The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998/03/11 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ''PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY MARCH 11, 1998 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chamber 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Bethel ~ Commissioner Macias ~ Commissioner Tolstoy ~ II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Adjourned Meeting of February 25, 1998 February 25, 1998 IV. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non- controversial They will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern over any item, it should be removed for discussion. A. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-37 ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHND LOGY - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for an approved tentative subdivision map (Tentative Tract 14459) consisting of 37 single family lots on 8.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located south of Lemon Avenue and east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and 49. B. VACATION OF EASEMENTS FOR RECIPROCAIZ INGRESS AND EGRESS, PARKING AND FIRE CLEARANCE - A request to vacate easements for reciprocal ingress and egress, parking and fire clearance over the proposed Lucky Supermarket site, Conditional Use Permit 97-19, located at the northwest corner of ,Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard -APN: 201402-03, 05, 08, 15, 20, 21, and 29. C. A REQUEST TO SUMMARILY VACATE THE SOUTHERLY 2 FEET OF YOUNGS CANYON ROAD WEST OF KOCH 'IbLACE TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 13566 ~ T.iMp. HOMES - APN: 226-321-01. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are pubtic hearings in which concerned individua/s may voice their opinion of the related project. P/ease wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your nam e and address! A// such opinions shaft be/imited to 5 minutes per individua/ for each project. P!ease sign in after speaking, D. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - MASI DOMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS - A requesf to amend the definition of Auto Service Court within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. (Continued from February 11, 1996) E, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-01 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A public hearing on a draft Final EIR prepared for the following: General Plan Amendment 96-03B and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-01 to change the land use designation from Utility Corridor (UC) to Low Residential/2-4 dwelfing units per acre), Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential/8-14 dwelling units per acre) on 35.65 acres of land located on the east side of the future Day Creek Boulevard between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road; General Plan Amendment 97- 01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 97-01 to change the land use designation from Utility Corridor (UC) to High Residential (24- 30 dwelling units per acre), Medium Residential/8-1',4 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwellings units per acre), and Regional Related Office/Commercial on 48.5 acres of land located on the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard between Base Line Road and 1-15; and the consideration by the City of)alternative land use designations of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site between Highland Avenue and Church Street - APN: 227-091-41, 227-201-33, 227-351-65, 227-393-0'i and 02, and 229-021-56. Related General Plan Amendments wi!l be considered on March 25, 1998. ', Page 2 : VI. NEW BUSINESS F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 (MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08~ - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. (Continued from February 25, 1998) VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place forthe general public to address the Commission. Items to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda. VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 p.m. adjoumment time. ff items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission. I, Gaff Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 5, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Govemment Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, RaRcho Cucamonga. / Page 3 VICINITY ~!AP -A- CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ,. , \~ STAFF R17,PORT DATE: March 11, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for an approved tentative subdivision map (Tentative Tract 14459) consisting of 37 single family lots on 8.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located south of Lemon Avenue and east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and 49. Related File: Tentative Tract 14459. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The project site is bounded by single family residential development on the north, east, and south sides, and on the west side by Archibald Avenue. There are three existing single-family hdmes located on the north and west perimeter of the project site. The only structure on-site is a barn located on the western portion of the property. The site slopes to the south at a grade ranging from 3 to 5 percent. The existing trees on-site consist of two Eucalyptus windrows, a small lemon grove, one Coast Live Oak tree, one Canary Date Palm tree, and three Incense Cedar trees. Approval for the removal of the windrows and Cedar trees was granted under Tree Removal Permit 88-63. The Palm tree and Oak tree will be preserved. The tentative tract map will expire on March 28, 1998, if not recorded. ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop 37 lots ranging in size from 5,480 square feet to 13,294 square feet with an average lot size of 7,290 square feet. The applicant has proposed three basic floor plans, each with three exterior elevation styles. The homes range in size from 2,519 square feet to 3,275 square feet. All homes are two-story with two plans that have garages facing the street, and the third plan (the largest) offering side-on garage access. Each plan provides for a two-car garage and the option of a third car garage space or additional livable area inside the house. The project site will have decorative perimeter fencing along the tract edges and along the street. The return walls between homes will be stucco with wooden gates. B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on two separate occasions, most recently on February 3, 1998. Staff met with the applicant to address ways to incorporate committee comments into revised plans. Once modifications were made, the Committee (Bethel, Fong) recommended approval. Please refer to the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments from both meetings for issues that were discussed and recommended Committee revisions (Exhibit "G"). ITEM A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 9-37 - ALPHA SERVICE & TECHNOLOGY March 11, 1998 Page 2 C. Gradinq Committee: The Grading Committee r~viewed the project on three separate occasions, most recently on February 17, 1998, and determined that, together with the recommended conditions of approval contained in the attached Resolution of Approval, the project is in compliance with all applicable City Standards and Design Policies. D. Neiqhborhood Meetinq: The applicant conducted a meeting on October 30, 1996 with surrounding residents to display and discuss the proposed home designs. Eleven residents artended the meeting and most concerns related t0 the project construction schedule. and the upgrades and amenities that would be included in the tract. Generally, the residents in attendance were pleased with the proposed elevati'ons and plotting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-37, the Design Review for Tentative Tract 14459. through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller City Planner BB:CG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utili:.ation Map Exhibit "B" Site Plan Exhibit "C" Grading Plan Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Building Elevations Exhibit "F" Floor Plans Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee Action Comments dated January 20 and February 3, 1998 Resolution of Approval with Conditions ,~-,:it~,-,', Project: :~ ~-~ - CIW OF ~:~AMONGA Tide: ~'~{- ~'~~ PLA~N~,~ON Exhibit: LEMON AVE ~ ==t -'-,- ~ ._._ - CiTY R~C~'~'CAMONGA Title: ~ r T~ ?/,/~/7~/ PLAN~II~I~,~IS~ON Exhibit: "J" Date: ~-I1~ n~:~'~ A Project: h/;' ~::;77--~-2>'') -~~,-:,,,~ CITY Of AI, rC~C~,~UCAMONG Title: ~4:D/t,/~ PLA~IU~I~ON Exhibit: "C," Date: "'- COUNTRY SIDE ESTATES, RANCHO CUCAMONGA .... ~Exhibit: ~ Bate: ~:H REAR PLAN Title: CITY PLAN~I-,,.,.,, . ~ION Exhibit: (" Date: DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 Cecilia Gallardo February 3, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously approved t~ntative subdivision map consisting of 37 single family lots on 8.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located south of Lemon and east of Archibald Avenues - APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and 49. Backaround: The Design Review Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) reviewed the project at their January 20, 1998 meeting, and recommended that the project return as a full item for further review by the Committee. The applicant submitted a letter to staff and the Committee stating how they would incorporate staff's comments into revised plans. Staff has attached the Design Review Committee Action Comments from that meeting and the letter submitted by the applicant. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: Staff reviewed the revised plans and found that the changes they made are minimal and do not adequately incorporate the recommendations made by the Committee. Examples of minor changes are: stucco surrounds provided for windows, added gable or hip roof pop-outs to the rear elevations of Plans 1 (4 lots) and 3 (5 lots), added an 18-inch gable roof pop-out element for Plan 1. The following are staff suggestions to address the major and secondary design issues listed in the January 20, 1998 Design Review Committee Action Comments: 1. Provide greater variation in the roof line on the side amd rear of all plans with the following: a. The gabled or hip roof pop-out window should have significant depth. b. Provide cupola or dormer to left side elevation of Plan 1. c. Add exposed rafter tails to the projecting wall dormer on the rear elevation of Plan 2C. This detailing is similar to the wood detailing on the front elevation. d. Add gabled roof pop-out windows to aI1 Plans 1 and 3, and not just those lots exposed to public view. e. Add a matching dormer over the rear elevation doors on Plan 3. 2. Additional architectural enhancements are needed to provide greater variation in the building plane on the side and rear elevations. The following architectural details should be incorporated into the project design: a. Add multi-pane windows to the side and rear elevations of all plans to match the front elevation windows. b. Pop-out kitchen window on Plan 2 or provide garden window. c. Add pot shelves to the rear elevation of Plan 1. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE & TECHNOLOGY February 3, 1998 Page 2 Provide window shutters to side/~!elevations on Plan 2A. On Plan 2B and C add decorative window trim to match front elevation. e. Provide window shutters to ~ide elevations on Plan 3C. On Plan 3A and B add decorative ~ , 3. T , anced detailing for h~.uses on corner lots. This : enhancement is not present on the revised pla'Ds. Staff recommends that additional architedural , details be added to the homes that sit on corner lots. ', ~ '~ ., Seconda~ IsSues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permi~ing, the Commi~ee will discuss the following seconda~ design'issues: ~ ~ ,, ~. , 1. Provide accent materials on chimneys such as stone or decorative stucco treatment. Revised plans sho~ no added accent trim or materials. ,~ , 2. Provide a va~ety of garage door treatments with va~ing window options. Plans show only three , garage door dptions. Staff Recommendation: ~ "'~ ~ r v Staff rebommends that the,Design Review Commi~ee app o e the project subject to t~e modifications as recommended above. ~ ~ ~ ',. 'N 'X. A~achment: Design Review Comments dated Janua~ 20, 1998 x ". x,. Desiqn ReView Commi~ee Act n. ~ ",, ,o Members Pr~Fent: Staff Planner:~l Cecilia GalJardo DRC COMMENTS DR 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE & TECHNOLOGY February 3, 1998 Page 2 d. Provide window shutters to side elevations on Plan 2A. On Plan 2B and C add decorative window trim to match front elevation. e. Provide window shutters to side elevations on Plan 3C. On Plan 3A and B add decorative window trim to match front elevations. 3. The applicant had agreed to provide enhanced detailing for houses on corner lots. This enhancement is not present on the revised plans. Staff recommends that additional architectural details be added to the homes that sit on corner lots, Secondan' Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Provide accent materials on chimneys such as stone or decorative stucco treatment. Revised plans show no added accent trim or materials. 2. Provide a variety of garage door treatments with varying ~vindow options. Plans show only three garage door options. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachment: Design Review Comments dated January 20, 1998 Letter from Applicant Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Cecilia Gallardo At the meeting, the applicant provided drawing~ that show the added architectural details recommended by staff. The Design Review Committee stated that the added architeFtural details addressed their concerns and therefore, recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 8:20 p.m. Cecilia Gallardo January 20, 1998 DESIGN REVIEW 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY - The design review of the detailed site plan and building elevations for a previously approved tentative subdivision map consisting of 37 single family lots on 8.3 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre) located south of Lemon Avenue and east of Archibald Avenue - APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and 49. Desiqn Parameters: The project site is bounded by single family residential development on the north, east, and south sides, and on the west side by Archibald Avenue. There are three existing single-family homes adjacent to the project site on the northwest corner. Two palm trees and an oak tree on the site will be preserved. A previously approved design for this tract was granted by the Planning Commission on March 28, 1990. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion: Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Commit!ee discussion regarding the project: 1. Architecture: The applicant is proposing three basic floor plans, each with three model elevations. The elevations as submitted denote stucco trim around the side and rear elevations only where the window treatments will be visible to public view. However. the applicant has stated that they will provide stucco trim around all windows. Staff reviewed the proposed plans against the previously approved designs and found that the proposed designs under this new application lack the architectural details and treatment displayed in the previously approved design for the tract. The previous design review approval included elevations with significantly more architectural details, including greater variation in roof lines, and enhanced 360 degree architectural treatment. The previously approved home designs displayed side and rear facades with balconies, roof dormers, recessed areas and pop-out areas, wood frames around side and rear doors, multi-pane windows, and window mullions. The following treatments are recommended to improve the overall designs: a. The side and rear elevations do not exhibit sufficient front elevation details to satisfy 360 architecture policy. Additional upgrading of the side and rear elevations of all plans should be discussed and provided to the satisfaction of the Design Review Committee. b. Pop-outs or variations in the building plane on side and rear elevations. Additional architectural embellishments, such as additional window shutters, pot shelves, multi-pane windows, fake attic vents with wood trim, cornices, projecting waft dormers, cupolas, etc., should be used to help in providing a complete 360 degree architectural treatment on all elevations. c. Vary roof designs aIong the rear elevations of Plan 2 and Pian 3. The rear elevations of these two plans appear identical. These plans back on to public viewing areas along Archibald Avenue and Lemon Avenue. Varying the roof systems to a greater extent witl provide a greater variety of roof lines exposed to public view. Cupolas, roof dormers, and projecting wall dormers could be added to enhance the visual character of the rear facing homes along Archibald and Lemon Avenues. DRC COMMENTS DR 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY January 20, 1998 Page 2 d. Plan 3 has a side-on garage with a rear garage wall that could be enhanced by adding a multi-pane window, dormer, etc. Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1.' Accent base treatments used on front elevations, such as rock, should be wrapped around on the garage side elevations to the point where it is anticipated the return wall will be constructed. 2. Continue garage roof along the side of the house in Plan 1 and Plan 2. 3. Flip Lots 10 and 19 to create larger front yard areas. 4. Provide extra deep corner side setbacks for two-story houses on corner lots. 5. _ One story massing is preferred on corner side yards. Previously approved home design included a single-story plan with loft, element and massing appeared single-story. 6. Avoid identica! or similar elevation schemes plotled on adjacent lots. Lots 19 and 20, and 33 and 34 show the same plans side by side. 7. Design chimney stacks with accent materials used on house, such as stone. 8. Provide a variety of garage door treatments with varying window options. 9. Provide return walls between houses. 10. Return walls and corner side walls to be decorative ar!8 compatible with the architectural style of the homes. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Provide decorative perimeter fencing at tract edges and along street. This was a condition of tract approval agreed to by the applicant. 2. Retaining walls exposed to public view to be decorative masonry. 3. Provide minimum 5 foot setback between fencing on c,orner side yards and sidewalk. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee approve the project subject to the modifications as recommended above. Attachments DRC COMMENTS DR 97-37- ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGY Janua~ 20,1998 Page 3 Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Cecilia Gallardo The applicant agreed to address all the major, secondary, and policy issues outlined by staff. The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to incorporate the comments into revised plans, and return to Design Review. jA.~-2O-iSS8 !6: i! (9i9) 9!2-7845 "" ;s'; 'z ALPHA SERVICE AND TECHNOLOGy~ INC. [ 8(545 E.. GALE AV-:E:NUE, SUH~_ 205. CiTy OF IN~, CAUFO,e~N/A ~ I 74~3 TEEPHONE: (B I ~) B54-554 I FA~H~: (B I 8) 9 I 2-7045 -fanuaC/20, Ms. CocOa GaJJazdo R E C EEI V E D Page ] C~ o~cno C~on~a JAN ~ 0 19~B 10500 Ci~ Cenler ~e P.O. Box 807 City of Rancho Cucamong~ ~cho ~c~on~ C~jfo~a 9 ] 729 F~anning Division Subj~: ~i~ Renew ~ 97-37, Re~o~e ~o Pl~g D~i~ Review Co~ commits. Below ~e the r%~ to ~e com~nts ~om ~e Desi~ Review Com~. I. -~c~: ... a. '~e ~de and r~ devado~ do not e~bk m~c~ent ~on~ ele~don de~ to ~ 360 ~c~te~ poli~. Add~on~ up~ading of~e side ~d el~'a~o~ of ~l pl~ should be ~sc~ ~o ~e sazis~on eELhe Desi~ R~d~x Com~." R~pos~: ~e ~velop~ ~ h~ve rio .~c~ add aese dira%five t??es ofdem~s to the ~d~ b. '?o~s or ~ons ~ ~e M~g plane on ~de ~d r~ elevation. shelve, ~d-pae ~dows, fae a~c ve~s ~th w~ a a~, proj~ng wa do~ers, apolas, ~c., she,d ~ u~ to help in pro~ng a comp~te 360 d~ee ~r~te~r~ ~eatmem on ~1 elevations." Re~o~: ~e %." reque~ sem~ to be ve~ s~5' to r~uest "a. ". ~e developer ',~ Mve zhe Arc~:e~ add these di~n~jve ~ ofelemems to the ~dMdu~ ~las. j.~q-20-199B !6:!1 CB!~) 912-70~ P.03 Page 2 c. 'WaO, mofdesi~salongL,here~.e3evafionsof~D.n2audplan3. Therear elev~jons off these f~'o plaas appear identical. ]zhese plans back on to public viewing areas along Archibald Avenue an:d Lemon Avenue. Vm-ying the roof systems fo a greater extent will provide a ,~e.z.ter variety of roof lines exposed public vdew. Cupolas, roof dormers, and .~rojecLing wall dormers could be added to erdumce the visual character efthe rear Fa~ng homes along Archibald znd Lemon Avenues." Response: The deveJoper v,411 have the Arckitect add these types of eJemcms to the jndl'vidua./ plans, as wd/as, the landscape pizn has also addressed the issue of view corridors ~ong Azchiba/d Argue. d. "Plan3hasside'ongaragewitharta-gs. rage wall thzz, couldgeenh~ad~no a multi-pane window, dormer, e~c." Response .'M'nhough a v~ndow in the rear garage wail ~,'ou/d add some ard~eci-ural defait~,g, the>', in some, Lrnot most homes wh,~'.e this oc~rs, have a tendency to look un.~ghtly, duc to "garz.ge ckrgef' titat can be seen tbsou~da the window. We wouJd prefer to address this issue with arckitecrtu-a3 de~iing, s;ach as fake window w~th s~u,sc, o covered forum n-hm, or as s.how= on 'the she D!R,2, have the return wzi{ for yz~'d fencing sarl at no mor~ than five to six f.'~'t_~ ff'om the from comer of the gage. This, with a cohamn veneer return from the 6-ont ~owards the rear ~:L'or a cba.uge in the roof Line would s,."~n to ~ a b~jtter ~o/u-Non to the situaticm. Secondary Issues: I. "Acce:m base treatments used cm from ~cva~ons, such a rock, should be wrapped on the gardge side devP. tions to 'd~c, point v,"here it ~s anti ',c~ed the rettum wail ~ Page Respons.e: We agree with ibis, how~,,er, to --nilateraUy ~ply all "Accent base treaz'me..ms" the poir where iT is antici,sated the r~:urn wall wiU be coostru~ed" mav not be the ~ solution tbr aI1 el~'~tions. We wouJd suggest that a lo~ca! stoppim'g point should be used, such as, a roofliz~e jove or some offset in the watI in question, or, if at that area a coturan d,zt~ili,,g is bring used, such ,', the front of a ga.ragc or porch, th~ a logicaJ stopping poim on the side elevation would be the size of the colurea, such as, 18" or 24". Lao~lscap. isg will also help 'to ad&es some of the Er~ts of "Condane gin--age roofaJong the sjde of the house in plan ] and Pi~_n 2." We agree, however, the roof skouJd have Io~caj s~oppLng poim. s such as ~ve fe~ from the from of the garage ~owzzds the rezr, or ~ some cases, the po]m of the i~ezsec'~ng rerura 3. 'qrlip lots 10 and 19 to cre~.e large.r fi'op.t yard areas." Response: Lot 10, this is a Plan T.We 1. ~e desi!m marches ~e right of way, i~ that it steps baz. k towards the fromt porch. We ha~ moved ~2.s home towa.rds l. he rear of the lot. an addi~jor, aI Y for a tots./of34' offrorn yard s~back, however, this plan couId be IZipped i/needed. We would prefer to not flip plan types if possible, as the u-dliry plans have been complczed by Lot 19, lhls lot has be~-m re--plotI~ from a plan Lype two, to a three plan, this should sol~ this problem. Page 4 4. ~Pr, ovLde extra deep comer side setbacks tot ~',vo-stor;' houses on corn~ lots." We I~.ve a total offour comer lots, (I, 12, I5 & 3 1) ckie to the l~zisht-,d cleworion al~er gradirig,~o thrc~ of the lots ~dll have, aft elevated scr~-~a ~,,'a!] with a,n ex'a-a five fet't ofls. r_,dscaping, as well as, :~om one lc~ eight feet of addi-tional side yard setback. The remaining lot is located on a !'knuckle" portion of the proposed s~rDe't, and is very' ope'2, with no opposite come~- lot, ~kis lot, aJso has an additional 'daree feet of side yard sezback. Lot 1, ',.his 1o: has an 18~ side yard setback, eight f~t more ~h~ the required i0' ~.'d~ yard scIback. in addition, this lot ~,ilj have an elevated screen ~,'ajI with an L--ctra fn'e fev~ oflandscapi.~g. Th/s is due to the fmishe~i elevat/on a,'~er _.grading. Lo't 12, INs 1ol has a 13' side yard setback, tbsee feet more that the required 10' side ).~'d setback. In addition, tJais lot will have an d=vaed green w'4I ~,ith an ex-a'a five feet of landscapkag. This is due to the finished deva'.ion a'~er grading. Lot 15, this lo.'. ~ an I ]' side yard s..":.back, one foo= mor~ than the requjred l 0' side yard setback. In addition, tills 1~ will Eave an elevaed screen v.'~] with Five foot ofext'a Landscaping. Tbjs is due :o the finished elevation aFc, er gciing. Lot 31, this lot is iotaled on a '7,.nuc'kje" port/on of the proposed meet, and is re-p/open, v.