Mitigation Measures MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-3, MM AQ- 8 through MM AQ -10. and MM AQ -13 through MM AQ-15and compliance with local and regional plans to further reduce emissions, impacts would remain potentially significant. 2. Conflict with Applicable Plan CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 89 Threshold GHG-2: The Project would conflict with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG. a. Findings The proposed Project would conflict with applicable population provisions of the SCAG RTP/SCS for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant GHG impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 iteration of the Project to 3,000 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in units brings the Project closer to the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. The following mitigation measures have also been incorporated into the Project: Mitigation Measure MM Provide 1 "1 • employees w• . 1 1 at the oronosed commercial and retail uses to encouraae the use -of q_ub-lic- .1 ••r. •1 or ••• 11 1 as discounted .1 passes or ••• •, • • • •- • •• •1111114MIMMMIll �• .11 1" • =9- •V11" .11 =1 . ••. •M-99111 M-1 certain narticioation rate over a Qeribd-Qf Line. 0 In addition, with respect to GHG emissions and consistency with the SCAG RTP/SCS, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Thus, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The Project has been found consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga Sustainable Community Action Plan and the primary GHG reduction policies of the SCAG RTP/SCS. The 2016 RTP/SCS is expected to help SCAG reach its GHG reduction goals, as identified by CARIB, with reductions in per capita passenger vehicle GHG emissions of 9 percent by 2020 and 16 percent by 2035. However, the impact of growth associated with the Project is considered significant because all of the population and employment growth associated with the Project is not accounted for in the current 2016-2040 RTP/SCS and SCAG regional forecasts for 2020-2045. SCAG projections take into account current jurisdictional boundaries. The EHNCP includes 305 acres in the City and 4,088 acres currently in the County. As such, the current 2016 — 2040 SCAG RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts only reflect growth projected for the EHNCP, a population increase of 2,000. This projected growth, when combined with the growth already forecast on the 305 acres in the City, would account for 300 of the 415 jobs projected for the EHNCP and 6,035 persons above the projections in the City's General Plan, compared to the 9,090 for the EHNCP. Although the population increase is incrementally above the regional growth forecasts, CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 90 the impact of growth associated with the EHNCP is considered significant because all of the population and employment growth associated with the proposed EHNCP is not accounted for in the current 2016 — 2040 RTP/SCS and draft 2020 — 2045 draft SCAG Regional Growth Forecasts. There is no way to feasibly mitigate this impact, although it should be noted that SCAG is currently preparing the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which will include the projected growth within the annexation area. Thus, this impact should be resolved and reduced to a less than significant level upon the next adoption of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. 3. Cumulative GHG Impacts a. Findings The proposed Project would be inconsistent with applicable GHG regulations, plans, and policies. Therefore, the Project would result in a cumulative impact to global climate change. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant GHG impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 iteration of the Project to 3,000 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in units brings the Project closer to the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. In addition, Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Thus, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Currently no generally accepted methodology exists to determine whether GHG emissions associated with a specific project represent new emissions or existing and/or displaced emissions. Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064h(3), the City as a lead agency, has determined that the Project's contribution to cumulative GHG emission and global climate change would be less than significant if the proposed Plan is consistent with the applicable regulatory plans and polices to reduce GHG emissions. Accordingly, the analysis described above in Threshold GHG-2 took into account the potential for the proposed Project to contribute to the cumulative impact of global climate change due to its population conflict with the SCAG RTP/STS. The proposed Project, even with mitigation would result in a potentially -significant impact, because it could be inconsistent with applicable plans. There is no way to feasibly mitigate this impact, although it should be noted that SCAG is currently preparing the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, which will include the projected growth within the annexation area. Thus, this impact should be resolved and reduced to a less than significant level upon the next adoption of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. D. LAND USE AND PLANNING Conflict with Applicable Plan Threshold LU -1: The proposed Project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the SCAG RTP/SCS. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 91 a. Findings The proposed Project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with the population estimates identified in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant population impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 iteration of the Project to 3,000 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in units brings the Project closer to the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. In addition, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. b. Facts in Support of Findings The EIR comprehensively evaluated the proposed Project's consistency with applicable regulatory land use plans, including the City's General Plan, Development Code, and the SCAG RTP/SCS. The EIR found that the proposed Project is consistent with all of these planning documents. The City's General Plan would allow development of up to 660 residential units with an associated population of approximately 2,000 persons on the 305 acres currently within the City. The General Plan also projects development of 1,057 units in the City's SOI with an associated population of 3,400. The 4,088 acres proposed for annexation accounts for 69% of the 5,927 acres located in the City's SOI. Based on this percentage, the portion of the projected growth associated with the annexation area would be 729 units or approximately 2,346 persons. The total population growth projected in the City's General Plan for the portion of the EHNCP in the City and portion of the SOI proposed for annexation is approximately 4,346 persons. This portion of the 9,090 population growth associated with the Plan (approximately 48%) is consistent with City's General Plan population projection, which is consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS growth forecast of 204,300 for the City's population in 2040. The total increase in the City's population that would be associated with the Plan is 9,090, approximately 4,744 persons above the projections in the City's General Plan for the Plan Area. This portion of the population growth associated with the Plan would be beyond the growth included in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS growth forecasts. This impact would have been greater if the Project, as originally described in 2017, were carried through because that Project included a maximum of 3,800 units. With only 3,000 allowable units, the current iteration of the Project lessens the conflict with the population growth estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Nevertheless, due to the conflict, the impact on land use remains significant and unavoidable. E. MINERAL RESOURCES Loss of Mineral Resources Threshold MR -1: The proposed Project would result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the state. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 92 a. Findings The proposed Project would result in the loss of approximately 86,400,000 of potential aggregate reserves, including reserves in the now closed and reclaimed Inland Rock/Day Creek Spreading Grounds aggregate quarry. No feasible mitigation would preserve these mineral resources. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. As a result, the Project's impact on mineral resources is significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The Aggregate Resource Sector D-3 (Deer and Day Creek Fans) is the only aggregate resource zone located within the Project Area. Estimate potential aggregate reserves in D-3 are 86,400,000 tons. This area also contains the now closed and reclaimed Inland Rock/Day Creek Spreading Grounds aggregate quarry. The D-3 Aggregate Resources zone, including the reclaimed aggregate quarry, would be completely developed under the Project. While portions of this D-3 area were processed for the termination of mineral resource designation in 2009 due to the presence of adjacent incompatible land uses, the loss of the D-3 area would represent a loss of approximately 16% of the estimate potential aggregate reserves in the region. It should also be noted that a 200 -acre portion of the D-3 area is already restricted by the existing Open Space Easement. Nonetheless, this loss of regionally important mineral resources was accounted for in the City's 2010 General Plan EIR and was found to be significant and unavoidable. Consistent with the General Plan EIR, Project -related impacts to regional mineral resources would be significant. The only way to avoid this impact would be to preclude development on the D-3 aggregate resources area; therefore, there is no feasible mitigation. Other considerations merit the loss of this mineral resource. The Neighborhood Area contains the residential units and public services that are needed to meet regional housing needs and provide recreational services to nearby residents. In addition, the tax revenue generated by the Neighborhood Area, as well as the DTR program, will help ensure that the Rural/Conservation Area is primarily conserved as open space. This is only feasible if the D-3 Aggregate Resources Zone is developed. F. POPULATION AND HOUSING Population Inducement and Growth Threshold POP -1: The proposed Project would induce substantial unplanned population growth forecasted under the current SCAG RTP/SCS, either directly or indirectly. a. Findings The proposed Project would induce population growth that was unplanned in the current population estimates identified in the SCAG RTP/SCS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the significant population growth impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 93 under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. In addition, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR. b. Facts in Support of Findings iteration of the Project to 3,000 units brings the Project closer to specific economic, legal, social, mitigation measures or project The total population growth projected in the City's General Plan for the portion of the EHNCP in the City and the portion of the proposed annexation area is approximately 4,346 persons. This portion of the 9,090 population growth associated with the Plan (approximately 48 percent) is consistent with City's General Plan population projection, which is consistent with the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS growth forecast of 204,300 for the City's population in 2040. The total increase in the City's population that would be associated with the Project is 9,090, approximately 4,744 persons above the projections in the City's General Plan for the Project Area. This portion of the population growth associated with the Project would be beyond the growth included in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS growth forecasts. It is therefore considered significant and unavoidable. SCAG is currently preparing the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and draft growth forecasts for this planning period have been developed. This forecast was developed based on local input, received between late 2017 and early 2019, on preliminary growth forecasts prepared by SCAG. This draft forecast includes projected growth in the 4,088 -acre annexation area based on input from San Bernardino County. Specifically, the current draft forecast includes approximately 1,600 households with a population of 4,900 and 300 jobs in the Neighborhood Area, reflecting the County's plans to sell this surplus property for development. The population growth associated with the portion of the Plan Area currently in the City, approximately 2,000, and the growth in the annexation area included in the draft growth forecast, 4,900, totals 6,900, which is approximately 76 percent of the 9,090 growth in population projected for the 3,000 residential units the Plan would allow. It should be noted that the maximum 3,000 housing units that would be allowed by the Plan would assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga in meeting State -mandated fair share housing production targets as outlined in SCAG's RHNA. As discussed previously, the City has a shortfall of sites for meeting its moderate income RHNA goal; however, there is a surplus of sites for lower income units. The additional increment of population growth that would be generated by the Plan, 4,744 persons, may result in the City's population exceeding the 2040 population growth forecast of 204,300 by approximately 2 percent. Because the Plan may result in the City's population exceeding the 2040 population forecast for the City, which could result in additional environmental impacts not addressed by regional plans, this impact is considered significant. This impact would have been greater if the Project, as originally described in 2017, were carried through because that Project included a maximum of 3,800 units. With only 3,000 allowable units, the current iteration of the Project lessens the conflict with the population growth estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. 2. Cumulative Population Impacts a. Findings CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 94 The proposed Project would have a cumulatively significant impact on unplanned population growth exceeding current forecasts under the SCAG RTP/SCS. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that substantially lessen the cumulatively significant impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the number of units allowed to be built under the Project was reduced from 3,800 units in the 2017 iteration of the Project to 3,000 units in the current iteration of the Project. The reduction in units brings the Project closer to the population estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. In addition, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. b. Facts in Support of Findings Development of the Plan and other projects in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in San Bernardino County would lead to increases in population, housing, and employment. The Project would involve development of up to a maximum of 3,000 residential units, with approximately 9,090 new residents, and approximately 415 employment opportunities. Implementation of the Plan, in combination with other development projects in the unincorporated County areas, adjacent jurisdictions, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga in accordance with the adopted General Plan, would contribute to future population, housing, and employment growth within the area. As discussed previously, approximately 48 percent of the population growth of 9,090 that would be generated by the Plan, 4,346 persons, is accounted for the SCAG RTP/SCS 2016-2040 Growth Forecasts. The remaining population growth of 4,744 is not accounted for the 2016-2040 Growth Forecasts. The draft 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts account for approximately 76 percent of the population growth that would be generated by the Plan. The additional increment of population growth that would be generated by the Plan not accounted for in the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Growth Forecasts may result in population growth exceeding current forecasts, which may contribute to cumulative impacts. This impact would have been greater if the Project, as originally described in 2017, were carried through because that Project included a maximum of 3,800 units. With only 3,000 allowable units, the current iteration of the Project lessens the conflict with the population growth estimates in the SCAG RTP/SCS. G. