HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11- 12 Agenda Packet - PC-HPC
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
November 12, 2020
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
6:00 p.m.
PURSUANT TO GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM’S EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 THIS MEETING WILL
BE HELD AS A TELECONFERENCE MEETING.
In response to the Governor's Executive Orders, the San Bernardino County Department of Public
Health requirements, and to ensure the health and safety of our residents by limiting contact that could
spread the COVID–19 virus, there will be no members of the public in attendance at the Planning
Commission Meetings. Members of the Planning Commission and staff will participate in this meeting
via teleconference.
As this is a Special Meeting, Public Communications are limited to agenda items appearing on the
Special Meeting Agenda.
In place of in-person attendance, members of the public can observe and offer comment at this
meeting via Zoom:
VIEW MEETING VIA ZOOM APP OR ZOOM.COM AT:
zoom.us/join
using Webinar ID: 990 6894 6038
-or-
YOU CAN DIAL-IN USING YOUR PHONE
UNITED STATES: + 1 (669) 900-6833
Access Code: 990 6894 6038
A. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
B. Public Communications:
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Planning Commission on the item listed on
the agenda.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chairman,
depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 28, 2020.
D. Public Hearings
D1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215 (LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15,
TH
SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE, NORTH OF 4STREET, AND WEST OF THE CITY’S
EASTERLY BOUNDARY) –CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA – A proposal to amend the
2010 General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to incorporate a new street network
planwithin the southeast industrial area of the City.Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
(SCH No. 2000061027) on May 19, 2010 in connection with the City’s approval of the City’s
2010 General Plan Update. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to
the EIR has been prepared for consideration.
E. General Business -None
F. Director Announcements
G. Commission Announcements
H. Workshop - None
I. Adjournment
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.
For each of the items listed under “PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS”, the public will be provided an opportunity to
speak. To address the Planning Commission via Zoom App, click the “Raise Hand” button when the item
you wish to comment on is being discussed. On Zoom via phone, you can also raise your hand by pressing
star *, then 9 on your phone dial pad when the item you wish to comment on is being discussed. Comments
will be limited to 5 minutes per individual. If a large number of individuals wish to speak on an item, the
Chairman may limit the time to 3 minutes in order to provide an opportunity for more people to be heard.
Speakers will be alerted when their time is up, and no further comments will be permitted.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under “PUBLIC COMMENTS.”
As an alternative to participating in the meeting, you may submit comments in writing to
Elizabeth.Thornhill@cityofrc.us by 12:00pm on the date of the meeting. Written comments will be distributed
to the Commissioners and included in the record.
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 available at www.CityofRC.us.
HPC/PC Special Meeting Agenda –November 12, 2020
Page 2 of 3
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 $3,206 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees
are established and governed by the City Council).
Please turn off all cell phones while the meeting is in session.
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 Monday,
November 9, 2020, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City’s website.
HPC/PC Special Meeting Agenda – November 12, 2020
Page 3 of 3
Historic Preservation Commission and
Planning Commission Agenda
October 28, 2020
MINUTES
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
7:00 p.m.
A.Call to Order
The meeting of the Historic Presentation Commission and Planning Commission was held on October 28,
2020. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Guglielmo at 7:03pm.
Planning Commission present: Chairman Guglielmo, Vice Chair Oaxaca, Commissioner Dopp,
Commissioner Morales, and Commissioner Williams.
Staff Present: Nick Ghirelli, City Attorney; Anne McIntosh, Planning Director; Mena Abdul-Ahad,
Assistant Planner; Dat Tran, Assistant Planner; David Eoff, Sr. Planner; Elizabeth Thornhill, Executive
Assistant.
B. Public Communications
Chairman Guglielmo opened the public communications and hearing no comment, closed public
communications.
C. Consent Calendar
C1. Consideration to adopt Regular Meeting Minutes of October 14, 2020.
Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Vice Chair Oaxaca. Motion carried 5-0 to adopt the
minutes as presented.
D. Public Hearings
D1. TIME EXTENSION DRC2020-00310 – RICHLAND COMMUNITIES – A request for a one
(1) year time extension for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT18908 -The
subdivision of approximately 10.6 acres (located at the northwest corner of East Avenue and
Wilson Avenue) into 30 single-family detached lots within the Low (L) Residential District,
Equestrian Overlay District, and Etiwanda North Specific Plan –APN: 1087-081-25.
Mena Abdul-Ahad, Assistant Planner, presented Commissioners with a Staff Report and oral
presentation (copy on file). She stated Governor signed into law a new Bill AB1561, which will allow
extension to go from 12 months to 18 months, effective January 2021. This Map will automatically gain
an extra 6 months. She also mentioned Resolution #20-44 has a typo. Correction to the expiration
date should be October 28, 2021, not 2020.
Chairman Guglielmo opened public hearing. Hearing no public comments, closed public hearing.
Commissioners Williams, Oaxaca and Dopp concur this time extension is a straightforward request. No
objections.
Commissioner Morales stated he believes the extra 6-month should help applicant with getting it all done.
Asked staff, are they completing Wilson from Etiwanda to East or just a portion of their property?
Anne McIntosh, Planning Director, answered that they are in discussion with property owner of the revised
plan for the entire site. The map extensions are for the previous plan and because they are considering
possible changes to site planning, that is why they have not taken any action yet. She stated it is possible if
they do not purse a change, the land will get developed according to these maps.
Chairman Guglielmo asked what was the driving force behind the automatic time extension.
Nick Ghirelli, City Attorney, explained the legislator was concerned due to the housing crisis and Covid-19
th
around March 4when Governor declared this an emergency. A lot of cities shut down their City Halls and
were not holding public hearings, so there was a delay on taking action on a lot of housing entitlements. That
was the driving force to provide the 18-month automatic extension for housing entitlements from 12-months.
Motion by Commissioner Williams, second by Commissioner Williams to approve Resolution 20-44 as
amended. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0 vote.
E. General Business - None
F. Director Announcements
Anne McIntosh reminded the Commission of upcoming meetings:
th
November 12 @ 6:00pm
th
December 9@ 7:00pm
st
December 21@ 7:00pm - Special Meeting to consider next public input on the General Plan Land Use
Alternatives.
Regarding the General plan, they are working on another virtual outreach program taking place the week of
th
November 16
A series of Zoom discussion groups. More information at the next meeting.
G. Commission Announcements - None
H. Workshop – None
I. Adjournment
Motion by Vice Chair Oaxaca, second by Commissioner Williams to adjourn the meeting; motion
carried unanimously, 5-0 vote. Meeting was adjourned at 7:22pm.
HPC/PC Minutes – October 28, 2020
Page 2 of 3
Draft
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Elizabeth Thornhill
Executive Assistant, Planning Department
Approved:
HPC/PC Minutes – October 28, 2020
Page 3 of 3
Draft
STAFF REPORT
DATE:November 12, 2020
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Anne McIntosh, AICP, Planning Director
INITIATED BY:
Sean McPherson, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215 – CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA – A proposal to amend the General Plan of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga to incorporate a new street network plan within the
southeast industrial area of the City that is generally located east of
Interstate 15, south of Arrow Route, north of 4th Street, and west of the
City’s easterly boundary). Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH
No. 2000061027) on May 19, 2010 in connection with the City’s approval
of the City’s 2010 General Plan Update. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15164, an Addendum to the EIR has been prepared for
consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following action:
Recommend through the adoption of the attached resolution that the City Council adopt the Addendum
to the 2010 General Plan EIR (SCH2000061027); and
Recommend through the adoption of the attached resolution that the City Council approve General
Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A General Plan Amendment to amend portions of the Community Mobility Chapter 2010 General Plan.
BACKGROUND:
On May 19, 2010, the City Council adopted the 2010 General Plan which provides the foundation for many
of the City’s regulatory documents, including the Development Code. The General Plan contains within it
various “elements,” or chapters, which provide various goals, policies and objectives to manage growth
and development within the City. Included within the 2010 General Plan is the Community Mobility Chapter,
which serves as the City’s overall transportation and circulation plan. As of January 2020, the City has
initiated a comprehensive general plan update process, known as “PlanRC,” which will re-envision the
General Plan’s goals, policies and objectives, including those for transportation and circulation, in order to
007
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215– CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA
November 12, 2020
Page 2O
ensure that the built environment continues to accurately reflect the aspirations of the community at-large.
It is anticipated that this update will be completed and presented to the Planning Commission and City
Council for review and consideration in the first quarter of 2022.
Recently, and as the City has been progressing with the PlanRC visioning process, the City has received
a significant amount of development interest involving new industrial development and potential
redevelopment of existing industrial properties. This development interest has been strong throughout all
industrial zones citywide. However, it has been particularly pronounced within an the southeast industrial
area of the City where, within the past year, approximately 6 million gross square feet of industrial
development, including redevelopment, has been proposed on various parcels that have a combined area
th
of nearly 300 acres. This area of the City is roughly bounded by Interstate 15 (I-15) to the west, 4
Street
to the south, Arrow Route to the north, and the City’s jurisdictional boundary to the east (hereafter referred
to as the “southeast industrial quadrant” or SEIQ (Exhibit A).
The SEIQ totals nearly 1,300 acres. It is generally characterized by large parcels improved with a variety
of predominately industrial uses and a limited street network that pre-date the City’s incorporation. These
uses include various heavy industrial “legacy” uses which pre-date the City’s incorporation such as
Commercial Metal Company (“CMC Steel”), located at 12459 Arrow Route, and the deactivated electric
power generating station at 8996 Etiwanda Avenue (NRG or “GenOn”). Notably, CMC Steel recently
announced its intention to relocate its operations outside the City. This results in their approximately 90-
acre property becoming available for redevelopment. Many of these large parcels within the SEIQ,
including CMC Steel, are often bound by physical (infrastructure) barriers such as the Burlington Northern
Santa Fe (BNSF)/Metrolink rail right-of-way, various private spur rail lines, the I-15 freeway, and the
pending Etiwanda Avenue grade separation project (a bridge overpass of that street over the
BNSF/Metrolink rail line). These barriers result in numerous properties that are not efficiently accessible
via the existing circulation network.
As the City’s 2010 General Plan did not anticipate the expiration of the legacy heavy industrial uses, the
Community Mobility Chapter does not facilitate the methodical development of such large tracts of land,
nor does that chapter address the consequences to the circulation network which result from the wholesale
turnover of legacy uses such as CMC Steel. Staff acknowledges that the City has recently initiated the
“PlanRC” General Plan update process with the intention of comprehensively updating the 2010 General
Plan, including the subject chapter of the General Plan. However, as public hearings for the PlanRC
General Plan update are not expected until early 2022, and in response to the significant development
interest presently expressed throughout the SEIQ, staff proposes the subject General Plan Amendment to
address the immediate need to improve the City’s street network.
ANALYSIS:
As noted above, approximately 6 million square feet of new industrial development has been proposed
within the SEIQ within the past year. The table below summarizes the various notable projects for which a
development application has formally been submitted, or those projects which have been discussed
between staff and various stakeholders at a preliminary level:
Notable Development Interest within SEIQ
Site/Parcel
Type of Proposed Building Anticipated
Stakeholder Location Size
Inquiry Size (approx.) Use*
(approx.)
Page 2 of 9
008
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215– CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA
November 12, 2020
Page 3O
Active
Bridge Point
Application2.1 million square
th
Rancho 12434 4Street 91 acres Warehouse
(DRC2020-feet
Cucamonga
00202)
Active Var. parcels
Hillwood
Application north of Napa
Development 650,000 square feet35 acresWarehouse
(DRC2020-Street, east of
Company
00177) Etiwanda Ave.
104,000 square feet
Var. parcels
of building, with over
Southern SCE
th
Preliminary north of 6
California 400,000 square feet 16 acres Training
Inquiry Street, west of
Edison of outdoor training Facility
Etiwanda
areas
Preliminary 8996 Etiwanda 1.1 million square
Gen On 65 acres Warehouse
Inquiry Avenue feet
Preliminary 12459 Arrow
CMC Steel 2 million square feet 94 acres Warehouse
Inquiry Route
Var. parcels at
Preliminary NE corner of
Duke Realty 150,000 square feet 7 acres Warehouse
Inquiry Whittram/Pecan
Avenues
*The term “warehouse” is used generically as the majority of noted development, with the exception of the SCE project, has
involved speculative industrial development anticipated to include distribution center and logistics uses
In referencing the table above, this development activity constitutes the development or redevelopment of
th
various parcels totaling approximately 300 acres, or roughly 1/4 of the area of the SEIQ. As noted
previously, the 2010 General Plan does not adequately anticipate the potential adverse consequences of
the development or redevelopment of such large tracts of land and the impact this may have on the existing
street network.
Generally, the existing street network within the SEIQ only provides limited circulation throughout the area.
This is largely a result of the predominately heavy industrial uses which have historically been located
within the SEIQ. Prior to incorporation, and in the following decades, a variety of legacy uses utilized large
tracts of land to accommodate various heavy industrial uses. Due to the nature of these historic uses, the
approximately 1,300 acres of land that comprise the SEIQ are only served, as defined by the General Plan,
th
by three “Major Arterial” streets (Arrow Route, 4Street and Etiwanda Avenue), one “Secondary Street”
th
(6 Street), and several “Local Collector” streets (Hyssop Drive, Santa Anita Avenue, Pecan Avenue,
Hickory Avenue, Napa Street and Whittram Avenue). Consequently, the significant and simultaneous
development potential of 6 million square feet of land comprising nearly 1/4 of the area of the SEIQ may
likely result in significant adverse impacts upon this street network.
The existing uses consisted primarily of large sites developed for manufacturing, power generation, and
single brand storage facilities, or largely underdeveloped industrial uses on smaller lots. Such uses tend
to have limited needs for traffic circulation because their primary transportation needs are to serve a
relatively small number of employees and freight related to the products being manufactured or produced
onsite. Furthermore, much of the vacant land to the east of Etiwanda Avenue and south of the
BNSF/Metrolink rail line has been historically owned by the California Speedway Corporation. This owner
Page 3 of 9
009
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215– CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA
November 12, 2020
Page 4O
operates the Auto Club Speedway (the “Speedway”) in an unincorporated part of San Bernardino County
(in the “sphere of influence” of the City of Fontana). While the Speedway generates a large volume of traffic
a few days per year, the day-to-day impact of their events on the transportation network is negligible. Also,
a large portion of this vacant land is identified in the current General Plan as a potential future park site. A
park on this parcel would be expected to generate much fewer vehicle trips than a similarly situated large
modern industrial site.
Ultimately, this proposed park was deemed infeasible by the City. The subject property is now proposed
for industrial development by the Hillwood Development Company (as described above). Many of the
existing industrial facilities in the SEIQ, such as CMC Steel, the Etiwanda Generating Station (GenOn),
and the Speedway, have become major institutions within this area of the City. The likelihood of turnover
in order to develop modern industrial uses was not anticipated with the 2010 General Plan. Therefore, the
street network provided in the General Plan currently includes only those streets that had historically served
these uses.
The proposed and anticipated replacement of these historic uses with modern industrial development
raises two main concerns. First, the existing and proposed infrastructure discussed in the 2010 General
Plan assumed the service of the existing development on the properties in the SEIQ and the traffic from
the surrounding area. However, the development of nearly 6 million square feet of modern industrial
facilities cumulatively introduces a new dynamic to local traffic circulation within the SEIQ that was not
anticipated by the City. Given the wide range of tenants that could become the end users of these facilities,
it is expected that the streetway network anticipated in the General Plan will be insufficient to provide
efficient circulation for freight movement, public safety, etc.