~ no opposke com~' IaL, in addition, this 1o: has a 13' foot side yard setback, th,-e,e feet more ti'an d, te re:q,,.dred ] 0' side yard setback. Page 5 5. "One story ra_=~sLng is preferred on comer side ym'ds. Pre~ousl>' approved home desi_~n hncluded a sin~e-s':ory pla~ wi'.h loft ~jernera and massing appeared s~ory." ~DLs ~oject, coa"~.s on]), fou~ comer lots, ~-~ee o~ which (]ot~ ], ] 2 & ] 5) ~e located a~o~g t~e e~ds~g street, CLoadon Avenue) w~h the o~, 0o~ 3]) at Ihe ~t~g com~ ofVm ~ ~d C~on P]Ee (~e ~ propo~ n~' ~.) ~e to li~ted nmb~ of com~ Iots and the fa~ it ~e ~o pr~s adjoj~g ~e pro~ devdopment (the s~n~e ~' homes to ~ ~d ~e ~ndo~n~ums to ~e ~u~) do not have this ~e of"~o~ m~g", ~ ~e ~t ~t we bye r~u~ the ov~ ~ '~ng" of~e proj~ by appro~2l:ly 15% to 20 % ~om the "pr~ous]y ap~oved" home d~s, weft ~ the fz~ tht we ~ve ~ the s~de ym-d setback on ~h~: co~ lots ffo~ one to ~ f~. W¢ t~k ~ ~ ~o?o~d home d~ He com~t~Ie ~ ~e ~ound~g developm~ts..~o. ~n~e ~o~ home de~ wo~d r~u~rc more lot ~ver~e. 6. "Avoid id~ or s~j]u ele~ ~h~ plowed on adjacent bts. bB 19 20 ~ 34 ~ow th~ ~e pl~ side by side." W= ~ve re-plowed the lots ~ qu~o~ ~o gEmSate ~s ?rob[~ ~ ~L~.) 7. '~esi~ ch~m~ ~ac~ ~ ~ ~t~s ~¢d on hour, ~ ~ ~o~." K~pose: ~ ~fio~ wo~d be ~o ~d ~do~3 "ac~nt ~" to ~ c~cy ~ks. ~g d~'dopmeDts. j~-ae-!ge8 16:13 (sis) 9!2-7e~5 p.o? Page 6 g. "]~ov~de a 'v~ety of garage door t-~tm4nts whh 'varying ~,~dow options." Response: We wiI] be using a meta/mE[ back gzrage ~door with a facte.7 ins'a. Lled wh?re This type of door provides options v&h regard To ir's look using va.,-y'ing window ~'pes. We would agree to include "va:Ting v, indow options" as a mandard feature. (Typically, we offer windows in a gax%oe door as an option.) 9. "Provide return walls between houses." Response: We have included these on our fence ptan, and axe propos~_g to use a stucco covered m2sonry wall, with a wooden gate on one side of~c.h home. ] O. ~_~'urn wails and comer side walls to be decoralive and compatible wi'th the architear2.1 style of the homes." Response: We are Frroposing to use slum.o-slone D'pe masonry walls 1o watch the pmposecl s/ump-stone w-eAts along Lemon Avenue. PoEca, Issues: ... I. "Provide decora~ve perim~er femcing at trace1 e~g~ and a.bng street. This ~ a condition of met appro~.l agreed ~o by the ~ppiinam." Response: W'e are proposing to use sLu.m.~stort masonry wall ,Mth a stucco color coat on the s~reef side w'/~ stone ve~eeJ, e~vered p[/as~e'?s at each property line and the natusa/ shamp-stone on the homeov,-n. er's side, E,'As is:proposed for the wall aAong .4semibald Avenue and is i.m~ded to match tile exjszing prctpev~y line w-gl to the south. The wall along Lemon Avenu~ is proposed to be constructed using slump- s~one w?da slump-szone pilasltrs at ~azh ~operty Line. This is intended to match the exi~ing prep~'y. line wall aJong ~be d~'elopment to the east. jAN-20-1998 i6:15 (SiO) 9i2-7945 F.~ Page 7 2. "Re~aining wal/s exposed to public ~ew to be decorative masoni%" Response: We are proposing to use a "slum?stone" .type, masonry. wal/at these locations, similar to the material that will be used for property line wall along Lemon Aveflue. 3. "'Provide minimum 5 foot setback between fencing on comer side yards ~nd sidewalk." Response: The walls at tots 12 & 15 have been shifted to gow for the five foot setback ber~veeo the fencing and the sidewgP<. Lots 18:31 a/ready have the required setback shag. Alpha Service azld TechnOlogy is asking that Design Rtwiew # 97-37 be approved including the above mentioned "Responses" to the items in the Desigm Re~lew Comminee's comments. If you have any questions, please do not hesitale to contact me. I took fot-~'ard to seeing you tonight at the cL.,.sign reviev,- meeting. Sincereb' ProjecI Manager TOTAL P.O~ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-37, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR AN APPROVED TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP (TRACT NO. 14459) CONSISTING OF 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 8.3 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) LOCATED SOUTH OF LEMON AVENUE AND EAST OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-252-04, 40, 41, and 49. A. Recitals. 1. Alpha Service and Technology has filed an application for the approval of Development Review 97-37, the Design Review of Tract No. 14459, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 11th day of March 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forLh in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on March 11, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and ever,/condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated heroin by this reference. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE & TECRNOLOGY March 11, 1998 Page 2 Planning Division 1) All pedinent conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 14459 shall apply. 2) Provide decorative perimeter fencing ~t tract edges and along street. 3) Retaining walls exposed to public view to be decorative masonry. 4) Provide retaining walls necessary to maintain 3 feet of clearance from chimney to slope on Lots 5, 24, 25, 26~ and 28. 5) Move northern wall of Lot 22 to the property line. provide weep holes and a concrete ditch for drainage. 6) The Coast Live Oak (Quercas agrifolia) located on Lot 35 shall be preserved-in-place. 7) The Canary Date Palm (Phoenix canariensis) located on Lot 6 shall either be preserved-in-place or relocated within the project site. 8) Both the Coast Live Oak and the Canary Date Palm are designated "Heritage Trees" by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. As such, specific care shall be taken during all phases of construction to ensure that no damage occurs to the ,trees. All construction shall preserve and protect the health of the trees to remain in accordance with the following measures: a) All trees to be saved shall be enclosed by an appropriate construction barrier, such as chain link fence or other means acceptable to the City Planner,:.prior to the issuance of any grading or building permit and prior to commencement of work. Fences are to remain in-place during all phases of construction and may not be removed withoutfthe written consent of the City Planner until construction is complete. b) No substantial disruption or removal of the structural or absorptive roots of any tree shall be performed. c) No fill material shall be placed within 3 feet from the outer trunk circumference of any tree. d) No fill materials shall be placed Within the drip line of any tree in excess of 18 inches in depth. This is a guideline and is subject to modification to meet the needs of individual tree species as determined by an arborist or landscape architect. e) No substantial compaction of the 'soil within the drip line of any tree shall be undertaken. f) No construction, including structures and walls, that disrupts the root system shall be permitted. As ,a guideline, no cutting of roots should occur within a distance equal to 3 ¼ times the trunk PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE & TECHNOLOGY March 11, 1998 Page 3 diameter. as measured at ground level. Actual setback may vary to meet the needs of individual tree species as determined by an arborist or landscape architect. Where some root removal is necessary, the tree crown may require thinning to prevent wind damage. 9) Tree Removal Permit No. 88-63 was approved subject to the replacement requirements of the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Replacement trees, Spotted Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus maculata) minimum 15-gallon size, spaced 8 feet on center shall be planted in the landscape setback along Lemon Avenue and shall be shown on the Landscape Plan subject to City Planners review and approval. prior to the issuance of building permits. 10) The wall design along Lemon Avenue shall be designed compatible with existing walls on the norlh side of Lemon Avenue and proposed walls to the east. The design of the wall shall be subject to City Planner's review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. Material samples shall be submitted, prior to the issuance of building permits. 11 ) The wall design along Archibald Avenue shall be designed compatible with the existing wall located on the east side of Archibald Avenue south of the project site. The design of the wall shall be subject to City Planner's review and approval, prior to issuance of building permits. Material samples shall be submitted, prior to the issuance of building permits. 12) All walls shall be constructed of solid masonry and shall be provided with a decorative cap. Combination retaining and freestanding walls shall be provided with a cap to prevent debris, etc., from being placed between the walls. 13) Side yard return walls shall be constructed of solid masonry and shall be designed with a finish consistent with the house design subject to City Planner's review and approval, prior to the issuance of building permits. Enqineerinq Division 1) All previous project conditions of approval, Resolution No. 90-40, for Tentative Tract 14459, shall be complied with. 2) A non*refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated cost of operating all new street lights during the first six months of operations, prior to building permit issuance or approval of the Final Map, whichever occurs first. 3) The preliminary Landscape Plan is incorrect due to the following: a) No landscaping shall occur around the Not-A-Part parcel located at the southeast corner of Archibald and Lemon Avenues. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE & TECHNOLOGY March 11, 1998 Page 4 b) The landscaping plans around the perimeter of the Tentative Tract, along the frontages of Arch,ibald and Lemon Avenues, are not approved. c) interior street trees are spaced accordingly by their species, as determined by the City, and are not necessarily at 30 feet on- center. 4) The landscaping design for the frontages of Archibald and Lemon Avenues, Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) plans, shall incorporate the City's new minimum amount of required hardscape. The target requirement is 40 percent. 5) Install traffic signal !interconnect conduit along Archibald Avenue frontage, inclusive of Assessor Parcel No. 201-251-48. Buildinq & Safety Division 1) Access, sanitary facilities, parking, etc., shall comply with Title 24 Accessibility requirements. 2) Roofing material shall be installed as for.wind-resistant roof covering at wind velocity not less than 90 mph. 3) Provide required occupancy separation, in building(s). 4) Plans shall be submitted and plans approved, prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, and NEC. 5) Submit three complete sets of plans including the following: a) Site/Plot Plan. b) Foundation Plan. c) Floor Plan. d) Ceiling and Roof Framing Plan. e) Electrical Plans (2 sets detached). including size of main switch, number and size of service entrance conductors, panel schedules, and single line diagrams. f) Plumbing and Sewer Plans including isometrics, underground diagram, water and waste diagram, sewer or septic system location, fixture units, gas piping, and heating and air conditioning. 6) Submit two sets of structural calculations, energy conservation calculations, and soils report. Architect's/Engineer's stamp and "wet" signature is required, prior to plan check submittal. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-37 - ALPHA SERVICE & TECHNOLOGY March 11, 1998 Page 5 7) Provide method of airborne and impact sound transmission control between dwelling units. 8) School District fees shall be paid, prior to permit issuance. Applicant shall provide copy of receipt to the Building and Safety Division. 9) Separate permits are required for fencing and/or walls. ' 10) Comply with Rancho Cucamonga Building Security Ordinance 15.40. 11 ) Contractors must show proof of State and City licenses, and Workers' Compensation to City, prior to permit issuance. 12) Construction activity shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction on Sunday. 13)Handicap parking stall shall comply with van accessible requirements of Title 24. 14) Separate permits are required for model home office. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1998. PLANNING; COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 1 lth day of March 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENi STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT#: Development Review 97-37 (Desi.qn Review for Tentative Tract 14459) SUBJECT: Design Review for 37 lot single family residential subdivision APPLICANT: Alpha Service and Technology LOCATION: south of Lemon Avenue, east of Archibald Avenue. ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: J A. Time Limits completion D te 1. Approval shall expire. unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits. whichever comes first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities Distdct for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school distdct has previously established such a Comm:unity Facilities District. the applicant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. B. Site Development 1, The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. SC - 9197 1 Proiect NO. DR 9747 Comp(etion Date 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shaft be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District apd the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating aii Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map appreva[ in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. If no centralized trash receptacles am provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with aft receptacles shielded from public view. 8. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc.. shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, betruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 9. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. 10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 11. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences along the project's perimeter. 12. For single family residential development, a 2-inch galvanized pipe shall be attached to each support post for all wood fences, with a minimum of two Vz-inch lag bolts. to withstand high winds. Both post and pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shall extend at least 4 feet, 6 inches above grade. 13. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant. 14. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk. 15. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry. 16, Where rock cobble is used, it shall b real river rock. Other stone veneers may be manufactured products. SC - 9/97 2 Project No. DR g7-37 Comoletlon Date C. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building ~lans) 1. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if dri'~eways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. 2. Multiple car garage driveways shall be tapered down to a Standard two-car width at street. D. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arbodst's recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods. 3. All pdvate slopes of 5 feet or less in vedical height and of 5~1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum. irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 4. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger s/ze tree per each 250 sq. tic. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 5. For single family residential development, a[I slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition. 6. The final design of the perimeter parkways. wails, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 7. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 8. All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. 9. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cuca'monga Municipal Code. SC - gl97 3 Project No, DR 97-37 Completion Date Environmental 1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. 2. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report. F. Other Agencies 1. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: G. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code. National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance Qf relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to existing unit(s). the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beauti~cation Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Transportation Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. H. Grading 1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan. 2.A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. SC - 9/97 4 Project No. DR 97-37 Completion Date APLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I, Security Hardware 1. A secondary locking device shall be installed on all sliding glass doors. 2. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within 40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used. 3. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. J. Windows 1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking deviEes and should not be able to be lifted from frame or track in any manner. K. Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. SC - 9197 5 J CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 11, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: John Thomas, Plan Check ManagedFire BY: Jerry A. Dyer, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: VACATION OF EASEMENTS FOR RECIPROCAL INGRESS AND EGRESS, PARKING AND FIRE CLEARANCE - A request to vacate easements for reciprocal ingress and egress, parking and fire clearance over the proposed Lucky Supermarket site, CUP 97-19, located at the NWC of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard - APN: 201-102- 03,5,8,15,20,21 & 29 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit No. 97-19 for the development of a commercial shopping center (Lucky Supermarket site) was approved by the Planning Commission on October 8, 1997, Resolution No. 97-54. Previous agreements were recorded regarding maintenance of easements with accompanying easements for reciprocal ingress and egress, parking and fire clearance, dated January 14, 1983 and March 23, 1984, as Instrument Nos. 83-012785 and 84-069177, respectively, by the County Recorder of the County of San Bemardino, over the proposed shopping center site. Said agreements and easements were approved for recording by the Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division. The Developer, Castillo Company, by letter has requested the vacation of the easements as mentioned above. The Building and Safety Division of the City has agreed to the vacation, because it is no longer applicable or needed for the current proposed development. The vacation is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding through minute action that the subject vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. ectfully ub itted, Jo homas er/Fire JT:JAD: Attachments: Vicinity Map (Exhibit "A") Easement areas to be vacated (Exhibit "B") ITEM B VICiNITY MAP SAN BERNARDINO RD. LUCKY SUPERMARKET SITE CUP 97-19 APN: 201-102-03.5,8.15.20.21&29 / C/L FOOTHILL BLVD. i ~. I cu~97-1~ I NS,S. r, <. LOCATION MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROJECT: CUP 97-19 File: h:\exhibits\vic97-19 EXHIBIT "B" TEASEMENT 'A' 20' WIDE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS. EGRESS AND FIRE CLEARANCE PER DOCUMENT RECORDED AS INSTR. NO. /--84--069177,O.R. ,S89'58''.1;0.B.'185.00' o ' ~ EASEMENT '~ ~~ - ]~ ~ I NO. 85-012785. O.R. ~ ' L z 20' ~ N89'58'08"W 568.55' ~ SCALE V=40' 0 ~0 40 80 ~AS~M~T VACATD~ ~ INTERNATIONAL ~,~ ~'/~f ~ESERT DI~SION -Const~u2t;on Oe~ eo umbo Date 41-865 ~OARDVALK x SUITE lot · PALM DE~ ~; ~: 40411099 (760) 346-9844 ~ FAX (760) 346-9368 · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF RF, PORT DATE: March 11, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer BY: Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: A REQUEST TO SUMMARILY VACATE THE SOUTHERLY TWO FEET OF YOUNGS CANYON ROAD WEST OF KOCH PLACE TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT 13566 - APN 226-321-01 BACKGROUND/ANLYSIS: In November of 1996 the City approved Tract Map 13566 and 13566-2, which created Youngs Canyon Road. The developer is requesting 2' of landscape easement on the south side of Youngs Canyon Road, west of Koch Place, be vacated and absorbed into the project. The request for the vacation conforms with the current City Policy to keep maintained landscaped areas to a minimum. The request is also in conformance with the Etiwanda Specific Plan following ammendment 97-01. RECOMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission make the finding, through minute action, that the street vacation conforms with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval. Respectfully submitted, Senior Civil Engineer Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Street Vacation Area ITEM C " TRACTS I 13564J · ' PROJECT ~3565 SITE I I N I ,SJ~dHrr Av~uUE CITY OF ffEM: V-154 RANCH0 GUGAMONGA TITLE: VICINIT~Z MAP ENGINEERING DIVISION EXHIBIT: 'A" WILSON AVENUE CITY OF ITEM: V-154 RANCH0 CUCAMONGA TITLE: PROJECT MAP ~ENGINEERING DIVISIOIM EXHIBIT: "B' 81/01/1995 E]e: 34 9094glSE]25 PAGE 82 Th,a~Xoutoryourcoopm~oniUtl~smat~. Sincerely, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' .. I,"~ STAFF REPORT DATE: March 11, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS - A request to amend the definition of Auto Service Court within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. (Continued from February 11, 1998) BACKGROUND: At the February 11, 1998, the Planning Commission continued the item to this meeting at the request of the applicant. In his February 10 letter. he stated the reason for the continuation was to complete some of the outstanding items. To date, only the wood trellis above the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7 have been completed. The outstanding items for the historic plaques have not been done. Staff will give an oral update at the Commission meeting. There is no new information regarding the proposed Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment. Attached is the February 11, 1998, staff report for review. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:NF:gss Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Applicant dated February 10, 1998 Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 11, 1998 Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council Proposed City Council Ordinance .I ITEM D MEMO = To: Brad Bidlet Dste: February 10, 1998 City Pleamet Fne: Jack Masi Masl Ct~mmcrcc Center Partacts /~ne Amendment - Auto Servicc Court Dear Brad: We request that the Planning Commission hearihg on lhe abnv~-rel~erenced matter he withdrawn from the Wednesday, February 11t' calendar and postponed one momh. if possible, v,c request that it be re-scheduled to the March 11, 1998 Planning C. ommission hearing. My rea-son Ibr the request is that I would like to finish certain outstanding conditions of development that are associated with the first ph~.se of development but that are not complete as yet. 1 recognize the c~nceHts of tile glmwjng Commission in this regard and 1 I~el I m~tst address these concerns to their satisfaction until I proceed further on this mailer. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIViONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: February 11, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01 MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS - A request to amend the definition of Auto Service Court within the Industrial Area Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: On January 14, 1998, the Planning Commission considered the applicant's request to amend the definition of the Auto Service Court. After discussing the merits of the proposed changes, the Commission, on a 3-1-1 vote, directed the applicant to proceed with the submittal of an amendment application for further study and review. The applicant has submitted such an application and paid the appropriate fees. Attached for the Commission's reference is Exhibit "B". a copy of the January 14, 1998, Planning Commission staff report and draft minutes. ANALYSIS: A. Applicant's proposal: At the January 14, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, Mike Scandiffio of Masi Commerce Center Partners, proposed to expand the acreage for the Auto Service Court and expand the definition to include more auto-related types of services such as auto detailing, auto sales, lease or rental, and auto body work and painting. With the formal Specific Plan Amendment application, he has modified his proposal to expand the acreage from 4 to 6 acres only and not to expand the definition of adding more auto-related types of services. Attached is Exhibit "A" that shows his current proposed changes. B. Evolution of the Desiq n of Masi Plaza and the Current Development Status: A review of the history and evolution of Masi Plaza may assist the Commission in understanding and considering the proposed Specific Plan Amendment. The following summarizes the evolution of Masi Plaza: 1. Evolution of the Master Plan for Masi Plaza: In July of 1992, the Commission conditionally approved a Master Plan (CUP 91-24) for Masi Plaza, a mixed use PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS February 11, 1998 Page 2 development comprised !of 32 buildings, totaling 268,900 square feet. The approval also included an amendment to ~the Industrial Area Specific Plan that established the Auto Service Court as a I~nd use category within Subarea 7 of the Specific Plan. There were three main!components in the Master Plan; the Auto Service Court at the west end of the Site, the 18-acres plus of a mixed use center at the southwest quadrant of Footl~ill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue (consisting of restaurants, including a drive through, and multi-tenant retail and office users), and the industrial center at the southern portion of the site, as shown in Exhibit "C ." In December of 1993, the City Planner reviewed and approved minor changes to Buildings 1 ~hrough 4, and 6 through 13, which involved refinements to improve and enhance the parking area, the elevations, and the floor plans. The design of the Ma~ter Plan remained intact as originally approved. In January of 1994, the Commission ~pproved a specific Design Review (DR 93-19) on Buildings 5, 14, 15, and 16. Building 5 was originally designed as the Old Spaghetti Factory, which eventually found another site in the City. This version of the Master Plan consolidated the smaller industrial buildings along the north side of Sebastian Way. In April of 1994, the City Council amended the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan to establish a Recreational Commercial Land Use category (Exhibit "F") which encourages development of recreation facilities and allows region-serving specialty retail uses such as sporting goods, apparel, electronics, furniture, and appliances. Sizes range from 3,500 to 55,000 square feet of floor area for the 27-acre Masi Plaza. The City Council also expanded the definition of the Auto Service Court. At that time, the applicant requested a modification to the southern portion of the Master Plan for development of a multi'-screen theater. a roller rink, and two ice rinks. The Commission conditionally approved the Master Plan modification (CUP 94-26) in January of 1995, as shown in Exhibit "D." Both versions of the Master Plan, the Industrially oriented (CUP 91-24) and the Commercial Recreational oriented (CUp 94-26) are valid. The applicant has the opportunity to exercise either one or a combination of them. 2. Status of Current Development in Masi Plaza: The construction of Masi Plaza began in 1996. Jack-in-the-Box was the first building completed in 1996. The Auto Service Court with Mobil Gas station, Texaco Express Lube, Goodyear Tire, and two other auto repair buildings were completed and occupied in 1997. Also completed in 1997, were Denny's and two multi-tenant buildings (4 and 7). Popeye's Chicken and the Frame Gallery occupy portions of Building 4 with two other restaurants presently doing interior improvements. Several tenants have begun interior improvements in Building 7, namely, a dental office, a cafe, a florist shop, and a liquor/dell. Under construction at this time are Buildings 13 and 14. The hardscape and the metal 'trellis within the Vintner's walk are J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT IASPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS February 11, 1998 Page 3 completed. However, the historic art works have not been installed. Exhibit 'T' lists the outstanding items within Masi Plaza and their status. C. Evolution of and the Proposed Changes to the Definition of Auto Service Court: The Auto Service Court land use category was added to Subarea 7 in the Industrial Area Specific Plan in 1992 and the definition was expanded in 1994 to include maximum acreage and several development and design criteria and as shown in Exhibit "F." Both amendments were requested by the applicant at that time. In August of 1994, at the direction of the City Council to streamline the planning process, the Auto Service Court land use category was added to eight other subareas in the Specific Plan, Subareas 1 through 4, 8, 11, 12, and 13. Staff believes that the proposed increase in size from 4 to 6 acres is acceptable. Because this land use category can occur in eight other Subareas within the Specific Plan boundary, staff recommends adding criteria to strengthen the design of an auto service court. Such criteria includes the requirement of a master plan, increasing the percentage of landscaping from a typical General Industrial category (12 percent) to an Industrial Park category (15 percent), requiring usable and sizable plazas and pedestrian amenities within the site, and significant architectural treatment to the buildings. D. Proposed Auto Service Court Expansion and its Relationship to Masi Plaza Master Plan: The applicant requested the expansion because of the success of the auto service court. Exhibit "E" shows the proposed master planning of the auto service court. He has submitted a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 97-45) application for the auto service court expansion. With regards to the undeveloped part of Masi Plaza, he stated it is impossible to attract another theater user because of the two existing megaplexes, Edwards and AMC, in Ontario Mills and he has no users for the pads south of Sebastian Way. He stated that if specific users are lined up for the undeveloped part of Masi Plaza, he will submit a modification to the Master Plan. E. Conclusion: Staff believes that the proposed change to increase the acreage for the auto service court is acceptable. Through master planning, the compatibility of the auto service court with adjacent uses could be addressed. The design criteria together with the clustering of auto related uses fosters efficiency in land use, maximizes public safety, and increases the opportunities for creating landscaping areas and pedestrian amenities which would create a more aesthetically pleasing auto service court. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has determined that the proposed text amendment to modify the definition of auto service court does not involve physical development and is not defined as a project per Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, the proposed application is exempt from environmental review. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT IASPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNER.'S February 11, 1998 ', Page 4 CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised asia public hearing in a one-eighth page advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planni,ng Commission recommend approval of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment to t.he City Council. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buffer City Planner BB:NF:taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" Applicant's proposal Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Staff Report and Draft Minutes dated January 14, 1998 Exhibit "C" Masi Plaza Master Plan (CUP 91-24 and DR 93-19) Exhibit "D" Masi Plaza Master Plan (CUP 94-26) Exhibit "E" Proposed Expansion. of Auto Service Court (CUP 97-45) Exhibit "F" Description of Recreation Commercial Land Use Category Exhibit "G" Existing and Proposed Auto Service Court Definition Exhibit "H" Industrial Specific Plan Map showing Subareas that allow Auto Service Court Exhibit "r' - Status of Compliance of Conditions of Approval/Mitigation for Masi Plaza Resolution Recommending Approvai to City Council Proposed City Council Ordinance F~b-04-98 09:56P P.02 IVIr-IVI ./ City ofRmmho Cucamtmga From: Jack Masi Masi Commerce Center Partners Re; Zoning Amendment to Auto Court Use, Sub-area ? Dear Nancy,: As per your request mcts, I am claril~.,ing otu- applicaljon in regard to the Iblll~wing: (i) Scope of ~e desired zone amendment; (2) Rationfie forthe change ~ Forecast ~.>r ~hc development ofd~c ba!m~cc of~c lots to ~c sou~ of Sebastian Way; ~nd, (4) Con~cnm on CUP 91-24, CLIP 94-26 ~d General Plan ~ndment 93-02B. Proposed Amendment to Auto Coufl Use Desi~nati.n We request to ch~gc ~c defmifion ofae aura court use desi~tion in Sub-area 7 1o allow a RaYonale for the Change ~c currcnl aulo court at Masl Plaa is approximamly 3.25 acres (including the gms styion); it is composed of four buildings Iotaling approximately 20,000 sq. ti. t~c~pied by seven u~rs. Tile auto cnun is 100% leased and we have much dcmaod Ibr addilional ]e~e space, particularb' for more specialty users such as German auto and Japanese ~to s~cialjs~. and specialty services By incr~ing the pem~issible area of ~e auto court to six acres, we can build a additional 20,0~ sq- fl- in three buildings ~o a~ to meet ~e additio~ dc;~nd. We believe ~c l~gcr aufo court will allow it lo become a recognized subregional auto sen;ice center, providing a full line ofse~ices in a shlgle, inieFated auto center environm~mi, As envisioned. ~e lkee additional auto court buildings ~ould replace the four single user indus~ial box buildings at the soulhwest com~ ofLhe Masi pndect site that is adjacent to the City' l~inten~ce y~d at the Spots Center. These Ihur ind~qifial buildings were previously apprnved as part of CUP 91-24. 7 l IT I/ F~b-O4-g8 O9:56P P,O3 Nancy Fong J"¢bruary 4, iqgg Page We believe this is a higher and better use lbr this rcqr comer afthe Masi I:'laza site and is more consistent with the commercial development now m!dcrway on the si re. Forecast for the Development of the Balance of tfic I ,ors Lying to the South of Sebastian Wa~r' As part of CUP 91-24 tapproved July 22, 1992), we i~ave apprt~val for ten industrial buildings at the south side ~l'Sebastian Way. The land development costs, in addition to the indebtedness associated with the City assessment district band Iinancing, matcos the dcvclopment often indusr. rial boxes ec/momically infeasible. Muhi-tenant offic'w/industrial and auto service buildings are a higher and better use. Conscquez:dy. the land m the east o1' the three proposed auto court bud ngs. toW. ling approximately 3-1/2 acres. is probably best utilized li:>r small, muhi-tcnant office/industrial users. The industrial users would have a higher office build--out and a higher parking ratio. Comments on CUP 91-241 CUP 94-26 and General Plan Amendment 93-02B The CUP t~r the Mast Plaza Project, specifically CU'P 91-24 tapproved Juty 22, 1992). grams approval for ten industrial buildings south or ,qeha.stian Way and six industrial buildings north Sebastian Way. DR 93-19 (January 12, 1994) allowed lbr the consolidalitm i~Cthe six industrial buildings on the north side of Sebastian Way into two multi-tenant industrial buildings (as well as granted design changes to building #14 and de.~ign apprt~','al ~C[JPgS~tJ? (appmved January 26, IP~5). was {n~ended to be a paralJ=l CLIP to CUP 91-24 that allowed for a seven screen theatre on the north side of Sebastian W'ay and an ice skating rink on d~c south sidc of Sebastian Way. "' [)ue to the 52 screens buih in Ontario, the movie theatre at Mast Pla2a became inli~asihle. Star Time Cinemas, the then prospective tenant that led us to pursue the entitlement i~r the movie theatre, dropped out of the deal once the 52 screens in Ontario was announced. Additionally. the prospect of an ice skating rink. either at the Ontario Milks or ~ a City of Ontario sponsored titcility, has greafiy diminished inter~t in ,the Mast PlaTa location. Additionall>,, the clongamd shape offfie facility, along wiffi a commrCial (mthcT than industrial) quality of building constructtim, made the proposed facility less competitive in terms of building cost. It should be noted that Mast Commerce Center Partners h~ advertised in national ice skating and roller skating magazines and advertised at rafttonal retail conventions in an attexnpt to attract a skating rink developer or u~r. Additionally, major ice skating dcvclopcrs anti operators were contacted and shown the project site two met with City Olllcials (lce-u-plex and CanIra0. should also he noted that we spent nearly $75,t)0(} in plmming, des[~ and znarkcting costs trying to promote the movie theatre/ice skating concept, but to no avail. Nancy Fling i;ebr~la~' 4, 1998 Page Three It should also be noted that d~e conunercial recreation zoning overlay (General Plan Amendmenl /~, 93-02B) was approved April 7, 1994, approximately 10 months prior to CUP 95-07'(ice :2-;~., ...~ ~_ rinkhnovie theatre). It should bc cmphasizcd that the movie theatre/ice rink application was never offered as parl of, or in conjunction with, or as an accompanying example 1o, lhe commercial recreation zoning overlay application. l think the timing of the submittals and approvals ol'these two district applications makes this obvious. One I~t important point - if there is interest eventually in the skating rink facility, tt~c development of thc three additional auto scnicc buildings does not encroach uFAm land needed for the skating rink. Please see attached exhibits. Ir y{~u have any questions, please call me at 909-481-5020. Sincerely, Jack M~i '~rtachments CITY OF RA_NCHO CUCANIONGA ' ~ STAFFiREPORT DATE: January 14, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner: BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: DIRECTOR'S REPORT 97-03 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS - A request to consider amending the definition of Auto Service Court in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Mike Scandif'fio of Masi Commerce Center, stated that he would like to expand the size (acreage) for the Auto Service Court within Masi Plaza by developing an additional 3.5 acres south of the existing site, see Exhibit "C." He would like to expand the definition by adding more auto related types of services including auto body work and painting. Attached is Exhibit "A," which shows the applicant's proposed changes to the definition of the Auto Service Court. The proposal necessitates an amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan. According to the Development Code, only City Council or. the Planning Commission may initiate amendments to the Industrial Area Specific Plan, which is the reason for this report. ANALYSIS: A. The Intent of Auto Service Court: The land use category of Auto Service Court was added to the Industrial Area Specific Plan in 1992 and the,definition was expanded in April 1994. The purpose of the Auto Service Court is to encourage an integrated development similar to master planning where design criteria was established to address unique operational characteristics such as roll-up doors and open bays. The design criteria together with the clustering of auto related uses fosters efficiency of land use, maximizes public safety, and increases opportunities for creating landscaping areas which would be more aesthetically pleasing. These are the reasons the Planning Commission supported the Auto Service Court at that time. The applicant recently completed his Auto Service Coud in Masi Plaza and stated that it has been a success, which is the ,reason for his request to expand it. B. Proposed Chanqes to Auto Service Court: The applicant proposes to establish a minimum of 5 acres and a maximum of 9 acres for the Auto Service Court and expand the auto related services to include auto cleaning and detailing, auto sales, lease and rental, and auto painting and body work. Staff believes that the increase in size (acreage), when properly master planned together with the proper mix of auto related uses, could strengthen the success of an auto service court. However, the proposal to include auto painting and body work could create a compatibility issue since, these types of uses can be intensive. , : I PA ,, D Ic, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DIR. RPT. 97-03 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS January 14, 1998 Page 2 Body work is considered as major automotive repair because of the extent of work involved and potential noise and vibration concerns. Perhaps additional criteria could be established to limit the type of auto painting business where body repair is not required except for the repair of minor dents and replacement parts. Staff believes that the applicant's proposals warrant further study and recommends initiating an amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission, through minute action, direct the applicant to submit an Industrial Area Specific Plan amendment with the accompanying fee. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buffer City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's request Exhibit "B" - Current Definition of Auto Service Court Exhibit "C" - Site Plan T~ Brad Bu//er, City pla..,~ ~ i 1/24/97 City ofR~cho Cueamo~g~ Michael Scango Masi Com.meme Centtr Parreefs (MCCP) Auto Sen-ice Court Degnitio. Dear Br~: Masi Commerce Ccn~:r P~F,.uers proposes ~o ~.me~d the Auto Ser,,~c~ Court def~tio~ in the Industrlal Specific Plan to facilir. ate thc d~'~lcrpmcnt Of our p~posed Ph.~sc iI Amo S~-vicc Court. Anazhed is the proposed amettdment (changes ~re abeam in ilalic). We look fom~rd to meetin~ with you and Na.nqy t:~n~ ~ di~tl~ ~.. We will ~Ii om the plan ~m~dment appHc.~ons and ~v the a..~ociated fees by Tuesday of this w~k. ' If you have ~ny ques~og, t~leaz, e call me a~ 909-4gi-5020. Since're/y, cg-/5 TABLE 13/-2 LAND [,lSlg TYPE DEFLNITIONS ~UTOMOTIVE SERVICE COURT: An in ~t,graled cluster of related automotive service activities, which tyFicall},' include: iS~j ~igll~i ~f~ ~'~li011g, ~ 0[ ll~[h/31]l ~&illary, tlg, S KUeh Ig ~ ~2~h~ a~d food marts; general automotive service and i~pai.r including mufflers, shocks, ali~ments, brakes, oil changes, lubrications, me-ups, smog chec'ks, tire repair and replacement,t~ansmissions; installation of air conditioning, car h es, stcreos. win shie ' and holste · win hield tintin,,; autorrmbile cleanin ar.d detai auto parts; automobile rental/leasing a O~ly WOF ~.o,,, ~. ,nayor o,' · .. t ' e ' , e ' ' 'e t '. ' -.. Minimzen Size.' 5 acres. M~U~ g~ze: 9 acres. M~ ffon~e along a mior or second,~' arteri~ su~et: 300 feet. ~%~Tss ~o ~.e si~e ~ be per~r~ ciLr~ly o~ny ~jor se~-i:e' ~'i'~ ~il pump ifi~n~ shttl ~ ~se'~t fi'6m all major and a~ond~,' ~tefials through a e6mbi~afion of bess, landscapinS, low wails, and building An appropriate combination of herins, landscaping, and architectural elements shall be provlded around the entire. perimeter of the site minimiz~ the impact of the auto com't uses form the existing and future surrounding uses. Outdoor ~o~e of inopermfive vehicles, paris, or equipment is .vrohibited. All work shall be conducted indoors. All siRage shall be limi'~t to si_mjs appmved und~ a Unifon'n S!,gn ,/ DRAFT I, DIRECTOR'8 REPORTS 97-03 - MASI COMMERCE PARTNERS - A Fequest to consider amending the definition of Auto Service Court in Suba:rea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.i Chairman Barker asked the location of the Commercial Recreation zoning. Ms. Fong replied that it covers the area north and east 6f Sebastian Way and Masi Drive. Chairman Barker commented there are no commercial recreational uses in the area. Commissioner Macins asked what is located between tl~e applicant's properly and the stadium. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated a maintenance building and some landscaping. He observed that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to determine if the Commission wished to allow the applicant to submit an application to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan, not necessarily lending support nor stating opposition to the project. Chairman Barker invited public comment. Mike Scandif'fio, Masi Commerce Partners, 1510 Riverside. Ddve, Burbank, thanked Ms. Fong for her assistance in processing the application. Chairman Barker remarked he had asked staff to prepare a report on outstanding issues with regard to Masi Plaza and some of those items were quite far behind schedule. He said he expected those items to be completed and said he was reluctant to give anything when the applicant had not completed what was proposed. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that a long time ago the Commission had been asked to consider reclassifying the site to Recreation Commercial and so far the City had not seen any of it. He said he had supported the concept of Recreation Commercial because of the close proximity to the stadium. He was very disappointed that nothing has been developed. Commissioner Macins did not object to allowing the applicant to submit an application but said he did not want that action to be construed as potential approval of the request. He said he was concerned regarding some of the proposed uses. Commissioner Bethel felt allowing the applicant to proceed with an application would constitute further erosion of the original plan. He felt the City is losing the flavor of what it was trying to do in the area. He did not think the applicant should be able to submit an application until past issues have been completely resolved. Commissioner Tolstoy said he liked the concept of a sports related commercial area. He did not want to entertain other uses at this time. Commissioner Macins said he liked what Commissioner Bethel said about not having demonstrated an ability to successfully meet conditions. He stated he did not conceptually object to the request. He suggested waiting three weeks to allow the applicant to complete the other requirements. Commissioner Tolstoy stated a plan had been submitted with a clear idea of what the City would get. He thought the development is now being dictated by piecemeal planning and he preferred to have Planning Commission Minutes ~ ~z2f' 99 J DRAFT the original concept carried out. He felt auto related uses are needed in this part of town but he thought the previous plan was being diluted inch by inch. Chairman Barker said he heard Commissioner Tolstoy say he was not interested in considering an amendment because of dilution of the previous plan and Commissioner Bethel say he did not feel the amendment should be considered. Mr. Buller observed that there has been a long history on the site. He stated the applicant wanted straight Commercial but staff and the Commission had moved the applicant to Recreational Commercial with the south side of Sebastian Way being more industrial. He commented the applicant had shown a plan with elements which the Commission supported, such as theaters and a proposed ice rink on the south side. He explained that the applicant had been unsuccessful in securing such users and has found that auto related uses are successful and now wants to process an amendment to allow for expansion of those uses. Commissioner Bethel did not think it would be fair to the applicant to support initiation of an application if he did not feel he could support the amendment. Chairman Barker observed that several of the Commissioners wanted to see a good faith effort so far as meeting existing conditions. He recommended staff not process an amendment until the old issues are resolved. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the applicant should be given an opportunity to submit an amendment but asked that staff indicate what auto related uses are already allowed in the industrial area. It was the consensus of the Commission (3-1-1. Bethel no, McNiel absent) that the applicant be permitted to submit an Industrial Area Specific Plan amendment with the accompanying fee. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 14, 1998 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AUTO ICE SK TINC RINKS ROI,LER RINK EXHIBIT 1: SITE P~N ~solution No. 94-052 Page 4 PLAN AM~qI1M~NT 93-02B, PAR~ A R_~creatioral C~,~,ercial: Devel.c!m~nt of recreation facilities ar~ ret3~t~uses shall ke encouraged along Foo~dnill Boulev-crd surrourding the Rancho Cuca~,nga A~hllt Sport Park r~r r_he · inta_~ection of Rochester Avenue.i ~he baseball stadium ar~ year-rcur~ sports activities in the ~Sports Park create a unique upportunity to provide secor~ry region-serving ..Fpecialit-y retail uses that are, not Fajor ge_ner~ mey_har~e_ depa~ hient stores or focal or drug stores. ~hey g~ly use approximately 3,500 - 55,000 s~]are feat of grcss l~ble al?ea and req]]~re sites with h/gh visibility and high ~fic counts. ~hese cantars typically have c~nvenient free~ay a~q~ and draw their custsmers frc~ withim a five to ten mile r~dius. Uses in this category are regional in nature ar~ not normally fc~md in neighhDrhccd c~u~ercial c~nters. l~ese types of occupancies could include dj=ccunt retailers, such as .sporting gcods, apparel, electromica, furniture, ar~ apgliances. TABLE III-2 LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COURT: An integrated cluster of related automotive service activities, which typically include: gas stations; service stations, with or without ancillary uses such as car washes and food marts; general automotive changes, lubrications, tune-ups, smog checks, tire repair and replacement, and lzansmissions; installation o fair conditioning, car phones, stereos, windshields, and upholstery; windshield tinting; sale of auto parts; and other related services. Auto Courts shall comply with the following design criteria: Maximum Size: 4 6 acres. Maximum frontage along a major or secondary arterial street: 300 feet. No access to the site will be permitted directly off any major arterial. An appropriate combination of berms, landscaping, and architectural elements shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the site to minimize the impact of the auto court uses from the existing and future surrounding uses. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles, pans, or equipment is prohibited. All work shall be conducted indoors. All signage shall be limited to signs approved under a Uniform Sign Program. Master planning shall be required. A minimum ofl5percent of net lot area shall be landscaped. Pedestrian facilities such as plazas or courtyards with appropriate street furniture shall be provided. Service bays and pump islands shall be oriented away from street frontages. Service bays and pump islands subject to public view and view from adjoining properties shah be screened through a combination of herins, landscaping, low decorative walls, building orientation, and architectural elements. - Building design shah have 360 degree architectural treatment. Building entrances shall be well articulated and project an entrance statement. Figure III- 1 SUBAREAS ~__ HAVEN OVERLAy DISTRICT ~ INDUSTRIAL PARK ~GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ~ MINIMUM iMPACT 4'" SL ~ HEAVy INDUSTRIAL I'10 ~ OPEN SPACE HOLT BLVD. ~_ ' RANCHO CUC~N~ '~'~ <' / t "I INDU~RIAL AREA PLAN Revised:9/17/86 2/17/88 10/17/90 6/17/97 CUP 91-24 - MASI PLAZA February 4, 1998 The following summarizes the outstanding issues that need to be addressed: 1. Install 35 granite plaques for displaying of vintners' families and their wine labels along the Vintner's Walk prior to occupancy of Denny's. GRANITE PLAQUES HA_WE BEEN INSTALLED AS OF JA. NUARY 29, 1998. 2. Install the La Fourcarlo displays and the history of wine making displays, a total of seven plaques, within the Vintner's Walk and the overhead trellis between Denny's and Building 7, prior to occupancy of Denny's. Comment: The above is a mitigation, except for the overhead metal trellis, and was tied to release of occupancy for Building 5 or 6 (Denny's), whichever came first. In order not to delay the opening of Denny's, staff worked with the applicant and allowed him to delay the installation until occupancy for Building 7 as requested. He agreed that the items would be installed before asking for occupancy of Building 7. Attached is the May 14, 1997, Facsimile to the applicant listing the items that needed to be completed or installed. Staff has repeatedly reminded him that he needs to complete the listed items, as well as submitting a sample of the aluminum plaques for "the history of wine making" displays. APPLICANT SUBMITTED TEXT AND GRAPHICS MOUNTED ON FOAiVI BOARD AND TO THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE PLAQUES FOR STAFF REVIEW. STAFF HAS PROOFREAD THE DRAFT AND WILL RETURaN THEM TO THE APPLICANT. HE HAS NOT SUBMITTED A SA~VllaLE OF THE ALUMINUM PLAQUE TO SHOW THAT TIlE TEXT .4dNT) GRAPHICS WILL SHOW WELL FOR READhNG. THERE IS NO INDICATION THAT HE WILL INSTALL THE OVERHEAD METAL TRELLIS BETWEEN BUILDING 7 AND DENNY'S OR PROVIDE ALTERsNATIVES TO ADDRESS THE ITEi'~. 3. Install wood trellis according to the approved plans for the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7. Comment: On October 28, 1997, the applicant signed an agreement stating that he would finish installing the wood trellises above the trash enclosures for Buildings 4 and 7 by November 3, 1997. 4. Install and complete the La Fourcade entry arch on Building 5, the descriptive plaque for the La Fourcade building, the Vinmer's families display, and the Masi plaque and the Statue. Comment: The above is a mitigation and was tied to the release of occupancy for Building 5 or 6 (Denny's), whichever comes first. In order not to delay the opening of Denny's, staff worked with the applicant and allowed him to delay the installation until occupancy of Building 5. Design Review for Building 5 has not been completed. /'/ FOOTIIILL BOULEVARD ! ) lU Idlng/slrucluro shail -. :..,:, ittce :lpproval Irom Iho % /7~,,:;: F[tHuro to comply will ' '31rucfion--ol-.the, bu.di Plannlm, Division ~ 'Cit~'6f <:> ..... :r <:> <:> RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 98-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COURT" WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Masi Commerce Center Partners has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 98-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 11, and continued to March 11, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found. determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Par1 A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on February 11. and March 11. 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application proposes to amend the definition of Auto Service Court. b. The application proposes to increase the maximum acreage for Auto Service Court from 4 to 6 acres. c. The Auto Service Court is permitted in Subareas I through 4.8, 11, 12, and 13 and conditionally permitted in subarea 7. d. Additional design cdteda such as the requirement for master planning, increase of percentage of landscaping, and additional architectural treatment are proposed to address land use and design compatibility. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and related development; and b. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the industrial Area Specific PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ISPA 98-01- MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS March 11. 1998 Page 2 c. The proposed amendment will not be ~letrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plan or the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and e. The proposed amendment is in confor~ance with the General Plan. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the amendment identified in this Resolution is not defined as a project and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Sections 15061b.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions setLforth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: a. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 98-01 amending Table IU-2, as shown in the attached ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Bred Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamon~a, at a regular meeting of the Planning .- Commission held on the 1 lth day of March 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 98-01. A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF AUTO SERVICE COURT WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Masi Commerce Center Partners, has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 97-01 as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereina~er in this Ordinance, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On February 11, and continued to March 11, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. On , the City Council 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 Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on , including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application proposes to amend the definition of Auto Service Court. b. The application proposes to increase the maximum acreage for Auto Service Court from 4 to 6 acres. c. The Auto Service Court is permitted in Subareas I through 4, 8, 11, 12, and 13 and conditionally permitted in subarea 7. d. Additional design criteria such as the requirement for master planning, increase of percentage of landscaping, and additional architectural treatment are proposed to address land _use and design compatibility. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Industrial Area Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide development in a manner consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan and with related development; and CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ~ IASPA 98-01 - MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS Page 2 b. The application promotes the goals and ,Objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and c. The application will not be detrimental tO the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and d. The application is consistent with the oi}jectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and e. The application is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the amendment identified in this Ordinance is not defined as a project and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Sections 15061 b.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 98-01, amending Table 111-2, as attached. 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. TABLE III-2 LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COURT: An integrated cluster of related automotive service activities, which typically include: gas stations; service stations, with or without ancillary uses such as car washes and food marts; general automotive changes, lubrications, tune-ups, smog checks, tire repair and replacement, and transmissions; installation of air conditioning, car phones, stereos, windshields, · and uphotstery; windshield tinting; sale ofauto parts; and other related services. Auto Courts shall comply with the following design criteria: Maximum Size: 4 6 acres. Maximum frontage along a major or secondary arterial street: 300 feet. No access to the site will be permitted directly off any major arterial. An appropriate combination of berms, landscaping, and architectural elements shall be provided around the entire perimeter of the site to minimize the impact of the auto court uses from the existing and future surrounding uses. Outdoor storage of inoperative vehicles, parts, or equipment is prohibited. All work shall be conducted indoors. All signage shall be limited to signs approved under a Uniform Sign Program. Master planning shall be required. A minimum ofl5percent of net lot area shall be landscaped. Pedestrian facilities such as plazas or courtyards with appropriate street furniture shall be provided. Service bays attd pump islands shall be oriented away from street frontages. Service bays attd pump islands subject to public view and view from adjoining properties shall be screened through a combination of herins, landscaping, low decorative wails, building orientation, and architectural elements. Building design shall have 360 degree architectural treatment. Building entrances shall be well articulated and project an entrance statement. MITIGATION MONITORING I~IA'I'I(IX (;liNlillA1 PlAN AMIiNllMliNTS 96-0311 AND 97-0 I the c:~stt~ound righi mrn I:mc to :t ~d~/>~: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVIONGA ' ,. ./,,.~ STAFF REPORT DATE: March 11, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-01 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A public hearing on a draft Final EIR prepared for the following: General Plan Amendment 96-03B and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-01 to change the land use designation from Utility Corridor (UC) to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) on 35.65 acres of land located on the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road; General Plan Amendment 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 97-01 to change the land use designation from UC to High Residential (24-30 dwelling units per acre), Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre), and Regional Related Office/Commercial on 48.5 acres of land located on the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard between Base Line Road and 1-15; and the consideration by the City of alternative land use designations of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site between Highland Avenue and Church Street - APN: 227-091--41,227-201-33,227- 351-65, 227-393-01 and 02, and 229-021-56. Related General Plan Amendments will be considered on March 25, 1998. ABSTRACT: This is the first of two public hearings for the Environmental impact Report (EIR) as part of the required 30 days public review period after a Notice of Completion and availability for public review of the draft EIR is advertised in the newspaper. For this hearing, the Planning Commission should review the report, receive public comments, and continue the item to the March 25 hearing. At the next meeting, the Commission will receive public comments again, conclude the hearing, discuss and make recommendations to the City Council for both the EIR certification and the proposed Land Use changes. A copy of the final EIR was delivered to the Commission on February 12, 1998. BACKGROUND: Last April, Southern California Edison (SCE) processed applications to change _the land use designation for their surplus utility corridor. The utility corridor is located along the east side of the future Day Creek Boulevard between Highland Avenue and 1-15. According to SCE, the surplus land was sold to private development companies. Staff determined that a focused EIR was required to address the anticipated environmental impacts as a result of additional residential and commercial land available for future development. The City hired a consultant paid for by SCE, to prepare the EIR. Recently, the City has received a development proposal for the section of the utility corridor between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-03B & 9%0!, VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 - SCE March 11, 1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. Purpose of an EIR: The purpose of the Environmental Impact Report is to inform the public about any significant impacts to the physical envir~onment as a result of a project, identify ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify altern~atives, and promote public participation. The content in the EIR becomes a planning tool for the Planning Commission and the City Council to use in determining the appropriate and, the best land use arrangement for the project area and for the entire City. B. EIR process for GPA 96-03B and 9%01 and VCPA 96-01 and 97-01: The EIR has been processed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): 1. Notice of Preparation (NOP): On July 10, 1997, a NOP of a draft EIR for the proposed land use changes was circulated. Six responses were received and they were: U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, Chaffey Joint Union High School District, Etiwanda School District, Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Southern California Association of Government (SCAG), and California Department of Transportation. The consultants incorporated the comments from these agencies with the preparation of the draft EIR. 2. Scopinq and Neiqhborhood Meeting: On July 10, 1997, a notice of the scoping/neighborhood meeting was sent to aU responsible agencies and property owners within and beyond the required 300 feet of the project site. Staff expanded the notification boundaries to approximately 1,000 feet east of the project site between Highland Avenue and the railroad tracks. The purpose of the scoping/neighborhood meeting was to obtain public input early in the EIR process. The notified property owners were invited to attend the meeting at 7 p.m. on July 22, 1997 in the City Hall. Members of staff, members of the City's consultants and the applicant were at the meeting. No property owners attended the meeting. 3. Draft EIR Circulation (Notice of Completion}: The draft EIR was completed on November 12, 1997, and circulated according to CEQA requirements with the public review period ending on December 29, 1997. Eight comments were received and they were: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, SANBAG, SCAG, State Clearinghouse (OPR), Rancho Cucamonga Fire District, Chino Basin Municipal Water District, Metropolitan Water District, and Chaffey Joint Union High School District. The consultant prepared responses to the comments and revised the pertinent sections of the document to address them. 4. Final EIR and Notice of Availability for Public Review: The Final EIR was completed and circulated on February 18, 1998, to those agencies that responded to the draft EIR. The Notice of Availability for public review was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper with the [eview period ending on March 25, 1998. C. Summary of Siqnificant Impacts and Mitiaation: This section of the report describes and summarizes the significant impacts and the mitigations that reduce them to a less than significant level. Exhibit "D" is the detailed list of the significant impactsand the mitigation. 1. Drainage: The proposed project would increase the water runoff because of the increase in the impervious surface as a result of future residential and commercial development. The drainage study identified the required changes to the Master Plan PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-03B & 97-01, VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 - SCE March 11, 1998 Page 3 storm drain facilities to account for the increase in developable land. With the implementation of the required storm drain facilities, the impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Traffic and Circulation: The change in land use will increase the number of vehicular trips. A Traffic Study and a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) were done to comply with the local and regional requirements of Southern California Association of Government (SCAG) and San Bernardino County (SANBAG). Eleven key intersections in the City and two freeways were identified for improvements as shown in Exhibit "D." At the time of development, developers will be responsible for contributing their fair share of improvements by paying the City's adopted traffic impact fees and/or constructing the required improvements. Also, at each phase of development, a site specific traffic study will be required to determine whether the incremental increase in traffic would cause any of the intersections under investigation to result in unsatisfactory level of service and the mitigation to address them. As a result of the mitigation, the traffic and circulation impacts will be reduced to a tess than significant level. The following eleven intersections and two freeways were identified for improvements: · Milliken Avenue and Foothill Boulevard · Rochester Avenue and Highland Avenue · Rochester Avenue and Base Line Road · Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard · Day Creek Boulevard and Highland Avenue · Day Creek Boulevard and Base Line Road · Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard · Etiwanda Avenue and Base Line Road · Etiwanda Avenue and Foothill Boulevard · 1-15 southbound ramp and Base Line Road · East Avenue and Base Line Road · I-15 between Jurupa Street and 1-10 · 1-15 between Fourth Street and Foothill Boulevard 3. Air Quality: The short and long term air quality impacts as a result of residential and commercial development will exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds of significance. According to the EIR, the impacts coming from the grading and the construction activities of the project area can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The mitigation is as listed in Exhibit "D." The increase in vehicular trips because of the residential and commercial development would produce emissions that exceed SCAQMD daily thresholds of pollutants. However, the mitigation described in Exhibit "D" cannot reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. The impacts are still considered significant and unavoidable. Further mitigation is technically and economically infeasible. This issue will be further discussed in Section E of the report. 4. Noise: The noise from the grading and construction activities as well as noise from traffic will impact the existing and future residential areas. Implementation of the mitigation listed in Exhibit "D" will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-03B & 97-01, VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 - SCE March 11, 1998 Page 4 5. Schools.: Project area is within Etiwanda Schq'ol District and Chaffey Joint Union High School District. Schools within the two disfricts are at or above capacity. Future development will generate more students forthe already impacted school districts. The total number of students generated by the project is based on the number of dwelling units for each land use category ( the highest ~Jensity on the total acreage of each land use category) multiplied by the student generation rates from both school districts. Exhibit "1" is a table that shows the breakdown of the number of new students by grades. The estimated increased number of new students to the two school districts are 328 students for K - Grades 5, 146 students for Grades 6 - 8, and 151 students for Grades 9 - 12. To reduce the impact to a less than significant level, the developer at each phase of development projects will have tp enter in an agreement with both school districts to provide adequate mitigation and participate in the school districts' Mello- Roos Community Facilities Districts for alternative methods to finance the mitigation of school impacts. The City has received a response from Chaffey Join Union High School District that they have accepted the mitigation listed in Exhibit "E" as adequate. 6. Police and Fire Protection: Future development within the project area will place considerable demand on law enforcement and fire protection services. The impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level by forming and/or joining the Law Enforcement and the Fire Protection Comm~Jnity Facilities Districts to pay for and provide the services to the project area. 7. Park and Recreation: The residential portion Of the proposed project will increase the demand for active recreation facilities causing an impact to City parks. The impact can be reduced to a less than significant level. At the time of development, the developer will be responsible for dedicating the equivalent of 11.3 acres in park fees or in park land. Also, the proposed project would increase the demand for trail use in the City. A mitigation is to widen the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard to 25 feet and provide a multi-use trail from Highland Avenue south to terminate at the City's adult sport complex. This multi-use trail should be,designed to connect to the planned or existing trail system in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The specific design of the multi-use trail could be determined at the timeOf development plans. 8. Aesthetics: The change in land use would replace 84.15 acres of undeveloped open space corridor with residential and commercial uses, which would significantly alter the existing and future view corridor. The impact can be reduced to a less than significant level with the increase in parkway width at the east side of Day Creek Boulevard and the landscape edge treatments as listed in Exhibit "D." 9. Cultural Resources: The potential for historic human burials may be present in a small portion of the project area specifically on the north side of Base Line Road approximately 500 feet in distance. A mitigatipn is to require a qualified archeologist to be present on site during rough grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. 