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC Threshold TRAF-1: The proposed Project would conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to conflict with applicable level of service (LOS) criteria established by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, City of Ontario, Caltrans, and SANBAG for the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 95 performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. With respect to local streets and highways, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid the significant traffic impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following project design features and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project in order to reduce the Project's traffic impacts. Project Design Feature PDF TRAF-1: Roadway Network Improvements. The Plan includes the proposed extension of Wilson Avenue from Milliken Avenue to Day Creek Boulevard and the extension of Rochester Avenue, and the planning areas of Existing Year (2017) Plus Project intersection lane configurations are assumed to include the same lane geometries as Existing Year (2017) Conditions with the exception of the following project design features at the Plan locations: • Intersection 6: Wilson Avenue and Milliken Avenue: Multilane roundabout intersection, new southbound approach. • • Intersection 16: Fredericksburg Avenue and Banyan Street: New northbound approach. • • Intersection 18: Rochester Avenue and Banyan Street: Multilane roundabout intersection, new southbound approach. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1: The Property Owner/Developer shall implement the following intersection improvements. Intersection 7: Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements identified below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require striping modifications and median improvements. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1595th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area: o Modify eastbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lanes, and one right -turn lane o Add right -turn overlap phasing in the eastbound direction o Optimization of cycle length • Intersection 17: Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 96 the AM peak -hour signal timing plans, including a cycle length of 120 seconds. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 2755th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 19: Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of project traffic, this intersection requires adjustment and optimization of the AM peak -hour signal timing plans relative to the expected traffic volume demand. To ensure that the full effect of the project was considered in the "plus project" analysis, signal timing was locked and consistent with the "no project" scenario. The change in traffic volumes requires a reallocation of green signal time to more efficiently serve the traffic demand. With the recommended improvement, operations are improved to an acceptable LOS during the AM peak hour. This improvement shall be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for the 1885th residential unit in the Neighborhood Area. Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard. The improvements below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. The improvement is consistent with the proposed mitigation measure in the Empire Lakes Specific Plan EIR. For this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following improvements shall be made: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right -turn lane to two left -turn lanes, two through lanes, one through -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane o Optimization of coordinated splits This measure is estimated to be triggered at 5% when the entire Plan is at full buildout. With the above referenced project design features and mitigation measures, impacts to local streets and highways are reduced to a less than significant level. However, there are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM TRAF-1 that would reduce the Project's cumulatively significant traffic impacts on State freeways. Changes or alterations to mitigate on state highways are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency—Caltrans—and CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 97 not the City. Such changes can and should be adopted by such Caltrans in conjunction with SANBAG. Thus, the Project's impact on freeway traffic remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings Based on trip generation and trip distribution estimates, Project -related trips were assigned to the study area roadway network. Utilizing the net Project -only traffic estimates developed for the peak hour, traffic forecasts for the Existing (Year 2017) Baseline plus Project conditions were developed. The Existing (Year 2017) Baseline traffic volumes were combined with the net Project -only traffic volumes to obtain the Existing (Year 2017) Baseline plus Project traffic volume forecasts. The Existing (Year 2017) Baseline plus Project peak -hour traffic volumes were analyzed at each of the study intersections to determine the LOS. In addition, PDF TRAF-1 was incorporated as part of the existing plus Project scenario. Intersections are projected to continue to operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. However, significant impacts are forecast to occur at the following intersections: (1) Intersection 7: Wilson Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard—AM Peak Hour (LOS F), PM Peak Hour (LOS F); (2) Intersection 17: Banyan Street and Milliken Avenue—AM Peak Hour (LOS E); (3) Intersection 19: Banyan Street and Day Creek Boulevard—AM Peak Hour (LOS E); and (4) Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard—PM Peak Hour (LOS E). As such, intersection improvements are needed to mitigate these impacts to improve the LOS at these intersections. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-1, impacts would be reduced to less than significant. 12 freeway segments on 1-15 and 16 study freeway segments on SR -210 are forecast to operate below LOS D during at least one peak hour in year 2040. Many of the freeway segments with the Project Area would exceed the significance criteria. As such, there are impacts to the freeway system near the Project Area. The freeway traffic congestion also further burdens local streets that drivers use to avoid 1-15 and SR -210 and cut through the City. Therefore, the Project would contribute to projected impacts on the freeway as identified from Caltrans, such as the requirement of additional lanes, and funding for these additional improvements is not currently provided in the current Regional Transportation Plan. As such, impacts would be potentially significant. The 1-210 and 1-15 freeways are not controlled by the City; the City cannot not guarantee implementation of measures to mitigate impacts to freeways. For these reasons, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 2. Cumulative Traffic Impacts a. Findings The proposed Project has the potential to create a cumulative traffic impact on local streets and hightways. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project that avoid the significant traffic impact as identified in the Final EIR. Specifically, the following project design features and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project in order to reduce the Project's traffic impacts. Project Design Feature PDF TRAF-1: Roadway Network Improvements. The Plan includes the proposed extension of Wilson Avenue from Milliken Avenue to CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 98 Day Creek Boulevard and the extension of Rochester Avenue, and the planning areas of Existing Year (2017) Plus Project intersection lane configurations are assumed to include the same lane geometries as Existing Year (2017) Conditions with the exception of the following project design features at the Plan locations: • Intersection 6: Wilson Avenue and Milliken Avenue: Multilane roundabout intersection, new southbound approach. • Intersection 16: Fredericksburg Avenue and Banyan Street: New northbound approach. • Intersection 18: Rochester Avenue and Banyan Street: Multilane roundabout intersection, new southbound approach. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the cost of the improvements identified below to mitigate cumulative impacts at these intersections. This fair share contribution will be used by the City with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. Intersection 33: Base Line Road and East Avenue. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the AM and PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one through -right shared lane to one left -turn lane, one through lane, and one right -turn lane. o Restripe the southbound approach from one dedicated right -turn lane, two through lanes and one left turn late to two dedicated right -turn lanes, one through lane and one left -turn lane. o Add right -turn overlap phasing in all directions. o Optimize signal timing plan coordinated splits. Intersection 35: Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 99 o Adjust and optimize the PM peak hour signal timing plan and cycle length. Mitigation Measure MM TRAF-3: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Property/Owner Developer shall pay its fair share for the following measures required to mitigate Cumulative Year (2040) Plus Project conditions. This fair share contribution will be used by the Caltrans with other sources of funds including, but not limited to, fair share contributions from other projects, to construct the following improvements. Intersection 34: Baseline Avenue and 1-15 Northbound Ramps. The modifications below can fit within the existing right-of-way and will require signing and striping modifications. With these recommended improvements, operations are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS during the PM peak hours. In order for this intersection to operate acceptably with the addition of the project traffic, the following modifications will be needed: o Modify northbound approach of the intersection from one left -turn lane, one left -right shared lane, and one right -turn lane to one left -turn lane and two right -turn lanes. With the above referenced project design features and mitigation measures, cumulative impacts to local streets and highways are reduced to a less than significant level. However, there are no feasible Mitigation Measures beyond MM TRAF-2 through MM TRAF-3 that would reduce the Project's cumulatively significant traffic impacts on State highways. Changes or alterations to mitigate impacts on state highways are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency—Caltrans—and not the City. Such changes can and should be adopted by such Caltrans in conjunction with SANBAG. Thus, the Project's cumulative impact on freeway traffic remains significant and unavoidable. b. Facts in Support of Findings The EIR analyzed cumulative and cumulative plus Project Intersection Peak -Hour Levels of Service and the following study intersections are forecast to operate at a deficient LOS during one or both peak hours for Cumulative Year (2040) Conditions: (1) Intersection 18: Banyan Street and Rochester Avenue—AM Peak Hour (LOS F); (2) Intersection 33: Base Line Road and East Avenue—AM Peak Hour (LOS E), PM Peak Hour (LOS F); (3) Intersection 34: Baseline Ave and 1-15 Northbound Ramps—PM Peak Hour (LOS E); (4) Intersection 35: Terra Vista Parkway and Milliken Avenue—PM Peak Hour (LOS E); and (5) Intersection 41: Foothill Boulevard and Day Creek Boulevard—PM Peak Hour (LOS E). A further study incorporating Mitigation Measures MM TRAF-2 and MM TRAF-3 improved these intersection operations to either an acceptable LOS or pre -project conditions. As such, impacts to these local streets and highways would be reduced to a less than significant level. With respect to freeways, many segments with the addition of Project traffic would exceed the significance criteria. As such, there are cumulative impacts to the freeway system near the Plan Area. The freeway traffic congestion also further burdens local streets that avoid 1-15 and SR -210 to cut through Rancho the City. It is noted that freeways are currently congested and is anticipated to get further congested, with or without the Plan, due to regional population growth. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 100 To mitigate the impacts at the identified locations, freeway mainline widening or freeway ramps widening would be needed, which requires a complete reconstruction of the freeway in the Plan Area vicinity; a process that is suited to regional planned efforts and is infeasible for a single development project or specific plan project to undertake. Since freeways are an interconnected system, it would not be possible, nor effective, to provide isolated spot improvements of one segment of the freeway where deficient operations are observed. While the cumulative analysis assumes planned and funded improvements for freeway segments, additional freeway improvements are not considered feasible at this time because: (1) such improvements are unlikely to be accomplished within a reasonable period of time (i.e. the horizon year of the project) and would therefore not reduce or avoid impacts because such a project would require substantial consultation with SCAG and Caltrans, (2) such a project will require SCAG and Caltrans to make various policy choices to amend the RTP and related long term transportation plans which cannot be determined at this time (e.g. funding such a suggestion could potentially eliminate or delay other regional projects which may be of higher priority), (3) SCAG and Caltrans would have to perform additional transportation planning to determine the effectiveness of such a suggestion, and (4) given the large scope of the suggested project, such planning should be done on a regional level rather than based upon the needs of individual components of the transportation system such as the Project. Lastly, the 1-210 and 1-15 freeways are not controlled by the City; the City cannot not guarantee implementation of measures to mitigate cumulative impacts to freeways. For these reasons, cumulative impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Vill. Project Alternatives The EIR considered and analyzed a range of alternatives to the Proposed Project including: Alternative 1 - No Project, Alternative 2 - County Development of Neighborhood Area, Alternative 3 - Annexation under Current City Plans, and Alternative 4 - Annexation with Alternative Land Use Plan. In addition, a range of other alternatives, including a 100 Percent Open Space Alternative, a 3,800 Residential Unit Alternative, and an All '/2 -Acre Lots Alternative, were considered but eliminated from further consideration for the reasons explained in Section 5.3 of the EIR, including that these potential alternatives failed to meet most of the project objectives. The four alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR are discussed below, including the basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is available in Table 5.0-1 of the EIR. A. ALTERNATIVE 1 — NO PROJECT Summary of Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the City would not prepare a new plan or annex any County land and existing County Zoning would shape future development within the annexation area and existing City zoning / Etiwanda North Specific Plan (ENSP) would shape future development within the small portions of the Plan Area currently within City limits. This CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 101 alternative would include no development within the Neighborhood Area (NA) north of Banyan Street or west of Rochester Avenue due to the County General Plan Flood Control designation east of Milliken Avenue and the City Flood Control Designation in the area west of Milliken Avenue. Approximately 120 to 200 residences would be expected in Sub -Area 1, south of Banyan Street and west of Milliken Avenue as this area is already in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and zoned Low Medium Residential. The County General Plan anticipates up to 7,000 residences in the Rancho Cucamonga Sphere of Influence area, of which the EHNCP Plan Area is more than half. Based on the existing County General Plan Land Use/Zoning designations for the Plan Area, it is estimated that approximately 3,500 to 4,500 homes could be developed in the RCA. The County's General Plan designates the NA as Floodway and would not permit any development in this area. 2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Implementation of the No Project Alternative would increase environmental impacts as compared to the proposed project. Further, the project objectives would not be fully realized under this alternative. As summarized in Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis of the Draft EIR, most environmental impacts of the EHNCP project are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. However, under the EHNCP, impacts related to air quality, biological resources, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable because there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, impacts to mineral resources would be considered similar to or less than impacts from the EHNCP. Impacts to aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural and tribal resources; energy; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems would be greater under this alternative when compared to those for the EHNCP. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 5.0-1: Comparison of Alternatives to the Project, as well as in the EIR's discussion of this alternative's specific impact categories. In addition to overall greater impacts associated with this Alternative, the following Project objectives would not be achieved: • Conserve the natural resources and open space character of this unique foothill area because the Resource Conservation Ara (RCA) would be developed with approximately 3,500 to 4,500 homes thereby greatly reducing the potential for conservation of natural resources; • Establish local control by annexing this area to the City and adopting a community-based plan that meet the City's high-quality standards, because this alternative would leave control with the County of San Bernardino; • Provide a range of open space and park areas offering a range of recreation opportunities, because the conversion of undeveloped lands to CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 102 residential development in the RCA would greatly diminish both open space and recreational opportunities; In the NA, provide for the development of high-quality, single-family neighborhoods with a range of housing opportunities- including equestrian -oriented housing - that are compatible in character with the existing surrounding neighborhoods because this alternative would not allow for development of residential uses in the NA other than 120 to 200 residences in Sub -Area 1, south of Banyan Street and west of Milliken Avenue, the area currently in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and zoned Low Medium Residential; • Improve access to the existing and new foothill neighborhoods by extending, connecting and improving Wilson Avenue, Rochester Avenue, and Milliken Avenue, and providing a network of walkable and bikeable neighborhood streets because the County's General Plan designates the NA as Floodway and would not permit any development in this area; Enhance fire safety throughout the Plan Area, in particular reduce wildfire hazard to existing and new neighborhoods, because the greatly increased residential uses in the RCA in a high fire hazard zone would directly conflict with this objective, and also increase risks by leaving the NA undeveloped, therefore placing homes in an area surrounded by unmaintained vegetation, or potential wildfire fuel; • Provide a limited amount of small-scale neighborhood shops and restaurants to meet the daily needs of residents in the existing and future foothill neighborhoods because this alternative does not provide for small-scale neighborhood shops and restaurants. The No Project Alternative is hereby rejected because it fails to meet the project's main objectives, and because it would have greater environmental impact that the EHNCP. B. ALTERNATIVE 2 — COUNTY DEVELOPMENT OF NA ALTERNATIVE Summary of Alternative. The proposed County Development of NA Alternative would ensure the County meets it fiduciary responsibility to sell their surplus land for a reasonable price. This alternative allows for development within the City under the guiding General Plan land use designations and densities in the NA. This alternative would have the following characteristics: • The City does not prepare a new plan or annex any County land. • The County's General Plan for the RCA would not be amended and would allow the development of approximately 3,500 to 4,500 residential units in the RCA as described and evaluated in the No Project Alternative. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 103 • Under this alternative, development of the NA is assumed to occur after the County sells its surplus property. Based on recent market studies and current products for sale in Rancho Cucamonga, a likely average residential density would be around 8 units per net acre or 6 units per gross acre. At that density, a neighborhood development of 900 acres would yield 5,400 residences. Prior development proposals also included a neighborhood -serving commercial "main street" thus up to 160,000 s.f. of commercial use is also assumed. Approximately 120 to 200 residences would be expected in Sub -Area 1, south of Banyan Street and west of Milliken Avenue as this area is already in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and zoned Low Medium Residential. 2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Implementation of this alternative would increase environmental impacts when compared to the EHNCP because the vast majority of the Plan Area would be developed with urban uses and very little additional open space would be acquired and conserved. At the same time, the Project objectives would not be fully realized under this Alternative. As summarized in Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis of this Draft EIR, most environmental impacts of the Plan are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. However, under the Plan, impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable because there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, impacts to land use and planning would be reduced. However, impacts to aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural and tribal resources; energy; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; mineral resources; noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems would be greater under this alternative when compared to those for the EHNCP. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 5.0-1, as well as in the EIR's discussion of this alternative's specific impact categories. In addition to overall greater impacts associated with this Alternative, the following Project objectives would not be achieved: • Conserve the natural resources and open space character of this unique foothill area, because the RCA would not be preserved, but would be developed with up to 4,500 homes; • Establish local control by annexing this area to the City and adopting a community-based plan that meet the City's high-quality standards, because this alternative would leave the RCA and majority of the NA under control of the County; • Provide a range of open space and park areas offering a range of recreation opportunities because this alternative would fully develop the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 104 RCA and NA with residential uses, without conservation of the majority of the RCA; • In the NA, provide for the development of high-quality, single-family neighborhoods with a range of housing opportunities- including equestrian -oriented housing - that are compatible in character with the existing surrounding neighborhoods, because the housing density in the NA would be too great to allow for equestrian -oriented housing. Alternative 2 is hereby rejected because it fails to meet the Project's main objectives, and because it would have greater impacts than the proposed Project. C. ALTERNATIVE 3 — ANNEXATION UNDER CURRENT CITY PLANS ALTERNATIVE Summary of Alternative This alternative considers annexation without the approval of the EHNCP as proposed. The area would be regulated under the City's existing General Plan and the ENSP, which covers the majority of the Plan Area, excluding the portion west of Milliken Avenue, which would be regulated under the City's current General Plan, with consistent zoning adopted for this area. This alternative would assume the same land use map for the RCA as the EHNCP but would not allow for the transfer of development rights or impose rural clustering standards in the majority of the developable portion of the RCA, and as such, would allow for approximately 150 homes in the RCA. Additionally, the proposed rural development standards would reduce the overall footprint of development for each individual future home site. • This alternative would have the following characteristics: Within the NA, the area north of the Diversion Levee is zoned Resource Conservation (RC) by the ENSP and would not allow new residential development. • Within the NA in the area south of the Diversion Levee and east of the flood control channel, the Flood Control (FC) zoning would be removed because the land is no longer needed for flood control purposes, however the future land use designation is RC, so no new housing would be allowed in this area. Within the NA in the area south of the Diversion Levee and west and south of the flood control channel, the FC zoning would be removed now that the land is no longer needed for flood control purposes, and the ENSP Residential Overlay would apply. The land use designations identified by ENSP in the Residential Overlay are Low Density Residential (2-4 du/ac), Very Low Density Residential (<2 du/acre), and Very Low Residential Estate (1 du/ac). A portion of the area south of Banyan Street is zoned Low Density Residential by the ENSP. This zoning would allow for residential development similar to the neighborhoods to the east, CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 105 which were also developed under the low and very low-density residential zoning designation of the ENSP. • Within the area outside the ENSP, south of Banyan Street and west of Milliken Avenue, the City's existing zoning of Low Medium Residential would apply. • Development of the following amounts of housing would be allowed with the alternative: • FC (VLE) area = 85 acres x 1 = 85 DU (ENSP) • FC (VL) area = 85 acres x 2 = 170 DU (ENSP) • FC (L) area = 86 acres x 4 = 344 DU (ENSP) • LM area = 28 acres x 8 = 224 DU (Zoning) • Total capacity for the NA= 823 DU (2.9 DU/acre) • In addition, 28 acres of neighborhood commercial development would be expected based on the ENSP Neighborhood Commercial Floating Zone, which has not been developed in other areas of the ENSP. This alternative would allow for up to 150 homes in the RCA and 823 homes in the NA. 2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Implementation of this alternative would increase some environmental impacts when compared to the Plan, while reducing others. At the same time, all of the objectives would not be fully realized under this Plan. As summarized in Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis of the Draft EIR, most environmental impacts of the Plan are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. However, under the Plan, impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable because there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, impacts to air quality; biological resources in the NA; energy; greenhouse gas emissions; mineral resources; noise; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems would be reduced. Impacts to biological resources in the RCA, cultural and tribal resources; and hydrology and water quality would be considered similar under this alternative. Impacts to aesthetics; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; and land use and planning would be greater under this alternative when compared to those for the Plan. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 5.0-1, as well as in the EIR's discussion of this alternative's specific impact categories. The following Project objectives would not be achieved with Alternative 3: CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 106 • Enhance fire safety throughout the Plan Area, in particular reduce wildfire hazard to existing and new neighborhoods because Fire officials expressed grave concerns with the very large, wild open space in the center of the neighborhoods — with very limited opportunities for fuel modification — thus this alternative presented fire hazard that could not be mitigated. Provide a limited amount of small-scale neighborhood shops and restaurants to meet the daily needs of residents in the existing and future foothill neighborhoods and a community center in a pedestrian oriented environment. A larger quantity of shops and restaurants, as well as potential office spaces, could have accomplished this basic objective, but greatly exceeded the community's expectation for "limited" commercial development. This alternative would allow for at least two large commercial centers in the NA, whereas community input was strongly against this level of commercial development in a residential neighborhood. • Develop a land use plan for the NA that provides the County with an opportunity for meeting their fiduciary responsibility of selling their surplus land for a reasonable price, because this alternative allows for far fewer homes in the NA, which would not make this a financially viable alternative. D. ALTERNATIVE 4 — ANNEXATION WITH ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN Summary of Alternative Under the Annexation with Alternative Land Use Plan alternative, a new Specific Plan would be approved. This alternative was one of three developed as part of the community outreach program conducted by the City in the fall of 2017. Under this alternative, the new neighborhood would be located in the northeast portion of the NA, at the closed mine site. This alternative would allow for similar development in the RCA of up to 100 homes. Alternative 4 would have the following characteristics: 1. This alternative would allow for up to 2,000 homes with a large area of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub preserved between the new neighborhoods in the NA. 2. This alternative was determined to have fire hazard risks that could not be mitigated and was the least preferred based on community surveys in 2018. 2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative Implementation of this alternative would decrease the environmental impacts when compared to the Plan. At the same time, all of the objectives would not be fully realized under this Alternative. As summarized in Section 4.0: Environmental Analysis of this Draft EIR, most environmental impacts of the Plan are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to regulatory requirements, incorporation of design CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 107 features, and the implementation of mitigation measures. However, under the Plan, impacts related to air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, mineral resources, population and housing, and transportation and traffic would be significant and unavoidable because there are no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Under this alternative, impacts to air quality; energy; greenhouse gases; hydrology and water quality; mineral resources; population and housing; public services and recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems would be reduced. Impacts to aesthetics; biological resources; cultural and tribal resources; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; and noise would be considered similar under this alternative. Impacts to land use and planning would be greater under this alternative. A summary of impacts is provided in Table 5.0-1, as well as in the EIR's discussion of this alternative's specific impact categories. Although this alternative would result in overall reduced impacts, the following Project objectives would not be achieved: Conserve the natural resources and open space character of this unique foothill area while providing additional housing opportunities to meet regional housing needs in an environmentally sensitive manner. This alternative proposed to directly conserve 491 acres of the "lower band" of the Plan Area, as well as conserving much of the "upper band" as additional mitigation of habitat impacts. Based on second opinions regarding the "lower band" conservation, it was determined that it was somewhat speculative, and there was a potential to invest a great deal of money in restoring and conserving that area without creating viable, high-quality habitat. The fact that it has been cut off from natural seasonal stormwater flows for so long, that the reintroduction of such flows would be dependent on removing a portion of the Diversion Levee, and that the area would be surrounded by neighborhoods argued against this alternative from a habitat perspective. Provide a range of open space and park areas offering a range of recreation opportunities. This alternative could meet this objective, although by focusing the Plan around a very large central open space from which humans would be excluded does not offer the same recreational opportunities as a large central open space to which they have access. Improve access to the existing and new foothill neighborhoods by extending, connecting and improving Wilson Avenue, Rochester Avenue, and Milliken Avenue, and providing a network of walkable and bikeable neighborhood streets. This alternative could partially meet this objective, but the very large central open space, off limits to humans, very significantly reduced connectivity for all modes other than automobiles. • Enhance fire safety throughout the Plan Area, in particular reduce wildfire hazard to existing and new neighborhoods in that Fire officials expressed grave concerns that the very large, wild open space in the center of the CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 108 neighborhoods – with very limited opportunities for fuel modification – this alternative presented fire hazard that could not be mitigated. Alternative 4 is hereby rejected because even though it could reduce potential environmental impacts, it fails to meet the main objectives of the project. E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the analysis of alternatives to a project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to explain potentially feasible ways to avoid or minimize the significant effects identified for the Plan. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally superior alternative among the remaining alternatives. A summary comparison of impacts associated with the Plan alternatives is provided in Table 5.0-1. As indicated in Table 5.0-1, the first line compares each alternative's incremental increase, decrease, or results in similar impacts, to the Plan's identified impact. The second line compares the level of significance of each alternative's impact to the level of significance of the Plan's impact. Of the alternatives considered in this Draft EIR section, Alternative 3— Annexation Under Current City Plans Alternative is environmentally superior to the other alternatives considered because this alternative would include less residential development than the EHNCP would permit, and would preserve more natural habitat identified as critical habitat for the SBKR and provide the opportunity to restore this habitat, which is currently degraded as a result of the long-term hydrologic and sediment transport changes from the existing diversion levees. However, as with the Plan, long-term edge effects for this alternative could include intrusions by humans and domestic pets, and possible trampling of individual plants, invasion by exotic plant and wildlife species, exposure to urban pollutants (fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials), soil erosion, litter, fire, and hydrologic changes (e.g., surface and groundwater level and quality). For these reasons, this alternative would result in similar significant impacts as those under the Plan to biological resources. This alternative does not meet the basic objectives of the EHNCP, including enhancing fire safety throughout the Plan Area and providing a high level of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle circulation between the new neighborhoods and the existing surrounding neighborhoods. In addition, the alternative would entail substantial additional costs to remove the west end of the Diversion Levee to restore drainage flows to the habitat area that would be preserved and fund an experimental habitat restoration and monitoring program, which may or may not be successful. Additionally, the indirect impact to the habitat area from human intrusion, domestic pets, and lighting from the new neighborhoods around the preserve area would further feasibility. For these reasons, this alternative is not considered feasible. Lastly, input provided by the community was a strong preference for limited commercial space, yet this alternative would allow for 28 acres of neighborhood commercial development, which greatly exceeds that of the Plan. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 109 Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the approval of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP), consisting of General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2015-00750, Zoning Map Amendment DRC2015-00752, EHNCP Specific Plan DRC2015-00751, Annexation DRC2015-00732, and Development Code Amendment DRC2019-00459 (the "Project"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and in the record, some of which have been reduced in severity to the degree feasible through mitigation measures. In making this finding, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts (Air Quality — operational VOC, NOx, CO, PM2.5 and PM,o emissions; Biological Resources — direct impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species, riparian habitat, and wetlands; Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG); Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing — unplanned population growth in SCAG RTP/SCS; Mineral Resources — removal of the D-3 Aggregate Resources zone; Transportation and Traffic — freeway traffic impacts) and has indicated its willingness to accept those adverse impacts. The City Council finds that the collective benefits of the Project as set forth below, taken together, warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unavoidable environmental impacts of the Project. Project Benefits: Project Benefit #1: The City Council established the long-term objective for the entire 6,000 -acre Sphere of Influence area to identify development, mitigation, preservation, and annexation potential. The EHNCP has been prepared to address this goal for 4,088 acres within the City's Sphere of Influence. Project Benefit #2: The City desires to take local land use control of the Project Area to ensure that future conservation and limited development meet with the City's high standards. Project Benefit #3: Implementation of this Specific Plan will help achieve the overarching goal of widespread conservation of the "front country" adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest. underwritten by and in balance with high quality neighborhood development in the southerly portion of the Project Area already surrounded by existing neighborhoods. The Specific Plan defines a strategy for development to ensure that conservation and neighborhood development pay their own way and do not place new tax burdens on existing residents. Project Benefit #4: Implementation of the Specific Plan will extend the City's pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian trail networks to connect existing and new neighborhoods to one another and to the foothill open spaces above. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 110 Project Benefit #5: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide a range of housing opportunities for families of many ages, sizes and lifestyles. The Project will provide a substantial amount of housing for local and area residents to help meet future market demand and the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Project Benefit #6: Implementation of the Specific Plan will provide connections from existing neighborhoods and streets into the Project Area, ensuring access and prioritizing multi -modal safety — designated bike lanes, pedestrian -friendly sidewalks, and limited equestrian paths — while designing safe neighborhoods, complete stormwater management plans and natural fire -safety buffers to mitigate risks of wildfire spread. The Project will create over 118 acres of new park space within the City. Project Benefit #7: The Specific Plan provides high quality design standards to ensure that the buildings and landscapes of Etiwanda Heights reflect the unique heritage of Etiwanda and Alta Loma, and that new neighborhood edges are compatible with existing adjacent neighborhoods and respect existing viewsheds. Project Benefit #8: The Specific Plan emphasizes design for people and improved accessibility and initial analysis indicates that the EHNCP neighborhoods will generate at least 15% less traffic (Vehicle Miles Traveled) per person than existing neighborhoods in the area. Project Benefit #9: According to the Project's Fiscal Analysis, prepared by Stanley R. Hoffman & Associates, the Project is expected to generate 424 new jobs in the City and generate a General Fund surplus of approximately $1.065 million (in 2019 dollars) on a recurring basis. General Fund revenue can be used for a variety of governmental purposes, including the acquisition of conservation and recreational land within the Project Area. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 19-082 EHNCP FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION AND CEQA FINDINGS October 2, 2019 Page 111 Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Document comparison by Workshare 9.5 on Wednesday, October 2, 2019 3:05:26 PM Input: Document 1 ID interwovenSite://RWGDM 1 /RWG I MAN 1 /2341335/1 Description #2341335vl<RWGIMAN1> - FINAL—CC Reso 19-082 re. Deletions EHNCP CEQA Document 2 ID interwovenSite://RWGDM 1 /RWGI MAN 1 /2341335/4 Description #2341335v4<RWGIMAN1> - FINAL—CC Reso 19-082 re. Style change EHNCP CEQA [Revised] Rendering set Standard gend: Style change Format change Ilnserted cell I I eted cell Moved cell Split/Merged cell Padding cell Statistics: Count Insertions 186 Deletions 117 Moved from 7 Moved to 7 Style change 0 Format changed 0 Total changes 317 J 10500 Civic Center Drive I Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 1909.477.2700 1 www.CityofRC.us October 2, 2019 City Council Meeting Item J1: Etiwanda Heights Staff is recommending the following change to Ordinance No. 959, Exhibit A: Zoning Map Amendment and Prezoning DRC2015-00752 Zoning Map The western boundary of the Neighborhood Area of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Specific Plan (SP-EHNCP) was corrected to include the portion of land between Milliken Avenue and the Deer Creek Channel. Hillside Rd A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A :A A7 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : A A A A A A A A A A A 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 11 0 0 " 0 1 0 0 11 . III III III iA 0 [AA A A III III III III III III III III MIN SP-EHNCP :.r hl i. Etiwanda Hei � hts "Nei hborFi�o�o�cl & C�onservatiori �Plari 0 A 0 A 0 A]J 9_A . 7AA A A A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : : A A A A A A 0 0 •y. v . III A A - 111 0 0 0 0 : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 &_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 A A 0 1 " , , III , -1 - - : : A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A 'FA A Al f6JA A •OSA A A A A A A A A A A A 4A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (31 A A A A A A 0 A 0 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A S ��FC�� •FC A A A A A A A A . A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AIM Al. A 0 0 M: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MIA k 0 0 F � � Etiwanda North S ecific:Plan� �(PC;EH) h1andsjm Planned Community A - - - i - III 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . _L. . 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LNJ A A ILI FG CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ZONING MAP Residential Q Very Low (<2 du/ac) Q Low (2-4 d u/ac) Q Low Medium (4-8 d u/ac) Q Medium (8-14 du/ac) Medium High (14-24 du/ac) High (24-30 d u/ac) �.� . 0 ::�:0 0 ..: 0 :� Commercial/Office ........ ............ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. FC Banyan St � �� n��n � � (� n ���-��n����1�C; � � � � , , , �,� . .p • , � � Office Professional (OP) Open Space Q Flood Control (FC) Q Hillside Residential (HR) O Open Space (OS) 0 Utility Corridor (UC) Specific Plan Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Specific Plan (SP) Etiwanda North Specific Plan (SP -EN) Etiwanda Specific Plan (SP -E) Empire Lakes Specific Plan (SP -EL) UUUU UUU� LJULJ LJU� � � U LLLLL _LL� ��o� 17F 0� e��� ::�Pc_c>::: 111 ::: :: '(SPr E): :: 0 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Planned Communities . Ca n -Planned III •Etiwanda Specific.Plan . Communit / � General Commercial (GC) 0 y ; I Planned Community (PC) ' �. D Community Commercial (CC) LLLL�JUML �0 �a UM o�P Re Tonal Related Commercial RC � Caryn Planned Community (PGC) os� � Route � g � � Etiwanda Highlands Planned �� �D Specialty Commercial (SC) � Community (PC -EH) "� M" � M I I "° M" M M na� ��D� NC � Commercial Office CO Terra Vista Planned Community / ELa L-JUL] 19th St � (PC-TV) �nn��-��/'--`--�� �,� os L � Q�(��� _ /. Victoria Planned Community (PC -V) L =U�rPnJ r'� ���;�� ��� "!��:Y:;,L �lfpr---. I #' Mixed Use nU����J L�n� � Victoria-Planned-Community� �� � Mixed Use (MU) Overlay District yvi_ L�uu� I U U U p 0 0 Equestrian (EOD) S S MH NC H � LM a � � Haven Avenue (HAOD) M Base Line Rd NC NC�� �NC Cs •Base Line Rd � � � � � � Senior Housing (SHOD) A NC NC Ll D Hillside (HOD) °S ua � Industrial Park (IP) 0 Foothill Boulevard (FBOD) FC AA A A n� (PC -TV) xxxxxx Industrial Commercial (ICOD) F � L � uu 0 � General Industrial (GI) OD LL9, Terra Vista Planned Community �a °S I � Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial (MI/HI) L A A A A A A 0 EM [I] � � III1,I,(I}_I(I I1I o I � Heavy Industrial (HI) IP O �o as sc` c°' .ccs ce � ca4 �c cc. ra or MINIM The maps, data and geographic information ("Information") available by and through the City of Rancho Cucamonga are presented as a public resource of general information. The City of Rancho Cucamonga makes nor implies no warranty representation or guarantee as to the content, sequence, accuracy, completeness or timelines of any Information provided to you herein. The user should not rely upon the Information for any reason and is directed to independently verify any and all Information presented herein. The City of Rancho Cucamonga explicitly and without limitation disclaims any and all representations and warrantees, including, but not limited to, the implied warrantees of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall neither accept nor assume any liability, regardless of the causation for (i) any errors, omissions or in accuracies in any Information provided and/or (ii) any action or inaction occurring due to any persons reliance upon the information available herein. 4th St GI IP IP GI ■M 0S GI (SP-1EL)I Empires Lakes IP Specific, Plan' xxxx xxxx xxxx xAPxx IP X xxxxx) Q xxxxxx X X X> ca xxx N xxxxx; O xx xxx xxxx> E xxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ MINE IP IP GI ■M 0S GI (SP-1EL)I Empires Lakes IP Specific, Plan' xxxx xxxx xxxx xAPxx IP X xxxxx) xxx xxxxxx X X X> K xxxlFYx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx; xxx xx xxx xxxx> K xxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ MINE Q s= Q -_ N CD C_ U O (y_ _ Q ca 70 s= ca W GI GI II GI 4th St Q Cn CU W Foothill BI City Limits Arrow Rt Scale 1:16,000 Oft 1,000ft 2,000ft 3,000ft 4,000ft 5,000ft 6,000ft 7,000ft 8,000ft 9,000ft 0 km 1 km 2 km Data Provided by Department of Innovation & Technology October 2, 2019 City Council Meeting Item J1: Etiwanda Heights Staff is recommending the following change to Resolution 19-083, Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment DRC2015-00749: Revise the following figures only. All other pages of Exhibit A remain unchanged. Figure LU -2: Land Use Plan • The boundary of southwest corner of the future Etiwanda Heights Preserve (designated Open Space in Figure LU -2) was corrected. • The northern boundary of the future Deer Canyon Preserve (designated Open Space in Figure LU -2) was corrected. Figure RC -1: Open Space and Conservation Plan • The boundary of southwest corner of the future Etiwanda Heights Preserve (designated Open Space in Figure RC -1) was corrected. • The northern boundary of the future Deer Canyon Preserve (designated Open Space in Figure RC -1) was corrected. Figure RC -4: Sensitive Biological Resources • The boundary of southwest corner of the future Etiwanda Heights Preserve (designated Proposed EHNCP Preserve in Figure RC -4) was corrected. • The northern boundary of the future Deer Canyon Preserve (designated Proposed EHNCP Preserve in Figure RC -4) was corrected. f %I San Gabriel Mountains \ ( \•.,\ i^ SAN BE�RNA�RDINO NATY,ONAL FQREST 1 I\ I FI�Werline Rd County 77- -- F A �\ I Canyon] ❑ St San Antonio >UUuuuu� ❑ I / ���� z y' a o \.'