Staff has met with a several potential developers of properties in the SEIQ, including those who propose
to redevelop the CMC and GenOn properties. It has become evident—based on preliminary site designs
which include more onsite truck and passenger vehicle parking than traditional industrial developments
along with mentions of employee counts well over 1,000 per facility—that traffic generated by these
facilities has the potential to far exceed average levels generally utilized to analyze and plan for industrial
areas. This conclusion has been corroborated with staff from a neighboring local municipal jurisdiction that
has experienced high volumes of truck traffic at a similar facility to those currently being contemplated by
these developers. The staff at that jurisdiction observed a queue of trucks to the one facility that was
approximately 1.25 miles long. Such queuing into areas with limited alternative routes and streetways has
the potential to not only create traffic congestion, but also increases the potential for traffic collisions and
air quality impacts due to long-term idling.
The second concern relates to the number of access points available to serve the facilities within the SEIQ.
In evaluating the potential projects listed above, there is the potential for 1.75 million square feet of
industrial space (not including the potential development or redevelopment of other properties along Napa
Avenue) that would be added to the existing traffic at the single traffic signal-controlled intersection of
Etiwanda Avenue and Napa Avenue. Furthermore, CMC Steel’s preliminary proposal that was shared with
staff anticipates the construction of 2 million square feet of industrial space. Access for that project would
be at the traffic signal-controlled intersection at Arrow Route at Yellowwood Court and potentially a second
connection along Arrow Route.
This is similar to the access points proposed in the attached ordinance. However, the CMC proposal does
not include the internal streetway network described below that is intended to increase the number of street
alignments and connection points within the block. In comparison to these anticipated developments, the
Page 4 of 9
010
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215– CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA
November 12, 2020
Page 5O
recently developed Goodman Logistics Center (“Goodman”), consisting of 1.5 million square feet of
industrial space, on the southwest corner of Arrow Route and Etiwanda Avenue, has six points of access
to two major arterials. Two of those access points have traffic signal control at the intersections of a)
Etiwanda Avenue and Whittram Avenue and b) Arrow Route and Yellowwood Court.
The Goodman facility is operating within the provision of this level of access. It allows for multiple options
for traffic movement relative to the site (internally and externally). However, it is expected that the existing
limited access to, and within, the remaining large blocks in the SEIQ will not function as well and will likely
lead to similar issues raised above with respect to a limited streetway circulation network. There are
limitations to improving the number of access points along major arterials that are present due to existing
utility and rail infrastructure and the planned construction of the Etiwanda Avenue grade separation. The
proposed streetway network further described below addresses these concerns by increasing the number
of paths to and from each facility within the larger blocks and to provide multiple points of access to each.
Proposed Street Network Expansion
In order to properly anticipate the potential impacts that 6 million square feet of industrial development that
might incur on the existing deficient street network, staff proposes to carefully expand the street network
throughout the SEIQ. The expansion of the street network involves the planning for various future routes
throughout the area. Staff has generally divided the proposed street network expansion within the SEIQ
between a northern portion and a southern portion, as divided by the BNSF/Metrolink rail right-of-way. Staff
notes that all proposed streets consist of Local Industrial Collectors which include a 66-foot wide right-of-
way and a curb-to-curb width of 44 feet. No streets are proposed to cross the BNSF/Metrolink rail right-
of-way. It is anticipated that these new streets will be constructed in phases as various properties in the
SEIQ are proposed for development.
For the northerly portion of the SEIQ, located north of the BNSF/Metrolink right-of-way, new local collector
streets are proposed to run north and south connecting to Arrow Route to the north. New local collector
streets are also proposed to run east and west, intersecting with the new north-south streets. A planned
future street opportunity may exist to connect one of the new east-west streets to Etiwanda Avenue thereby
creating an alignment with the existing portion of Whittram Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue (Exhibit B).
For the southerly portion of the SEIQ located south of the BNSF/Metrolink right-of-way, new local collector
streets are proposed to improve circulation throughout multiple large parcels, aiming to provide alternative
thth
connections between 4 and 6 Streets running north and south, and alternative connections between
th
Etiwanda Avenue and an improved interior street network in order to alleviate dependency on 6 Street.
Staff notes that new streets are also proposed east of Etiwanda Avenue to alleviate potential congestion
concerns at Napa Street and Etiwanda Avenue. These new streets would include one north-south street
leading from Napa Street at the south, to a new proposed east-west street proposed to run parallel to, and
immediately south of, the BNSF/Metrolink rail right-of-way (Exhibit C).
Generally, this improved street network achieves the following:
Guidance for Future Development: As the City continues looking forward to facilitating reasonable
industrial growth in the future, it is critical that the General Plan accurately reflect the City’s vision for an
efficient and comprehensive street network. Amending the General Plan to incorporate an expanded street
network allows prospective developers to clearly anticipate required public improvements and associated
costs as individual properties develop in the future.
Page 5 of 9
011
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215– CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA
November 12, 2020
Page 6O
Circulation, Public and Public Safety Access: Expanding the streetway creates multiple routes which
improves access to sites, dilutes traffic congestion, and can help to reduce travel times to emergencies;
Potential Increase in Land Value: An expanded street network provides additional street frontage for
existing property owners, thereby improving access/visibility of businesses which may increase land value.
The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD), currently in the middle of expanding and
relocating and renovating legacy fire stations, as well as building one or more potential new stations, is
primarily property tax funded. Similarly, although a post-Proposition 13 agency, the City still relies on
property tax as an important revenue source. Thus, maximizing the value per acre of the industrial property
that is available and/or subject to a change of ownership will limit the need for new or expanded revenue
sources such as expanding/adding Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) and the collection of permit and
inspection fees. If the City and/or District is able to maintain existing CFDs or limit the growth in cost of
permits and fees residents and businesses will have a lower tax obligation which, in turn, increases
disposable income and re-investment in the local economy;
General Aesthetics: expanding the street network may also improve general aesthetics, as potential
development visible from new street frontages would be required to meet the City’s high design standards
for new buildings.
As noted previously, the City is currently processing two industrial development applications: 1) Bridge
th
Point Rancho Cucamonga’s project (DRC2020-00202) at 12434 4Street, and 2) Hillwood Development
Company’s project (DRC2020-00177), located north of Napa Street and east of Etiwanda Avenue. Both
developers have been working diligently with the City and have incorporated relevant segments of the new
proposed street network into their respective projects. Specifically, plans for the Bridge development
thth
project illustrate two new proposed streets, one running north-south which will connect 4 and 6 Streets,
and one running east-west, roughly bisecting the site, which includes a potential future street opportunity
running westbound, eventually connecting to Santa Anita Avenue. Hillwood Development Company’s
project has also incorporated a new north-south street onto their development plans which will eventually
connect Napa Street to a future east-west street running parallel and immediately south of the BNSF rail
line, as described above. Each of these new street segments will be required to be constructed as part of
these new development projects.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with goals,
policies and objectives provided within the Community Mobility Chapter of the General Plan. Specifically,
the General Plan Amendment fulfills Community Mobility Goal CM-7, Policy-7.1 which requires that the
City, “Continue to maintain a truck circulation system that defines truck routes, directs the movement of
trucks safely along major streetways, and minimizes truck travel on local and collector streets.” The
proposed street network expansion intends to improve the truck circulation, expand truck routes and
alleviate potential conflicts along major streetways. Staff notes that while Policy CM-7.1 requires that truck
travel be minimized on local and collector streets, the General Plan clarifies that this Policy intends to
minimize truck travel on local and collector streets within and adjacent to residential areas. In fact, all
streets within the Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) within which the SEIQ is located, are designated
truck routes.
The proposed General Plan Amendment will result in the following changes to the Community Mobility
Chapter of the 2010 General Plan:
Page 6 of 9
012
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215– CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA
November 12, 2020
Page 7O
1. Update Figures within Community Mobility Chapter: the various figures, including the Circulation
Plan, Truck Route Maps and various other citywide maps will be revised to reflect the general location of
the proposed new Local Collector Streets. Specifically, the following figures within the Community Mobility
Chapter will be graphically amended to reflect the new streets:
a. Figure CM-1: General Streetway Hierarchy
b. Figure CM-2: Circulation Plan
c. Figure CM-4: Transit Plan
d. Figure CM-5: Local Transit Service Areas
e. Figure CM-7: Bicycle Plan
f. Figure CM-8: Truck Routes
2. Plan for Additional Growth: In order properly anticipate additional future growth not discussed in this
report, each figure listed above within the Community Mobility Chapter will now include a footnote stating
the following: “Additional public or private (with public access) streets will be required to implement internal
block network circulation and access requirements. Locations to be determined at the time of
development.”
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65302: Government Code Section 65302(b)(2) states: “Commencing
January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify
the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of
all users of streets, streets, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the
rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan;” and, “(B) For purposes of this paragraph, “users of
streets, streets, and highways” mean bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of
commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.” Though the 2010 General
Plan was adopted by the City Council on May 19, 2010, prior to the timeframe set forth in Gov. Code
Section 65302(b)(2), the Community Mobility Chapter defines a set of “Community Mobility Strategies,”
which establishes a system of complete streets, planning for and balancing “…safe and convenient access
and travel for all users, including: motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, children, older adults, the
mobility impaired, and movers of commercial goods.” Thus, staff has determined that both the existing
Community Mobility Chapter and proposed General Plan Amendment comply with the intent of
Government Code Section 65302(b)(2).
SENATE BILL (SB18) – TRIBAL CONSULTATION: Pursuant to the Senate Bill 18 (SB18) Native American
consultation process, the City requested a search of the Sacred Lands File be conducted through the State
of California’s Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The City also requested the NAHC provide
a Native American Tribal Contact List pursuant to SB18. The Tribal Consultation List included 12 tribes
and each tribe was sent a request for consultation on August 10, 2020, advising them of the proposed
project and providing the opportunity for the tribes to consult with the City regarding the proposed project.
To date, the City has received correspondence from three tribes and each tribe has declined consultation
on the project. The SB 18 response period is open for 90 days from the date of the letter and will close on
November 10, 2020. The final Addendum to the EIR will be complete prior to the City Council review and
consideration of the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Page 7 of 9
013
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215– CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA
November 12, 2020
Page 8O
FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Impact for this project includes the payment of consultant services to Michael
Baker International in the amount of $29,844 which includes the preparation of an Addendum to the 2010
General Plan EIR. Further, it is anticipated that the improved street network will provide additional street
frontage to various properties, thereby improving access and visibility of business, while also improving
emergency access. It is anticipated that these improvements will increase land value within the SEIQ.
As previously mentioned, the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District (RCFPD), currently in the middle
of expanding and relocating and renovating legacy fire stations, as well as building one or more potential
new stations, is primarily property tax funded. Maximizing the value per acre of the industrial property that
is available and/or subject to a change of ownership will limit the need for new or expanded revenue
sources such as expanding/adding Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) and the collection of permit and
inspection fees. If the City and/or District is able to maintain existing CFDs or limit the growth in cost of
permits and fees, residents and businesses will have a lower tax obligation which, in turn, increases
disposable income and re-investment in the local economy.
CEQA DETERMINATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City
certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2000061027) on May 19, 2010 in connection
with the City’s approval of the City’s 2010 General Plan Update. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15164, an Addendum to the EIR has been prepared for consideration for this General Plan Amendment.
The City has contracted with Michael Baker International to prepare an analysis of any potentially
significant impacts which may result as part of the proposed General Plan Amendment and analyze the
factors for requiring further environmental analysis under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. To date, no
additional impacts which were not already analyzed as part of the 2010 General Plan Update EIR have
been identified. As such, the Addendum supports the conclusion that the modifications to the Community
Mobility Element of the General Plan are considered minor technical changes, and do not result in any
new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available
and no substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General Plan was
being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed project would not
substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the environmental topics analyzed in the certified
EIR, nor would the project require new mitigation measures or alternatives.
CORRESPONDENCE:
In September 2020, staff was contacted by representatives of the SCE and the GenOn projects referenced
in this report. Both SCE and GenOn provided letters objecting to the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Both SCE and GenOn provided preliminary traffic assessments for each of their potential projects as well
(Exhibits E and F). A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on
November 2, 2020. To date, no additional correspondence has been received.
COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED:
The City Council has established core values which guide the City in carrying out its vision and work
towards its mission. A variety of these core values apply to the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Specifically, expanding the street network in Southeast Rancho Cucamonga to facilitate improved access,
circulation, and improved land values meets the core values of “Continuous Improvement,” and
Page 8 of 9
014
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2020-00215– CITY OF RANCHO CUCMAONGA
November 12, 2020
Page 9O
“Intentionally embracing and anticipating the future.” Further, as an expanded street network would
certainly improve emergency response in the event of an emergency, the project also satisfies the core
value of “Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy community for all.”
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A - Vicinity Map of the SEIQ
Exhibit B - Conceptual Street Network Map of North SEIQ
Exhibit C - Conceptual Street Network Map of South SEIQ
Exhibit D - Revised General Plan Community Mobility Figures CM-1,2,4,5,7 and 8
Exhibit E - Correspondence from SCE dated September 29, 2020
Exhibit F - Correspondence from GenOn dated September 23, 2020
Exhibit G - Resolution #40-45
Exhibit H - Addendum to the EIR
Page 9 of 9
015
016
991(,0.
2411(,0.2411(,0.
2411(,0.
771(,0.
771(,0.
QmboofeGvuvsfTusffu+
+Beejujpobmqvcmjdpsqsjwbuf)xjuiqvcmjdbddftt*spbet
xjmmcfsfrvjsfeupjnqmfnfoujoufsobmcmpdlofuxpsl
djsdvmbujpoboebddfttsfrvjsfnfout/Mpdbujpotupcf
efufsnjofebuuifujnfpgefwfmpqnfou/
017
018
San Gabriel Mountains
Genera_Roadway_Hierarchy
Principal
SANBERNARDINONATIONALFOREST
Secondary
Tertiary
Freeway Interchange
Day
Canyon
ANCHO
R
Proposed Freeway Interchange
UCAMONGA
C
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
San
Canyon
Sevaine
Base Layers
Powerline Rd
Canyon
City Boundary
County
Canyon
Almond St
CITY OF
Sphere of Influence
FONTANA
Waterways
v
San
E
A
T
I
W
Antonio
e Freeway
A
s
N
i
L
ED
Heights
oHillside Rd
N
A
N
u
Roads
A
qHillside Rd
H
r CC
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
T
Railroads
E
K
E
K
E
Wilson Ave
H ST R
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
ev
t
tS
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
ve
S A
S
C
Day Creek Blvd
l
t
v
A
H
y d
n
es
l
rA
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
A
r
an
y
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S ie
N
aa
l
N h
hb Chaffey
Bt
E
s
N
ei
Locations to be determined at the time of development.
p M m
e
C
lo
E
nh
E
15
l College
U
p
D r
L
c
m%('&
e
C am
ar
Banyan Str
A
A
SHBanyan St
Banyan St
CA
e
M
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
Haven Ave
H
O
N
G
A
Lemon Ave
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
210
|}þ HighlandAve
·
210
|}þ
·
19th St
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
O
y
Victoria St
Rochester Aver
N
r
e
CITY OF
h
C
UPLAND
L
E
N
Carnelian St
N
ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
H
C
C
H
A
K
N
E
N
K
E
E
15
E
R
L
E
%('&
C
y
R a
C
w
A
e
ch St
Chur
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
Gardens
t
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66
ev
/
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
R
A
d
E
sla
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
l
hm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
Epicenter
teH
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
lin
ur
B
k
lin
ro
et
M
Metrolink
Station n¤
e
v
A
ee
y
vv
r
r
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
aaC
FONTANA
10 yy
%('&ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
BVV
e
r
n
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
ino Ave
i Bernard
San
nh St
4t
o
F
e
r
e
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
s
l
o
a
ONTARIO
b
m
i
r
hHaven Ave 15
e
c%('&
rH
A
Figure CM-1:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
Miles ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
00.250.511.52
General Roadway Hierarchy
Community Mobility CM-7
019
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN
San Gabriel Mountains
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Circulation Plan
Collector
Day
Modified Collector with Median
ANCHO
Canyon
R
UCAMONGA
C
Secondary
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
Modified Secondary with Median
San
Canyon
Sevaine
Major Arterial
Powerline Rd
Canyon
County
Modified Major with Median
Canyon
Almond St
CITY OF
K
E
Major Divided Arterial
FONTANA
E
R
v
C
San
E
A
T
I Major Divided Highway
W
Antonio
e
A
s
N
i L
D
Heights E
o
Hillside Rd
N
A
N
u
Freeway
A
q H Hillside Rd
R
C
r
C
E
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
E
T
D
K
E
E
K
E
!