10. Bioloqical Resources, and Response from US Fish and Wildlife Service' A biological assessment was prepared forthe project area. The consultant followed the "protocol" of the U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in surveying the site for the California Gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino Merriam Kangaroo Rat. They did not find or trap PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-03B & 97-01, VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 - SCE March 11, 1998 Page 5 the two mentioned species. They determined that the Coastal Sage Scrub present on isolated portions of the site is probably remnant Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub. The Sage Scrub habitat is of poor quality when compared to the prime habitat in north Etiwanda area, because the vegetation is dominated almost exclusively by a single species, California Buckwheat. They further found that the habitat is fragmented from the north Etiwanda Preserve and surrounding buffer land. They concluded that there is no adverse impact on the viability of biological resources and that long term habitat preservation planning would not be precluded. The consultant stated that mitigation is not warranted. However, the USFWS responded to the draft EIR and recommended that the Southern California Edison Company establish a mitigation bank, by conserving an area contiguous with the North Etiwanda Preserve, into which subsequent developments would be required to buy their fair share. The USFWS did not include its recommendation of the parameters of mitigation, that is the number of acres to be mitigated and land banked. Staff supports our consultant's conclusion that mitigation is not warranted. Exhibit "E" are the USFWS comments and our consultant's responses. D. The Proposed Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan {MSHCP) and the Interim Proiect Review Guidelines: In 1995, the City along with 11 participating cities, the County, the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to cooperate in the development of a Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for preserving sensitive habitats. The County is the lead agency in preparing the plan with an extended completion of the plan estimated at year 2002. The MOU also establishes Interim Review Guidelines allowing projects to proceed while the MSHCP is under development. Exhibit "F" is a copy of the MOU with the Interim Project Review Guidelines. The Interim Review Guidelines state that the recommendations of the USFWS and DFG are advisory. The final decisions of whether to approve, modify, or deny a project remains in the hands of the lead agency, which in this case is the City. The City retains the discretion to make the determination that a project within the MSHCP area, because of the project's characteristics, has no impact on the viability of biological resources and would not preclude long term preservation planning. E. Unavoidable Impacts: As stated in the above Section C-3, even with the implementation of the mitigation, air quality impacts cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. The City must balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts, the City may adopt a statement of its view that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable because of overriding concerns. Exhibit "J" is the proposed Facts of Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations for the Commission's review. F. Alternatives Considered: As required by CEQA, a total of four alternatives were considered, namely, no projecfJdevelopment, open space greenbelt and trail, lower density, and off-site project. Exhibit "G" is a table that compares the four alternatives to the proposed project. A no project/development alternative is environmentally superior. However, it fails to meet the City's objectives to provide a variety of housing, preserve the single family character of residential neighborhoods, protect neighborhood quality, and provide in4ill residential and commercial development within the context of a planned community. Open space greenbelt and trails alternative would have less significant environmental impacts. However, the implementation of this alternative would have a maintenance financial burden on the City in PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GPA 96-03B & 97-01, VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 - SCE March 11, 1998 Page 6 light of Proposition 218, which made this alternative .fiscally infeasible. The lower density and the off-site alternatives have similar impacts when 'compared to the proposed project. The lower density would reduce the demand on public services such as schools, parks, and safety. G. Mitiqation Monitorinq Proqram (MMP): CEQA requires the City to adopt a monitoring program for ensuring compliance of the adopted mitigation measures or changes that are required to be made to the project, as shown in Exhibit "H." The MMP is a reporting program, which identifies each adopted mitigation or required Change in the project design that reduces the impacts to a less than significant level. It iis intended for the City to gauge the effectiveness of the mitigation measures. H. Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff believes that the EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. Staff recommends that' the Planning Commission make the recommendation to the City Council to determine the EIR adequate and certify it. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted with three 4 by 8 feet public hearing signs, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foo~ radius of the p~oject site and within approximately 1,000 feet east of the project site between Highland Avenue and the railroad tracks. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission conduct the hearing to receive public input, have questions for staff and continue the item to the March 25 hearing. City Planner BB:NF:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Final EIR (Document Transmitted Separately) Exhibit "B" Project Area Exhibit "C" EIR Process Schedule Exhibit "D" Summary of Significant Impacts and Mitigation Exhibit "E" Comments from Agencies and Response to Comments Exhibit "F" MOU and MSHCP Interim Review Guidelines Exhibit "G" Project Alternatives Under Consideration Exhibit "H" Mitigation Monitoring Program Exhibit "1" Number of New Students Table Exhibit "J" Proposed Statement of Facts of Findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration Resolution Recommending Certification of EIR to the City Council FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B & 97-01 and VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 & 97-0'1 TRANSMITTED UNDER SEPARATECOVER EXHIBIT "A" Land Use Amendment for Edison Utility Corridor (GPA 96-03B & GPA 97-01) (VPCA 96-0'1 & VPCA 97-01) , ~ , HIGHLAND !A.V_E;- i , ~ : :' ~i =. _ . _.. Figure 2 EXHIBIT B 1 0.57 0 0.57 q.q4 ~il~ S LA..D USE AMENDMENT FOR EDISON UTILITY CORRIDOR CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GPA 96-03B & VCPA 96-01 Highland Ave L' VC L L S.B.C.F.C. L'v[ RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & QUAS[-PUBLIC RR Rcl;iunnl RdMcd Ol]kclCummcr,2inl 1CX)O O' 1CK~ D~CX] EXHIBIT B2 Lt .D USE AMENDMENT FOI-', EDISON UTILITY CORRIDOR CITY RANCHO CUCAMONGA GPA 97-01 & VCPA 97-01 1003 0 10C0 2000 F~ E I0 ~i9.~ 3 FOCUSED EIR PROCESSING SCHEDULE GPA 96-03 & 97-01 / VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 Task No. 1 - Project Initiation Project Initiation 5/5//97 RFQ mail-out EIR Consultant Selection 5/29/97 RFQ proposals due : Selection of Consultant Authorization to Proceed 7~2~97 City Council Approval (10-day notice required) Task No. 2 - Notice of Preparation NOP Initiated 7/10/97 30 day Public Review Period (8/14/97 deadline) Scoping and Neighborhood Meeting 7/22/97 No public attended Consultant Prepares Draft EIR Task No. 3 - Screen Check Screen Check Draft EIR to City 9/2/97 Consultant Prepares Revisions Revisions to T]A Task No. 4 - Draft EIR Draft EIR Circulation (NOC) 11112197 45-day Public Comment Period Draft Review Period Ends 12/29/97 Task No. 5 - Final EIR Consultant Prepare Response to Comments Revisions to EIR Additional TIA revisions needed Response to Comments Circulated (Final EIR) 2118198 Notice of Availability of Draft EIR for Public Review 2~23~98 Advertised 2~23~98 - 30 day Public Review Period ends 3125198 Task No. 6 - Public Hearings 3/11/98 Planning Commission Public Hearings 3/25/98 10 day notice City i3ouncil Certification of EIR for General Plan and Community Plan Amendment April 1998 10 day notice City Council Ordinance (2nd Reading) EXHIBIT C EIR for GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION EXHIBIT "D" Table 1.1-1 - EnvironInertial Summary of the Edison Company General Plan and Victoria ConHnnnity Plan An~endments lssnes/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.1 Drainage Inqmct 4.1.1. The prol~osed project would substantially 4. I.IA. Any development proposed between Illghland Avenue Mitigated to below a level of increase the impervious surface coverage, resuhing in an and Base LIne Road shall be condffioned to convey on-site significance. incre~e in the total quantity and rate of water draining from drainage to the west to Day Creek Channel by slornl drain systems the site. Existing drainage systems to the east can not in Victoria Park Lane and Base Line Road. accommodate tile increase and stormwater flow. The proposed project has the potential to have a significant 4.1.1B. 'llte developer shall amend the City's Final Master Plan Of impact on existing drainage facilities. Drainage Report prior to Hnal Map approval to account for tl~e cl~ange In land use from open space to residential uses. 4.1.1C. The develooer shall remove ¢h¢ existing 96-inch RCP ~ stubout. located annroximately 462 fe¢I from vtclorla Park Lane and install an 108-inch RCP from Day Creek Boulevard to Dav Creek Channel. with the Dire enterthat the chantsel one foot above the channel invert, ~'r 4.2 Traffic ~ hnpact 4.2.1 - Eight key study area intersections are 4.2.1A. The project proponent shall contribute a traffic fee in Mitigated In below a level of 413 forecast to exceed the CMP LOS E standard under 2015 accordance with the Clty's adopted traffic fee program (Transpor- significance. traffic cOnditiOns in one or both peak hours, with the tatiOn Departnsent Impact 'Fee Ordinance NO.' 445) as the without Ihe project. The intersection of Etiwanda Ave- proJect's fair share contribution to circulation Improvements nue/Rase Line Road is forecast Io operate at LOS E without identified as necessary at the time of issuance of building permits/ the project. Addition of the project increment would impact These lnsprovements shall consist of the following: the intersection and degrade operations to LOS F in the /F tl [ p.nL peak hour. This is a potentially significant impact MllBken Avenue on sill Boulevard ...... G a ...... · ,cs;'~o,.,fid ~:;,G,,g:, :.u~c ..,,~ YG,.,;.:.;ll Bc,-,i:c~a,d. MOdify the eastbound and wesllx)und ap- proaches be modified to include a third through lane in each direction on Foodill[ Boulevard as well as convert the eaStbOund right turn lane to a through plus righl turn lane. Rochester Avenue/lll~hland Avenue. Signal Dhasine of the existing traffic sisanal shall be ut~zraded to accommodatl Ih¢ fuIure traffiC: volumeS. · _ Re, Chester Avenue/Base line Road. Sinhal nhaslmt of the existinil traffic signal sitall be upgraded tO accommodate the future traffic volumes. 2/B~98(R:\CRG730x, FEiR\TABLEI_I.FNL) 1-4 Issues/hnpacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.2 Trallic (Continued) _._ Rochester Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. Sil!nal DhaMne of tile ¢xisling traffic $iftnal shall be un.uraded to acc~mmo~iate the ft~,ure traffic volun~es. Day Creek Boulevard/lligftland Avenile. C,,i;vcls;Gi~ mended mitt_ration for ghis intersection: -.. Construction of a northbound left turn lane, ; Add/lion of a second northbound through lane and a shared throu~h Dlus rigfit turn lane, ; ConstruCtiOn of a SOuthbound left turn lane, ; Addition of a second $outhbOund through lane and a shared throueh plus riRht turn lane. -. Construction of eastbound left turn lane, -.. Addition of an eastbound throulzh plulg right turn ]ant, ; Constn:ction of a westbound left turn la|~e, ; Addition of a westbound tlwottgfi plus rieht turn lane. Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road. The following is recommended mitigation for ~his interSeCtion: .- Construction of dual northbOund lef{ turn lanes, .: Addition of second and third northbgund thrOui{h ; Construction of a northbound righl turn [ane, ; Construction of dual SouthbOund left turn lanes, ; Addition of second and third southbound thrOUgh -. Construction of a southbound rieht turn lane, ; Constnlction of dual eastbound left turn laneS, i Addilion of a third eastbound through lane, -.. Construelion of an eastbound rit~ht turn lane, 2tll/98(R:\CRG730~EIR\TABLEI_LFNL} l -5 Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.2 Traffic (Continued) ; Constrtlction of dual wesl[x-qtlfld leh turn lanes, -. ~%ddilion ofa Ihird westbound throul;h lane. and ; ConsInaction ofa we~botmd riFghl turn lane. Day Creek Boulevard/Foothill Boulevard. Coiivcis~oil of ..... l.,,~,.s. The foliowine is recommended mitigation for this inter~eCtion: -_. ConsInaction of dual northbound left turn lanes. ; Addition of a second and thilxl northbound throueh lanes, ; COnstnacliOn of a norlhlx~t~nd free rleht lurn lane. ~ ; Constrill;lion Ofdual$outhbound left turt~ lancs. ; ; Addi:ion of second and third southbound throuah ; C. on$tn~ction ¢}fa free SOuthbound right tunl lane. i ¢%~ldit lon of an easth¢}tllld thr¢}t~eh t~ltls rtt~ht turn ; ~ddilion of a fourth west~tmd Ihroueh lane. and Eliw~da Avenue~e I~e Road. Coi~s~i~ci~oct G[a ~h~;d ] ........ 1:.,;~ E~c :~G~.The ~asl~und and west~und ~pproaches ~hall I~ roodiCed to prgvide a third throueh lane in each dirccti~ 9n E~iwanda Avenue, EtJwanda Avenue~oothi[i Boulevard. Addition of a southland ~ght turn ~ne ;rid a third ~a~i~und IhrouSh lane. 2/B/98(R:\CRG730~FEIR\TABLEI_I.FNL) l '6 Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.2 Traffic (Continued) 1-15 Southbound RaJnps/Base Line Road. At|d;i;Gi; duM ,~csiL~>~i,~d k.f~ ;~i,,~ :,,i~,.s.Addition of a second we,stbound left lurn lane ¢.dual left gum lane) for on-ran~p traffic at Ihe wesll)ound approach and a southl~ound free Fight turn for off-ramp Iraf~c. East Avenue/Base Line Road. Add;;iG,~ Gf a ;~c,~;;;d ;:,,u,igl; l ...... The wesd)ound approach shall include a third through lane. 4.2.1B. Circulation improvements have been identified to achieve standards levels of service (i.e.. local jurisdiction and/or SANBAG) at sludy area intersections. To address the tinting, funding, and Implen~entation of these iml~rovements, the following mitigation fT'[ measure or condition of General Plan An~endment approval is recomlnended. ~.- Prior to the approval of any tract map. a traE~c stud}, shall be lions under investigation to resttit in unsatisfactor}, levels of service. If unacceplab[e levels ofsew ice result, Ibis traffic analysis shall detern~ine the portion of the ultimate intersec- improvement, and the funding source. 2/~/98(R:\CRG730~FE[R\TABLEI_I.FNL) l -7 1.5A Associates. I#tc, Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.2 Traliric (Continued) hnpact 4.2.2. The proposed project will contribute to 4.2.2. 'llle project shall contribute on a fair share hasis to the cost Mitigated to below a level of signill- deficiencies along 1-15 hetween Junlpa Avenue and 1-10 and i~f providing the following freeway lane additions: cance. bctx',,ccn .hh Street and Foothill l|t)ulevard. 1-15 [xrtween Jtirttpa Street and 1-10 - two lane mainline lanes in each direction. 1-15 benveen 4th Street and Foothil[ Bou[evard- two mainline lanes In each direction. 4.3 Air Quality hnpact 4.3.1. Constntctlon equipnlent emissions would 4,3.1/L 'll~e Construction Contractor shall select tile construction Mitigated to below a level of exceed the scAQMD daily !hresholds for the criteria po![ut- equipment used onsite based on Iow emission factors and Ifigh significance. all( of N0x, which is 2.5 tolls per quarter or I00 IYounds per energy efficiency. Tile Construction Contractor shall ensure that clay. Enlissions of other criteria polhaants xvou[d be below constnlctiof't grading plans include a statetuent Illat all constnlc- Ihe standards. This is a significant impact. lion equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacnlrer's specifications. 4.3.1B. The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or diesel-powered equipment In lieu of gasohne-powered engines where feasible. .............. 4.3.1C. 'l%e Construction Contractor shall ensure that construc- tion grading plans include a slatement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through Octoher), tile overall length of tile construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehic[es and equipn~ent operating at the same time. 4.3,1D. ~lle Construction Contractor shaH time tile construction activities so as to not interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to Ihe site; if neces- sary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to exisllng roadways. 2/8/98 (R:\CRG730~FEtR\TABLE 1 _ 1. FN L) I -8 Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.3 Air Quality (Continued) 4.3.1E. The Construction Contractor shall support and encour- age ridesharing anti transit incentives for the construction crexv. The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the conslruction crew. 4.3.4F. 'll le developer shall contract with a mitigation monilor to assure compliance and implementation with the mitllCation monjtorinE protram. hnpact 4.32. During grading activities titsst etutsslon ! 4.3.2A. Dust generated by the development activities shall be Mitigated to below a level of would exceed die SCAQMD dlreshold of 150 pounds per retained on site and keep to a minimum by following the dust signiftcance. clay. This is a significant Impact. control measures listed below. a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation. or transportation of cut or lill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from [raving the site alld to create a crust after each day's activities cease. b. During conslroctton, water trucks or sprinlder systen~s shall be used to keep all aEeas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a n~lni- n~um, Ibis wou[d include wetting down such areas in the laler morning and after work is coinpieced for die day, and wilenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. c. After clearing, grading, earth moving. or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by pickup of the soil until tile area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materiMs anti/or construction debris to or from the site shal[ be carped from the point of origin. 2/8fl)8(R:\CRG730XFEIR\TABLE 1_1 .FNL) l -9 Issuesfhnpacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.3 Mr Quality (Conthlued) hnpact 4.3.3. Volatile Organic Conq~ound (VOC) emis- 4.3.3.'111e Constntction Contractor shall tttilize ~ much as possible Mitigated to below a level of sions associated wilh architectural coalings are not calcu- pR-~coalctVl~altw, tl tntlored building materials, water-lxtsed or low-VOC significance. lated because there is no sufficient infonuatk~n available for coalbig, and coating Iransfer or spray equipenent with high transfer emissions produced by Ihe painting of residenlial and efffidency, sudl ,'Is high volume low pressure 0 [VLP) spray method, or conlmercial facilities. VOCs produced during conslruction nlanual coatings app[ication sudl as paint bn~sh, hand roller, trowel, may be a potentially significant impact. spatula, dauber, ~g, orsponge. Intpacl 4.3.4. Vehicular trips associated with the proposed 4.3.4A. The project shall comply with Title 24 oftl~e California Code Operalional emissions of the pro- project would produce emissions that would exceed the of Regulations established by the Energy Commission reg:u'ding posed project would result in a total SCAQMD daily thresholds for the criteria pollutartofCO, energyconservalionstant[ards. 'llle project applicant shall incorlx> of 8511bs./day of CO, 641bs./day of gOC, and NOx. This is a significant impact. rate tile foBowing in buildlug plarts: ROC, 136 Ibs./day of NOx, 15 Ibs./day of SOx, and 19 Ibs./day of Planting trees to provide shade and shadow to buikling; PM 10' ABloflg them, the enrissions · SoL~orlow-emisslonvvaierheaierssh.-dlbeusedwidlconibified forCO, ROC, and NOxwouldex- space/v~ter heater tanit; ceed the SCAQMD tbresho[ds for Refrigerator with vaCtll. lm po~Ater Insulation; daily operations by a large margin Double-painedgL'tssorwtndowtreamlentforenetgycolmervation (especlal[y NOx). Even after irapie- shaft be used In all exterior windows; and menration the mitigation measures Energy-efficient low-sodium parking lot lights shall be used. Identified, It is not guaranteed Ihat tile emissions would be reduced to Fl'7 4.3AB. Use of transportation demand measures (IX)M) such as below the thresholds. Therefore, it ' '-0 preferential parkling for vafipo~lifi~/carljoolmg2 iUbsiUy for irahsit w6did remal'n a'~'gt{~'cant'imp~ct.' pass or vanpooling/carpooling, flextinge ~rk scbedule. bike racks lockers, showers, and onsite cafeteria shall be Incorporated in the design of the commercial [and uses. 4.3.,iC. 'lheDn)iectpro.Donentshalh:leterminewithlheCitvandth¢; electrical ourvevor if it is feasible to Dre-vvire houses for electriCa~ cha~es for EV can and/or oDtic-fibee$ for hon~e offices. If feasible install EV charF. es and/or optic-fibers .e, er the electrical Dur'cvor'$ direction odor to Certificate of Occupancy. 4.3.4D. Install EV char~er$ or ahemativ~ fuel stations fnatuDd gas} for community wkle use at key commercial and ptlblk; lOCation(s} such as Dark and ride lots, Metrolink stations, and cOmmCn;jal center. 4.3.4E. The developer shall contracl with :~ mitigation monilor to assure com.Dliancc and imolementation with the mitigation monitor- 2/8/98(R:\CRG730XFEIR\TABLEI_l .FNL) 1 - 10 Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.4 Noise Impact 4.4.1. Noise levels from grading and other coil- 4.4.1A. During a[[ project site excavation and grading on-site, tile Mitigated to below a level of strt~ction activities for dre proposed project may range up to )roject contractors shall equip all construction equipment, FLxed significance. die northern part of the project site between Iligbland consistent wid~ manufacturers standards. result in high noise levels to between tile hours of6:30 a.m. and g:OO p.nL Monday through Saturday, unless such constroction acHvitles do not result in noise levels exceeding 45 dBA at flowed on Sundays and public holidays. hnpact 4.4.2. Increases in noise levels could restdt from 4.4.2. Noise studies shall be required to be submitted to the City Mitigated to lyzlow a level of ~roject-related traffic on access roads leading to tile project for review and approval prior to final map approval for residential significance. site. esl~ecia[ly given the bigher noise generation associated units proposed within the following areas: with trucks. project-related Iong-ternl vehicular trip in- traffic noise level increases would be less than significant. · Within 770 feet of Foothill Boulevard centerfine; are anticipared. Ilowever, I~roposed on-site residential uses | Ilgldand Avenue and Base I,ine Road; would potentially be exposed to traffic noise levels exceed- · Wlthbl 438 feet of Day Creek I~otdevard centerline between tng the 60 dBA Ldn standard recommended for residential Base Line Road and Church Street; and uses. · Within 344 feet of l lighland Avenue centerline. or their combination along the property line, proper building orientation, building hcade upgrade, double-paned windows and/or mechanical ventilation shall be provided. 1-11 2/~/98(R:\CRG730~EIR\TABLEI_I-FNL) Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.5 Public Services Schools hnpact 4.5.1. A.s a restlit of the overcrowding in the 4.5. IA. A school nliligalion plan shall be enacted between the Mitigated Io below a leve[ of classrooms of the Etiwanda aud Cbaffey School Districts, I!SI) and tile devclolR:r Io provide for a per dwelling unit fee rate significance. [xnb districts have urged and continue to urge the City not for the residential purlion of tile project site. Tbe fees will offset to approve developn~ent applications unless adequate tbe additional deanand placed on school district facilities by Ibe school hcilities are available to serve the development residential portion oftbe project project. Future developn~ent will generate more students for dte already inq~acted school districts and is considered 4.5.1B. Tbe developer sitall join Charley School District Mello- significant. Scbool miligation plans woukl be enacted Roos Conlmunity Facilities District No.2 (CFI) No. 2), in order to bet~veen Ihe ESD/CJUIISD and Ihe project developer ~rovide an altenlative method to fiuance the mitigation of scbool providing for a per dwelling unit fee rate for the residential inq)acts of developinent. ~ortion of the project site. 4:5.1C. 'll~e develolx:rshall be required to execute an agreen~ent : with ESD aud CJIJl ISD to provide adequate mitigattou. Such an agreen~ent shall be executed prior to Planning Com~nissiou approval for any resldentla[ project within tbe General Plan An~endment area. Actual implementation of the agreement by Ihe payment of fees, dedication of sties or other mitigation will take ~lace as building permits are obtained. 4.5.1D. lnthe event that tbe-developer~decliuesto execute .a mitigation agreentent, the City shall require full mitigation as a condition of approval. Full mitigation shall be accomplished by means of a requirement to forn~ a Me[lo-Roos Community Facilities district for school facilities. In order to reduce tbe burden on the fittuft homeowners, it Is possible to structure the comn~unlty facilities district sucb that some of the special taxes ' would be prepaid by the devetoper. 2/B/98(R:\CRG730XFEIR\TABLEI_I.FNL) I - 12 lssues/hnpacts Mitigatio, n Measures Analysis of Significance i 5 I'ubllc Services (Colltinued) Itccreation 4.5.2(1). 