� 2 D �. Heights I ill i e0 a ❑C �❑ �� i > illside R ❑ ❑� a D E 24TH ST \ o j' d D❑� Wilson Av c� o I Wilson Ave - 0 e ap Chaffey ( � College nn -1 LEE �� ❑❑❑❑� QraaQ�QQ❑� ���� n IMI DEfl 20th St-D_❑��� C�� �_J�■-J ----- '® ❑❑� ®❑o® ❑ ��00 o�DD�❑/ � �❑° �j � c� D i � o D.� ❑❑ DD \9 �DQ��Q�QOp ❑ D t O �D�/a❑U ou❑d j D 0n��M1❑ �� Uu�❑ Do No ��^n ❑CD❑�� FIE" �000� a° o d❑Da ` flDD o �Z o ❑❑�� unGoD[ o / oo ❑_❑D B a CITY OF \ �a� D ".® uuu QQ�❑' b�°a QQ �QO� �Go ❑@�� ❑ u��� UPLAND0 / a❑ O I 16th St Base Line Rd uu ase i Q� Base Line Ave ❑0 JJJDD ❑D ��❑❑ ❑ �Q �� �� zl L aao DD�� oD�D1� Ch ®®/� oo❑tea D❑ QQ 61 ��1 u ❑ �Oi` a❑�, o ❑DD �❑I�❑❑❑i❑I� ❑❑_�1\ �Q❑❑ ❑° �� Imo❑ � �;, Foothill Blvd Foothill Blvd E �o� i s r o a❑ ; cc V ' Arrow Hwy ❑ Ar _w H 777 �� I ❑❑e isr Y BI I ❑) 4ailwa Burlington Northern Santa Fe R u Metrolink trollnk 1 Station I > a MEN, I� m s L'CITY OF U ® s e r cc FONTANA > ge 4th St San Bernardino Ave �eeH'd 'I > CITY OF ONTARIO I o ii a W Miles \ 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 I San Berms Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Land Use Designations Residential Very Low (0.1 - 2.0 du/ac) Low (2.0 - 4.0 du/ac) Low Medium (4.0 - 8.0 du/ac) Medium (8.0 - 14.0 du/ac) Sk Medium High (14.0 - 24.0 du/ac) RANCHO High (24.0 - 30.0 du/ac) CUCAMONGA Commercial Office (0.40 - 1.0 FAR) San Neighborhood Commercial (0.25 - 0.35 FAR) Sevaine Canyon Community Commercial (0.25 - 0.35 FAR) General Commercial (0.25 - 0.35 FAR) CITY OF Mixed Use F O N TA N A - Mixed Use (0.25 - 1.0 FAR) Industrial Industrial Park (0.40 - 0.60 FAR) General Industrial ((0.50 - 0.60 FAR) Heavy Industrial (0.40 - 0.50 FAR) Open Space Hillside Residential (0.1 - 2.0 du/ac) Conservation Open Space (0 - 0.1 du/ac) v Flood Control/Utility Corridor Public Facility Civic/Regional (0.40 - 1.0 FAR) Schools (0.10 - 0.20 FAR) - Parks Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Neighborhood Planning Area 1. Victoria Gardens 7. Foothill Blvd & Mayten Ave 2. Town Center 8. Industrial Area Specific Plan (Foothill Blvd & Haven Ave) (Sub -Area 18) 3. Terra Vista 9. Foothill Blvd & Deer Creek Channel 4. Foothill Blvd 10. Haven Ave & Church St Site (Hermosa Ave & Center Ave) 11. Western Gateway 5. Foothill Blvd (Bear Gulch Area) (Archibald Ave & Hellman Ave) 12. Foothill Blvd -Cucamonga Channel Site 6. Foothill Blvd 13. Historic Alta Loma (Helms Ave and Hampshire St) (Amethyst Site) Overlays Schools and Parks Haven Avenue Office Elementary School .. _.. Equestrian/Rural Area Junior High School Master Plan High School College P Proposed Park (1) Base Layers --- City Boundary Freeway -- Sphere of Influence Roads - Waterways Railroads Note: (1) Location of proposed parks are not fixed, and may be adjusted to accommodate future planning needs. Source: Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Figure LU -2: Land Use Plan LU -11 San Gabriel Mountains SAN B ER N AR D I N 0 N AT 1,.0 N A L F R E S T ay Canyon East Etiwanda Canyon County r a - — Canyon/` Am ndSt San Antonio Heights e 24TH ST P 20th St Wilson Ave Resource Conservation RANCHO C U C A M O N G A GENERAL PLAN Open Space and Conservation Areas Hillside Residential (0.1 to 2 du/ac) Conservation Open Space (0 to 0.1 du/ac) Flood Control/Utility Corridor Parks P Proposed Park Base Features ____ Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Note: 1. Some proposed parks sites are not parcel -specific as of 2009. Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Miles 0 0.25 015 1 1.5 2 Figure RGI: Open Space and Conservation Plan RC -5 San Sevaine Canyon CITY OF FONTANA ictoria St CITY OF Resource Conservation RANCHO C U C A M O N G A GENERAL PLAN Open Space and Conservation Areas Hillside Residential (0.1 to 2 du/ac) Conservation Open Space (0 to 0.1 du/ac) Flood Control/Utility Corridor Parks P Proposed Park Base Features ____ Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Note: 1. Some proposed parks sites are not parcel -specific as of 2009. Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Miles 0 0.25 015 1 1.5 2 Figure RGI: Open Space and Conservation Plan RC -5 ictoria St CITY OF UPLAND 16th St Base Line Rd Base L e Base Line Ave 4 III Chr S Qb A" s V ctj Foothill Blvd 66 Lb- Foothill Blvd W V Foothill Blvd w W w 7 FM 'f m All E cc Th V= W wy Ar wH%0 Epice u 0 wArrow Hwy LL 9th St Jersey BI�anta Fe Rail Burlington Northern S W P Metrolink 'E �CITY OF FONTANA r \ j > 1. i 4th St St San Bernardino Ave d -" - --------_a'1 i -- /�� Ir CITY OF -� 'a 121 c r ONTARIO j j o 0 Resource Conservation RANCHO C U C A M O N G A GENERAL PLAN Open Space and Conservation Areas Hillside Residential (0.1 to 2 du/ac) Conservation Open Space (0 to 0.1 du/ac) Flood Control/Utility Corridor Parks P Proposed Park Base Features ____ Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary ----• Sphere of Influence Waterways Note: 1. Some proposed parks sites are not parcel -specific as of 2009. Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001 and San Bernardino County Assessor, 2009. Miles 0 0.25 015 1 1.5 2 Figure RGI: Open Space and Conservation Plan RC -5 Resource Conservation RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Conservation Areas CSA 120 Mitigation 0 Henderson Creek Lennar Preserve — North Etiwanda Preserve Rancho Etiwanda Mitigation (CSA 120) RANCHO CUCAMONGA San Sevaine Preserve 0 Spirit of the Sage 0 USFS Conservation Area 0 Existing Conservation Area ® Proposed EHNCP Preserve Proposed Conservation Area Habitat Areas ------- Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Habitat ------- Delh iSoils Area Boundary Base Map Features ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary _-_-_-_-; Sphere of Influence San Bernardino National Forest — — — Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001; San Bernardino County North Etiwanda Preserve and County Service Area 120, 2008; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000; and San Bernardino County Museum. Note: The AFSS habitat extends beyond the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Area boundary and into adjacent jurisdictions. Miles 00 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure RC -4: Sensitive Biological Resources RC -31 Vk OF 0. Sevaine P 11 Canyon UU1 C anyoq/CITY OF FONTANA San Antonio Heights MEIN 24TH ST CL •. 15 20th St MINIMUM— ' 3 U jJ ■ • ��E- L �.,,, -: VIII _Iiw. noon ni s ,��;��' �1� �1i���E ■ � H•"�� �■■■ � � .�� I � � Base Line A �iIl�Wlr�INS, Foothill Blvd oI .aI■� Ep Arrow Hwy' urlinqton Northern Santa Fe R�akilway Metrolink Me Station 4f X17= ■ ICITY OF fONTANA San Bernardino AveI CITY OF ONTARIO 15 I LU I San :- ,.,. Elm Resource Conservation RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN Conservation Areas CSA 120 Mitigation 0 Henderson Creek Lennar Preserve — North Etiwanda Preserve Rancho Etiwanda Mitigation (CSA 120) RANCHO CUCAMONGA San Sevaine Preserve 0 Spirit of the Sage 0 USFS Conservation Area 0 Existing Conservation Area ® Proposed EHNCP Preserve Proposed Conservation Area Habitat Areas ------- Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Habitat ------- Delh iSoils Area Boundary Base Map Features ----- Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary _-_-_-_-; Sphere of Influence San Bernardino National Forest — — — Waterways Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2001; San Bernardino County North Etiwanda Preserve and County Service Area 120, 2008; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000; and San Bernardino County Museum. Note: The AFSS habitat extends beyond the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Area boundary and into adjacent jurisdictions. Miles 00 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Figure RC -4: Sensitive Biological Resources RC -31 October 2, 2019 City Council Meeting Item J1: Etiwanda Heights Memorandum regarding changes to density standards: The attached memorandum from Meridian Consultants, who prepared the EIR for the project, outlines how the proposed change to the density in the Rural Conservation Area will not create any new significant impacts or any increase or other changes to impacts identified in the EIR. Meridian consulranrs LOSANGELES WESTLAKE VILLAGE 706 S. Hill Street 11th Floor 920 Hampshire Road, Suite AS Los Angeles, CA 90014 Westlake Village, CA 91361 (213) 335-3434 (805) 367-5720 MEMORANDUM Date: September 27, 2019 To: Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager From: Tony Locacciato, AICP, Partner Subject: Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Final EIR Proposed Revisions to Residential Density Standards — Rural Conservation Area At your request I have reviewed the proposed changes to the residential density standard for the Hillside and Open Space Sub -zones as defined in the Public Hearing Draft Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan (EHNCP Plan), dated September 17, 2019, in relation to the analysis in the Final EIR. Table 5.9.3A in the EHNCP Plan defines the maximum allowed density as 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in the Hillside Sub -zone and 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres in the Open Space Sub -zone. On legal lots that are smaller than 5 acres in the Hillside and 20 acres in the Open Space Subzones, 1 dwelling unit would be permitted. The actual density permitted on any site in the Rural Conservation Area would be determined based on the standards in the City's existing Hillside Ordinance (Chapter 17.52 of the Development Code) and the additional standards for rural residential development in the Rural Conservation Area (RCA). As proposed, the EHNCP Plan allows a maximum of 100 dwelling units to be developed in the RCA. The EIR analyzes potential impacts associated with development of 100 dwelling units in the RCA. The City is considering revising the density standards in the EHNCP Plan to be consistent with the density standards defined for the Hillside and Open Space land use categories in the General Plan. The maximum allowed density for the Hillside Sub -zone would be revised to allow 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in the Hillside Sub -zone and 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres in the Open Space Sub -zone. Based on review of the size and other characteristics, which include steepness of terrain, geologic hazards, and water and riparian features that are currently regulated by existing City development and building codes, of the 38 privately owned parcels in the RCA, this change would allow the development of approximately 78 dwelling units, which is within the maximum of 100 dwelling units the EHNCP would allow within the RCA. Since the EIR analyzes the potential impacts associated with development of 100 dwelling units in the RCA, and no other changes to the development standards that would apply to the development of rural residential homes are proposed, this revision to the density standards for these two sub -zones would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or any increase or other changes to the impacts identified in the EIR. IVALIVAWAVr11\1J VIVA City Clerk Services DATE: October 2, 2019 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council John R. Gillison, City Manager FROM: Linda A. Troyan, City Clerk Services Director SUBJECT: OCTOBER 2, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED A. ETIWANDA HEIGHTS Below is a summary of correspondence received regarding the above item: Letters in Support Letters in Opposition_ Letters with Comments/ Recommendations Endangered Habitat League None (EHL) Judith Brennan (Recommendation to invite horseback riding members to work with staff on Norse Trail design) Metropolitan Water District (Recommended Revisions in EIR) See City's Response Memo ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE DEDICATED TO ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE LAND USE September 23, 2019 RECENVED. `lI • L. Dennis Michael, Mayor SEP 3 0 2019 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive CITI Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 r,2Ty OF n'AHC9.20 C U C A Nq 0 N0-1 RE: Item J.1., Oct. 2, 2019, North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project (Etiwanda) Dear Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council: Endangered Habitats League (EHL) supports adoption of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project, as explained bellow. For your reference, EHL is a regional conservation group dedicated to ecosystem protection and sustainable Iand use. We have a particular interest in rare habitats at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains called alluvial fans. The project site is part of the historic Etiwanda fan. As a rule, EHL only supports infill or brownfield development, but does not oppose "greenfield" development when it is part of and contributes to a regional plan for both conservation and compatible development. In this case, the Annexation Project fulfills the intent of such a plan. In brief, a "walkable" Neighborhood Area is sited in the overall least biologically important part of the site. While rare resources would be unfortunately be impacted, over time these would degrade due to surrounding development and loss of natural flooding. The more intact foothill habitat, the Rural/Conservation Area, would be stitched together with existing open space and brought under comprehensive management for resource benefit. We commend the City for using creative --indeed state-of-the-art — planning techniques to achieve eventual protection of the Rural/Conservation Area. In addition to standard mitigation, transfer of development rights (TDR) and clustered site design are employed. These approaches can serve as a model for others. We also wish to recognize the extensive public involvement that accompanied this project, EHL appreciated the opportunity to provide early input into the overall conservation design and into preservation mechanisms for the Rural/Conservation Area. While EHL would like to have seen greater resource protection, the Annexation Project strikes a reasonable balance between project objectives on some of the most important remaining parts of the Etiwanda fan. Yours truly, Dan Silver Executive Director 8424 SANTA MONICA BLVD SUITE A 592 Los ANGH.r.s CA 90069-4267 0 WWW,EIrI,r;ACUE.Oac 4� PIIoNr. 213.804.2750 ATTN: City Clerk, RE: Public Hearing, October 2, 2019 Hon. Judith Brennan (Ret.) P.O. Box 9617 Alta Loma, CA 91701 September 26, 2019 Mayor L. Dennis Michael And City Council Members City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mayor and Council: RECEIV SEP 3 0 2019 i;$ -fp t,R6. ERi"k Regarding the Etiwanda Annexation Plan, I would like to make a suggestion and request. When the tract maps are drawn and submitted, PLEASE invite 2-3 members of the horseback riding community to work with staff and developers to do a trail system on the tract maps that is safe and makes sense. I have spent many hours riding and exploring the existing trails on the west side of Alta Loma. Many of the street crossings are not safe. They are busy and not well marked. The angle of crossing requires that horses try to go up and down slippery paved streets. Also, the curb cuts are slippery, At times, the horses have to take a big step down the curbs --- also very dangerous and puts young and older riders at risk. This is just a sample of features on the existing trails that are poorly designed for horse riding, as well as hikers. I am sure that this was not done on purpose, but rather because City staff does not understand the practical ways that trails need to be designed for safe horseback riding. Please do not repeat the mistakes made in developments on the west side. Please appoint horse riders to help staff and developers with the design of the trails and crossings inside new areas in the Etiwanda Heights annexation. This will be an enhancement in safety for all the residents. I cannot attend the public hearing on October 2 in order to speak before you, so thank you kindly for reading this letter. Sincerely, � "-�r - Hon, Judith Brennan (Ret.) Former Mayor, City of Norwalk Cc: Alta Loma Riding Club October 2, 2019 City Council Meeting Item 11: Etiwanda Heights Staff is recommending the following changes to the FEIR: Final EIR Page 2.0-118, Responses 8-3 and 8-4 to Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Response No. 8-3 to be Revised as follows: As stated in this comment, the City is not proposing to provide municipal service from the public water system to the RCA. The EHNCP would allow the development of up to 100 homes on privately owned property in the RCA and, as stated in this comment, each individual homeowner would be responsible for providing their own water service from a private water well. These individual homeowners will also be responsible for annexing their properties into the MWD and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) service area as required. , ir.tn the A/fWP and 1EUA service area at this time Response No. 8-4 to be Revised as follows: The riVy is p-epesing to annex the NA is already annexed into the MWD and IEUA service area,, consistent with Metropolitan's AdMinistr-ative Code Section 3 10 0, to allow the City to prOvide rAURkipal service from the publie 4.4"ater system to new deyelopMent in tl,ee. The City will not provide municipal water service to any homes developed on private property in the RCA because it is not being annexed to MWD and IEUA at this time. As stated in Response No. 8-3, individual owners of private property would be responsible for annexing their property into the MWD and IEUA service area at the time they propose to build a home on their property as required by MWD's Administrative Code. V _ 4,`,;,, i� a THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT r ',Y,' A .