Intersections Widened beyond Standards
Wilson Ave
R
H ST
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
v
te
S
t
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
ve
A
S
S
C
l Day Creek Blvd
t
v
A
H
y
nd\]\[
es
l
A
r
r
A
n
ay
¯
Railroad Grade Separation
i
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S e
a
N
la
h
N
h
b Chaffey
E Bt
eis
N
pm
M
C e
nlho
E
E
15
pl
U
College
D
r
c
L
m%('&
em
C a
ar
Banyan Str
A A
SH
Banyan StBanyan St
CA
e
Freeway Interchange
M
Haven Ave
H
O
N
G
A
Lemon Ave
Proposed Freeway Interchange
!
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
210
|}þ
·
210
!
|}þ
·
19th St
30
!
C
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
Sphere of Influence
O
y
Victoria St
r
N
Rochester Ave
r
e
CITY OF
Waterways
h
C
UPLAND
L
Note: Refer to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation
E
N
Carnelian St
N ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
Plan for all streets within the Plan area.
H
C
!
!
C
H
A
K
N
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be
E
N
E
K
E
E
15 R
L
required to implement internal block network circulation and
EC
%('&
y
a
R
w
C
A
e
ch St
Chur
access requirements. Locations to be determined at the time of
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
t Gardens
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66!!
!!
v!
/e
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
A R
d
E
la
s
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
lhm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
teH Epicenter
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
!
!
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
in
url
B
\]\[
k
lin
ro
et
M
¯
\]\[
\]\[
¯
¯
Metrolink
Station n¤
e
v
!
A
ee
y
vv
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
r
r
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
C
aa
10 FONTANA
yy
%('&
ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
B
VV
e
r
n
Miles
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
iino Ave
Bernard
San
n
h St
4t
00.250.511.52
o
F
e
!!!
r
e
!
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
ls
ao
ONTARIO
b
im
r
h
Haven Ave 15
e
c%('&
r
H
A
Figure CM-2:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Circulation Plan
020
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-9
San Gabriel Mountains
1
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Bus Transit
Primary Transit Corridor/Station
(Bus Rapid Transit)
Day
ANCHO
Canyon
R
Secondary Transit Corridor
UCAMONGA
C
(Regional Service)
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
San
Canyon
Transit Center
TC
Sevaine
Powerline Rd
Canyon
County
Canyon
Almond St
Rail Transit
CITY OF
K
E
FONTANA
E
R
v
C Metrolink Station
San
E
A
T
I
W
Antonio
e
A
s
N
i L
D
Heights E
o
Hillside Rd Potential Relocation of Metrolink Station
N
A
N
u
A
q H Hillside Rd
R
C
r
C
E
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
E
T
D
K
E
Potential Gold Line/Station
E
K
E
Wilson Ave
R
H ST
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
v
te
S
t
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
ve
A
S
S
C
l Day Creek Blvd
t
v
A TC
H
y
nd
es
l
A
r
r
A
n
ay
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
i
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S e
a
N
la
h
N
h
b Chaffey
E Bt
eis
N
pm
M
C e
nlho
E
E Sphere of Influence
15
pl
U
College
D
r
c
L
m%('&
em
C a
ar
Banyan Str
A A
SH
Banyan StBanyan St
CA
e
M
Haven Ave
Waterways
H
O
N
G
A
Lemon Ave
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
East Ave
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
Locations to be determined at the time of development.
210
|}þ
·
210
|}þ
·
19th St
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
O
y
Victoria St
r
N
Rochester Ave
r
e
CITY OF
h
C
UPLAND
L
E
N
Carnelian St
N ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
H
C
C
H
A
K
N
E
N
E
K
E
E
15 R
L
EC
%('&
y
a
R
w
C
A
e
ch St
Chur
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
t Gardens
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
TC
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66
v
/e
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
A R
d
E
la
s
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
lhm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
teH Epicenter
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
in
url
B
k
lin
ro
et
M
Metrolink
Note: 1. See also Local Transit Services Area (CM-5).
Station n¤
e
v
A
ee
Potential Metrolink
y
vv
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
r
r
Relocation
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
C
aa
10 FONTANA
yy
%('&
ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
B
VV
e
r
n
Miles
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
iino Ave
Bernard
San
n
h St
4t
00.250.511.52
o
F
e
r
e
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
ls
ao
ONTARIO
b
im
r
h
Haven Ave 15
e
c%('&
r
H
A
Figure CM-4:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Transit Plan
021
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-19
San Gabriel Mountains
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Local Transit Service Areas
ANCHO
R
UCAMONGA
Northwest Area
C
Day
Canyon
Southwest Area
East
East Area
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
San
Canyon
Sevaine
Note: The colors differ where Local Transit Service Areas overlap.
rline Rd
Powe
Canyon
County
Canyon nd St
Almo
CITY OF
FONTANA
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
v
San
E
A
T
I
Sphere of Influence
W
Antonio e
A
s
N
i
L
ED
Heights
ode Rd
Hillsi
N
A
N
u
Waterways
A
de Rd
Hillsi
q
H
C
r C
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
T
K
E
E
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
K
E
n Ave
Wilso
Summit Ave
R
TH STn Ave
24Wilso
e
C
e
t
v
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
v
te
t S
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
e
v
S A
S
C
lDay Creek Blvd
tv
A
H Locations to be determined at the time of development.
y d
en
s
l
A
r
A
r
a
n
iy
a DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S i
e
N
a
la
N
h
hb
Chaffey
E
Bts
N
ei
p
M
m
C
eo
E
nh
E
l 15
U
pl
D r College
L
c
%('&
C amm
e
ar
an Str
Bany
A
SAan St
Bany
H
Banyan St
CA
e
M
Haven Ave
H
O
N
G
A
n Ave
Lemo
Northwest
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
th St
20
210
land Ave
High
|}þ
·
210
|}þ
·
St
19th
Northwest
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
East
Y
O
y
Victoria St
N Rochester Aver
r
e
e
CITY OF v
h
A
C
n East
UPLAND
e
L
k
i
E
l
l N
Carnelian St
i
N
se Line Ave
Ba
Line Rd Line Rd
BaseBase
M
A
th St
16
H
C
C
H
y
w
k
P
A
a
t
s
i
V
K
N
a
r
r
e
T
E
N
K
E
E
E 15
R
L
E
C
%('&
y
R
a
C Northwest
w
A
e
urch St
Ch
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
Southwest
r W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
Southwest
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
Gardens
tO
S
h
c
r
u
h
East C
Northwest
East Ave
othill Blvd
Fo
l Blvd
othill Blvdoothil
FoF
66 e
e
66
ev
/
/v
/
v/
A
A
A R
d
E
a
l
n
E
s
a
a
D
o
b
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
m
lh
l The
r
c
e
e
r
te
rrow R
A
Haven Ave
te
rrow RH Epicenter
A
H
Vineyard AveA
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
a
ilw
Ra
Fe
ta
an
S
ern
th
or
n N
to
ng
rli
Bu
k
lin
tro
Me
Metrolink
n¤
Station
e
v
A
ee
y
vv
r
AA
r
th St
6
e
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
Southwest
aa
C
10
yy FONTANA
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
%('&ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
VV
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
hh SStt
44tt
dino Ave
ian Bernar
S
n
th St
4
o
F
e
r
e
e
e
v
e
v
v
w
A Miles
a
AA
y
a
CITY OF
dn
s
l
00.250.511.52
e
o
a
k
ONTARIO
bi
m
il
l
r
i 15
h
Haven Ave
e
c%('&
M
rH
A
ay
ew
Fre
o
din
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Figure CM-5:
Local Transit Service Areas
022
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-23
San Gabriel Mountains
Bicycle Plan
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Class I (Bike Path or Trail)
Class II (Bike Lane)
Day
Class III (Bike Street)
ANCHO
Canyon
R
UCAMONGA
C
Bike Routes Outside Rancho Cucamonga
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
Parks and Schools
San
Canyon
Sevaine
Schools
Powerline Rd
Canyon
County
Parks
Canyon
Almond St
CITY OF
K
E
FONTANA
E
R
v
C
San
E
A
T
I
W
Antonio
e
A
s
N
i L
D
Heights E
o
Hillside Rd
N
A
N
u
A
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
q H Hillside Rd
R
C
r
C
E
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
E
T
Sphere of Influence
D
K
E
E
K
E
Wilson Ave
R
H ST
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
Waterways
v
te
S
t
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
ve
A
S
S
C
l Day Creek Blvd
t
v
A
H
y
nd
es
l
A
r
r
A
n
ay
i
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S e
a
N
la
h
N
h
b Chaffey
E Bt
eis
N
pm
M
C e
nlho
E
E
15
pl
U
College
D
r
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
c
L
m%('&
em
C a
ar
Banyan Str
A A
SH
Banyan StBanyan St
CA
e
M
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
Haven Ave
H
O
N
Locations to be determined at the time of development.
G
A
Lemon Ave
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
210
|}þ
·
210
|}þ
·
19th St
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
O
y
Victoria St
r
N
Rochester Ave
r
e
CITY OF
h
C
UPLAND
L
E
N
Carnelian St
N ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
H
C
C
H
A
K
N
E
N
E
K
E
E
15 R
L
EC
%('&
y
a
R
w
C
A
e
ch St
Chur
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
t Gardens
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66
v
/e
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
A R
d
E
la
s
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
lhm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
teH Epicenter
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
in
url
B
k
lin
ro
et
M
Metrolink
Station n¤
e
v
A
ee
y
vv
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
r
r
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
C
aa
10 FONTANA
yy
%('&
ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
B
VV
e
r
n
Miles
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
iino Ave
Bernard
San
n
h St
4t
00.250.511.52
o
F
e
r
e
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
ls
ao
ONTARIO
b
im
r
h
Haven Ave 15
e
c%('&
r
H
A
Figure CM-7:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Bicycle Plan
023
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-29
San Gabriel Mountains
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Truck Routes
Truck Routes
Truck Routes (38-Foot Kingpin Limit)
Day
ANCHO
Canyon
R
UCAMONGA
C
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
San
Canyon
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
Sevaine
Sphere of Influence
Powerline Rd
Canyon
Waterways
County
Canyon
Almond St
CITY OF
K
E
FONTANA
E
R
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
v
C
San
E
A
T
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
I
W
Antonio
e
A
s
N
Locations to be determined at the time of development.
i L
D
Heights E
o
Hillside Rd
N
A
N
u
A
q H Hillside Rd
R
C
r
C
E
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
E
T
D
K
E
E
K
E
Wilson Ave
R
H ST
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
v
te
S
t
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
ve
A
S
S
C
l Day Creek Blvd
t
v
A
H
y
nd
es
l
A
r
r
A
n
ay
i
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S e
a
N
la
h
N
h
b Chaffey
E Bt
eis
N
pm
M
C e
nlho
E
E
15
pl
U
College
D
r
c
L
m%('&
em
C a
ar
Banyan Str
A A
SH
Banyan StBanyan St
CA
e
M
Haven Ave
H
O
N
G
A
Lemon Ave
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
210
|}þ
·
210
|}þ
·
19th St
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
O
y
Victoria St
r
N
Rochester Ave
r
e
CITY OF
h
C
UPLAND
L
E
N
Carnelian St
N ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
H
C
C
H
A
K
N
E
N
E
K
E
E
15 R
L
EC
%('&
y
a
R
w
C
A
e
ch St
Chur
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
t Gardens
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66
v
/e
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
A R
d
E
la
s
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
lhm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
teH Epicenter
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
in
url
B
k
lin
ro
et
M
Metrolink
Station n¤
e
v
A
ee
y
vv
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
r
r
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
C
aa
10 FONTANA
yy
%('&
ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
B
VV
e
r
n
Miles
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
iino Ave
Bernard
San
n
h St
4t
00.250.511.52
o
F
e
r
e
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
ls
ao
ONTARIO
b
im
r
h
Haven Ave 15
e
c%('&
r
H
A
Figure CM-8:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Truck Routes
024
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-35
September 29, 2020
Mr.John R. Gillison, City Manager
Mr. Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager
Mr. Mike Smith, Principal Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re:Impact of Proposed Amendment to City General Plan on Southern California
th
Edison’s Rancho Vista Substation (12408-6
Street) and Associated Training
Center Plans
DearMessrs. Gillison,Burris, andSmith:
On behalf of Southern California Edison (SCE), thank you and representatives of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga (City’s) stafffor meeting with our SCE project team on August 5th.As you
know, the City’s planning staff is in the process of developing amendments to the City’s General
Plan. In pertinent part, the proposed amendments require the eventual development of a series of
th
new streetsthat would bifurcate SCE’s property located northwest of the intersection of 6Street
andEtiwanda Avenue. Duringour meeting, the City’s staffadvised SCEthat it does nothave a
complete inventoryof the facilities SCE maintains on its propertyand expressed a willingness to
revisit its proposal given SCE’s assertion that the proposed streets will interfere with SCE
substations and peaker plant. Due to the potential interference, SCE believes itishighly unlikely
that the subject streets will ever be dedicated or built. The purpose of this letter is therefore to
provide the City with information regarding SCE’s ongoing use of its property that render
development of the streets impractical and to request that the City either eliminate the streets from
consideration or harmonize the proposed GeneralPlan Amendment with SCE’s long-termuse of
the property. SCE also respectfully requests that this letter be added to the record of any
proceedings by the City on the proposed General Plan amendment.