'i'he residcnlial portion of the proposed project 4.5.2(1)A. The developer shall be sul~ject to Ordin;u~ce No. 105 Mitigated to below a level of lwoukl increase the demand for active recreation facilities set by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to significance. causing a significant imlmct to park facilities. To mitigalc csial)lish regulations for dedication of I:md, i~aymcnt of fees, or this shortage of active recreation, future developnlent I~olh, for park and recreational land In subdivisions and planned prol)osals must provide additional acreage to meet Ihe communilies. The developer is responsible for 11.3 acres of recreational needs of this conlmulfily. parkland either by fee or by dedicat!on. 4.5.2(1)B. At tfie time ofl~ling a tentative tract nlap or a minor sulxlivision i)lat for alq~roval, the City Park and Recreation C¢)llltllissioll shall detern~ixle whether dedication of l~roperty for 1.3 ;ores ~fp rk md recreational purl~oscs or in lieu of fees arc necessary. If the City tiesires dedication, Ihe area shall be designated on the tentative tract mail when subluittcd and a General P[an amendment indicating the Iocalion of anY oark shall I~c i~rOcesscd subiect to Park and liecreation Comnlission review and reconln~endatiOn. 4.5.2(1)C. Wilere dedication is offered and accepted it shall be accotnplished in accordance with Ihe provisions of tile Subdivi- sion Map Act. Where fees are required. the s:uue shall be depos- ited with Ihe Cily prior to the issuance ofbuikling pentilts. hnpact 4.5.2(2). The residential and comn~ercial areas 4.5.2(2). The parkway on the east side of "future" Day Creek Mitigated to below a level ofsignifi- proposed would increase the deflxa/ld for active recreational Boulevard shaft be widerted by 20 to 25 feet to provide a nluiti-tlse caflce. facilities causing a signi~cant imluct to trail use in the CitY. trail froln llighland Avenue south to ternliflate at the City's aduh To mitigate tile potential impacts to trails and to also sports complex. Specific design of the Irail shall be determined by iml)lenlent tile City's Master Plan of Trails, future develop- the City at the tinle developnlent plans are subn~ilted for review ment proposal must provide additional acreage for trails to and approval for any development proF. osals adjacent to "future" meet the need within the City. Day Creek Boulevard. The specific design shall tie in wilh tile City's Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan design. The trail sllall dcsil;ncd to c¢lnnect to planned and existing trail systems in the litiwanda North Specific Plal~ and shall c(lnuect tile residential areas adjacent to Interstate 15. 2/B/98(R:\CRG730XFE[R\TABLEI_I.FNL) l -I 3 Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.5 Public Services (Continued) P(}lice hnpact 4.5.3. The proposed project will result in a 4.5.3A. As slated in the Genentl l{equirements and Approvals for Mitigated to below a level of potentially significant jillpaCt as all increase ill denland fi)r tile Police Del)arlment for the City, a signed collsellt and waiver significance. )olice seaices. At1 additional five police personnel wouk[ fOrill to join and/or forfil tile Law Enforcenlent Conlmunity be required for die proposed residential and comnlercia[ Facilities District shall ~ filed with City Engineering prior to fitla developnlent. Mitigation of this inq}act would require that map approval or Ihe issuance of huikfing permits, whichever tile City exact fees from the deve[oper dlrough an existing occurs first for any projects witfiin tfie project area ktween assessnlent district or fornl one to gain the necessa~ funds 1 lighland Avenue and 1-15. Fomlation cos~ shall ~ ~rne by the for the additional i~ofice l)crsonncl needed. l)cvclopcr. Impact 4.5:4. Impacts of the prol~Oscd project On fire 4.5.4A. The deVelOper shall join; tl~ Mellodtoos Community Mitigated ~o belo~v a level of seaice for the City of Rancho Cucamonga are potentially Facilities District to provide fire protection seaices to the site. significance. significant. Based on tfie standard response tithe tllreshold 3, 4, and 5, tile site is anticil)ated to response time criteria. 4.5.4B. The developer shall restall autonlatcd fire sprinkler units in accordance with Foothill {~l~ Cucanlonq~ Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 15 arid Rancho Cucan~onga Fire Protection District Ordinance No. 22. 4.6 AestheticsNisual In~pact 4.6.1. The proposed project wouk[ replace an 4.6.1L Nexv buildings within 100 feet of future Day Creek Mitigated to below a level of 84.15-acre undevelo[~d, olin space corridor with residen- Boulevard shall I~ restricted to 35 feet in fieight to protect tfie significance. tial and connncrcial uses, and would significantly aher vicxvcorridor of the mountains for motoris~ tn~veling north. The existing and t~lture viexv corridors. This is a potentially City Planning Department shall ensure that this condition is significant iml)act. applied prior to approval of the proposed General Plan 2/B/gS(R:\CRG730~FI{IR\TABLEI_I .FNL) 1-14 Issues/Inlpacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Signil~cance ;4.6 Aesthetics/Visnal (Continued) 4.6.1B. Noise walls along future Day Creek llou[evard shall be no more than eight feet tall to avoid a sense of "visual enclosure' for this Scenic Corridor, and shoukl be set back an adequate distance to afiow landscaping on the road side of the sound wall. This requtren~ent shall be attached as a condition of approval by die City Planning Department prior to approval of any development bordering illlure Day Creek Boulevard. 4.6.1C. The Ci{y Planning Department sha[I anlend the Commu- nity Design Criteria Part It of the Victoria Com~nuoity Plan .at time of filin~ tentative map or minor sulxfivision plat for its "reconl- mended edge conditions" for future Day Creek Boulevard to show a similar landscape and setback treatn~ent on both the east anti west sides of Day Creek Boulevard. While a row of palm trees is now recommended for tile west side of Day Creek Boulevard, dlis proposed landscaping shall be enhanced by short and tall drought-tolerant shrubs adjacent to sound walls to. reduce the ~ visual inqmcts of sucb walls. 4.6.1D. Lanclscape requiren~ents sha[[ Ix: established for the far Y-~ sotltherll end of the project site to screen new development frofin ·/' tile view of motorists along 1-15 looking north. Ilowever. this landscaping shou[d also allow views ilorth towards the moun- tains, using Ibe view corridor provided by the future Day Creek Boulevard. The City Planning Department sha[I address such hndscaping as a condit ion of approval for any developntent in the areaoff-15. Impact 4.6.2. New light and glare would be created by the [4.6 2. 'l~e Design Rev ew process for commercia estab s iments Mitigated to below a level of hall addition of residences and commercial estab[ishments in an s ensure that no s~gnificant fight or glare impacts shall resuh significance. area previously proposed as a utility corridor. The most from the proposed project. Specific issues to be eva[uated at the significant glare would be generated by commercial uses at time of design review shall include the following: proposed the soudlern end ofthe pr~ject site, especta[ly in assoclation exterior lighting and landscaping of parking areas to reduce with outdoor parking d~at maybe lit at night and that wou[d visible lighting from outside these areas; use of shielding oil be visible from roadways such as the future Day Creek exterior fights to focus light onto the ground; and, proposed Boulevard and FootbiB Boulevard, as well as minor roads to architectural materials to ensure that reflective materials are the east of the project site such as Victoria Loop, Church minimized. Street. and Day Creek Boulevard East. 2zB/98(R:\CRG730%FEIR\TABLE I_1 FNL) 1 - 15 Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.6 Aesthetics/Visual (Continued) Inq~act 4.6.3. The project coukl conflict with policies of 4.6.3A. Provisions shall he made to account for protection of Mitigated to below a level of the City's General Plan Community Design F. lement and viewsheds anti plant palette plans shown in tile Victoria Commu- s~gnificance. bndscape reconuncndations fountl in the Victoria Comnlu- ntty Plan for major intersections along future Day Creek Boule- nity Plan. This is a potentially significant impact. yard. Such I~rovisions may include the following: building setbacks within the project site; varied aflowahle heights with lower heights nearest the interchanges; clustering of huildings; anti, landscaping to complement the viewshed. These issues shall be addressed by the City Pbnnlng Department as recommenda- lions for the Design Review process at the time of developing conditions of approval for any projects within the proposed project corridor. 4.6.3B. To reduce potential conflicts with policies of the City's : Con~rnunity Design Element; recommended mitigation measures forrod under 4.6.1 shall also be implememed. 4.6.3C. The Conlmunity Design Criteria Part II of the Victoria Community Plan shall be amended immediately following project approval to address new uses proposed as part of the project. I lowever, .'LS part of this amendment, some requirements shall be included to reduce visual impacts of new development hy inclusion of landscaping near major roads that nlatches that proposed b'y ihe Vtctoila'Cotiinquni6, 'plah. For ~xaml~le. trees ...... shall be planted along the site's property lines and along road- ways to screen new development from view. Wilhin the site and adjacent to major east-west corridors, the City shall designate areas for landscaping, ensuring that land adjacent to the roads is ~lanled with low-growing vegetation to maintain a degree of visual open space on the project site. 4.7 Biological Resources lmpact 4.7.1. The proposed project would replace 84.15 4.7.1. Not considered to be significant and no mitigation is Not considered to be significant aml acres of undeveloped land with residential and commercial required. no mitigation is required. uses resulting in the loss of 47.35 acres of coastal sage scn~b, 25.22 acres of abandoned vineyard, and I 1.59 acres ofnKleral habitat. These impacts are not considered to be significant and no mitigation is required. Z/B/98(R:\CRG7~0~FEIR\TABLEI_I.FNL) l - I 6 I~A Associates, Ittc. lssues/In~pacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance 4.6 Biological Resources (Continued) hnpact 4.7.2. Construction of the proposed project site 4.7.2 Not considered to be significant and no mitigation is Not considered Io be significant and would result in the loss of San Bernardino Merrlanl's required. no mitigation is required. kangaroo rat habitat. The loss of the habitat is considered In~pact 4.7.3. The coastal sage scrub present on tile site 4.7.3. Not considered to be significant and no mitigation is Not considered to be significant and may constitute potential (but unocct~pied) habilat for tile required. no mitigation is required. California gnatcatcher. The loss of potentia[ habitat is Eonsidered adverse but is not a significant impact. 4.8 Cultural Resources hnpact 4.8.1. 'llle polential for historic hun~an burials may 4.8.1. In conjunction with the submiaal of app[ications for rough Mitigated to below a level of be present in the portion of the project area that contains grading pernfits, the applicant shall provide written evidence to significance. Site P 1084-271 I. This is a potenliaHy significant inlpact. the Community Deve[opnlent Departnlent dmt an archaeologist, listed on tl~e County of San Bernardino list of qualified archeologists, has been retained and will be present on site during all rough grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. The archeologist shall meet with the Community such activities. 2/8/98(R:\CRG730~FEIR\TABLEl_I .FNL) 1-17 EIR for GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 ' COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS EXHIBIT "E" E ~7 IJA Associates. Inc. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR The comments on the Draft EnvLronmenta~' Impact Report CEIR) and individual responses to each are included in this section. The primary objective and purpose of the EIR public review process ',is to obtain comments on the ade- quacy of the analysis of environmental impacts, the mitigation measures pre- sented, and other analyses contained in the report. The California Environ- mental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that ~the City respond to all signLg~ant environmental comments in a level of detail commensurate to the comment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088). Comments that do not directly relate to the analysis in this document (i.e., are outside the scope of this document) are not given specific responses. However, all comments are incAuded in this section so that the decision makers know the opinions of the commentors. In the process of responding to the comments, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised or deleted, and in some instances new material has been added. However, none of the changes to the Draft EIR are considered to be significant new information (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 [a]). Comment letters are arranged by date of receipt by the City. Aside from the courtesy statements, introductions, and closings, the text of each letter has been divided into individual comments. Brackets and identification numbers in the fight margin of each letter delineate each comment. FoBowing each letter is a page(s) of responses associated with each letter. Each response is preceded by a number which corresponds to the comment identified on the original letter. LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING ON 27HE DRAFT EIR. The persons, orgamzations, and public agencies that have submitted comments on the Draft EIR through December 27, 1997 are listed below and responded to in this section. Letter A-5 from the Governor's Office of Planning and Re- seazch (OPR) did not require comment since its purpose was to inform the City that it has complied with the State EIR review requirements. There were no comments on the Draft EIR received from any individual. A-1 Chino Basin Municipal Water District Orick H. Robinson Senior Engineering Associate/Specialist A-2 Southern California Association of Governments J. David Stein Manager, Performance Assessment and Implementation A-3 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice Gall C. Kobetich Field Supervisor 2/6t98CR:\CRG730NFE~ESpTOCO.W'pD) A-4 County of San Bernardino Transportation/Flood Control Depart- merit Surveyor Gail Comgna Senior Associate Planner, Environmental M~magement Division A-5 Governor's Oj~ce of Planning and Researc, b Antero A. Riversplata Chief, State Clearinghouse A-6 CbaffeyJoint Union High Sc, bool District Susan B. SundeR, Ed.D Director, Business Services 2/6/98CR:\CRG750~FEiR~,ESpTOCO.~pD) 2 ( CHINO BASIN ~ ~A TEL (909) 357-0241 · F~ (909) 357-3884 C~/ef Executive ~icer General Manager December 18, 1997 DEO ~ 2 1992 City ~fl Ra?cn° Cuc annyng Divisio%monga Ms. Nancy Fong, AICP Ci~ of 'Rancho Cucamonga Plar;n~ng Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Subject: Dra~ Environmental Impact Repo~ (DEIR) General Plan Amendments 9~ 03B & 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendments 96-01 & 97- 01/Edison Company SCH NO. 97071043 for the City of Rancho Cucamonga' Dear Ms. Fong: Thank you for the opponuni~ to review and comment on the DEIR we received on November 19, 1997, for the proposed subject plan amendments. Chino Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) is a seaice prorider for the south-western portion of San Bernardino Coun~ which includes the Cities of Fontann, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Chino and Chino Hills. The District also provides seaice to a portion of the former Chino Agricultural Prese~e. Programs the District is involved in can be broken down into four prima~ seaice programs. These pro~rams include regional domestic wastewater treatment and disposal, non-reclaimable wastewater collection and disposal, importation of supplemental water supplies, and water resources management within the Chino Groundwater Basin. In reviewing the DEIR, it was noted in Section 2.5 (EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT) on page 2-8, the second paragraph, the second sentence, that the first -phase treatment capacity is incorrectly referenced at 28 million gallons per day (MGD) for Regional Plant No. 4 (RP-4). RP.4 first phase treatment capacity is 7 MGD. John L. Anderson George Borba Terry Catlin Anne Dunihue Wyatt L. Troxel P'es:~e'~t Vice President Secretary/Treasurer Director Director DEIR - 2 - December 18, 1997 General Plan Amendments 96-03B &97-01 & L Victoria Community Plan Amendments 96-01 & 97-01/ Edison CO. SCH NO. 97071043 City of Rancho Cucamonga The District has no further comments on your DEIR; however, we would appreciate it if you would keep us apprised as your project moves forward. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, Orick H. Robinson Senior Engineering Associate/Specialist OHR c: Gary E. Hackney Mark Kinsey RESPONSE TO l.~l.t~zR A-1 Cbino Basin Municipal Water District 1. Section 2.5, Effec~ Found Not to Be Significant, page 2-8, pazagraph 2, sentence 2 has been revised as follows: "RP4 is planned to be located o~ Etiwanda Avenue to the east r,f the project site between San Bemardino Avenue and Arrow Highway. Tais plant will have a first phase treatment capacity of -2-8 7 million gallons per day. Either of these facilities could serve the project site dependent on project phasing; however, 1L-1 would be the most likely treatment facility." 2/6/98CR:\CRG730Xi-e~L~x~_F~FTOCO.WpD) 5 R~'OSI VED SOUTH£RN CALIFORNIA D~t,,~mb~r 17, 1997 DEC 2 2 1997 City ?f Rancho Cucarn .,~ ~. N~cy Fong, ~ Ci~ of ~cho Cu~onga, P~g ~on ~'~; ,ning Oiviszbn °nga ASSOaATmN of 1~ Ci~c C~ G O v E R N M E N T S ~cho Cu~on~a, CA 91 ?30 Faith ROW ~-~o ~mmo~ ~n~ ~ ~d Viao~ Comm~ SiS wes[ Seventh Stree~ ~ MS, LOS Ange[es, California ~ yOU for sub~g ~e ~ ~men~ ~ Re~ for ~e ~n ROW ~&o Curamo~ ~ ~ ~d Viao~ Co~,,n~ ~ ~enamB ~ SCAG for m~ew ~d ~t. As ~de : ~:~} :~s.,soo cl~ghou~ for ~o~y ~t pmj~m, SCAG p~. ~ a~h~ d~ ~mm~m ~ m~t m pm~de g~ for ~n~de~g hve ~y quadons ~g ~e a~h~ mmm~, pl~ rantact B~ ~yd at .... ' ...............~"'(213) 23~19~ ...... ~ ................................S~mly, ~, P~o~ Amm~t ~d ~plemen~on ~ .......:.,,,. .... . ........ . .: -,: :.' -5..: COMMEN'I"S ON TITE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EDISON RIGliT-.OFrWAY GENERAL PLAN AND VICTORIA COMMI~H'Y PLAN AMENDNIENTS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The linear project rite is approximately 330 feet in width and is 10,756 feet long and contains multiple parcedts. The g4.15-acre site is located east of the Day Creek Channel and the proposed alignment of Day Creek Boulevard and extends from the;I-15 Freeway north to Highland Avenue in the City of Rancho Cu~unonga. The linear rite is undeveloped and was previously set aside for a Southevil c~liforrlia Edison (SCE) utility corridor. The rite is zoned Utility Corridor wig the Victoria Community Plan. SCE proposes to change the' Utility Corridor designation to Regional Related Commercial and Regional Center and High Residential, Medium High Residential, Medium Residential, Low-Medium Residential and Low Residential. The project has the potential to add 739 dwelling units and over 300,000 .square feet of commercial use. The is no development proposed for the site at this time. [NTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS The document that provides the primary refenmce for SCAG's project review activity is the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide CRCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into three categories: core, ancillary, and bridge. The Growth Management (adopted June 1994), Regional Mobility (adopted June 1994), Air Q~mlity (adopted October 1995)i lqa:'nrdous Waste M2nagement (adopted November 1994), and Water Qa,~lity (adopted January 1995) chapters constitute the core chapters. These core chapters respond directly to federal and state planning requirements. The core chapters constitute the base on which local governments ensure consistency of their plans with applicable regional plans under CF_QA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain both core and ancillary policies, which are differentiated in the comment portion of this letmr. The Regional Mobility Element (RME) constitutes the mgion's Transportation Plan. The RME policies are incorporated into the RCPG. Ancillary chapters aI~ those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and Services, Finance, Open Space and Conservation, Water Resources, Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management. These chapters address important issues facing the regioh and may rdlect other regional plans. AnCillary chapters, however, do not contain actions or policies required of local govemment. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region. _ Bridge chapten include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG. Each of the applicable policies related to the proposed project a_re identified by number and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the project with those policies. Consistency With Re2ional Comnrehensive Plan and Guide Policies 1. The Growth Marm~,ement Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policies that are particularly applicable to the ~:rtison ROW Project a. Core Growth Management Policies 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, inich are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and potides, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. ~mments. As SCAG has designated subregions, the proj~t is situated in the San Bemardino Associated Governments subregion. The Draft EIR on page 4.3-19 acknowledges that the residential development under the proposed plan xevisions will result 1 in an increase of 2,225 people and that this increase is consistent with the City's General Plan and the South Coast AQMP growth projections that incorporate regional forecasts prepared by SCAG. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 3. 03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. SCAG ~mff comments: The Drdl EIR acknowledges that no specific proposals are "'l presented in the document governing the timing, financing and location of public facilities (police, fire, emergency, schools and parks), utility systems (water, sewer, storm dxain,ge, 2 energy and solid waste) and transl~rtafion systems. We axe unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. b. Andllary Growth Management Policies 3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions' efforts to achieve a b~lance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. SCAG staff comments. No information is presented in the Draft EIR on the City of "] Rancho Cucamonga's efforts to achieve a balance t>etween types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. We are unable to dett:u~dne whether the Project is supportive of this 3 ancillary RCPG policy. 3. 05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing faciliaes. SCAG slm~f comments. The Draft FIR notes that Project would encourage development of "l areas adjacent to presently served developments and would reduce the cost of infrastructure 4 construction The Project is supportive of this ancill=ry RCi:>(3 policy. 3.07 Suppor~ subregiond policies that recognize agriculmre as an indastry, suppozT the economic viabiliry of agricultural acriviaes, preserve agricultural land, and provide compensation for A-2 property owners ho~'ng lands in greenbelt areas. ~ ~: No information is p~ted in the Draft FIR on whether any of the project sire is locamd on prime agricultm'al land. IWe are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this alldllary RC"PG pOliCy:. 3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic -~ajity of the subregion, including the development and de of marketing programs, ana other economic incentives, which support attainment of sUbregiond goals and policies. $CAQ staff commenLs. No information is presented in the Draft ~ on local or subregional plans for the Project area that present an economic strategy to maintain the economic vitality of the subregion. We are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minirrdze the cost of infrastruaure and public service ddivery, and efforts to seek new sourcez of fundihg for development and the provision of services. $CAG staff comments. The Project will result in providing land that wilt minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery. The Project is supportive of this allCillnry RCPG policy. 3. 