� Of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA �Rly r A1t4o f' , Office of the Genefa! Manager October 1, 2019 Mr. Matt Burris City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Burris: RECEIVED ®rT 01 2019 Cl-rY CLERK T Q1i'°u 31r nA"rHo CUCAML HG4 VIA EMAIL AND USPS Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Etiwanda Hei is Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Project (EHNCP) The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) reviewed the Response to Comments for the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Project). Our continent letters are identified as Comment Letter No. 8 in the Final EIR. Metropolitan appreciates the City's responses to its comments. However, in reviewing the Final EIR, we identified two errors that we wanted to correct for the official record. In response to Response No. 8-3 and No. 8-4, the City states that this project proposes to annex the Neighborhood Area (NA). This is not correct or necessary as the NA, as defined in the EHNCP, was already annexed into the Metropolitan and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) in 1954. There is no need for the City to annex the NA for the Project, and it is our understanding that nothing is being annexed to Metropolitan as part of the EHNCP. As described in our comment letters, parcels located in the Resource Conservation Area (RCA) and outside of the northern boundary line are outside of Metropolitan's service area. Only these areas will need to be annexed in the future into Metropolitan and IEUA should the City decide to provide municipal service from the public water system or approve new development requiring water service. Response No. 8-3 and No. 8-4 are stated below and underlined, along with recommended revisions for clarification. Response No. 8-3: As stated in this comment, the City is not proposing to provide municipal service from the public water system to the RCA. The EHNCP would allow the development of up to 100 homes on privately owned property in the RCA and, as stated in this comment, each individual homeowner would be responsible for providing their own water service from a private water well. These 700 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 • Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 9 Telephone (213) 217-6000 THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Mr. Matt Burris Page 2 October 1, 2019 individual homeowners will also be responsible for annexing their properties into the MWD and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) service area as required. The City is only proposing the annexation of the NA as defined in the EI-INCP into the MWD and IEUA service area at this time. Recommended Revision for Response No. 8-3: As stated in this comment, the City is not proposing to provide municipal service from the public water system to the RCA. The EHNCP would allow the development of up to 100 homes on privately owned property in the RCA and, as stated in this comment, each individual homeowner would be responsible for providing their own water service from a private water well. These individual homeowners will also be responsible for annexing their properties into the MWD and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) service area as required. The -QW -is only or0130sing t e t-iine Response No. 8-4: Please see Response No. 8-3. The City t_proposing to annex the NA into the, MWD and IEUA service area, consistent with Metropolitan's Administrative Code Section 3100. to allow the City to provide municipal service from the public waters stem to new development in the NA. The City will not provide municipal water service to any homes developed on private property in the RCA. As stated in Response No. 8-3, individual owners of private property would be responsible for annexing their property into the MWD and IEUA service area at the time they propose to build a home on their property as required by MWD's Administrative Code. Recommended Revision for Response 8-4: Please see Response No. 8-3. The reV2�j= fe annex the NA is already annexed into the MWD and IEUA service area—eewsj L serviee rorn-t . The City will not provide municipal water service to any homes developed on private property in the RCA because it is not being annexed to MWD and IEUA at this time. As stated in Response No. 8-3, individual owners of private property would be responsible for annexing their property into the MWD and IEUA service area at the time they propose to build a home on their property as required by MWD's Administrative Code. THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Mr. Matt Burris Page 3 October 1, 2019 Thank you for involving Metropolitan in your planning process. Please contact Ms. Brenda Marines at (213) 217-7902 or bmarinesQmwdh2o.com if you require further assistance. Very tr uly yours, rJennifer Harriger Interim Manager, Environmental Planning Section BSM:ds SharePoint\Ltiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan cc: Samuel Martinez Executive Officer San Bernardino LAFCO smartinez lafco.sbcount . ov Kenneth Tam Senior Associate Engineer Inland Empire Utilities Agency ktama,ieua.org THE METROPOUTAN WATER Of SOUTHERNCAMORPffA DISTRICT Office of the Gonsra� Managef June 13, 2019 Ms. Candyce Burnett City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Ms. Burnett: VIA EMAIL AND USPS Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report r the Etiwanda Iei hts Nei hborhood and Conservation Plan Project The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) reviewed the Notice of Availability (NOA) of Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Project). The Draft EIR proposes to conserve natural resources, establish local control by annexing areas, provide open space, adopt a community -housing plan, and improve access. This letter contains Metropolitan's comments on the Project and the NOA as a potentially affected public agency. Metropolitan is a public agency and regional water wholesaler, It is comprised of 26 member public agencies serving approximately 19 million people in portions of six counties in Southern California. Metropolitan's mission is to provide its 5,200 square miles service area with adequate and reliable supplies of safe, high-quality drinking water to meet present and future needs in an environmentally and economically responsible way, We previously provided comments for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project dated January 25, 2018, and the Revised and Reissued NOP for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Project dated January 18, 2019, These F8-2 comment letters are included in the Project's Replacement Appendix A. In sum, Metropolitan wants to ensure that the Draft EER addresses our concerns associated with annexation and water use outside of our service area. Figure 2.0-5 of the Draft EIR shows development would occur in the Neighborhood Area and the remaining project area would be preserved as Rural/Conservation Area (RCA) for use as open a-3 space, trails, parks, and preserves. The Draft EIR further states "there is no plan for extension of A 2.0-sas Mer'di Co s !tart s Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 700 N. Alaw-�� doS Olgeles, California 90012 a Mailing Address; Box 54153, Los Angeles, CWftmia 900554-0153 a Telephone, a3s. A7?6000 The Metropolitan Water District of Southem California Ms. Candyce Burnett Page 2 June 13, 2019 utilities into the RCA, other than on a project -by -project basis. Thus, private property owners in the RCA will be individually responsible for making any improvements needed to support any rural residential development that is proposed. Homes built in the RCA will be served by water wells and septic systems to be developed by the property owner". Parcels located in the RCA and outside of the northern boundary line are outside of Metropolitan's service area. If the City decides to provide municipal service from the public water system or approve new development to any areas in the RCA and outside of the northern boundary line in the future, those areas will need to be annexed into Metropolitan and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA). Refer to the enclosed figure from Metropolitan's comment letter dated January 25. 2018 showing the service area boundaries. Under Metropolitan's Administrative Code Section 3100, property outside of Metropolitan's service area requires annexation prior to water being served. Section 3104(b) states, "water sold and delivered by the District shall not be used in any manner which intentionally or avoidably results in the direct or indirect benefit of areas outside the District inciuding use of such water outside the District or use thereof within the District in substitution for other water used outside S-4 the District." Promoting development of areas not annexed to Metropolitan, while receiving the benefit of imported water otherwise, would confer direct benefit on City. if the City intends to approve development in the un -annexed area, it will need to annex the areas prior to development. See also Metropolitan's Administrative Code Section 4509, restricting use of imported water and its benefits to use within Metropolitan's service area. Excerpts of the relevant code sections are enclosed for reference. Metropolitan is a responsible agency with respect to any future annexations. With future annexations, Metropolitan should be listed in the agency approval list for EIR discretionary actions. Metropolitan's Administrative Code Section 3100 describes the procedures and policies and is referenced on Metropolitan's website: www.mwdh2o.com. We encourage the City to work with Metropolitan, IEUA, and LAFCO on general annexation procedures when necessary 8.5 by contacting Ethel Young at (213) 217-7672. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and we look forward to receiving the Final ETR and future environmental documentation on this Project. Please contact Ms. Brenda Marines at (213) 217-7902 or bmarincs@mwdb2o.com if you require further assistance. Very truly yours. Jennifer Harriger Interim Manager, Environmental Planning Section BSM:ds 5harePointTtiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan Meridian Consultants 2.0-109 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 072-004-18 August2019 The Metropolitan Water District of Soulhem Califomia Ms. Candyce Burnett Page 3 June 13, 2019 Enclosures: (t) Section 3104 and 4509 of Metropolitan's Administrative Code (2) Comment Letter dated January 25, 2018 with figure (3) Comment Letter dated January 18, 2019 (4) Excerpts from The Metropolitan Neater District Administrative Code cc: Samuel Martinez Executive Officer San Bernardino LAFCD smartinez(cco.sbcounty.gov Kenneth Tarn Senior Associate Engineer Inland Empire Utilities Agency ktam@ieua.org Meridian Consultants 2.0-110 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 072.004-18 August2019 8-6 t ` THE A4ETROPOLrTAN WATER D15TR1CT OF SOUTUM CALIFORN14 Office of the Genera! Manager January 18, 2019 Mr. Tom Grahn City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department I0500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Gmhn: VIA EMAIL AND USPS Revised and Reissued Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Eti,.vanda Heights Neighborhood Conservatign Plan Pro' t(Formerly the North Eastern S here Annexation Pro'ect The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) reviewed the revised and reissued Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Drag Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan (Project). The project was previously called the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project and Metropolitan provided a comment letter in January 2018 (enclosed). Our letter indicated the proposed project's boundary is partially within Metropolitan's service area, provided recommended Language for the EIR regarding potential future annexation, and identified the Rialto Feeder and associated Facilities are within the project area. The concerns described in the January 2018 comment letter have not changed and are consistent with this revised and reissued NOP. See attached January 2018 comment letter. Additionally, the NOP identified existing rural residential homes and the Limei Fang -Ling Yen Mountain Temple are located in the proposed Conservation Priority Area (CPA). These parcels are located outside of Metropolitan's service area. If the City decides to provide municipal service From the public water system to any areas in the CPA in the future, those areas will need to be annexed into Metropolitan and Inland Empire Utilities Agency. Meridian Consultants 2.0-111 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Pion 700 M. AlaOMWItiml, Los Angeles, California 90012 . Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 • Telephond' 24"? -6000 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Mr. Toni Grahn Page 2 January 18, 2019 Thank you for involving Metropolitan in your planning process. Please contact Ms. Brenda Marines at (213) 217-7902 or bmarines cr rnwdh2o.eom if you require further assistance. Very truly yours, Sean Carlson Team Manager, Environmental Planning Section 13SM:bsm SharcPoint\Ethyanda heights Neiglibothood & CorWervation Plan Drat E:IR Enclosure: (1) Comment Letter dated January 25, 2018 cc w/enclosure: San Bernardino LAFCQ Samuel Martinez, Executive Officer snlartinez@lafco.sbcounty.gov Inland Empire Utilities Agency Kenneth Tam, Senior Associate Engineer ktain@ieua.org Meridian Consultants 2'0-112 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 072-004-18 August2019 S-7 �ttt�4 •yrrl - THE METROPOLITAN WATER U15TRrtr of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Office of the General Manager January 25, 2018 Mr. Tom Grahn City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Grahn: VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL Revised Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proiect The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) reviewed the revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project (Project). The city of Rancho Cucamonga is acting as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project. The key components of the proposed project include pre -zoning and annexation of approximately 4,088 acres of undeveloped land, reorganization of the undeveloped land into the appropriate local jurisdictions, establishment of a habitat conservation program, adoption of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Specific Plan for development (single family homes, schools, open space designation), and other administrative activities related to the proposed project. This letter contains Metropolitan's response to the Public Notice as an affected public agency. Metropolitan reviewed the project description of the proposed project to determine the proximity of its facilities within the project area. We determine the proposed project is partially within Metropolitan's service area. The proposed project site south of Decliff Drive and along the base of the San Gabriel Mountains is within Metropolitan's member agency, Inland Empire Utilities Agency's (IEUA), boundaries. The area north of Decliff Drive is not currently within Metropolitan's service area and will need to be annexed prior to water being served. If the parcel ever develops and is to receive imported water it is to annex to Metropolitan and IEUA. Metropolitan is a responsible agency with respect to the annexation and needs to be listed in the agency approval list related to EIR actions. The Draft EIR needs to include in the project description a brief statement on the proposed annexation to Metropolitan, IEUA, and San Bernardino LAFCO, including water standby charges, establishment of a habitat conservation program, and other required conditions