Overview of SCE’s Property
SCE owns several parcels of property in the immediate area. The proposed amendments
largely impact two parcels housing SCE’s Rancho Vista Substation, Etiwanda Substation,and
Grapelandpeaker plant. The parcels containing the substations and peaker plant are “L” shaped
th
and are located just northwestof the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and 6Street. These
substations are an integral component of SCE’s transmission system and areutilizedto receive,
transmit, and distribute electricitytoSCE’s customers in theregion (including the City itself).The
associated peaker plant is designed to ensure the continuous supply of electricityby temporarily
generating electricity at certain times of“peak” electrical demand. It is evident that SCE took the
025
City’s planning concerns into account when it originally acquired its propertyfor these purposes
as the site issituated within a corridor of industrial usesthat is alsoabutted by several railroad
tracks.
As further evidence of the critical nature of the facilities, please note that the substations
and peaker plant are integratedwith each other and SCE’s transmission and distribution grid
through a series of electricaltransmission and distribution towers, lines, cables, and above and
below ground conduit. The substations send and receive power through a series of high-voltage
transmission lines supported by towers virtually surrounding the site. For the City’s convenience,
an inventory and diagrams of these facilitiesare included as Attachment “1”to this letter.
Proposed General Plan Amendment
SCE understands that the City intends to amend itsGeneral Plan to (in pertinent part)
require the development of five new streetspartially situatedon SCE’s property. The City’s draft
diagram illustrating these streets is included as Attachment “2”to this letter. As discussed more
fully below, the fiveproposed streets would bifurcate SCE’s property in both a north-south and
east-west direction.
Need For The New Streets
SCE initially understood that the Cityproposed the subject streets to ensure emergency
access tothe area.SCE subsequently resolved the City’semergency accessconcerns and
demonstrated that there issufficientemergencyaccess both to SCE’s parcel and adjacent parcels.
SCE now understands that the City’s primary planning rationale is to “open up” the area and create
greater accessin and through the site. Unfortunately, the subject proposal bifurcates SCE’s
property and places an undue burden on SCE’s facilities. Moreover, SCEunderstands that there is
sufficient traffic capacity on the existing road network such that the new roads would at best be
superfluous. SCE has discussed this issue with other property owners and its own traffic engineer
who has confirmed that the subject streets are not needed.
SCE’s Ongoing Cooperation With the City’s Planning Efforts
SCE has and will continue to partner with both the City and our customers in the City to
ensure the connectivity of area streets. As a matter of course, SCE is amenable to reviewing
reasonable requests for right of way dedications provided that doing so will not impact SCE’s
facilities or service. However, SCE must prioritize its ability to safely and reliably operate and
maintain its system. Moreover, SCE must seek approval for such conveyances from the California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 851.As part of that
approval process, SCE must demonstrate that the conveyance does not interfere with SCE’s
operations. For example, CPUC General Order 173 requires that a utility demonstrate that an
application for approval to convey rights of waymade pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section
851show that “\[t\]he transaction will not have an adverse effect on the public interest or on the
ability of the utility to provide safe and reliable service to customers at reasonable rates.”
026
SCE has soughtand obtainedapproval from the CPUC to convey right of way easements
supportive of private developers who have been conditioned by local governments to build or
enlarge City roads. For example, in 2018 SCE obtained approval from the CPUC to grant two right
of way easements to a developer in the City. These easements facilitated an expansion of Santa
Anita Avenue just north of SCE’s substation and ultimately allowed for the development of
industrial warehouses. Following completion of the Santa Anita Avenue expansion, SCE
understood that the easements would be assigned to the City. SCE understood the warehouse
development was urgently needed by area businesses and has provided a significant economic
benefit to the City. A copy of the CPUC’s Resolution approving these easements is included as
Attachment “3”.
In addition, SCE is working cooperatively with the City to evaluate the dedication of
portions of SCE’s property to support a grade separation project just east of the subject properties
on Etiwanda Avenue.Where feasible, SCE will do our best to support the City with its
development plans. Unfortunately, implementation of thesubject proposed General Plan
amendmentwould adversely impact both existing and reasonably foreseeable upgrades and
modifications to SCE’s substations. Therefore, as explained more fully below, SCE must
respectfully object to the General Plan’s proposal for the subject five streets.
Substation Conflicts
SCE’s engineers have begun evaluating the proposed streets and have already identified a
number of conflicts that preclude SCE from agreeing to dedicate and/or construct the proposed
streets. Examples of conflicts are summarized below:
SCE’s 2045 Pathways White Paper is an analysis performed by SCE of the need
for (in pertinent part) future transmission lines between SCE’s Lugo Substation and
the Rancho Vista Substation. Development of the new streets would preclude SCE
from installing new towers or other infrastructure in their intended areasto provide
the necessary power to support the City’s projected growth. This analysis also
identified the need for new transmission lines between SCE’s Lugo Substation (in
Hesperia) and Rancho Vista Substation. The proposed streets would interfere with
tower or pole placements and other infrastructure that will be needed for those
upgrades as well.
SCE has a number of connective systems onsite. The installation of the new streets
will likely cause clearance issues both with regard to the clearance between
structures (e.g., poles and towers being forced to locate too close to onsite or
adjacent structures) and aerial clearance issues given potential changes in terrain
and elevation. Impacted facilities include SCE’s Mira Loma-Rancho Vista 500kV
transmission line; Padua-Rancho Vista No. 1 & No. 2 220kV transmission line;
Etiwanda-Arbors-Forge-Reduction 66kV electrical line; Etiwanda-Archline-
Cucamonga-Genamic 66kV; Fields 12kV underground).
027
Facilitating vehicular ingress and egress through SCE’s site jeopardizes SCE’s
ability to secure its facilities and may necessitate SCE implementing additional
security measures. In our experience, jurisdictions frequently express concern
regarding the development of gates, walls, barbed wire, and other forms of access
barriers and restrictions.
SCE notes there is an approximate grade separation of 10 feet between an adjacent
property owned by IEUA and SCE’s property which would add considerable
difficulty to the construction of the proposed streets and would likely require an
even greater dedication of property to accommodate their installation.
SCE’s forecast plans call for 30 GW of utility scale energy storage. The proposed
streets would also interfere with the siting of these facilities onsite.
For the City’s convenience, a map of SCE’s existing above and underground systems and
facilities is included as Attachment “1”. The attachment overlays SCE’s systems onto the map of
the proposed streets provided by the City to further illustrate these conflicts. Because, development
of the streets would necessitate a reconfiguration of SCE’s substations and relocation of
transmission towers and underground conduit, SCE cannot dedicate nor construct the streets.
SCE’s Ongoing Use of the Substations/No Plans to Vacate or Install New Streets
The use of General Plan amendmentsto facilitate the development of future streets requires
the cooperation of property owners and/or the City’s ultimate exercise of its powers of eminent
domain. In the normal course, a developersubject to the General Plan would be required to align
any proposed development with the General Plan requirements and otherwise dedicate and/or
1
provide the subject streetsto the City.In contrast to other property owners, SCE is a public utility
and its transmission and distribution systems coupled with both the substations and peaker plant
are public uses that areexempt from discretionary review and application of theCity’s General
Plan and Zoning Code.See, California Public Utilities Commission General Order 131-D, Section
XIV(B) (“This General Order clarifies that local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are
preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric
facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.”). SCE is only
required to obtain ministerial permits from the City and to generally consult with the City regarding
land use matters.
The City’s staff appeared to recognize thatSCE’s electrical systems (including the
substations and peaker plant)are not subject to discretionary permitting—which would include
application of the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.It therefore follows that the streets called
for on the General Plan Amendment Map wouldeithernecessitate SCE’s agreement to voluntarily
dedicate right of way to the City or the City may attempt to condemn. The City’s staff clarified
1
Alternatively, a property owner may elect to challenge both the General Plan Amendment or conditions of
development as being an unlawful taking. The requirement for the subject streets appears to constitute a taking
because it is not calibrated to mitigate traffic impacts generated by SCE’s historic development of the property or its
planned future development of additional training facilities (see below).
028
that there are no plans to condemn SCE’s property. Therefore, development of the streets would
require SCE’s voluntary agreement to dedicate and/or develop the streets or SCE’s sale of the site
to a non-utility developer. SCE has previously and respectfully confirmed that it will not agree to
dedicate rights of way for the subject streetsbecause doing so would both undermine SCE’s
existing facilities and prevent SCE from expanding or enlarging its substations to accommodate
2
future growth in the City.
SCE’s ProposedTraining Center
SCE will be submitting plans for the approval of an SCE training center to the City shortly.
The training center will be utilized solely for SCE to train its planning, operations, and emergency-
response staff to utilize and implement substation monitoring equipment. Although the training
center will not be open to the public, SCE notes that the center will result in considerable jobs and
tax revenue to the City without creating any significant or discernable impacts.
SCE’s project team was also encouraged that the City understands the distinction between
SCE’s proposed use of an employee training center as opposed to a for-profittechnical trade
3
school.Nevertheless, SCE understands that the City will require SCE to undergo site plan review
(a discretionary approval). If the General Plan were to beamended, SCE understands that the
City’s staff would then recommend that the City Council deny site plan approval unless SCE
agrees to dedicate and/or develop the streets.
As discussed on our call, there may be disagreement as to whether SCE’s employee training
center is simply an accessory component to the substation and therefore exempt from discretionary
review pursuant to General Order 131-D. Nevertheless, application of therequirement to dedicate
or build the subject streets would render the training center unbuildable because it would
significantly reduce the usable area for the parcel both limiting SCE’s ability to build the training
centeritself, requires the relocationof existing substation facilities, and would further restrict
SCE’s ability to upgrade its substations and peaker plant to serve growth in the City. If SCE is
ultimately unsuccessful in pursuing reliefagainst the imposition of conditions that it dedicate
and/or construct the streets, it will be required to build the training center elsewhere.Put simply,
the City does not have a “hook” upon which it may mandate development of the streets.
While SCE has and will continue to partner with the City to ensure (among other things)
improvements to vehicular and pedestrian access, SCE also has a duty to our ratepayersto protect
our operational property. In addition to being unlawful, it is entirely inequitable both to SCE and
our ratepayers to exact the dedication of right of way for 5 new streetsin and around our properties.
This is so because the cumulative traffic impacts associated with largely unmanned SCE
substations, peaker plant, and irregularly staffed training center are nominal and do not justify the
City’s requirement for the dedication and/or construction of 5 new streets on its operational
property.
2
The City’s staff noted on our call that SCE may sell its parcel in the future and at that point, a future developer may
then be required to add the proposed streets. SCE has no short or long-term plans to remove its expansive network
of facilities that include the substations, peaker plant, and transmission lines serving our customers in the City. In
fact, SCE’s long-term plans (through 2045) require both the use and eventual expansion of the substations.
3
In sharp contrast to a for-profit trade school, the subject site would not be open to the public and we thank the
City for its recognition that the training center is fundamentally an accessory use to the substation and peaker plant.
029
SCE trusts that the inclusion of inventory maps, and explanation of the existing and future
site conflicts between SCE’s existing and future facilities will prompt the City’s staff to eliminate
the proposed streetsfrom the General Plan Amendment. In addition, the SCEteam will be in touch
with your office to schedule a COVID friendly outdoor tourand inspection of the site to give the
City’s staff a clearer perspective on site challenges that make development of the streets entirely
impractical.
Once again, thank you for considering our position. We look forward to meeting with the
City’s staffonsite. In the interim, please feel free to contact me should you need any additional
information in furtherance of your review.
Sincerely,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
Virginia Loufek
SCE Corporate Real Estate
030
Attachment 1
031
Former
Proposed
EtiwandaGenerating
RanchoVistaTraining
Station
Center
InlandEmpire
Grapeland
UtilityAgency
PeakerPlant
EtiwandaSubstation
RanchoVistaSubstation
Edisonfee/ownedland
Electricaltowers/poles
Overheadelectricalline
Proposedroads
032
Attachment 2
033
034
Attachment 3
035
Date of Issuance: March 26, 2018
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ENERGY DIVISION RESOLUTION E-4923
March 22, 2018
RESOLUTION
Resolution E-4923. Southern California Edison Company Request
for Two Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont, LLC and the
City of Rancho Cucamonga pursuant to Advice Letter 3698-E.
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
This Resolution approves Southern California Edison Company
(SCE) Advice Letter (AL) 3698-E with an effective date of today.
SCE proposes to grant two Easement Agreements (Agreements) to
CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC (Oakmont) and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga (City).
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS:
There are no specific safety concerns with this transaction.
ESTIMATED COST:
A request for authority to enter into transactions pursuant to
General Order (GO) 173 requires the filing of cost information. SCE
will receive $271,747.00 from Oakmont as payment for both of the
easements subject to this transaction.
By Advice Letter 3698-E, filed on November 17, 2017.
__________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
This Resolution approves SCE AL 3698-E, with an effective date of today.
On November 17, 2017, SCE filed Advice Letter 3698-E requesting approval
under GO 173 and Public Utilities Code Section 851 to enter into two Easement
Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The Easement Agreements will allow Oakmont and the City to
extend Santa Anita Avenue and to construct an emergency access road across
SCE property. SCE has reviewed the City plans and has determined that the
encroaching facilities will neither impede SCE
212517655 1
036
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
repair, and replace its facilities within SCE property; nor will they interfere with
SCEeliable operations.
BACKGROUND
SCE filed Advice Letter 3698-E on November 17, 2017, requesting approval for
two Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. The City and Oakmont are seeking two easements with
SCE in order to extend Santa Anita Avenue and to construct an emergency access
road across SCE property. There are four electric transmission tower lines and
seventeen electric poles that traverse the property.
This project is being undertaken by Oakmont as the developer. The extension of
Santa Anita Avenue and the construction of an emergency access road are
conditions of development imposed by the City for the Oakmont Warehouse
project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Initial Study Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, and a Notice of Intent and a Draft
MND were distributed for 30 days of comment on April 22, 2016, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines (SCH#2016041071). The City adopted the MND on
June 28, 2017. A Notice of Determination was filed with the San Bernardino
County Clerk on June 30, 2017.
Pursuant to D.99-09-070 (affirmed in Resolution E-3639), the two easements are
considered passive revenue: according to the adopted Gross Revenue Sharing
Mechanism for certain Other Operating Revenue, the gross revenue is allocated
70 percent to shareholders and 30 percent to ratepayers.
NOTICE
Notice of AL 3698-E
Calendar. SCE states that AL3698-E was filed in accordance with the noticing
requirements of both General Order 173 and General Order 96-B.
PROTESTS
There were no protests to SCE Advice Letter 3698-E.
2
037
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
DISCUSSION
The Commission has reviewed SCE AL 3698-E and the attached materials
relating to the CEQA process as prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
The Commission has determined that the documents comply with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Commission
finds that SCE AL 3698-E request for approval was made in accordance with
the streamlined procedure adopted by the Commission in General Order 173 and
Public Utilities Code Section 851. The Commission finds that the relief requested
in AL 3698-E is not adverse to the public interest and should be granted.
COMMENTS
This is an uncontested matter in which the resolution grants the relief requested.
Accordingly, pursuant to PU Code 311(g)(2), the otherwise applicable 30-day
period for public review and comment is being waived.
FINDINGS
1. On November 17, 2017, SCE filed Advice Letter 3698-E to enter into two
Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa Anita, LLC and the City of
Rancho Cucamonga under General Order 173 and Public Utilities Code
Section 851.
2. The City of Rancho Cucamonga and Oakmont require the two Easement
Agreements with SCE in order to extend Santa Anita Avenue and to
construct an emergency access road across SCE property.