11 Support provisions and incemives created by locaJ jurisdiction3 to attract housing growth in job rich subregions and job growth in housing subregions. SCAG stuff comments.. No information is p~ted in the I)m.ft EIR on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's efforts to achieve a balance between housing and job growth, although the Pn~ject area would appear to have a near equal amount of land planned and zoned for housing and job producing activities. We an: unable to determine whether the l:~oject is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policyL 3.]2 Encourage exisang or proposffl local jurisdictions, programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus redut-e' the need for roadway cpartsion, reduce the ramzber of auto trips and vehicle miles travelcall and creaze oppornzrdties for residents to walk and bik~. ~CAG staff comments. Air qtmlity mitigation measure 4.3.4B encourages the use of TDM measu.ms in the design of commercial land uses. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.14 Support local plans to increase ~density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit ~stems, and activity centers. 3.15 Support locaI jurisdictions' to :establish mixed-uJe clusters and other transit-oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. E F,,. 3.16 Encourage developments in and around acaviry centers, transportation node corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redeveloRmen~. A taft mm n . The Draft EIR mfemmces the potential for mixed land uses along the Edison corridor, including ;,~"-~ which am supportive of public transit. The project is 10 also a good example of the development of areas needing recycling and redev.-~ooment. The Project is supportive of these three ancillary RCPG policies. 3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental A mm n The Draft EIR addr~'--s efforts to minimize and mitigate against == adverse environmental impacts regarding drainage, traffic, air quality, noise, public 11 services, aesthetic/visual, biological and cultural resources. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.19 Support policies and actions that preserve open space areas identified in local, state, and federal plans. $CAG staff comments. The Draft hLR acknowledges that the project area is identified as Utility Corridor/open space on existing local plans. Alternative 2 (Open Space Park Greenbelt and Trails System Alternative) is a logical alternative given the configuration and ~i7~ of the project. This alternative is acknowledged as being environmentally superior to 12 the proposed Project and should be given flue consideration by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Project is not supportive of this ancill~ry RCPG policy. If Alternative 2 is chosen, the Project would be supportive of this RCPG policy. 3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lards, and land containing unique and endangered plants and $CAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges that development of the project will contribute to the on-going loss of coastal sage scrub tmbitat in the re..gion, including habitat for various sensitive species including the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat and the 13 C~tiforllia gnatcatcher. No mitigation measures are proposed, although the Draft FIR acknowledges the potential for participation in the San Bernardino Valley Multi-species Habitat Conservation Plan. The Project is not supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. _ 3.22 Encourage the implementation of measures airnexl at the preservation and protection of recordexl and unrecorded cultural re. sources and archaeological sites. $CAG St. aft comments. The Draft F_.I2R acknowledges that no archeological sites have been identified on the project area and proposes mitigation measuxes should sites be determined 14 during the development process. The Project is supportive of this ancillnry RCPG policy. 3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of speciai design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, highfire, flood, and seismic hazards. ~ The Dmt:t EIR includes a complete drainage study of the area and concludes that no adverse impacts axe anticipated. The Project is supportive of this 15 ancillary RCPG policy. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations. measures turned at preservation of biological and ecologicaI resourceS, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake danrage, and to develop emergency response and recovery plans. A stuff mm n . The Draft EIR include~ n~figation measures for the identified environmental impacts. The Project is supportive of tl~s an611ary RCPG policy. 3.24 Encourage efforts of h~xtl jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provid~ affordable housing as evaiuated in the Regionai Housing Needs Assessment. A ~ commen The Project axea in the Draft F_dR has not been as.sessed as to its ~_ impact on incr~ng the supply and quantity of housing and proviciing affordable housing. We a~ re-,able to determine whether the Project id' supportive of th~s an611ary RCPG policy. 3.27 Support locai jurisd~ctions and other service prov~ders in their efforts to develop sustainable commuraties and provide, equally to ail members ~f society, accessible and effective services such as.' pubZic ed~tuion, housing, heaizh care, social services, recreational facilin'es, law enforcement, and fire protection. SCAG s~'f comments. The Draft F_XR in Chapter 4.5 (Public Services) appropriately ~ddresses the provision of n~,~ry facilities and services. The Project is supportive of th~s ancillary RCPG policy. 2. The Regional Mobi~tv Cha~ter CRMC) also ~ policies, all of w~ch are core, that pertain to the proposed project. This chapter links the goal of sustah~g mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, e~'mncing the environment, reducing energy consumption. promoting uansportafion-ffiendly development patterns, and encouraging fah' and equ~ble access to residents affected by socio-econonfic,'geogmphic and commercial lin'fitations. Among the relevant policies in t~s chapter are the following: Tmn_sportation Demand Mana.~ement and Re~iom~ Trimsit Pro~'c'am Policies 4.01 Promote Transportation Demand Management programs along with transit and rideshoring facilities as a viable and desirable part of the overal! program while recogrdzing the pardctdar needs of individual subregions. 4.03 Suppor~ the extension of TDM program implemenxadon to non-cornmu~e trips for public and A-2 private seaor a~vin'e.s. 4. 04 Support the coordination of land use and transportation decisions with land use and transporta~on capacity, taking into accoun~ the potenaal for demand management strategies to mitigate travel demand if provided for as a part of the entire padcage. 4.06 Supporl effort~ to edacate the public on the efficacy of demand management strc-'°~ies and increase the use of alternative transportatlor~ 4. 07 Public transportation programs shotdd be considered an essentiai public service because of their socid, economic, and environmental benefits. A taft mmen. See stuff comment on SCAG policy 3.12. The Project is consistent 19 with these five RCPG polici~. Re~onzd Streets and Hi~,hways Pro_oram Policies 4. 20 Expanded tra. nsportazion system management by local jurisdictions will be encouraged. 4.23 TSM activities throughout the region shaJl be coordinated among jurisdictions. A mff mm n The Draft EIR acknowledges that traffic impacts frDm the project 20 need to be mitigated and proposes mitigation measures 4.2.1A and B and 4.2.2 to address these impacts. The Project is consistent with these two RCPG policies. Re~on~j NOn-Motorized TransDormlion Prom Policies 4.25 The development of the regionai transportation system should include a non-motorizd transportation system that provides an effective altern~ve to auto travel for approp~qate trips. The planning and developmere of rransporta~on projeczs and systems should incorporate the following, as appropriate: a o Provision of safe, convenient, and com~nuous bicycle and pedestrian infrastruczure to and throughout areas with exisang and potentia2 demand such as activity areas, schools, recreational areas (including those areas served by tra~ls), which will ujriraateiy offer the same or better accessibility provided to the motorized vehicle. b o Accessibility to and on transit (bus terminals, rail stations, Park-And-Ride lots), where there is deraand and where transit boarding time will not be significantly delayed. c o Maintenance of safe, conveniem, and cominuous non-motorized travel during and after the construedon of transportation and gencrd development projects. Eristing bikeways and pedestrian walkways should not be removed without mitigation that is as effective as the original facility. 4.27 Urban form, land use and site-design policies s.houjd include requirements for safe and converaent non-motorized transporta~on, including the development of bicycle and pedestrian-frienddy environments near transit. A ruff mments. The Draft EIZR addresses 'the provision of t:mit linkages along the east side of Day Creek Boulevard in Public Sen/ices mitigation measure 4.5.?tDC. he 21 Project is consistent with these two RCPG policies. 3. The Air OualiW_ ChaDmr (AOC) core actions that axe generally applicable to project are as follows: 5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needd (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of communizy based shutde services, provision of demand management based prograras~ or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees} so that opdons to command and control reg~dmions can be assessed. A mm No information is presented in the application on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's efforts to address the various new technology and transportation demand management strategies referencecl in this policy in the Project area and surrounding 22 vicinity, with the exception of general 'I DM measttres ref=~tced under SCAG policy 3.12. We are unable to dexermine whether the Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. 5.11 Through the environmemai document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air basin, coumy, subregional and locai) consider air q~,,71ity, land use, transportation and economic relationstu~s to ~nsure consistency and minimize cortflic~s. A ruff mm n The Draft I=.IR acknowledge that the Project incorporates regional growth forecasts into the Wansportation and air quality modeling for the Project area and '23 surrounding environs. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. II 4. The Water Ouality Chapter (WOC) core recommendations and policy options relate to the two water q, mllty goals: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water; and, to achieve and maintain wamr quality objectives that are ner~'_~ry to protect all beneficial uses of all waters. The core n-~commenchtlons and policy options that are particularly applicable to the project include the followhg: 11.02 Encourage 'watershedmanagement'programs and strategies, recognizing the primary role of local governments in such efforts. A taft mmen The application references a number of "watershed management" ~hategies that have been incorporated in the Pmjec.t. The Project is consistent with this core 24 RCPG policy. I1.07 Encourage w~uer reckanation throughoat the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current admini. srra~ve imped~mens to increased use of wastewa~er should be addressed. ~2A2~ The Project fails to addresses the use of reclaimed water within the project area or surrounding environs. We axe unable to det=xmine whether the Project is 25 consistent with this RCPG policy. J 11.08 Ersure wastewater treatm eN agency facility planning and facility development be ,onsistent with population projections contained in the RCPG, while taking into account the need to build wastewater treatment facilities in cost-effeaive increraenzs of capacity, the ned to build well enough in advance to reliably meet unanzicipazed service and storm water demands, and the ned to provide standby capacity for public safety .and environmental protection objectives. ~l $CAG staff comments. The l:~ject fails to atldres.ses the adequacy of wastewater facility planning and the use of RCPG growth forecasts within the project area or surrounCting 26 environs. We are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. ,_J AI Conclusions and Recommendations: (1) As noted in the smf'f comments, the proposed Pm3ect is consistent w~th or suFports a number of the corn and ancillnry policies in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. 2'7 The application lacks sufficient information to ~as,sess the environmental impacts and consistency with many of the noted regional plan policies. ][ (2) All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in accordance with AB 3180 requirements. 28 SOI. Tri:~,RN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMY_NTS Roles and Authorities 'IHE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS is a Joint Power~ Agency establishe~l under Califomin Government Code Section 6502 ~ se~. Under fe~teral and state law, the Association is design-t,,4 as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Pl---i-g Agency CR~.'-~,'~. and a Metropolitan p~anning Ol'gan½7aliOn 0VIPO). Among its other ~.s~ndatecl roles and responsibilities, the Association is: · Designattxl by the foderal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Orgavi~_at~an and -~,~dated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §134(.g)-(h), 49 U.S.C. §1607(t)-(.g) et seq., 23 C.F.R. ~450, and 49 C.F.R. c:3613. The ~iation is also the designauxt Regional Tr~nspor~tion Planning Agency, and a.s such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Tnmsportation Plan CRTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program CRTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080. · Responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Q,,nli~y Management Plan, pursuant l~ California Health and Safety Code Section 40460C0)-(c). The Association is also designated under 42 U.5.C. §7504(a) ~s a Co-Lead Agency for sir quality p|m,~,~ing for the Central Cos. st and Southeast Desert Air Basin District. · Responsible under the Fe~deral Clean Air Act for deter~b~i,~g Conforntlsy of Projects, Plans and prog~n~ tO the State Implementation Plan, pursuant tO 42 U.S.C. §7506. · Responsible, pursuant tO CAlifornia Govern.meat Code Section 65089.2, for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. The Association must also evaluate the consistency and compatibiJity of such progn-~ within the region. · The authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of programs proposed for foderal financial assistmace and direct development activities, puxsuant tO hidenlial Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A-95 Review). · Responsible for reviewing, pursuant to Sections 15125C0) and 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistsaucy with r~g~onal plans. · The authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency, pursuant tO 33 U.S.C. §1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) · Responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). · Responsible (along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Axea planning Council) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant tO C. al~fomia Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3. RESPONSE TO 12-11~.R A-2 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 1. Comment noted. 2. As noted by SCAG, the timing and location of public facilities is not possible at this time because there is no development proposaI Dro- posed. At the time a development proposal is processed for the project site, the timing, financing, and location of public facilities will be deter- mined. The Traffic Report was prepared to meet the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) .requirements under the Congestion Management Plan. This report includes fair share costs for roadway improvements that is in compliance with regional plans and polices of SCAG. The Traffic Study has been accepted by SANBAG. 3- The City's General Plan Housing Element Policy 6:1 promotes efforts to provide 30 percent of the persons employed in the City with housing opportunities. Program 6.A. 1 encourages the location of new business and industry in the City through promotional activities and through removal of governmental constraints on development. The proposed general plan amendments provide ~n opportunity for a variety of hous- ing types to be constructed in close proximity to a regional commercial axes. Also refer to response to Co,mment A-2.6 that discusses the eco- nomic viability of a proposed project in an EIR. 4. Comment noted. 5. The project site is not located on prime agricultural land. Please refer to Appendix A Notice of Prepaxation, pages 9 and 10 of the two Initial Studies for the proposed project The Initial Study states... "the project site is located in an open space corridor designated for use as an electri- cal transmission line corridor. The site is not presently used for agricul- tural purposes..." The purpose of the Initial Study is to determine whether a proposed project would have potentially significant physical effects on the environment. The Initial Study is used to focus the EIR on the potential significant effects and allows the Lead Agency to avoid unnecessary analysis on those effects that are not potentially significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[c][3]). The City has focused the EIR on those impacts that were determined in the Initial Study, to be poten- tially significant. Section 2.4 on page 2-2 in the Draft EIR identifies the potentially significant impacts of the proposed project discussed in the EIR. Effects found not to be significant, as determined in the Initial Study are identified in Section 2.5 on page 2-5 of the Draft EIR. Geol- · - ogy and soils were determined to not have a potentially significant effect on or from the proposed p.roject; therefore, the analysis of the proposed project on agricultural Soils was not carried forward in the : Ell[ 6. This policy is not. appropriate at a project specific level. The proposed project is providing the opportunity for the development of residential 2/6.~)S(R:\CRG730XFt~i~XRESpTOCO,WpD) ~ ~'~ .~ 17 and commercial land uses. The general plan amendments also provide for regional commercial development. The land use amendments would have a positive effect on the economic viability of the City; how- ever, a fiscal analysis for the proposed amendments has not been pre- pared, or is necessary for the ErR. CEQA GuideLines Section 15064(0 states ..."economic and social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. Economic or social changes may be used, however, to determine that a physical c3ange shall be regarded as a significant effect on the environment...." 'i ne economic viabiLity of a project is not a purview of the EIR and therefore, was not addressed. 7. Comment noted. 8. The City's General Plan Housing Element Policy 6:1 promotes efforts to provide 30 percent of the persons employed in the City with housing opportunites. Program 6.A. 1 encourages the location of new business and industry in the City through promotional activities and through removal of governmental constraints on development. The proposed general plan amendments provide an opportunity for a variety of hous- ing types to be constructed in close proximity to a regional commercial area. Mitigation measure 4.5.2(2) further facilitate the relationship between housing and commercial (job) centers by providing trail sys- tems that link the two. It can not be expected that each project that is processed through a local jurisdiction can provide both an equal mount of jobs and housing to meet the jurisdiction's jobs/housing balance. This is a policy that is better implemented at the General Plan level. 9. Comment noted. 10. Comment noted. 11. Comment noted. 12. Comment noted. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(4), the EIR shall identify the environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives. The Lead Agency also must discuss why an alternative has been eliminated as not feasible. The Draft EIR on page 6-14 dis- cusses why this alternative is not feasible. There are economic impacts to the City with the implementation of Alternative 2 Open Space Park Greenbelt Trails System Alternative. If the site is to be converted to a open space/trails system, the City would have to 1) purchase the prop- erry, 2) construct the trail system, and 3) provide long-term mainte- nance of a trail system on the 84.15-acre site. The cost to purchase the property, and construct and maintain the trails may cause an additional financial burden on the City residents depending on how the City chooses to provide funding. In light of Proposition 218, additional use taxes would have to go to City wide vote. Long-term funding for a City trail system on this site is not certain. 2/6/98('R:\CRG730x,FEIRXltF~l'TOCO,WPD) Li4Associates. lnc. 13. It is the conclusion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that, due to the poor quality of coastal sage scrub{ habitat on the site, the project will not result in significant impacts to ,his habitat type. In addition, due to the poor quality of habitat and th.e distance and fragmentation of the site from the North Etiwanda Preserve and surrounding buffer lands, it is the conclusion of the City of P, ar/cho Cucamonga that the project has no impact on the viabiLity of biological resources and will not preclude long-term preservation planning. Therefore, it is concluded that mitiga- tion measures are not wazranted for the loss of coastal sage scrub from the site. Also refer to response to U.S. Fish and WEldlife Service Letter A- 3, responses 1, 2, and 3- 14. Comment noted. 15. Comment noted. 16. Comment noted. 17. The project's consistency with SCAG policy 3.24 is not appropriate at the project specific level. The City,of Pancho Cucamonga General Plan Housing Element contains the appropriate housing policies. The provi- sion for providing affordable housi~g is addressed in the City's Housing Element. The proposed project is ,a general plan amendment to a vari- ety of housing densities and regiorial commercial uses in an area that is designated as a utility corridor. Since the City is not approving a devel- opment proposal for this area at this time, the provision for affordable housing is premature. Please refer to the City's General Plan Housing Element and the City's Development Code which encourage a wide range of housing types, including single and multi-family, rental and ownership. The provision for affordable housing is being implemented by the City's Redevelopment Agency which has an adopted Housing Production Plan. At such time as a development proposed is submitted to the City for review and approval,,the provision for affordable housing could be pursued with the developer. 18. Comment noted. 19. Comment noted. 20. Comment noted. 21. Comment noted. 22. This policy is best served at the City General Plan level and not a project specific level. However, the EIR, has identified mitigation measures under Air Quality, Section 4.3 tha¢ implement programs supported by the City to reduce air quality impacts of the proposed project. Please refer to mitigation measure 4.3.1B', 4.3.1E, and 4.3.4B in the Draft EIR. The following two mitigation measures have been added to the Final EIR under Section 4.3, Air Quality~to further reduce the impacts of the proposed project on air quality. ~/6,ssCa:\c~7~0~m,Esrroco.x~D~ ~: q.,/O ~9 "4.3.4C. The project proponent shall determine with the City and the electrical purveyor if it is feasible to pre-wire houses for electrical charges for EV cars and/or optic fibers for home offices. If feasible, install EV charges and/or optic-fibers per the electrical purveyor's direc- tion prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4.3.4.D. Install EV charges or electrical fuel stations/natural gas for community wide use at key commercial and public location(s) st. ,rd3 as park and ride lots, Metrolink Station, and commercial centers. ' 23. Comment noted. 24. Comment noted. 25. Refer to response to Comment A-2.5 and A-2.25 for the discussion on the use of the Initial Study to focus the EIR and determine which im- pacts of the proposed project are potentially significant. Both Initial Studies determined that the proposed project would not have a signifi- cant impact on water supply and, therefore, the impact analysis for water use was not carried further in the EIR. Section 2.5 on page 2-7, discusses the project's impacts on water. At the time development is proposed, the developer would comply with all the conditions of ap- proval by the water purveyor which may include the use of reclaimed water for landscaping purposes. 