for annexation. Then, in the appropriate impact section (e.g., water supplies or utilities), there needs to be an analysis of this proposed annexation so that Metropolitan and others can rely on the EIR Meridian Consultants 2.0-113 Etiwando Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 700 t\bh�dAStreet, Los Angeles, California 90012 • Mailing Address: Box 54153, Los Angeles, California 900584.0153 9 Telephone 9,W,) Jb100 Mr. Tom Grahn Page 2 January 25, 2018 for their own discretionary actions. We encourage the city to work with Metropolitan, IEUA, and San Bernardino LAFCO on annexation procedures by contacting Ethel Young at (213) 217- 7677. Additionally, Metropolitan owns and operates a pipeline and associated facilities within the boundaries of the proposed project location. Metropolitan's Rialto Pipeline, is a 96 -inch -inside - diameter pre -stressed concrete pipe with appurtenant Service Connections CB -13 and -15, manhole structures, and accompanying varied fee and permanent easement rights-of-way, run along Banyan Street through the project's Development Priority Area and through San Sevaine Creek in the Conservation Priority Area, within the city of Rancho Cucamonga. Please see the attached map for locations of Metropolitan's pipeline alignment. Metropolitan is concerned with potential impacts to these pipeline facilities that may result from future excavation, construction, utilities, or any redevelopment activities under the proposed Project. Development and redevelopment associated with the proposed Project must not restrict any of Metropolitan's day-to-day operations and/or access to its facilities. Detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipeline and rights-of-way may be obtained by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at (213) 217-7663. To assist in preparing plans that are compatible with Metropolitan's facilities, easements, and properties, we have enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all submitted designs or plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's facilities and rights-of-way. We encourage projects within its service area to include water conservation measures. While Metropolitan continues to build new supplies and develop means for more efficient use of current system. Water conservation, reclaimed water use, and groundwater recharge programs are integral components to regional water supply planning. Metropolitan supports mitigation measures such as using water efficient fixtures, drought -tolerant landscaping, and reclaimed water to offset any increase in water use associated with the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process and look forward to receiving the Draft EIR and future environmental documentation on this Project. If we can be of further assistance, please contact Ms. Brenda S. Marines at (213) 217-7902. Very truly yours, 40t -A RA40 IOAJ Vikki Dee Bradshaw Team Manager, Environmental Planning Section BSM SharePoinlWorth Eastern Sphere Annexation Project Meridian Consultants 2.0-114 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 072-004-18 August 2019 Mr. Tom Grahn Page 3 January 25, 2018 Enclosures: cc: 1.Guidelines 2.North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project Map San Bernardino LAFCO Kathy McDonald, Executive Officer kmcdonald(c lafco.sbcou11ty.90y Inland Empire Utilities Agency Ken Tam, Senior Associate Engineer ktain(Da ieua.org Meridian Consultants 2.0-115 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 071.004-18 August2019 deg log ftJ oil 6 4 Alorce Cnr,yar � B Q .tom e- 4 Q� z .2- 0 a U � € o OCL U U z x a g �N V �a O\C\19 \� d0� A Z ped o,'v 'x l 0 >. U � E B r F � C c a Meridian Consultant; ----1 2.0-115 Etiwandd Heights Neighborhood and Conservation. a 072-004-18 August 1 PolUB'. S:^. xAf mA WVl3- PWPW� uWe1 WBw��v7wuJa�biw3 aQueaAsid �3 aWQAldP-0aP'vd m4aurin PM. P»u WPreuW.��.%341gr pV�W P+au»A-�+.SVSplwaxKw'MSLau�AL'f�':aev",Yl3ML'S}tl.'Al0'%iws.1 Excerpts from The Metropolitan Water District Administrative Code § 3104. Mandatory Terms and Conditions. All terns and conditions of annexation shall contain the following provisions: (a) The sale and delivery of all water by the District, regardless of the nature and time of use of such water, shall be subject to regulations promulgated from time to time by the District. (b) Except upon terms and conditions specifically approved by the Board, water sold and delivered by the District shall not be used in any manner which intentionally or avoidably results in the direct or indirect benefit of areas outside the District including use of such water outside the District or use thereof within the District in substitution for other water used outside the District. (c) No District water shall be sold or delivered to any member public agency for use, directly or indirectly, for agricultural purposes as defined in Section 4106 within the annexing area. (d) The District shall not be obligated to provide additional works or facilities, necessitated by the annexing area, for the delivery of water from works owned and operated by the District. a s (e) The annexation shall be completed by the date established pursuant to Section 3108(a). M. 1. 38048 -January 9; 1990, paragraph (e) added by M.I. 40406 -August 24, 1993. § 4509. Water Restricted to Use Within the District. In order to insure that water served by the District is not used for the direct or indirect benefit of areas outside the District, the amount of water served by the District's facilities that shall be made available to any member public agency shall be limited to an amount equal to that required for uses within the area of the District lying within, or served by or through, such member public agency. No area lying outside the boundaries of the District shall be served with water from the District's facilities, except as service to such area may, when found to be such by the Board, be a reasonably unavoidable incident to the service of such water within the District, and under such circumstances the amount of water served by the District that shall be made available to any member public agency shall be limited to an amount equal to that required for uses within the area of the District lying within, or served by or through, such member public agency. Any question of fact involved in the application of this Section 4509 shall be finally determined by the Board, after giving the member public agency concerned adequate opportunity to present pertinent factual evidence and the views of such member public agency. Section 312.10 based on Res. 7260 -May 13, 1970; amended by M.1. 33642 -March 10, 1981. Section 322.10 repealed and Section 4509 adopted by M.I. 36464 - January 13, 1987, effective April 1, 1987. Meridian Consultants 2.0-117 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 071-004-18 August2019 COMMENT LETTER NO. 8 The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Jennifer Harriger, Interim Manager, Environmental Planning Section 700 North Alameda Los Angeles, CA 90012 Response No. 8-1: This comment states that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) has reviewed the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR for the Plan. This comment serves as an introduction to the comments submitted to the City and also provides background of the agency submitting the comment. This comment is noted for the record and is included in this Final EIR for review and consideration by the decision -makers. Response No. 8-2: The comment indicates that the agency previously provided comments forthe Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project, dated January 25, 2018, as well as the Revised and Reissued NOP for the Project, dated January 18, 2019 (attached for reference as part of this submitted comment letter to the City). As correctly noted by the comment, these 2 comment letters are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The City reviewed the District's NOP comment letters and addressed these comments in the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the record and is included in this Final EIR for review and consideration by the decision -makers. Response No. 8-3: As stated in this comment, the City is not proposing to provide municipal service from the public water system to the RCA. The EHNCP would allow the development of up to 100 homes on privately owned property in the RCA and, as stated in this comment, each individual homeowner would be responsible for providing their own water service from a private water well. These individual homeowners will also be responsible for annexing their properties into the MWD and Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) service area as required. The City is only proposing the annexation of the NA, as defined in the EHNCP, into the MWD and IEUA service area at this time. Response No. 8-4: Please see Response No. 8-3. The City is proposing to annex the NA into the MWD and IEUA service area, consistent with Metropolitan's Administrative Code Section 3100, to allow the City to provide municipal service from the public water system to new development in the NA. The City will not provide municipal water service to any homes developed on private property in the RCA. As stated in Response No. 8-3, Meridian Consultants 2.0-118 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 071-004-18 August 2019 individual owners of private property would be responsible for annexing their property into the MWD and IEUA service area at the time they propose to build a home on their property as required by MWD's Administrative Code. Response No. 8-5: The comment requests that the City include MWD as a responsible agency with respect to any future annexations under the Project. The City concurs with this request and will coordinate with MWD, IEUA, and LAFCO on general annexation procedures. MWD is included as a responsible agency, which is clarified in Section 2.0: Project Description, as identified in Section II: Corrections and Additions of this Final EIR. These revisions do not affect the conclusions of the analysis in the Draft EIR because this update does not affect the conclusions of the analysis of the potential impacts of the Plan. Response No. 8-6: This attachment is the District's January 18, 2018 comment letter on the NOP for the EHNCP Project referenced in Comment No. 8-2. As stated in Response No. 8-2, the City revised and considered the comments provided by the District in this letter and addressed these comments in the Draft EIR. Response No. 8-7: This attachment is the District's January 25, 2018 comment letter on the Revised NOP for the EHNCP Project referenced in Comment No. 8-2. As stated in Response No. 8-2, the City revised and considered the comments provided by the District in this letter and addressed these comments in the Draft EIR. Response No. 8-8: This attachment contains excerpts from the MWD Administrative Code referenced in Comment No. 8-4. As stated in Response No. 8-4, the City is proposing annexation of the NA as defined in the EHNCP to allow municipal water service to development in this area and private property owners in the RCA will be responsible for annexation of their properties at the time development of a home is proposed, as required by the MWD Administrative Code. Meridian Consultants 2.0-119 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 072-004-18 August2019 4.0 Corrections and Additions Page ES -5 Under the Annexation with Alternative Land Use Plan alternative, a new specific plan would be approved. This alternative was one of three developed as part of the community outreach program conducted by the City in the fail of 2017. Under this alternative, tha the new neighborhood would be located in the northeast portion of the NA, at the closed mine site The Annexation and New Specific Plan, Donut Alternative would consist of the following: Section 2.0: Project Description Page 2.0-7 (hereafter referred to as the Resource Conservative Area (RCA)) to the extent feasible and permit appropriate development in the southerly 828 acres of the Plan Area, defined in the Plan as the Neighborhood Area, (hereafter referred to as the NA). Page 2.0-10 The TDR program allows for the voluntary transfer of residential density from privately -owned properties in the RCA to the NA in exchange for financial or other negotiated compensation to the Rural/Conservation Area property owner. Page 2.0-24 Thus, private property owners in the RCA will be individually responsible for making any improvements, such as connections to electricity and natural gas lines needed to support any rural residential development that is proposed. Page 2.0-32 1. Approval of a streambed awth erizatiee alteration agreements pursuant to Section 1500 of the California Fish and Game Code. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 1. Approval of the annexation of parcels within the Plan Area that are located outside the Metropolitan service area. Meridian Consultants 4.0-2 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 072-004-18 August2019 0 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS 14 :1W-101:1 00 DMN =? 4103 4 d107►1:2W.1 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan and Final EIR City Council Hearing October 2, 2019 RANCHO CUCAMONGA TiTiF1:ClCiliiMJF1'i7!ri:F. Q-7 IT QJ County Surplus Wilson Avenue i Wilson Avenue.- Property Ij Qj Banyan Ave QU Y. Q....'..210 Freewc7yuJ IL Why is the City conducting this process? The County sought to initiate development of this land in 2008 Sample of 2008 developer proposals • County -owned land is no longer needed for flood control purposes The County intends to liquidate this surplus land and has development rights Land is in County and subject to County's zoning County issued a Developer RFP in 2008, with the intention of changing the zoning to enable the proposed development • We want to have a say in how the land is developed We do not want to suffer the impacts of development without ability to mitigate • Want any development to meet the City's high standards �&RANCHO UCAMON A Etiwanda North Specific Plan (1992) =� w 7i _ Y 4 , Lip Os 14. .+fi1 F!IT+F i /Fal[/ - FC IL i rrF� .r ��.' `yw�F+S �•'��; :.�., may'!` ,�''>+. .x.c� � - Rancho Cucamonga General Plan What does it say about this area? • Land use designations include conservation, open space, hillside residential, and flood control/utility corridor • Includes several major view corridors • Primary vehicle and non -motorized connections from Wilson Ave., Banyan Ave., Milliken Ave., and Day Creek Blvd. • Entire area within Equestrian/Rural Area Overlay with regional and community trails General Plan also gives direction on creating high quality neighborhoods and districts mh� _ :x fUITY NF. PLA0 8AN BE,R HA,Fl. OIK0 N AT40 N AL F0 R E8T RANCHO CUCAMON A How did we get here? • 2015 - 2017: North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal • Fall 2017: Four public workshops held on the draft land use concept; learned that community wanted to take a more active role in defining the planning concepts for the Area. • January - April 2018: Plan shelved; re-engagement through workshops, small group meetings, online surveys to better understand the community's vision. r Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan JM "RANCHO LW CUCAMONGA Fiscally neutral (or positive) Community- based Dhiective Financially feasible New Proposal Finish Wilson Ave. connection Outcomes of Spring 2018 Community Input The clearest outcomes of this process were: 1. The community favored taking local control of the Plan Area. 2. There was very little support for new taxes to pay for open space conservation. 3. Some neighborhood development in the lower Plan Area would be needed to gain local control and would be an acceptable means. MAY2018 UPDATE On May 16th, the City Council directed Staff to continue working with the community on a plan for neighborhoods and conservation in the northeastern area of the City. "RANCHO LW CUCAMONGA • Pop-up outreach • Small group meetings • Online survey • Promoted by email, Instagram, Facebook, and Nextdoor. Twitter, • Website with videos and information to explain the planning process. Lliweuidai I1Zits' uyliUv-hoad &Coiiuvvzilrur'1u-7 RANCHO La CUCAMONGA #I Priority; Plant and Animal Habitat # 2 Priority: M inimia e Wil dfir 111' s l #3 Priority: Range of Housing #4 Priority: Semi -Rural Character #5 Priority: Minimize Traffic Impacts #6 Priority: Pathways for walking/biking/horses #7 Priority: Gathering Spaces and Parrs #8 Priority: Beautiful, well maintained neighborhoods • OR MA I OWe E KS What types of uses belong in the annexation area to: 1. achieve local control, 2. avoid increasing our tax burden, and 3. balance our eight priorities? I Open House On September 21, 2018, the City hosted an open house to share concepts and gather input on the new initial concept. • 200 people attended • Five stations with subject matter experts Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan RANCHO C U CAMON A Overview of the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation Plan I L —� I Ruralo'Conservatidn Area j 3,803 acres --------- i \1 _'2 Neighborhood Area I 790 acres I �I {.Ili y,+ I I R. , ( _ _ I I F.