3. SCE states that it has reviewed the encroaching facilities and has determined
that they will not interfere with SCESCE
safe and reliable utility services to its customers. Approval of this
transaction will not impair SCE
4. There are no specific safety concerns with this transaction.
5. SCE will receive $271,747.00 from Oakmont as payment for both of the
easements subject to this transaction.
3
038
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
6. The proceeds from the two easements are considered passive Other
Operating Revenue: the gross revenue is therefore allocated 70 percent to
shareholders and 30 percent to ratepayers.
7. The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared an Initial Study Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the project, and a Notice of Intent and a
Draft MND were distributed for 30 days of comment on April 22, 2016,
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines.
8. The City adopted the MND on June 28, 2017. A Notice of Determination
was filed with the San Bernardino County Clerk on June 30, 2017.
9. The Commission has reviewed SCE AL 3698-E and the associated
documentation filed with the AL and has determined that the documents
comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
10. SCE Advice Letter 3698-E complies with the streamlined procedures
adopted by the Commission in General Order 173.
11. The Commission finds that the relief requested in AL 3698-E is not adverse
to the public interest and should be granted.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The request of Southern California Edison Company in AL 3698-E for
approval to enter into two Easement Agreements with CRP Oakmont Santa
Anita, LLC and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is approved.
4
039
Resolution E-4923 March 22, 2018
SCE AL 3698-E/BCA
This Resolution is effective today.
I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted
at a conference of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held
March 22, 2018; the following Commissioners voting favorably thereon:
/s/ ALICE STEBBINS
ALICE STEBBINS
Executive Director
MICHAEL PICKER
President
CARLA J. PETERMAN
LIANE M. RANDOLPH
MARTHA GUZMAN ACEVES
CLIFFORD RECHTSCHAFFEN
Commissioners
5
040
041
042
043
044
045
046
047
048
049
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
058
059
060
061
062
063
064
065
066
067
068
069
070
071
072
073
074
075
076
077
078
079
080
081
082
RESOLUTION NO. 20-45
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT NO. DRC2020-00215, A
PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA TO INCORPORATE A NEW STREET
NETWORK PLAN WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA OF
THE CITY THAT IS GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15,
TH
SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE, NORTH OF 4 STREET, AND WEST OF
THE CITY’S EASTERLY BOUNDARY; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A.Recitals.
1.On May 19, 2010, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the
2010 General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2000061027).
2.The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for the approval of General Plan
Amendment DRC2020-00215 as described in the title of this Resolution and an Addendum to the
EIR. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment request is referred to
as "the application."
3.On November 12, 2020, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that
date.
4.All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B.Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1.This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on November 12, 2020, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.The application applies to proposed revisions to the Community Mobility Chapter
of the 2010 General Plan to reflect an expanded road network, as adopted by the Rancho
Cucamonga City Council on May 19, 2010; and
b.This amendment will change the following General Plan Figures to reflect the
expanded road network: Figures CM-1 (General Roadway Hierarchy), Figure CM-2 (Circulation
Plan), Figure CM-4 (Transit Plan), Figure CM-5 (Local Transit Service Areas), Figure CM-7
(Bicycle Plan), Figure CM-8 (Truck Routes); and
3.Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
083
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-45
DRC2020-00215
November 12, 2020
Page 2
a. That the proposed General Plan Amendment is both in the public interest and
internally consistent with the General Plan. The proposed amendment promotes the goals and
policies of the Community Mobility Chapter of the General Plan, specifically Policy CM-7.1, which
states “Continue to maintain a truck circulation system that defines truck routes, directs the
movement of trucks safely along major roadways, and minimizes truck travel on local and
collector streets.” The expansion of the road network improves truck circulation, expands truck
routes within the Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP), and alleviates potential conflicts along major
roadways; and
b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties. The amendment will change Figures CM-1 (General
Roadway Hierarchy), Figure CM-2 (Circulation Plan), Figure CM-4 (Transit Plan), Figure CM-5
(Local Transit Service Areas), Figure CM-7; and
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the environmental assessment for
the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council
adopt an Addendum to the EIR (SCH No. 2000061027) previously adopted on May 19, 2010,
based upon the findings as follows::
a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s
local CEQA Guidelines, Michael Baker International has prepared an Addendum to the EIR
analyzing the potential environmental effects of the project. Based on the findings contained in
that Initial Study, it was determined that there would be no substantial evidence that the project
would have a significant effect on the environment.
b. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Addendum to the EIR and all
comments received regarding the Addendum to the EIR and, based on the whole record before
it, finds: (i) that the Addendum to the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA; (ii) as analyzed
in the Addendum, none of the conditions that would require a supplemental or subsequent EIR
under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present; and (iii) there is no substantial evidence that
the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The Planning Commission further
finds that the Addendum to the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the
Planning Commission. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby recommends
that the City Council adopt the Addendum to the EIR.
c. The custodian of records for the Addendum to the EIR and all other materials
which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission’s
recommendation is based are the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Those
documents are available for public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730,
telephone (909) 477-2750.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. DRC2020-
00215, as depicted in Attachment A, attached hereto.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
084
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 20-45
DRC2020-00215
November 12, 2020
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Tony Guglielmo, Chairman
ATTEST:
Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary
I, Anne McIntosh, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced,
passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of November 2020, by the following
vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
085
ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
SCH # 2000061027
November 2020
Lead Agency:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Contact: David Eoff IV, Senior Planner
Phone: (909) 774-4312
Email: david.eoff@cityofrc.us
086
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.
087
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................. i
1.0INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................... 1
1.2ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................................... 1
1.3BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 4
1.4LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................... 4
2.0DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS ................................................ 6
2.1LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................... 6
2.2CIRCULATION PLAN MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED
PROJECT ....................................................................................................... 6
2.3ADDENDUM SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ............................... 10
3.0ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................... 11
3.1IMPACTS HAVING NO POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN NEW OR
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ...................... 11
3.2IMPACTS POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY
MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ................................................... 14
3.2.1AIR QUALITY .................................................................................... 14
3.2.2BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................. 15
3.2.3GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ................................................... 16
3.2.4HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................... 17
3.2.5LAND USE AND PLANNING ............................................................ 18
3.2.6NOISE ............................................................................................... 19
3.2.7TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ................................................ 20
4.0DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION ............................................... 24
5.0ADDENDUM PREPARATION SOURCES/REFERENCES ............................... 30
November 2020 i
088
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map ...................................................................................... 2
Exhibit 2: Site Vicinity Map .............................................................................................. 3
Exhibit 3a and 3b: General Plan Amendment Streets .................................................. 7-8
Exhibit 4: General Plan Circulation Plan ........................................................................ 12
Exhibit 5: General Plan Truck Routes ........................................................................... 15
Exhibit 6: General Road Hierarchy ................................................................................ 16
Exhibit 7: Transit Plan ........................................................................................... 17
Exhibit 8: Local Transit Service Areas ........................................................................... 18
Exhibit 9: Bicycle Plan ........................................................................................... 19
November 2020 ii
089
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document serves as the environmental documentation for an updated street network
plan (proposed project) within the southeastern industrial area of the City that is generally
th
located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), south of Arrow Route, north of 4 Street, and west of
Lead Agency, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City)
certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2000061027) on May 19, 2010,
in connection with the Cit Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update
(General Plan) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the certified EIR has been prepared
for consideration as the proposed project requires a revision to the Circulation Plan
contained within the Community Mobility Element of the General Plan.
The analysis in this addendum to the Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update
Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was conducted to determine whether
the proposed project would result in new or substantially more severe significant
environmental impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR. This
addendum demonstrates that the analysis contained in the certified EIR adequately
addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the revised
Community Mobility Element and that none of the conditions described in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative
declaration have occurred.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project area is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity Map.
The project area is bordered by 4th Street on the south, Arrow Route to the north, I-15 to
the west, and Etiwanda Avenue and the Etiwanda Creek Channel on the east; refer to
Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity Map.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is comprised primarily of large industrial parcels; notable existing facilities
within and immediately surrounding this area include the Southern California Edison
facilities, Etiwanda Generating Station, and West Valley Detention Center. Primary north-
th
south roadways in the area consist of Etiwanda Avenue and Santa Anita, while 6
th
Street,4 Street, and Arrow Route comprise the primary east-west roadways. The project
site is designated General Industrial, Heavy Industrial, and Civic/R
General Plan Viewer
https://www.cityofrc.us/everything-we-do/general-plan-map). The project site is zoned
designated General Industrial (GI) and Heavy Industrial (HI) by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Zoning Map.
November 2020 1
090
Mbodbtufs
26
Qbmnebmf
Befmboup
Bqqmf!Wbmmfz
25
Wjdupswjmmf
29
29
Iftqfsjb
TBO!CFSOBSEJOP
MPT!BOHFMFT
249
DPVOUZ
DPVOUZ
284
249
Mblf
Bsspxifbe
Tbo
29
Gfsoboep
321
29
Svoojoh
441
Tqsjoht
Tbo
6
Cfsobsejop
Cvscbol
26
321
Hmfoepsb
Qbtbefob
Gpoubob
Sbodip
3
49
Dvdbnpohb
Sfemboet
Sjbmup
21
Qpnpob
Poubsjp
Xftu
326
21
Dpwjob
21
Dijop
Mpt
Xijuujfs
Sjwfstjef
71
716
Bohfmft
68
82
6
71
821
Npsfop
Zpscb
:2
216
Wbmmfz
Mjoeb
Opsdp
:1
221
Gvmmfsupo
Dpspob
:2
:2
SJWFSTJEF
DPVOUZ
Upssbodf
352
516
Hbsefo
Qfssjt
Psbohf
2
Hspwf
33
85
PSBOHF
Tvo
372
Ifnfu
DPVOUZ
Djuz
Tboub
66
Mpoh
Bob
244
Jswjof
Cfbdi
326
352
Dptub
Mblf
Ivoujohupo
516
Nftb
Fmtjopsf
Cfbdi
26
6
84
85
Ofxqpsu
2
Nvssjfub
Cfbdi
Mbhvob
Cfbdi
Tbo!Kvbo
Ufnfdvmb
Dbqjtusbop
Ebob
Qpjou
Tbo
VTND
Gbmmcsppl
Dmfnfouf
Dbnq!Qfoemfupo
26
BEEFOEVN!UP!UIF!GJOBM!FJS
SBODIP!DVDBNPOHB!3121!HFOFSBM!QMBO!VQEBUF
NOT TO SCALE
Sfhjpobm!Wjdjojuz!Nbq
19031!}!KO!28:92:
Fyijcju!2
091
Arrow Route
BNSF Railroad
Napa Street
6th
Santa Anita Avenue
4th
Etiwanda Avenue
Project Site
BEEFOEVN!UP!UIF!GJOBM!FJS
NOT TO SCALE
SBODIP!DVDBNPOHB!3121!HFOFSBM!QMBO!VQEBUF
Tjuf!Wjdjojuz!Nbq
22031!}!KO!28:92:
Fyijcju!3
092
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
1.3 BACKGROUND
State law requires every jurisdiction in California to adopt a comprehensive, long-term
general plan to guide its physical development; the Circulation Element is one of the
seven mandated elements of the general plan (included as the Community Mobility
State law mandates that local governments
adequately plan to address infrastructure needs for the circulation of people, goods,
energy, water, sewage, storm drainage, and communications. By statute, the Circulation
Element must correlate directly with the land use element.
On May 19, 2010, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council certified the Rancho Cucamonga
General Plan EIR and approved the General Plan.
infrastructure, design, economic development, air quality and conservation, healthy
community, housing, noise, parks, recreation and open space, and safety to establish the
framework for population and job growth and for provision of public services and facilities.
1.4 LEGAL STANDARDS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 specifies the type of documentation required when
changes are proposed to a project. When an EIR has been certified or a negative
declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent or supplemental EIR shall be required
unless one or more of the following events occurs:
(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record,
one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which
the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous
EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time
the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was
adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the previous EIR;
November 2020 4
093
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one
or more significant effects on the environment, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
(b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes
available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a
subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall
determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum,
or no further documentation.
(c) Once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is
completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required.
Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that
approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in
subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be
prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the
project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval
for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative
declaration adopted.
(d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same
notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072. A
subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall state where the previous document
is available and can be reviewed.
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines includes situations when a subsequent or
supplemental EIR is not required and, therefore, an addendum to the previously certified
EIR is appropriate. CEQA Guidelines Section15164 states:
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously
certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions
described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have
occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described
in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative
declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or
adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
November 2020 5
094
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's
findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be
supported by substantial evidence.
As discussed below, none of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162 calling for preparation of subsequent EIR have occurred and the preparation of
this Addendum is appropriate. This Addendum supports the conclusion that the proposed
project modifications are minor or technical changes that do not result in any new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects. In addition, as discussed below, the proposed project
modifications would not result in any new or substantially increased significant
environmental impacts, no new mitigation measures, or no new alternatives that would
substantially reduce significant impacts. As a result, an addendum is an appropriate
CEQA document for analysis and consideration of the proposed project modifications.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
2.1 LOCATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The street network improvements associated with the proposed project would occur
entirely within Rancho Cucamonga City limits. The project site is located within the
southeastern portion of the City of Rancho
boundary. More specifically, the project is located approximately 0.45 mile west of
Interstate 15 (I-15) and 0.7 mile north of Interstate 10 (I-10), and is generally bounded by
Arrow Route to the north, Etiwanda Avenue and the Etiwanda Creek Channel to the east,
th
and 4 Street to the south, and I-15 to the west.
2.2 CIRCULATION PLAN MODIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project area is comprised primarily of large industrial parcels. Primary north-south
roadways in the area consist of Etiwanda Avenue, a major arterial/truck route, and Santa
th
Anita, a collector street. Arrow Route, a major arterial/truck route, 6 Street, a secondary
th
street/truck route, and 4 Street, a major divided arterial, comprise the primary east-west
roadways. These limited roadways and large parcels create challenges in regards to
access and mobility for all modes of transportation within the site vicinity. As such, the
City proposes numerous updates to the circulation system within the project area to
create a grid network that would improve access and connectivity within the project
vicinity.
The new street network modifications under the proposed project are depicted in Exhibits
3a and 3b, General Plan Amendment Streets
obility Element of the General Plan. The
lane in each direction and no median. The
following describes the street network modifications that comprise the proposed project.
November 2020 6
095
096
991(,0.
2411(,0.2411(,0.
2411(,0.
771(,0.
771(,0.
QmboofeGvuvsfTusffu+
097
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
1. Extending east-west, a new local roadway is proposed south of the BNSF railway
right-of-way, and would extend approximately 0.75 mile west and 0.45 mile east
of Etiwanda Avenue.
2. Approximately 0.2 mile south of the BNSF railway, a new east-west roadway
would connect the proposed roadway No. 4 to the west with Etiwanda Avenue to
the east.
3. Extending north to south, a new local roadway would connect the proposed
roadway No. 1 to the north, intersect with
th
the east, and connect with 6 Street to the south.
4. Approximately 0.2 mile45east of the proposed roadway No. 3, a new local north-
south roadway would connect the proposed roadway No. 1 to the north, intersect
th
roadway No. 2, and connect with 6 Street to the south.
5. Generally extending north-south, a new local roadway would connect Etiwanda
Avenue to the west with Napa Street to the south.
6. Approximately 0.3 mile east of Etiwanda Avenue, a new local north-south
roadway would connect the proposed roadway No. 1 to the north with Napa
Street to the south.
7. Extending east-west, a new local roadway is proposed approximately 0.2 mile
th
south of 6 Street and would connect Santa Anita to the west with the proposed
roadway No. 7.
8. Approximately 0.45 mile west of Etiwanda Avenue, a new local north-south
th
roadway would connect with 6 Street to the north, intersect roadway No. 7, and
th
connect with 4 Street to the south.
9. Approximately 0.20 mile south of Arrow Route, a new local east-west roadway is
proposed east of the Dry Creek Channel and would extend approximately 0.75
mile east from the northern terminus of roadway No. 12 on the west to the
northern terminus of roadway No. 15 on the east.
10. Approximately 0.10 mile south of roadway No. 9, a new local east-west roadway
is proposed east of the Dry Creek Channel and would extend approximately 1.00
mile east from roadway No. 12 on the west to Etiwanda Avenue on the east.
11. Approximately 0.12 mile south of No. 10, a new local east-west roadway is
proposed east of the Dry Creek Channel and would extend approximately 0.75
mile east from the southern terminus of roadway No. 12 on the west to the
southern terminus of roadway No. 15 on the east.
November 2020 9
098
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
12. East of and parallel to the Dry Creek Channel, a new local north-south roadway
would connect to the western terminus of roadway No. 9 to the north, intersect
with roadway No. 10, and connect with the western terminus of roadway No. 11
to the south.
13. Approximately 0.25 mile east of roadway No. 12, a new local north-south
roadway would connect Arrow Route to the north, intersect roadway Nos. 9 and
10, and connect with roadway No. 11 to the south.
14. Approximately 0.25 mile east of roadway No. 13, a new local north-south
roadway would connect roadway Arrow Route to the north, intersect roadway
Nos. 9 and 10, and connect with roadway No. 11 to the south.
15. Approximately 0.25 mile east of roadway No. 14, a new local north-south
roadway would connect the eastern terminus of roadway No. 9 to the north,
intersect with roadway No. 10, and connect with the eastern terminus of roadway
No. 11 to the south.
Additional figures included in the General Plan would need to be revised to accommodate
the proposed project. These exhibits pertain toarchy, transit plan,
local transit service areas, and bicycle plan. These revised figures are provided as Exhibit
6, General Road Hierarchy; Exhibit 7, Transit Plan; Exhibit 8, Local Transit Service Areas;
and Exhibit 9: Bicycle Plan at the end of this document.
The proposed project is anticipated to require the following permits and approvals:
A General Plan Amendment to incorporate the above changes into the General
2.3 ADDENDUM SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As discussed in the certified EIR, implementation of the General Plan was determined to
have no impact or a less than significant impact with implementation of standard
conditions with regard to the following impact thresholds:
Biological Resources Public Services
Geology and Soils Parks and Recreation
Land Use and Planning Transportation/Traffic
Population and Housing Utilities and Service Systems
November 2020 10
099
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
The certified EIR established that, with implementation of both standard conditions and
mitigation measures, implementation of the General Plan would result in less than
significant impacts related to the following environmental issue areas:
Cultural Resources Hydrology and Water Quality
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Noise
The certified EIR determined that significant and unavoidable impacts would occur with
implementation of the General Plan related to the following environmental issue areas:
Aesthetics Air Quality
Agricultural and Forestry Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Resources
Mineral Resources
For all of the topical impact categories cited above, this Addendum will address the
antially more severe significant environmental
impacts compared with the impacts disclosed in the certified EIR. However, based on
the scope, location, and existing environmental setting of the project, a more detailed
analysis will be provided for the following environmental topics: Air Quality; Biological
Resources; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Land Use
and Planning; Noise; and Transportation/Circulation.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the proposed project
would result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts
as compared to implementation of the General Plan that was reviewed under the certified
EIR. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are greater than, less than, or
similar to the conclusions discussed in the certified EIR.
3.1 IMPACTS HAVING NO POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY
MORE SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
Aesthetics: The proposed update to the local roadway network in the Circulation Plan
of the Community Mobility Element would not alter scenic views or vistas, impact visual
resources, or substantially increase light and glare on-site and within the project
1
vicinity. The project site is highly disturbed and developed with industrial uses. The
proposed circulation improvements would be compatible with the existing aesthetic
characteristics and quality of the project area. No new or substantially more severe
significant impacts to aesthetics would result from implementation of the proposed
project.
1
document is defined as the area within the project
site boundary. Please refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity Map, for a depiction of the project boundary.
November 2020 11
100
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Agricultural and Forestry Resources: No agricultural or forestry resources occur on-
2
site. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts to agricultural/forestry
resources would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Cultural Resources: Based on the Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report
3
dated June 2020, known cultural resources do not occur on-site. The project site has
been disturbed by existing industrial development, and the scope of the project
(roadway improvements) would not result in substantial earthwork or unusually deep
excavations. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural
resources would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Energy: Analysis of energy consumption generally focuses on three sources of
energy for transportation-related projects: electricity, natural gas, and transportation
fuel for vehicle trips associated with new development and for project construction.
Although the project would result in fuel consumption during construction for
construction employees and equipment, the nature of project improvements (new
roadways) would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy. Additionally, the project would result in beneficial impacts related to access
and mobility for all modes of transportation, since the introduction of these new
roadways would result in a reduction in vehicular travel and associated fuel
consumption over the long-term. Thus, no impacts regarding energy consumption
would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Geology and Soils: The proposed project would involve updating the local street
network within the Community Mobility Element. Buildout of the Community Mobility
Element on-site would include limited earthwork for roadway construction and all
improvements would be constructed in adherence to all local, State, and Federal
standards (including the California Building Code). In addition, the project would be
subject to existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements to minimize the risk of soil erosion. As such, no new or substantially
more severe significant geotechnical and erosion impacts would occur as a result of
implementation of the proposed project.
Hydrology and Water Quality: Buildout of the Community Mobility Element on-site
would not substantially alter conditions related to hydrology and water quality.
Construction activities could include disturbance of on-site soils, which may lead to
erosion and off-site sedimentation. However, adherence to applicable NPDES
provisions would minimize the potential for water quality impacts. Additionally, the
proposed project would not significantly alter existing on-site drainage patterns, and
roadway drainage would be subject to existing City design standards. No new or
substantially more severe significant impacts related to hydrology and water quality
would result from implementation of the proposed project.
2
California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/, accessed on August 14, 2020.
3
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report, June 2020.
November 2020 12
101
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Mineral Resources: The project site is fully developed and is not used as a mineral
resource recovery site. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts
related to mineral resources would result from implementation of the proposed project.
Population and Housing: No new housing or employment-generating uses are
proposed, and no existing housing or people would be displaced. The proposed
improvements to the local roadway network within the existing developed, industrial
land use area would not directly or indirectly induce growth within the project area.
The project would improve circulation and access within the project area. No new or
substantially more severe significant impacts related to population and housing would
result from implementation of the proposed project.
Public Services: The proposed updates to the Community Mobility Element would not
impact public services in the project vicinity including fire and police protection
services, school services, parks, or other public facilities. The proposed project would
improve circulation and connectivity in the project area. The project is not growth
inducing and would not increase demand or use of existing public services and
facilities. Additionally, as the proposed circulation improvements in the Community
Mobility Element are implemented, the project would provide a beneficial impact to the
area with the improved fire and police accessibility and response times. No new or
substantially more severe significant impacts related to public services would result
from implementation of the proposed project.
Recreation: The proposed project does not propose new or physically altered parks
or recreational facilities and would not increase the demand for, or use of, existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreation facilities. No new or substantially
more severe significant impacts related to recreation would result from implementation
of the proposed project.
Tribal Cultural Resources: Pursuant to the Senate Bill 18 (SB18) Native American
consultation process, the City of Rancho Cucamonga requested a search of the
Sacred Lands File be conducted through the
Heritage Commission (NAHC). The City also requested the NAHC provide a Native
American Tribal Contact List pursuant to SB18. The NAHC Tribal Consultation List,
dated July 21, 2020, included 12 tribes. The City sent a letter to each of the tribes
identified on the list, and those that had previously requested to be notified on August
7, 2020, advising them of the proposed project. As part of this process, the City
provided the opportunity for the Tribes to consult with the City regarding the proposed
project. To date, three tribes have responded: Gabrieleno Band of
Kizh Nation, Quechan Indian Tribe, and San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. All
three tribes did not request consultation. No known tribal cultural resources occur on-
site.
November 2020 13
102
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Based on the disturbed nature of the site, it is not anticipated that unknown tribal
cultural resources would be encountered. No impacts to tribal cultural resources would
result from implementation of the proposed project.
Utilities and Service Systems: The proposed project includes updating the local
circulation system within the Community Mobility Element. Buildout of the Community
Mobility Element on-site would not substantially increase electricity consumption or
water and wastewater use and treatment. Solid waste disposal would be similar to
existing conditions. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts related
to utilities and service systems would result from implementation of the proposed
project.
Wildfire: According to Exhibit 4.8-2, Fire Hazard Severity Zones of the certified EIR,
the proposed project area is not located within an area designated as a high fire
hazard severity zone. The proposed project area is urbanized and developed and is
not adjacent to any Wildland-Urban Interface areas. As such, no impacts relative to
wildfires are anticipated.
It should be noted that the certified EIR did not include a specific analysis of energy, tribal
cultural resources, and wildfire, as these topical impact areas were not included in the
CEQA Guidelines at that time. However, a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not
required as a result of energy, tribal cultural, and/or wildfire impacts absent new
4
information on that front. Information regarding impacts related to energy, tribal cultural
resources, and wildfire were known long before the City certified the Final EIR. Thus,
concerns related to these impacts could have been raised when the City considered the
previous environmental documentation including the certified EIR. Under Public
Resources Code section 21166(c), an agency may not require a supplemental
environmental review unless new information, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time the EI
comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred \[and\] the time
for challenging the sufficiency of the original
There is no competent evidence of new information of severe impact, and thus the City
may rely on an addendum. Accordingly, the City finds that impacts related to energy,
under Public Resources
Code Section 21166.
3.2 IMPACTS POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN NEW OR SUBSTANTIALLY MORE
SEVERE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
3.2.1 AIR QUALITY
The certified EIR determined that the 2010 General Plan Update would not involve
specific construction activities; however, Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 includes a range of
construction-period measures that the City would require of each future project developed
4
Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) v. City of San Diego,
(2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 531.
November 2020 14
103
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Construction emissions would be
evaluated on a project-by-project basis.
Additionally, the certified EIR determined that long-term operation (stationary sources and
mobile sources) of the 2010 General Plan Update would exceed the established
significance thresholds for the criteria pollutants of PM, and PM. Long-term
102.5
operational emissions would remain significant with implementation of identified 2010
General Plan Update goals and policies, and Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2.
Impacts in this regard were determined to be significant and unavoidable.
The 2010 General Plan Update was determined to be less than significant with regard to
conflicts with an applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and odors.
The proposed project would include updating the circulation plan within the Community
Mobility Element. The proposed project would not directly involve construction activities
as it is merely a planning effort; however, future roadway construction occurring as part
of this proposed project would implement 2010 General Plan Update Mitigation Measure
4.3-3 to reduce potential construction-related impacts to air quality. Additionally,
construction emissions would be evaluated on a project-by-project basis. Therefore, no
greater short-term air quality impacts would occur than that previously analyzed in the
certified EIR.
As the land use and intensity of the 2010 General Plan Update would remain unchanged,
and the project would not result in increased trip generation, no greater operational air
quality impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project than that
previously analyzed. Since the proposed project would improve access and circulation
within the project vicinity, the project would reduce driving time and serve as a benefit to
reduce air quality emissions within the region. However, the established significance
thresholds for the criteria pollutants of PM and PM would remain significant with
102.5
implementation of identified 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies, and Mitigation
Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation
measures are required.
3.2.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The certified EIR determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update has the
potential to impact special status species; however, compliance with General Plan
policies RC-1.1, RC-8.1, RC 8.2, RC-8.3, and LU-8.5, and Standard Conditions SC 4.4-
1, SC 4.4-2, SC 4.4-3, SC 4.4-4, and SC 4.4-5 would ensure that impacts would be less
than significant.
Based on the certified EIR, development associated with buildout of the 2010 General
Plan Update has the potential to impact protected wetland areas and other significant
natural communities; however, compliance with General Plan policies RC-1.1, RC-8.1,
and RC-8.2, and Standard Conditions SC 4.4-6 and SC 4.4-7 would ensure that potential
impacts would be less than significant.
November 2020 15
104
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Additionally, the certified EIR determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update
has the potential to disrupt wildlife movement through the loss of open space corridors;
however, compliance with General Plan Policy RC-8.4 would ensure that potential
impacts would be less than significant.
Lastly, the certified EIR determined that buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update has
the potential to result in removal of trees and plants protected by local and County
ordinances. However, compliance with County and City codes (SC 4.4-8 and SC 4.4-9,
respectively), would ensure that these impacts would be less than significant.
The 2010 General Plan Update is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local,
regional, or State habitat conservation plan.
The certified EIR concluded that with implementation of the policies in the 2010 General
Plan Update and compliance with the standard conditions, no significant adverse impacts
on biological resources would occur and no mitigation measures were recommended.
Based on Exhibit 4.4-1N of the certified EIR, the proposed project area is generally
developed, disturbed land with pockets of vegetation including ruderal, orchard, and mule
fat thicket. Additionally, as shown in Table 4.4-3 of the certified EIR, various special status
wildlife species are known to occur in the General Plan area.
The proposed project would result in the same land use and development footprint as the
2010 General Plan Update. Based on Exhibit 4.4-1N of the certified EIR, the proposed
project area is generally developed, disturbed land with pockets of vegetation including
ruderal, orchard, and mule fat thicket. While no sensitive habitat is known to exist along
the proposed roadway alignments associated with the proposed project, there is a potential
impacts to sensitive species to occur (e.g., impacts to nesting birds). However, future
development of the proposed project would be subject to the 2010 General Plan Update
policies and standard conditions. The proposed project would not result in additional
impacts to biological resources than what was already analyzed in the certified EIR. No
new impacts or substantial increase in the severity of impacts have been identified.
3.2.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Although the certified EIR did not include a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis,
a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required as a result of GHG impacts absent new
5
information on that front. Information on the effect of GHG emissions on climate was
known long before the City certified the Final EIR. Thus, the effect of GHG emissions on
climate could have been raised when the City considered the previous environmental
documentation including the certified EIR. Under Public Resources Code section
21166(c), an agency may not require a supplemental environmental review unless new
information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR
ion 21166 comes into play precisely because
in-depth review has already occurred \[and\] the time for challenging the sufficiency of the
5
Ibid.
November 2020 16
105
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
(Id., 1050.) There is no competent evidence of
new information of severe impact, and thus the City may rely on an addendum.
Accordingly, the City finds that GHG impacts and climate c
Future construction activities associated with the proposed project are anticipated to be
minor, due to the limited nature of the scope of the roadway improvements. Construction
would involve minimal ground disturbance, and construction activities, equipment, and
construction duration would be limited.