--p=.n ; ` F.a ,,in it Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan Vision: Large quantities of conserved rural and natural open space in the northern portion of the Plan Area, underwritten by and in balance with high quality neighborhood development in the southerly areas already surround by existing neighborhoods. RANCHO LW CUCAMON A Guiding Principles Local Control Open Space Conservation Active Healthy Living Fiscal Responsibility Public Safety Unique Sense of Place Local Control 3 Active Healthy Uving 5 Public Safety ..2 Open Space cninservatinn 4 Fiscal Responsibility 6 Unique Sense of Place Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation PlanLW RANCHO UCAMON A Resulted In: Public Review Draft Specific Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Winter 2018 — Spring 2019: Draft Plan and EIR Prepared April 2019 — Draft Plan and DEIR available for public comment April and May 2019 — Initial Planning Commission review of Draft Plan and EIR Summer 2019 — Revisions to Public Review Draft Specific Plan and Responses to DEIR Comments Prepared Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation PlanLW "RANCHO CUCAMON A Substantive Changes to the Public Review Draft Plan Changes were made to the Public Review Draft Specific Plan in response to input from: • Comments received from agencies, environmental organizations, and the general public during Draft EIR public review period • Planning Commission • Trails Advisory Committee These changes resulted in a new and better Plan, with no new environmental impacts. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan "RANCHO CUCAMON A Reduction of Neighborhood Area Footprint 828 acres to 790 acres Biological resource benefits: Increase in size of Etiwanda Heights Preserve by 38 acres; decrease in impacts to vegetation and habitat. Improved viewshed benefits: Widened Deer Creek Greenway along the west edge by to provide an additional buffer. Equestrian benefits: New equestrian standards to support the Equestrian Overlay, expand horse keeping opportunities, expand equestrian amenities, and improve financial feasibility Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan I r F a �L I�r Isnn f,s� L �� 1 1 Ba 19 n St E L, RANCHO CUCAMON A Other Substantive Changes • Expanded and Refined Multiuse Trail Network • Refined Rural Development Standards • Expanded and Clarified Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program • Addition of the Healthy Development Checklist • Broadened Use List in Shops &Restaurants Zone to increase range of services Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan RA HO CUCAMON A A Plan For Conservation and Neighborhoods Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan 4 3 3 } Tkar[h Etiwandat I t F 1 � I � I r •L' RANCHO CUCAMON A Conservation Strategy • Conserve and restore habitat and ecosystem functions • Mitigation: Provide developer incentives to underwrite conservation as mitigation for the neighborhood • TDR: Provide incentives for property owners in the Rural/Conservation Area to transfer development rights to the neighborhood, expanding open space • New rural development standards to build on the City's hillside regulations and limit the footprint of new development • Active management to ensure permanent, adequately funded management of conservation lands • Managed recreation and education access to the Rural/Conservation Area Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation PlanLW "RANCHO CUCAMON A R/CA Ownership Pattern a: 3 t+ Conserved and Managed Conserved not Managed Public Landf' Public Land / Likely Conservation Private Land / Undeveloped Private Land / Developed an 1: Neighborhood Area IA-FRX :170 RANCHO CUCAMONGA Rural/Conservation Area: Recommended Preserves L I 1 i I I I I I i t.• �I, I 1 r-� I North Etiwanda Pre erre I YC11 I I r 12 J I,. --i r -------j i h I Ii Rural/Conservation Area (RCA) Neighborhood Area (NA) • - 1 Conserved an(i Managed s� Conserved not Managed - ;- 'r V,i Recommended Preserves R: ; A Edwanda Heights Preserve U B Deer Canyon Preserve _j Lj. C Clark Preserve 13 Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation PlanQRANCHO Lw CUCAMONCA Regulating Plan Rural/Conservation Area (mirrors General Plan designations) Hillside (R -H) 0 open Space (R-oS) Conservation (R -C) ® Open Space/Proposed Preserve (R -OS) Flood ControUtItilityCorridor (R-FCIUC) Neighborhood Area 0 Keigh ao &.00d=sia:es (N E) 0 Neighborhood General 1 (NG -1) 0 Neighborhood Genera 1 2 (N G-2) EM Shops& Restaurants (SR) Q carnino Overlay (C -O) ® Shopfront Required 0 School Site !10 wo N Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation Plan RANCHO LM CUCAMON A Rural/Conservation Area: Development Standards For minimizing impacts in the Rural/Conservation Area r 5.9.2 R u ralfConse rva tion Area Building Standards I L. R ma at F Mxr ed -.r xI0 2.1' ".11H E.A)-Q 1-41-P 16 Key N I... 4j er I'S mc"Wy Buildings - lm:ry Ich rc I n:rg Jj Id -g :;t Yt CeWrqj qMfl.Lne tvr,'ti?o4t kart: rt -,j ma at F Mxr ed -.r xI0 2.1' ".11H E.A)-Q 1-41-P 16 Key F. I`M.3iLFrDnwgL G. Prlwaa, Open �pao! �U-Yoror S. j,:� Vim Z38 1 04.15.19 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NE1115,11i GOR 000 & CONSERVATION PLAN N I... MnI; :;t Yt CeWrqj F. I`M.3iLFrDnwgL G. Prlwaa, Open �pao! �U-Yoror S. j,:� Vim Z38 1 04.15.19 ETIWANDA HEIGHTS NE1115,11i GOR 000 & CONSERVATION PLAN Rural/Conservation Area: Requested Changes General Plan • Open Space: Between 0 to 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres • Hillside Residential: Between 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres to 2 dwelling units per acre Specific Plan • Rural — Open Space per 10 acres • Final density and buildable areas determined by site - constraints and Hillside Development Code Encouraged by Hillside Overlay Zone Standard roads, curbs, gutters, etc. Required Up to 1 dwelling unit Rural — Hillside: Up to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres No change to final density and buildable areas determination under existing Hillside Development Code Required under Specific Plan • Reduced infrastructure appropriate for rural area with less paving and lighting • Not required to connect to utilities, can be off -grid Required Allows voluntary transfer of individual units within New voluntary program specifying how Hillside Designation for clustering; never implemented development rights value can be transferred to incentivize open space Sphere of Influence lands regulated by County standards Adjust City standards for rural area to match County permit thresholds. Animal keeping ratios are consistent under both City and County standards V:RANCHO CUCAMONGA Voluntary Transfer of Development Rights Rural/Conservation Area Hillside (R -H) Open Space (R-05) Conservation (R -C} ® Oxen SpaceiProposed Preserve (R -OS) Flood ControllUtilityCorridor (R-FC{UC} Neighborhood Area 0 Keigh ao &.00d=sia:es (N E) 0 Neighborhood General 1 (NG -1) 0 Neighborhood Genera 1 2 (N G-2) EM Shops& Restaurants (SR) Q Camino Overlay (C -O) ® Shopfront Required 0 School Site r- • i--10 J - - r ---T RANCHO CUCAMON A Voluntary TDR Value Equalization/Balancing Value to Sending Site: Rural/Conservation Area Based on Appraised Development Right! Receiving Site: Neighborhood Area Based on Developer's Wil Pay per Dwelling Unit by Product Type vCUCAMONGARANCHO Neighborhood Strategy • Create an expansive open space network to provide access to and views of the conserved foothill open spaces as well as formal parks and trails • Healthy, active living through walkable neighborhoods, trails, and streets • Extensive roadway network to reduce bottlenecks and traffic and provide great public safety access • A range of housing types from large equestrian estates to smaller starter homes • Strong design standards and guidance, including minimizing mass grading, to deliver on desires for "tree -lined streets" and "semi -rural character," and to maximize stormwater retention • Small scale neighborhood serving commercial to expand neighborhood services and amenities RANCHO CUCAMONGA Neighborhood Area Concept Haven Estates OMilliken Heights Neighborhoods: Very large homes on large semi -rural lots with expansive views of the mountains and valleys and easy access to the City's Deer extensive trail network and equestrian park. Creek © Central Neighborhoods: Large, medium and smaller homes within a 5 -minute walk of the Camino de las Alturas parks and trails and a 5 -minute walk of the town square. © North Neighborhood: Large, medium and smaller homes within a 5-10 minute walk of the town square and the Camino de las Alturas OSouth Neighborhoods: Large, medium and smaller homes within a 3 -minute walk of the Camino de las Alturas parks and trails, and a short walk or bike from the town square. © West Neighborhoods: Large and medium homes along the west edge of Etiwanda Heights, connected by a linear park. OBanyan Community Playfields & Neighborhood: Community park, sports fields, and adjacent housing fronting Rochester & Banyan Avenues. i z z �r ------------- Wilson Ave Ox 1 a vLA i Los osos M /' High School Banyan St IQ I Car Y Foothill Freeway Town Square (2 -acre park) Camino de las Alturas Y RANCHO CUCAMONGA Neighborhood Area: Regulating Zones 0 1 4 ----- —al 1 1 ja VilrulnAre lilsanAye } / I + F 4 10I > } I � a / £ Los cxos 1A I N ! High Schnol I �' I rlvim SI Lugtnd i 1 1 . Snk-uo-.VI ad ti I 1 a � �,i.anrsltl.+R�4 a 1 � II Foothill Freeway RANCHO CUCAMON A Neighborhood Estates (W E) 0 Neighborhood Genera I I (W G-1) 0 Neighborhood Genera 1 2 (W G-2) 0 Shops & Restaurants (S R) 0 Ca mi n o Ove rlay (C-0) ® Shopf -ont Required 0 School Site 1 4 ----- —al 1 1 ja VilrulnAre lilsanAye } / I + F 4 10I > } I � a / £ Los cxos 1A I N ! High Schnol I �' I rlvim SI Lugtnd i 1 1 . Snk-uo-.VI ad ti I 1 a � �,i.anrsltl.+R�4 a 1 � II Foothill Freeway RANCHO CUCAMON A Neighborhood Area: Character -based Standards • Block standards for the layout of new blocks and lots • Building standards for single-family building types and shops and restaurants • Private frontage standards to help define the character of each building, and collectively define the character of the neighborhood • Signage standards for signs on all private property, and for neighborhood gateway signs • Architectural and landscape guidelines that reflect the heritage and character of Etiwanda and Alta Loma (4 45.1 WF2 IL y 0 a'Im jmass h4un.5 — }ro ffv Line )Pen`-p� Ot N1 NG•1 NG•2 _ ... . Open Space Framework 1. Etiwanda Heights Preserve 2. Trailheads 3. Camino de las Alturas Greenway — 4. Milliken Heights Greenway 5. Milliken/Wilson Roundabout 6. Neighborhood Parks and Greens 7. Banyan Greenways 8. Banyan Community Pla fields y � Play fields Town Square 10. Equestrian Park � 11. Paseos=-- L - ----- ------------------------^ -----> -� ' -----------o-�- M r •I y , �, �� x a m i 1 �' Wilson Ave x"s- :Wilson Ave y y a\ Los Osos b v y y ;W High School a �r z J .. ir- Banyan St :Banyan St Master Plan of Trails dh * L P � I � � I 5 %—_—� �orth Rlwanda Pre4i I r;h ti I ------- Existing Multipurpose Trails New Multipurpose Trails — — — North Etiwanda Preserve Trails Parks RANCHO CUCAMONGA Range of Trail Types Rural/Conservation Area Trails RANCHO UCAMONGA Range of Trail Types Neighborhood Area Trails Adop=iorr of FYfS rrg mt0purpose Trans orpgg Deer and oay Creek Charmde 111 1� New muJrrpurpose rrar!in the famines ae1us AkLiras 1120 r- L 449 - Al Ak I�Rlllff em Im New mu"mWse Trail rnteg wed into the WohborhoodAren street network IS.. IS New Muflrpurpose Trujt enregruled into [he AkthborhoodAreo sword emNmrk RANCHO UCAMONGA Multipurpose Trail . Landscape Buffer - Nature - RCA Protected Nature IFencelBarrier Other ® Minimum required width Adop=iorr of FYfS rrg mt0purpose Trans orpgg Deer and oay Creek Charmde 111 1� New muJrrpurpose rrar!in the famines ae1us AkLiras 1120 r- L 449 - Al Ak I�Rlllff em Im New mu"mWse Trail rnteg wed into the WohborhoodAren street network IS.. IS New Muflrpurpose Trujt enregruled into [he AkthborhoodAreo sword emNmrk RANCHO UCAMONGA Multimodal Street Network 0 Driving 0 Walking 0 Hiking 0 Biking 0 Horse -back Riding Banyan Street Retrofit Neighborhood Avenue 1 Nefghborhood Avenue 2 Entry Avenue M Illiken Avenue Wilson Main Street Neighborhood Street Neighborhood Street - Eque5trian (See Detail 5,7.1 f FJ Rear Line Edge Drive a a dp paseo = = = Edge Lane ffiliDnAve 6 �:O�% 1, igh S-chool lripTISI ami P3 A. Street Design A. POO, F E D c .'s c D G.M—PPW 'Ruble FFDRtay KiM A =1 0. = -:0 rA& RANCHO 1WCUCAMONGA Environmental Assessment PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT DETERMINATION EIR IS REQUIRED PREPARE DRAFT EIR • 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIR was April 29, 2019 and ended on June 14, 2019. • Comment letters received from 10 agencies and organizations, and 33 members of the public, during the public comment period for the Draft EIR. • Comments also received from the public and Planning Commission at the May 22, 2019 Planning Commission meeting on the Draft EIR. • Response to comments provided in Final EIR. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation PlanLW "RANCHO CUCAMON A Topics Studied in EIR • Aesthetics • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Energy • Geology & Soils • Greenhouse Gases • Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Hydrology & Water Quality • Land Use & Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population & Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation &Traffic • Tribal Cultural Resources • Utilities & Service Systems RANCHO Lw CUCAMONGA Summary of Impacts — Unavoidable & Significant • Air Quality (conflict with air quality plan as not all growth accounted for in current AQMP, contribute to regional air pollutants) • Biological Resources (sensitive status species, riparian and sensitive natural communities, wetlands if Conservation Plan not fully implemented) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (generation of GHGs as not all growth accounted for in current regional growth forecasts) • Land Use & Planning (as not all growth accounted for in current regional plans) • Mineral Resources (preclude access to regionally important mineral resources) • Population & Housing (as not all growth accounted for in current regional growth forecasts) • Transportation (contribution to cumulative impacts on I-15 and SR -210 Freeways) Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation PlanLW "RANCHO CUCAMON A Environmental Assessment • Final EIR includes Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) that identifies each adopted mitigation measure or project design feature that reduces the significance level of a particular impact. The MMRP indicates responsibility and timing milestones for each mitigation measure. • The Statement of Overriding Considerations is expected to balance the project benefits described in the staff report against the remaining significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR. Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation PlanLW "RANCHO CUCAMON A Outcomes of this Specific Plan ■ Extensive conservation of the front country ■ Anew, unique, healthy, outdoor lifestyle available to Rancho residents ■ Every home within comfortable 5 -minute walk of park and/or trail ■ Every neighborhood has unique identity and mix of housing types ■ Significant percentage of car trips and discretionary spending captured y_. .� ry "RANCHO CUCAMONGA Staff Recommendation 1) Adopt CEQA resolution certifying the final EIR, with the errata and additional environmental analysis of the plan adjustments, making the necessary CEQA findings, adoption a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the MMRP 2) Adopt the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood &Conservation Plan Specific Plan with the following changes: • Allow density requirements at 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres in the Rural Open Space SubZone and 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres in the RH SubZone; • Permit Animal Keeping for Livestock and Poultry in the Rural/Conservation Area by right as specified in the Development Code 3) Adopt amendments to the General Plan, Development Code, Zoning Map including prezoning, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan 4) Resolution for annexation to process through LAFCO Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood and Conservation PlanLW "RANCHO CUCAMON A