Operation of the proposed project is anticipated to result in a beneficial impact related to
access and mobility for all modes of transportation, reducing GHG emissions in the
project area. Land use changes are not proposed, and stationary source emissions would
not increase beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. As such, implementation of
the proposed project would not result in additional impacts related to GHG emissions than
what was already analyzed in the certified EIR.
3.2.4 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazards
Airports
Although there is no airport located in the City, the certified EIR determined that future
s southern section may extend into the
navigable airspace of the Ontario International Airport and could affect aircraft landing
and take-off operations. Thus, the certified EIR concluded that future development and
redevelopment associated with buildout of the General Plan within this area would need
to comply with Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 regarding height limitations in
order to prevent hazards to users, occupants, and visitors of the development and to
prevent obstruction to aircraft operations (Standard Condition 4.8-9). Compliance with
these regulations would allow the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to review
development plans, to identify/prevent potential hazards to aircraft navigation, and to
prevent exposure of persons or workers to aircraft hazards. Thus, impacts would be less
than significant.
According to Exhibit 4.8-1, Airspace Protection Areas in Section 4.8, Hazards and
Hazardous Materials of the certified EIR, the proposed project area is located within a
designated FAA Height Notification Area for Ontario International Airport, located
approximately four miles to the southwest. Within this area, FAR Part 77, Subpart B,
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 one foot upward
(slope of 100 to 1) for a distance of 20,000 feet from nearest point of any runway. Beyond
the FAA Height Notification Area boundary, any object taller than 200 feet requires FAA
notification. Because the proposed project consists of transportation and circulation
infrastructure (roadway) improvements, the project would not construct objects exceeding
the height limitations noted. However, compliance with Standard Condition 4.8-9 would
be implemented in the event that proposed improvements were determined to be
November 2020 17
106
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
anticipated to exceed the FAA limitations. Standard Condition 4.8-9 states that FAA
notification, review, and approval are required for any construction or alteration of a
temporary or permanent structure, equipment, highway, railroad, roadway, or natural
growth 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. The proposed project would not result in additional impacts regarding airport
hazards beyond what was already analyzed in the certified EIR. No new impacts or
substantial increase in the severity of impacts have been identified.
Hazardous Materials
Based on the certified EIR, future development of the General Plan may include facilities
that would be listed in government databases. Redevelopment on sites currently listed on
databases may also occur. However, compliance with existing regulations (Standard
Conditions 4.8-2 through 4.8-5) would reduce impacts to less than significant.
According to a search conducted of the California Environmental
6
(CalEPA) Cortese List, one leaking underground storage tank (LUST) case was
th
identified as being located southern boundary at 12434 4
Street. However, the site was remediated and the case was closed as of August 6, 1999.
No other hazardous waste sites have been identified within the proposed project area.
The proposed project would not result in any changes to conditions that would affect
public safety and hazardous materials within the City. The future roadway development
associated with the proposed project does not propose to change existing land use
designations or zoning districts. The project would include several new roadways, and
would not implement any new land uses that would involve the routine use, storage, or
disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, all potentially significant effects resulting
from the proposed project, such as those relating to hazards and hazardous materials,
can be avoided through compliance with General Plan policies and the established
regulatory framework, as well as Standard Conditions 4.8-1 through 4.8-9 provided in the
certified EIR. In addition, adherence to the local, State, and Federal regulatory framework
would be required. No new significant impacts involving hazards and hazardous
materials, or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts
would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
3.2.5 LAND USE AND PLANNING
The certified EIR determined that the 2010 General Plan Update would supersede the
2001 General Plan and would require an amendment to the Development Code. The
proposed project does not require any further changes to the Development Code or other
provisions of the Municipal Code relating to roadway construction. Thus, no conflict with
Comprehensive Plan. Implementation of Standard Conditions 4.10-1 and 4.10-2 and
6
California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List website, https://calepa.ca.gov/
SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed 8-17-20.
November 2020 18
107
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1 would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
There is no applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Thus, the certified EIR determined that the General
Plan would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan.
The land use and zoning designations within which the proposed project area is located
are as follows:
General Plan Land Use: General Industrial (0.50 - 0.60 FAR); Heavy Industrial (0.40 -
0.50 FAR); and Civic/Regional (0.40 - 1.0 FAR)
Zoning: General Industrial (GI) and Heavy Industrial (HI).
The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The
proposed revision to the Circulation Plan contained within the Community Mobility
Element of the General Plan constitutes minor, technical changes and the project does
not propose to change existing land use designations or zoning districts. The proposed
new roadway network would be compatible with existing surrounding land uses and would
be constructed in accordance with roadway development standards provided in the City
7
Street Design Policy. Therefore, no new land use
compatibility issues would be created. As such, potential impacts resulting from the
ch as those relating to land use and
planning, have already been adequately analyzed in the certified EIR and can be
avoided/mitigated through compliance with General Plan policies and established
regulatory framework, as well as implementation of Standard Condition 4.10-2; refer to
certified EIR Impacts 4.10a and 4.10b.
No new impacts involving land use and planning, or substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed project.
The proposed project does not trigger new land use or planning impacts requiring
preparation of a subsequent EIR.
3.2.6 NOISE
Short-term construction noise impacts were determined to be less than significant in the
certified EIR with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 through 4.12-4, and
Ordinance as provided in the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17.66.050, Noise Standards. Similarly, the certified
EIR determined that operational noise impacts would be less than significant with
implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-5 through 4.12-7. The proposed project is
located within a designated FAA Height Notification Area for Ontario International Airport,
located approximately four miles to the southwest, and is therefore subject to an airport
7
City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department Services, Public Improvement Plan &
Subdivision Guidelines, 2016.
November 2020 19
108
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
land use plan. However, the project proposes to amend the Circulation Plan within the
Community Mobility Element of the General Plan. The project does not propose
development or redevelopment of residential or other land uses that would impact
sensitive receptors.
The project footprint and roadway construction activities for the proposed project occur
entirely within the footprint analyzed within the certified EIR. In addition, the project area
is located within an industrial area. There are no sensitive receptors located within project
boundaries; however, the West Valley Detention Center, a 3,347-bed County jail facility
located within the southerly portion of the project site at 9500 Etiwanda Avenue, is located
immediately adjacent to the project boundary. No other sensitive receptors are located
on or near the project site.. Short-term construction noise associated with future
development would be required to implement Mitigation Measures 4.12-1 through 4.12-4
and comply with General Plan Policies PS-13.1 through PS-13.11 and PS-14.1 through
PS-14.2 from the certified EIise Control Ordinance to
reduce potential noise impacts.
The operational mobile source noise within the project area would remain similar to what
was analyzed in the certified EIR. The proposed project would result in minor revisions to
ent of the roadway improvements is not
anticipated to exceed traffic noise thresholds beyond what was previously analyzed in the
certified EIR. As mentioned above, the project area is located within a primarily industrial
area. Operational traffic noise would be less than significant with implementation of
Mitigation Measures 4.12-5 through 4.12-7. No new impacts have been identified and no
new mitigation measures are required.
3.2.7 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Based on the certified EIR, buildout of the General Plan would increase traffic volumes in
the City, leading to four intersections operating at LOS E or worse by 2030 (Rochester
Avenue at Arrow Highway \[LOS F in PM peak hour\], Etiwanda Avenue at Foothill Boulevard
\[LOS E in PM peak hour\], Etiwanda Avenue at Arrow Highway \[LOS F in PM peak hour\],
and East Avenue at Base Line Road \[LOS E in PM peak hour\]), as well as increasing the
potential for traffic accidents. Improvements at these intersections would allow the deficient
intersections to operate at LOS D or better. Further, future development and redevelopment
under the General Plan would have to provide emergency access. Standard Conditions
4.16-1 through 4.16-5 would ensure improvement of the roadway system to accommodate
future traffic volumes, prevent traffic hazards, and provide for continued emergency access.
Impacts would be less than significant.
The certified EIR determined that the General Plan promotes alternative transportation
systems, through Goals CM-1, CM-2, CM-3, and their supporting policies. Future
development and redevelopment would need to comply with Standard Conditions 4.16-6
and 4.16-7, which would provide facilities for alternative modes of transportation.
Implementation of Standard Conditions 4.16-8 and 4.16-9 would also encourage the use
of alternative transportation modes. The certified EIR concluded that no impacts to
policies, plans and programs for alternative transportation would occur.
November 2020 20
109
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Conflicts with Applicable Plans, Ordinances or Policies Establishing Measures of
Effectiveness for the Performance of the Circulation System
Short-term construction traffic impacts associated with General Plan implementation were
determined to be less than significant in the certified EIR with implementation of Standard
Condition 4.16-2. Similarly, the certified EIR determined that operational traffic impacts
associated with General Plan implementation would be less than significant with
implementation of Standard Conditions 4.16-3 through 4.16-9. No significant,
unavoidable impacts relative to transportation/circulation would occur with
implementation of future development envisioned in the General Plan.
The proposed revisions to the Circulation Plan would create a grid network, improving
access and connectivity within the project vicinity; refer to Exhibit 4, General Plan
Circulation Plan. The proposed project is not considered to be growth inducing and is not
anticipated to add trips to the local roadway system; therefore, the revisions to the
Circulation Plan that would result from the project are not anticipated to adversely impact
roadway performance indicators such as level of service (LOS) or increase vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) beyond what was analyzed in the certified EIR. The proposed
improvements to the local roadway network are anticipated to result in beneficial impacts
related to access and mobility for all modes of transportation as vehicles traveling along
thth
the local roadways including Arrow Route, Etiwanda Boulevard, 6 Street, and 4 Street
in the surrounding area would have a more direct route to their destinations, resulting in
fewer miles travelled and beneficial VMT impacts over the long-term. Pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(2),
Public Transit/Alternative Transportation Modes
The certified EIR promotes alternative transportation systems through Goals CM-1, CM-
2, CM-3, and supporting policies. Future development and redevelopment associated
with General Plan implementation would need to comply with Standard Conditions 4.16-
6 and 4.16-7, which would provide facilities for alternative modes of transportation.
Implementation of Standard Conditions 4.16-8 and 4.16-9 would also encourage the use
of alternative modes of transportation. Future development of the proposed roadway
improvements would comply with City standards related to sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and
public transit opportunities. Since the proposed project constitutes minor, technical
changes to the Circulation Plan, the project would not result in any new significant
environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
impacts relative to public transit/alternative transportation modes. Therefore, no conflict
with policies, plans and programs for alternative transportation would occur beyond what
was previously analyzed in the certified EIR.
November 2020 21
110
San Gabriel Mountains
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Circulation Plan
Collector
Day
Modified Collector with Median
ANCHO
Canyon
R
UCAMONGA
C
Secondary
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
Modified Secondary with Median
San
Canyon
Sevaine
Major Arterial
Powerline Rd
Canyon
County
Modified Major with Median
Canyon
Almond St
CITY OF
K
E
Major Divided Arterial
FONTANA
E
R
v
C
San
E
A
T
I Major Divided Highway
W
Antonio
e
A
s
N
i L
D
Heights E
o
Hillside Rd
N
A
N
u
Freeway
A
q H Hillside Rd
R
C
r
C
E
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
E
T
D
K
E
E
K
E
!
Intersections Widened beyond Standards
Wilson Ave
R
H ST
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
v
te
S
t
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
ve
A
S
S
C
l Day Creek Blvd
t
v
A
H
y
nd\]\[
es
l
A
r
r
A
n
ay
¯
Railroad Grade Separation
i
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S e
a
N
la
h
N
h
b Chaffey
E Bt
eis
N
pm
M
C e
nlho
E
E
15
pl
U
College
D
r
c
L
m%('&
em
C a
ar
Banyan Str
A A
SH
Banyan StBanyan St
CA
e
Freeway Interchange
M
Haven Ave
H
O
N
G
A
Lemon Ave
Proposed Freeway Interchange
!
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
210
|}þ
·
210
!
|}þ
·
19th St
30
!
C
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
Sphere of Influence
O
y
Victoria St
r
N
Rochester Ave
r
e
CITY OF
Waterways
h
C
UPLAND
L
Note: Refer to the Etiwanda Heights Neighborhood & Conservation
E
N
Carnelian St
N ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
Plan for all streets within the Plan area.
H
C
!
!
C
H
A
K
N
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be
E
N
E
K
E
E
15 R
L
required to implement internal block network circulation and
EC
%('&
y
a
R
w
C
A
e
ch St
Chur
access requirements. Locations to be determined at the time of
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
t Gardens
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66!!
!!
v!
/e
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
A R
d
E
la
s
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
lhm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
teH Epicenter
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
!
!
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
in
url
B
\]\[
k
lin
ro
et
M
¯
\]\[
\]\[
¯
¯
Metrolink
Station n¤
e
v
!
A
ee
y
vv
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
r
r
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
C
aa
10 FONTANA
yy
%('&
ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
B
VV
e
r
n
Miles
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
iino Ave
Bernard
San
n
h St
4t
00.250.511.52
o
F
e
!!!
r
e
!
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
ls
ao
ONTARIO
b
im
r
h
Haven Ave 15
e
c%('&
r
H
A
Figure CM-2:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Circulation Plan
111
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-9
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
Emergency Access
The certified EIR determined that emergency access impacts associated with General
Plan implementation would be less than significant. Compliance with Standard Condition
4.16-2, which includes Title 12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and the
standards in the Work Area Protection and Traffic Control Manual, would maintain
emergency access to individual parcels at all times. The Manual states that the needs of
emergency service providers (law enforcement, fire, and medical) should be assessed
and appropriate coordination and accommodations made. Thus, notification of the
Rancho Cucamonga Police and Fire Departments of roadway construction work would
allow for the use of alternative routes by emergency vehicles and would avoid adverse
impacts to emergency response and access. Also, as provided for in Standard Condition
4.14-3, compliance with the requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance,
and distance would ensure that adequate emergency access is available for all future
projects associated with General Plan implementation. The proposed project is
anticipated to result in beneficial impacts related to access and mobility for all modes of
transportation, resulting in beneficial emergency access over the long-term. Therefore,
impacts on traffic flows for emergency response or evacuation have been fully analyzed
within the certified EIR, and no additional impacts would occur as a result of the proposed
project.
Design Hazards/Incompatible Uses
The certified EIR determined that a less than significant impact would occur relative to
design hazards and incompatible uses. Roadway improvements would have to be made
Plan, roadway functional design guidelines,
access and circulation design guidelines, and intersection line-of-sight design guidelines,
as provided for in Standard Condition 4.16-4. In addition, implementation of Title 10 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, as provided for in Standard Condition 4.16-5,
promotes traffic safety through the regulation and enforcement of speed limits, stop
controls, driving rules, pedestrian rights and duties, parking permits, truck routes, and
other street traffic regulations. Designated truck routes would also divert trucks from
residential areas and would reduce hazards to pedestrians and local traffic. This standard
condition would also reduce traffic hazards in the City. The certified EIR concluded that
impacts relative to traffic hazards would be less than significant.
In consideration of the above, potential construction and design hazards and incompatible
uses resulting from the proposed project, such as those relating to
transportation/circulation, can be avoided through compliance with General Plan policies
and the established regulatory framework, as well as Standard Conditions 4.8-1 through
4.8-9 provided in the certified EIR. In addition, adherence to the local, State, and Federal
regulatory framework would be required. As shown in Exhibit 5, General Plan Truck
th
Routes, existing truck routes along Etiwanda Avenue and 6 Street would be maintained
with project implementation. No new significant impacts involving
transportation/circulation, or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
November 2020 23
112
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
impacts, would occur with implementation of the proposed project beyond what was
previously analyzed within the certified EIR.
4.0 DETERMINATION/ADDENDUM CONCLUSION
As detailed in the analysis presented above, this Addendum supports the conclusion that
the modifications to the Community Mobility Element of the General Plan are considered
minor technical changes, and do not result in any new significant environmental effects
or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects beyond
what was analyzed in the certified EIR. No new information has become available and no
substantial changes to the circumstances under which implementation of the General
Plan was being undertaken since the certification of the EIR have occurred. The proposed
project would not substantially increase the severity of effects relative to the
environmental topics analyzed in the certified EIR, nor would the project require new
mitigation measures or alternatives.
November 2020 24
113
San Gabriel Mountains
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Truck Routes
Truck Routes
Truck Routes (38-Foot Kingpin Limit)
Day
ANCHO
Canyon
R
UCAMONGA
C
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
San
Canyon
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
Sevaine
Sphere of Influence
Powerline Rd
Canyon
Waterways
County
Canyon
Almond St
CITY OF
K
E
FONTANA
E
R
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
v
C
San
E
A
T
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
I
W
Antonio
e
A
s
N
Locations to be determined at the time of development.
i L
D
Heights E
o
Hillside Rd
N
A
N
u
A
q H Hillside Rd
R
C
r
C
E
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
E
T
D
K
E
E
K
E
Wilson Ave
R
H ST
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
v
te
S
t
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
ve
A
S
S
C
l Day Creek Blvd
t
v
A
H
y
nd
es
l
A
r
r
A
n
ay
i
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S e
a
N
la
h
N
h
b Chaffey
E Bt
eis
N
pm
M
C e
nlho
E
E
15
pl
U
College
D
r
c
L
m%('&
em
C a
ar
Banyan Str
A A
SH
Banyan StBanyan St
CA
e
M
Haven Ave
H
O
N
G
A
Lemon Ave
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
210
|}þ
·
210
|}þ
·
19th St
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
O
y
Victoria St
r
N
Rochester Ave
r
e
CITY OF
h
C
UPLAND
L
E
N
Carnelian St
N ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
H
C
C
H
A
K
N
E
N
E
K
E
E
15 R
L
EC
%('&
y
a
R
w
C
A
e
ch St
Chur
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
t Gardens
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66
v
/e
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
A R
d
E
la
s
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
lhm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
teH Epicenter
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
in
url
B
k
lin
ro
et
M
Metrolink
Station n¤
e
v
A
ee
y
vv
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
r
r
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
C
aa
10 FONTANA
yy
%('&
ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
B
VV
e
r
n
Miles
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
iino Ave
Bernard
San
n
h St
4t
00.250.511.52
o
F
e
r
e
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
ls
ao
ONTARIO
b
im
r
h
Haven Ave 15
e
c%('&
r
H
A
Figure CM-8:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Truck Routes
114
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-35
San Gabriel Mountains
Genera_Roadway_Hierarchy
Principal
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Secondary
Tertiary
Freeway Interchange
Day
Canyon
ANCHO
R
Proposed Freeway Interchange
UCAMONGA
C
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
San
Canyon
Sevaine
Base Layers
Powerline Rd
Canyon
City Boundary
County
Canyon
Almond St
CITY OF
Sphere of Influence
FONTANA
Waterways
v
San
E
A
T
I
W
Antonio
e Freeway
A
s
N
i
L
ED
Heights
oHillside Rd
N
A
N
u
Roads
A
qHillside Rd
H
r CC
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
T
Railroads
E
K
E
K
E
Wilson Ave
H ST R
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
ev
t
tS
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
ve
S A
S
C
Day Creek Blvd
l
t
v
A
H
y d
n
es
l
rA
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
A
r
an
y
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S ie
N
aa
l
N h
hb Chaffey
Bt
E
s
N
ei
Locations to be determined at the time of development.
p M m
e
C
lo
E
nh
E
15
l College
U
p
D r
L
c
m%('&
e
C am
ar
Banyan Str
A
A
SHBanyan St
Banyan St
CA
e
M
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
Haven Ave
H
O
N
G
A
Lemon Ave
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
210
|}þ Highland Ave
·
210
|}þ
·
19th St
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
O
y
Victoria St
Rochester Aver
N
r
e
CITY OF
h
C
UPLAND
L
E
N
Carnelian St
N
ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
H
C
C
H
A
K
N
E
N
K
E
E
15
E
R
L
E
%('&
C
y
R a
C
w
A
e
ch St
Chur
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
Gardens
t
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66
ev
/
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
R
A
d
E
sla
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
l
hm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
Epicenter
teH
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
lin
ur
B
k
lin
ro
et
M
Metrolink
Station n¤
e
v
A
ee
y
vv
r
r
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
aaC
FONTANA
10 yy
%('&ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
BVV
e
r
n
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
ino Ave
i Bernard
San
nh St
4t
o
F
e
r
e
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
s
l
o
a
ONTARIO
b
m
i
r
hHaven Ave 15
e
c%('&
rH
A
Figure CM-1:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
Miles ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
00.250.511.52
General Roadway Hierarchy
Community Mobility CM-7
115
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN
San Gabriel Mountains
1
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Bus Transit
Primary Transit Corridor/Station
(Bus Rapid Transit)
Day
ANCHO
Canyon
R
Secondary Transit Corridor
UCAMONGA
C
(Regional Service)
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
San
Canyon
Transit Center
TC
Sevaine
Powerline Rd
Canyon
County
Canyon
Almond St
Rail Transit
CITY OF
K
E
FONTANA
E
R
v
C Metrolink Station
San
E
A
T
I
W
Antonio
e
A
s
N
i L
D
Heights E
o
Hillside Rd Potential Relocation of Metrolink Station
N
A
N
u
A
q H Hillside Rd
R
C
r
C
E
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
E
T
D
K
E
Potential Gold Line/Station
E
K
E
Wilson Ave
R
H ST
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
v
te
S
t
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
ve
A
S
S
C
l Day Creek Blvd
t
v
A TC
H
y
nd
es
l
A
r
r
A
n
ay
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
i
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S e
a
N
la
h
N
h
b Chaffey
E Bt
eis
N
pm
M
C e
nlho
E
E Sphere of Influence
15
pl
U
College
D
r
c
L
m%('&
em
C a
ar
Banyan Str
A A
SH
Banyan StBanyan St
CA
e
M
Haven Ave
Waterways
H
O
N
G
A
Lemon Ave
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
East Ave
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
Locations to be determined at the time of development.
210
|}þ
·
210
|}þ
·
19th St
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
O
y
Victoria St
r
N
Rochester Ave
r
e
CITY OF
h
C
UPLAND
L
E
N
Carnelian St
N ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
H
C
C
H
A
K
N
E
N
E
K
E
E
15 R
L
EC
%('&
y
a
R
w
C
A
e
ch St
Chur
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
t Gardens
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
TC
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66
v
/e
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
A R
d
E
la
s
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
lhm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
teH Epicenter
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
in
url
B
k
lin
ro
et
M
Metrolink
Note: 1. See also Local Transit Services Area (CM-5).
Station n¤
e
v
A
ee
Potential Metrolink
y
vv
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
r
r
Relocation
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
C
aa
10 FONTANA
yy
%('&
ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
B
VV
e
r
n
Miles
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
iino Ave
Bernard
San
n
h St
4t
00.250.511.52
o
F
e
r
e
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
ls
ao
ONTARIO
b
im
r
h
Haven Ave 15
e
c%('&
r
H
A
Figure CM-4:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Transit Plan
116
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-19
San Gabriel Mountains
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Local Transit Service Areas
ANCHO
R
UCAMONGA
Northwest Area
C
Day
Canyon
Southwest Area
East
East Area
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
San
Canyon
Sevaine
Note: The colors differ where Local Transit Service Areas overlap.
rline Rd
Powe
Canyon
County
Canyon nd St
Almo
CITY OF
FONTANA
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
v
San
E
A
T
I
Sphere of Influence
W
Antonio e
A
s
N
i
L
ED
Heights
ode Rd
Hillsi
N
A
N
u
Waterways
A
de Rd
Hillsi
q
H
C
r C
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
T
K
E
E
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
K
E
n Ave
Wilso
Summit Ave
R
TH STn Ave
24Wilso
e
C
e
t
v
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
v
te
t S
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
e
v
S A
S
C
lDay Creek Blvd
tv
A
H Locations to be determined at the time of development.
y d
en
s
l
A
r
A
r
a
n
iy
a DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S i
e
N
a
la
N
h
hb
Chaffey
E
Bts
N
ei
p
M
m
C
eo
E
nh
E
l 15
U
pl
D r College
L
c
%('&
C amm
e
ar
an Str
Bany
A
SAan St
Bany
H
Banyan St
CA
e
M
Haven Ave
H
O
N
G
A
n Ave
Lemo
Northwest
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
th St
20
210
land Ave
High
|}þ
·
210
|}þ
·
St
19th
Northwest
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
East
Y
O
y
Victoria St
N Rochester Aver
r
e
e
CITY OF v
h
A
C
n East
UPLAND
e
L
k
i
E
l
l N
Carnelian St
i
N
se Line Ave
Ba
Line Rd Line Rd
BaseBase
M
A
th St
16
H
C
C
H
y
w
k
P
A
a
t
s
i
V
K
N
a
r
r
e
T
E
N
K
E
E
E 15
R
L
E
C
%('&
y
R
a
C Northwest
w
A
e
urch St
Ch
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
Southwest
r W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
Southwest
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
Gardens
tO
S
h
c
r
u
h
East C
Northwest
East Ave
othill Blvd
Fo
l Blvd
othill Blvdoothil
FoF
66 e
e
66
ev
/
/v
/
v/
A
A
A R
d
E
a
l
n
E
s
a
a
D
o
b
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
m
lh
l The
r
c
e
e
r
te
rrow R
A
Haven Ave
te
rrow RH Epicenter
A
H
Vineyard AveA
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
a
ilw
Ra
Fe
ta
an
S
ern
th
or
n N
to
ng
rli
Bu
k
lin
tro
Me
Metrolink
n¤
Station
e
v
A
ee
y
vv
r
AA
r
th St
6
e
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
Southwest
aa
C
10
yy FONTANA
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
%('&ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
VV
B
e
r
n
a
r
d
hh SStt
44tt
dino Ave
ian Bernar
S
n
th St
4
o
F
e
r
e
e
e
v
e
v
v
w
A Miles
a
AA
y
a
CITY OF
dn
s
l
00.250.511.52
e
o
a
k
ONTARIO
bi
m
il
l
r
i 15
h
Haven Ave
e
c%('&
M
rH
A
ay
ew
Fre
o
din
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Figure CM-5:
Local Transit Service Areas
117
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-23
San Gabriel Mountains
Bicycle Plan
SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST
Class I (Bike Path or Trail)
Class II (Bike Lane)
Day
Class III (Bike Street)
ANCHO
Canyon
R
UCAMONGA
C
Bike Routes Outside Rancho Cucamonga
East
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Deer
Etiwanda
Canyon
Parks and Schools
San
Canyon
Sevaine
Schools
Powerline Rd
Canyon
County
Parks
Canyon
Almond St
CITY OF
K
E
FONTANA
E
R
v
C
San
E
A
T
I
W
Antonio
e
A
s
N
i L
D
Heights E
o
Hillside Rd
N
A
N
u
A
Rancho Cucamonga City Boundary
q H Hillside Rd
R
C
r
C
E
RSAN SEVAINE WASH
u
E
E
T
Sphere of Influence
D
K
E
E
K
E
Wilson Ave
R
H ST
24TeWilson Ave
C
te
v
Waterways
v
te
S
t
A
Wardman Bullock Rd
ve
A
S
S
C
l Day Creek Blvd
t
v
A
H
y
nd
es
l
A
r
r
A
n
ay
i
ia DAY CREEK CHANNEL
S e
a
N
la
h
N
h
b Chaffey
E Bt
eis
N
pm
M
C e
nlho
E
E
15
pl
U
College
D
r
Additional public or private (with public access) roads will be required to
c
L
m%('&
em
C a
ar
Banyan Str
A A
SH
Banyan StBanyan St
CA
e
M
implement internal block network circulation and access requirements.
Haven Ave
H
O
N
Locations to be determined at the time of development.
G
A
Lemon Ave
East Ave
State Route 210 Freeway
St
20th
210
|}þ
·
210
|}þ
·
19th St
30
C
|}
·e
A
v
N
A
Y
O
y
Victoria St
r
N
Rochester Ave
r
e
CITY OF
h
C
UPLAND
L
E
N
Carnelian St
N ne Ave
Base Li
Base Line Rd
Base Line Rd
A
16th St
H
C
C
H
A
K
N
E
N
E
K
E
E
15 R
L
EC
%('&
y
a
R
w
C
A
e
ch St
Chur
e
D
r
N
F
A
o
i
r
W
I
Victoria
a
t
T
n
E
Day Creek Blvd
t Gardens
O
S
h
c
r
u
h
C
East Ave
ill Blvd
Footh
Blvd
othill
Fo
ill Blvd
Footh
66 e
e
e 66
v
/e
/
vv
/
v/
A
AA
A R
d
E
la
s
n
E
as
u
a
D
bo
p
i
m
DAY CREEK CHANNEL
lhm
m
l The
r
c
a
e
re
te
row R
Ar
Haven Ave
C
teH Epicenter
row R
Ar
Vineyard AveAH
Arrow Rte
Rochester Ave
9th St
Jersey Blvd
y
wa
ail
R
Fe
ta
an
S
rn
he
rt
No
n
gto
in
url
B
k
lin
ro
et
M
Metrolink
Station n¤
e
v
A
ee
y
vv
Source: Rancho Cucamonga, 2009 and The Mobility Group, 2009.
r
r
AA
h St
6te
CITY OF
dd
h
rr
C
aa
10 FONTANA
yy
%('&
ee
S
nn
a
ii
n
B
VV
e
r
n
Miles
a
r
d
SStt
44tthh
iino Ave
Bernard
San
n
h St
4t
00.250.511.52
o
F
e
r
e
e
v
e
v
w
A
aA
y
a
CITY OF
d
ls
ao
ONTARIO
b
im
r
h
Haven Ave 15
e
c%('&
r
H
A
Figure CM-7:
y
wa
ee
Fr
no
di
ar
ern
B
an
S
10
%('&
Bicycle Plan
118
Community Mobility
RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN CM-29
General Plan Amendment DRC2020-00215
Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report
5.0 ADDENDUM PREPARATION SOURCES/REFERENCES
California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder,
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/, accessed on August 14, 2020.
California Environmental Quality Act, 1970, as amended. Public Resources Code
California Environmental Protection Agency Cortese List website, https://calepa.ca.gov/
SiteCleanup/CorteseList/, accessed August 2020.
Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (CREED) v. City of San
Diego, (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 531.
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Report, June 2020.
City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Department Services, Public Improvement Plan
& Subdivision Guidelines, 2016.
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Update, 2010.
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Draft
Program Environmental Impact Report, 2010.
Google Earth Maps, http://maps.google.com, accessed August 2020.
Moss v. County of Humboldt (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1049-1050.
November 2020 30
119