26. The proposed project is not proposing a wastewater treatment plant. This policy refers to the planning of facilities by wastewater treatment agencies. However, to clarify the comment, the Initinl Study prepaxed for the proposed general plan amendments (contained in Appendix A of the Draft EIR,) and circulated with the Notice of Preparation for an EIR on the proposed project, discusses the project impacts on the wastewater system which v~as determined to be not significant. Because the project's impacts on wastewater facilities was determined not to be significant, the impact analysis of the proposed project on wastewater was not carried forward in the EIR (refer to the discussion on the pur- pose of the Initial Study in response to comment A-2.5 above). Furthermore, effects found not to be significant, as determined in the Initial Study, are identified in Section 2.5 on page 2-5 of the Draft EItL Page 2-8 of the Draft EFR states...'~fhe closest of these is Regional Plant 1 (RP-1) in the City of Ontario. This facility curren~y treats approximately 34 million gallons per day, but has a capacity to treat 44 million gallons per day upon final expansion of the facility. CBMwD is also in the process of building Regional Plant 4 (RP-4) which is anticipated to be operational in 1998 or 1999. RP-4 is planned to be located on Etiwanda Avenue to the east of the project site between San Bernardino Avenue and Arrow Highway. This plant will have a farst phase treatment capac- ity of 7 million gallons per day. Either of these facilities could serve the project site dependent on project phasing; however, RP-1 would be the most likely treatment facility." Also refer to Comment Letter A-1 from the Chino Basin Municipal Water District which is the agency, that would service this site. 27. Comment noted. SCAG staff has identified various polices of the Re- gional Comprehensive Plan and Gtiide for which the proposed project is not consistent. Refer to response~to comments A-2.1, -2, -3, - 5, -6, -8, -12, -13, -17, -22, :25, and -26. 28. In accordance with AB 3180, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan is providea m Appendix K of the Final EI1L 2/6tgBCR:\CRG730NFEIRW, ESPTOCO.WPD) A-3 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Ser.'ices "'~ .. L. "' Cadsbad Field Office 2730 Loker Avenue West Carlsbad, California 92008 DEC 3 1997 ,'e^ Ms. N~cy Fong 7~07~ CiW ofR~cho Cuc~onga, Pl~ng Division C C 10500 Civic Center D~ve, P.O. Box 807 R~cho Cucmonga, Califo~a 91729 ~/~%~%h~z~c~o Re: Enviromental Impact Report General PI~ ~endments 96-03B & 97-01 ~d Victoria Co~W Pi~ ~endments 96-01 & 97-01~dison Comply (SCH~ 97071043) De~ Ms. Fong: ~e U.S. Fish ~d Wildlife Semite (Sewice) h~ reviewed ~e above referenced docment, received by oa office on November 17, 1997. We provide ~e follo~ng co~enB in accord~ce ~ ~e End~gered Species Act of 1973 (~ mended), ~e Fish ~d Wildlife Coordination Act, ~d the Memorydin of Undersmding for ~e P~ose of Developing ~d Implementing a Habitat Consedation Pi~ to Consere Wildlife ~d Pl~t Species of Concern in the S~ Bem~dino Valley. The Se~ice finds ~at the ultimate development allowed by ~e proposed project is likely to have signi~c~t impac~ to biological reso~ces. We, therefore, reco~end mitigation measles to offset ~e impacts to biological reso~ces ~d reduce biological impacts to a level below signi~c~ce. The proposed project is to rezone ~ 84.15 acre line~ set of p~cels from a designation of utiliW comdor to v~ous Co~ercial ~d Residential designations. ~e proposed project ~ea is a noah-south oriented strip approximately 330 feet ~de by 10,756 feet long, ~ing p~allel to the Day Creek ch~el be~een Hig~d Avenue ~d Interstate 15. The ~ea is on ~e alluvial f~ complex foxed by Day Creek ~d a umber of o~er stre~s that flow ~om ~e S~ Bem~dino National Forest, although ~e ch~eli~tion of Day Creek along the proposed project area h~ altered ~e active hydrology Wpical of alluvial f~ fo~ations. te biological resources on site include t~ee patches of sage scrub totaling about 50 acres, ab~doned viney~ds, ~d mder~ habitat. ~he sage scrub ~in the proposed project ~ea was historically ~versidean alluvial f~ sage scrub (AFS), a habitat Wpe designated by ~e State of Califomia as S 1.1 (most sensitive). 1 Habitat disturb~ce and hydrological modifications have led to a sage scrub communiW that resembles the more generalized ~versidean sage scrub. However, ~oristic elements of AFS, ' Ms. Nancy Fong - such as scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), remain as components of the sage scrub habitat in the proposed project area. The habitat is likely siaitable for both coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica; gnatcatcher) and San Bernardino kangaroo Rat (Dypodomys merriamiparvus; SBKR), although neither were detected during recent surveys for this project. In 1994, SBKR was detected near the project area, and gnatcatchers were ob~'~rved within the North Etiwanda Preserve approximately one mil.e to the north. Contiguous suitable habitat-existsJ~e.ny_een the locations of these sightings and the proposed project area. Although the proposed rezoning would not directly :remove these biological resources, it is presumed that the development allowed by this rezoning would remove a!l of the biological resources within the project area. No mitigation is offered to offset these impacts to biological resources. The City ofRancho Cucamonga, the County of San Bernardino, and 11 other local jurisdictions have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to cooperate in the development of a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan for the San Bernardino Valley (MSHCP). One of the keystones of the preserve design anticipated under the MSHCP is the North Etiwanda Preserve, a 762 acre area of diverse AFS and other sensitive habitats. ,This preserve is nested within a larger area of sensitive habitat, much of which must be conserved to maintain biological viabitity in perpetuity, and to assure the long term protection of species proposed to be covered under the MSHCP. The proposed project area is a contiguous south~yard extension of this key habitat area. Eventual build-out of the proposed project area, and other projects with cumulative impacts to regional habitat values, must be considered significant, and mitigated and implemented so as to assure the viability of the preserve system. The MOU establishes interim review guidelines for projects proceeding while the MSHCP is under development. The draft EIR recommends that early project review pursuant to the interim project review guidelines be held at the stage of development proposals. The Service, however, maintains that this rezoning provides a good opportunity t4 begin proactive planning for the development allowed by this change in designation. ApprOpriate mitigation for the indirect and cumulative impacts of the rezoning, that also addresses the direct impacts by the subsequent development of the project area can be achieved by mitigat. ion banking. Alternatively, a deed restriction could be placed on appropriate biologically sensitive lands supporting AFS habitat. The Service recommends that the Edison Company establish a mitigation bank, by conserving an area contiguous with the North Etiwanda,Preserve, into which subsequent developments would be required to buy their fair share. At minimum, this bank. should be sized and configured to allow adequate opportunity for mitigating impacts to the proposed project area. Additional bank lands could serve to provide mitigation opportunities for other projects in the region. This banking process could be structured so as to transition seamlessly into the MSHCP during the implementation phase. An appropriate mitigation bank or 'deed restriction should be described and cornmined to in the Final EIR for the proposed project. " Ms. Nancy Fong 3 The Service looks forward to further discussing possible land configurations and details of the mitigation measures. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Scon Eliason of my staff at (760) 431-9440. Sincerely, Gail C. Kobetich Field Supervisor HC-1-6-98-88 cc: Bill Tippets, CDFG Glenn Black, CDFG Randy Scott, San Bemardino County Planning Kim Gould, Southern California Edison RESPONSE TO LI:JJ~.R A-3 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 1. _As is stated in the biological assessment and in the biological resources section of the ErR, the coastal sage scrub present on the site is probably remnant alluvial fan sage scrub. However, the coastal sage scrub is relatively poor in quality compared to this sort of habitat and s:"~.ilar alluvial scrub in the area. Vegetative diversity of the coastal sage scrub is low, it is dominated almost exclusively by a single species of shrub, California buckwheat. The entire site likely was once alluvial fan sage scrub that was cleared or impacted in some other way, such that only buckwheat, a species that readily colonizes disturbed sites, is nearly the sole species present. The quality of the remaining coastal sage scrub is further diminished by its fragmented distribution on the site. This habitat is present in three disjunCt patches occupying 4.2, 12.8, and 35.6 acres, respectively. Further,' the habitat is not contiguous with other coastal sage scrub in the region. Roadways, agricultural land uses, and developed areas separate the site from other areas of coastal sage scrub in the region that are located primarily to the north of the site. Although the coastal sage scrub on the site may be suitable habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat, neither species was detected on ti!e site during recent focused surveys for each species, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service noted. It was, therefore, concluded that both species are absent from the site. Due to the low quality of the remnant coastal sage scrub habitat and the absence of the coastal California gnatcatcher and San Bernardino kanga- roo rat, and any other species listed as threatened or endangered, it was conducted that the loss of coastal sage scrub from the site does not constitute a significant impact. This conclusion is based on the thresh- olds of significance listed in the EIR specifically, the project will not "substantially affect a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or the habitat of the species" nor will the project substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants. The EIR did conclude that the loss of coastal sage scrub from the site is a cumulative impact. 2. The North Etiwanda Preserve is approximately 2 miles from the north- ernmost end of the project site. Habitat may be contiguous in the area surrounding the preserve; however, it is not contiguous with the coastal sage scrub on the project site. Highland Avenue, a major east-west arterial roadway forms the northerly boundary of the project site and fragments the site from habitat that may be contiguous with the pre- serve. Habitat fragmentation is one of the factors discussed above (re- sponse to comment 1) and in the EIR providing a basis for the conclu- sion that project impacts to coastal sage scrub are not significant. Therefore, mitigation for the loss of coastal sage scrub is not required. 3. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOLT), signed by the City of Rancho Cucarnonga, to cooperate ih the development of a Multi-Species 2/6~gSCR:\CRG730~E~XP, ESPTOCO.WPD) ~' ~'2~ 25 Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the San Bernardino Valley does establish interim review guidelines for projects proceeding while the MSHCP is under development. The interim project review guidelines state that the recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are advisory; the final decision of whether to approve, mode', or deny a project remains in the hands of the lead agency (in this case, the City of Rancho Cucamonga) pursuant to extsting laws. The interim review guidelines state that each lead agency shall determine whether a p~ject shall be reviewed pursuant to the guidelines. Further, the lead ageh~-3' retains the discretion to determine that a project within the plan area, because of the project's characteristics, has no impact on the viability of biological resources and would not preclude long-term preservation planning. It is the conclusion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that, due to the poor quality of coastal sage scrub habitat on the site, the project will not result in significant impacts to this habitat type. In addition, due to the poor quality of habitat and the distance and fragmentation of the site from the North Etiwanda Preserve and surrounding buffer lands, it is the conclusion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the project has no impact on the viability of biological resources and will not preclude long-term preservation planning. Therefore, it is concluded that mitiga- tion measures including those recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service (i.e., mitigation bank or deed restriction) are not wazranted for the loss of coastal sage scrub from the site. 2/6t98CR:\CRG730XFEi~ESpTOCO.~e~pD) 26 SE,'IT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; 1- 8-98 I:19PM; 90947728~,7 -> 9097814277; #3.'4 A4 TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL ' couNTY OF SAN 825 East Thi~ Slr~l · San Bemardino, CA 92415~835 * (9~) 387-28~ G ~ MILLER re= (9~) ~7-2657 D,rcc~or Janua~ 2, 1998 o~ ~ 1%5~3 Nancy Fens AICP 3~ ¢~ City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Dept. 10500 Civic Center Dr. ~t Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 File~: 10~NV)~.01 RE: NOTICE OF AVAILABILI~ FOR THE D~FT PROG~M EtR- GENE~L P~N AMENDMENT - Cl~ OF ~NCHO, CUCAMONGA Dear Ms. FenS: Thank you for allowing the Son Bernardino County Transpo~ationlFIood Control Depa~ment to review the above' referened document. Our comments are as _ follows: The Flood Control District's Water Resources Division has no objection to the proposed general plan amendment. 1. The hydrology. as submitted, is generaily in accordance with the 1986 San Bernardjoe County Hydrology Manual and the resulting O's appear reasonable. 2. It appears that drainage is to be outletted into Day Creek Channel downstream of Victoria Park Lane approximately 1.200 feet from the site. Prior to any activity on Flood Control District right of way, a permit must be 2 obtained through the FloOd Control District's Field Engineering Division. 3. It d~s not appear from the information available at this time that the 96-inch RCP stubo~, located approximately 462 feet from Victoria Park Lane, is adequate to convey the calculated peak Q of 776 cfs. The hy~rology and 3 hydraulics should be reviewed prior to issuance of a permit. Should you have any questions please contact Gall Cotugna at (909) 387-2620. SiOcerely, - / GAlL COTUGNA, Senior Associate Planner Environmental Management Division GC:jm/RcsPkooc cc: Jim Borcuk ~M/CLL Reading File 13:18 RECEIVED FROM:9994772847 P-83 RESPONSE TO l. lz-l-llzR A-4 County of San Bernardino Transportation/Flood Control Department Surveyor 1. Comment noted. 2. Comment noted. At the time a development proposal is proposed, the project proponent would be conditioned to obtain a permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District for any activity on me Flood Control District fight-of-way. 3. This system is shown as Line 400-A on the City's storm drain improve- ment plans for Cornmunit)' Facilities District 91-1. Per the drainage study prepared by Associated Engineers for this project, this system carries 756 cfs from Day Creek Boulevard to an inlet approximately 180 feet east of Day Creek Channel, where the discharge increases to 776 c. fs, continues for another 523 feet, and inlets into the channel. Most of this system is comprised of a 108-inch RCP, which transitions to an existing 96-inch diameter RCP stub-out before entering the channel. Detailed analysis using WSPGN hydraulics software reveals that the existing 96-inch RCP causes an unacceptable increase in the hydraulic grade llne in the upstream (108-inch) reach. Hydrology data is pro- vidcd in Appendix I of the Final EIIL It is recommended that this exist- ing pipe be removed and that 108-inch RCP be used from Day Creek Boulevard to Day Creek Channel, with the pipe entering the channel 1 foot above the channel invert. This would yield a pipe gradient of 2.66 percent as opposed to the 2.00 percent shown on the proposed plans, resulting in an acceptable hydraulic grade line. A mitigation measure has been added to the Drainage section 4.1, page 4.1.3 of the EIR as follows: "4.1.1C. The developer shall remove the existing 9G-inch RCP stubout, located approximately 462 feet frorn Victoria Park Lane and install a lOS-inch RCP frorn Day Creek Boulevard to Day Creek Channel, with the pipe entering the channel one foot above the channel invert.' The addition of the mitigation measure does not change the impact analysis in the Draft EIR. SENT BY: R CUGAMONGA C0M DEV; 1- 8-98 I :19PM; 9094772S~7 => GOVERNOR'S OFF1CE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH , _ _ 14~0 T~NTH STREET PETE WILSON SACRAMENTO 95834 N~CY FONG CITY OF ~RO CUC~0NGA C0~D~ITY DEVELOPMEIff DPT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE ~C~O CUC~MONGA, CA 91730 Subject: GENERAL P~N AME~MENTS 96-03B&97-01 AKD Dear NANCY FONG: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named e:~vj. ronmen~a! document to selected sZate agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the stale agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges zhat you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements [or draft environmental documents, pursuant; to ~hc California Environmcntal ~a!i~y Act. ~i~aL~ cull u~ (916) 445-0613 if ynu have any questions regarding zhe envirOnment:al review process. When conr. uc~ing ~hc Clearinghouse in ~bis matter, plea~=e us~ t-h~ eight-digit Statle Clearinghouse nun~ar so thaz we may rcSpond promptly. Sincerely, /~TERO A. R!V~SPLATA Chief, SF.a~e C]earinghousc e1-88-98 13:17 RECEIVED FROM:98947728~7 P.82 SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; 1- 8-98 I :20PMj 90~4772847 ==' 9097814277; Notice of CornDiction ' ~ Associates. lnc, RESPONSE TO 12z-lllzR A-5 Governor's O~ce of Planning and Research 1. Letter A-5 from the Govemor's O,~ce of Planning and Research (OPR) does not require comment since its purpose was to inform the City that it has complied with the State EIR review requirements. 2/6t98CR:\CRG730~FEXRxRESIrfOCO.WpD) 3 1 SENT BY: $ CUCAMONGA C0M DEV; 2- 6-98 S:23AM; 9094772847 => 9097814277; A-6 NOV 2 4 B97 November 21.1997 Ci[y Ot Sancho Cuca~nga v.,~;.x w.~ P/anm~ ~n Ms. Nancy Fong. AICP City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT: General Ran Amendments 96-03B & 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendments 96-01 & 97-01tEdison Company Dear Ms. Fong: Thank you for providing Chaffey Joint Union High School District with a copy of the Draft Environmental Report for General Plan Amendments 96-03B & 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendments 96-01 & 97-01/Edison Company. We have reviewed the Public Services section and support both the analysis and proposed mitigation measures contained therein. We urge the Planning Commission and City Council to support these proposed n,itigation measures. We appreciate the City of Rancho Cucamonga's ongoing commitment to quality schools. Sincerely, Susan B. Sundell. Ed.D. Director, Business Services SBS jm ~2-85-98 89:21 RECEIVED FROM:g99477~8~? P.83 ~ Associates. Inc. RESPONSE TO Chaffey Joint Union High School District 1. Comment noted. 2/6/98(i~:\CRG75g~FEIRXILESpTOCO,'~tPD) ,~] EIR for GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 MOU AND MSHCP INTERIM REVIEW GUIDELINES EXHIBIT "F" E GI MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND BETWEEN THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE CALI~FORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME, THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNAROINO, THE FIFTEEN AFFECTED CITIES IN SOUTHWESTERN SAN BERNARDIN(5 COUNTY AND ADDITIONAL UNDERSIGNED PARTICIPATING AGENCIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN TO CONSERVE WILDLIFE AND PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE SAN BERNARDINO V~,LLEY. This Memorandum of Understanding (Memorandum) is made and entered into as of the date of signature by and among the. County of San Bemardino and the undersigned cities, state and federal agencies, other participating local agencies and public utilities. The signatories collectively are referred to as the "Participating Agencies." The Participating Agencies for the purposes of this Memorandum are public utilities and those agencies that have local land use authority, are self-governing local agencies or are state or federal agencies with land management authority and/or jurisdiction over plant and animal species and natural habitats which are the subject of the Habitat Conservation Plan. WHEREAS, the governmental Participating Agencies am among the local governments. self- governing agencies, and state and federal agencies that have administrative responsibility or regulatory authority over lands within the planning area that am subject to Federal and State statutes including the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Federal Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, state planning and zoning laws, and local ordinances, and, WHEREAS, these statutes direct the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") and the California Department of Fish and Game ("Department") to conserve, protect, and enhance plant, fish, and wildlife species and their habitats from adverse effects resulting from public and private development and actions: and, WHEREAS, the various statutes and sources of authority under which the Participating Agencies function do not empower any individual agency to implement a comprehensive, multi-agency program for long-term viability of species of concern, and, WHEREAS, the Participating Agencies recognize the need for comprehensive and coordinated protection of species of concern, and the need to integrate their responsibilities and authorities in a coordinated manner to ensure successful, timely, and mutually beneficial resolution of issues involving species of concern, and, WHEREAS, the state and federal agencies participating in this Memorandum will ensure that their regulatory decisions and land use practices will comply with state and federal environmental and endangered species statutes and regulations and that their management actions will promote appropriate use and protection of sensitive biological areas under their jurisdictions, and, MSHCP MOU - Revised 8~-95 1 WHEREAS, the local govemments participating in this Memorandum will ensure that their land use decisions will comply with state and federal environmental and endangered species statutes and regulations and that their governing actions will promote appropriate use and protection of the areas identified as having important biological values in southwestern San Bemardino County under their jurisdictions while promoting sound decision making practices attempt to balance the e&ological and economic needs for the region, and WHEREAS, efforts to coordinate conservation programs among local, State, and Federal agencies in California are exe~nplified by the signing in 1991 of The Agreement on Biological Diversity by twenty-seven Federal, State, and local agencies including the Burea- of Land Management, the Service and the Department, and which Agreement provides a framework for collaborative conservation planning on a bioregional or local scale, and, WHEREAS, biological resources are important to all citizens of San Bernardino County, including indigenous people and future residents, THEREFORE. it is mutually agreed and understood that, 1.0 PURPOSES OF MEMORANDUM The governmental Participating Agencies have administrative and/or regulatory responsibilities over species of concern in the southwestern San Bernardino County. They have voluntarily entered into this Memorandum for the following purposes: 1.1 To define their roles and responsibilities in the development and implementation of a San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), 1.2 To develop a MSHCP that is consistent with the ESA, the CESA and the Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) program, and ensures conservation and protection of currently listed, proposed and candidate species and species of concern and their habitats within the designated plan area. The boundaries of the plan are described in Attachment A. The species proposed to be covered by the plan are enumerated in Attachment B. 1.3 To provide definition and certainty to the alanning process prior to substantial investment of time and funding, and 1.4 To demonstrate a commitment to this process as the forum for a comprehensive approach to resolving land use and endangered species conflicts. 2.0 PURPOSES OF THE PLAN It is agreed that the plan will be a coordinated multi-agency, multi-species conservation plan foeusing on certain covered species within the plan boundaries. The purposes of the plan MSHCP MOU - Revised 8--4-95 2 2.2 Provide _~_q~itv in RecLulation. To prpvide'a comprehensive means to coordinate and standardize miiigation and comp,ensation requirements so that public and private actions will be regulated equally !and consistently, reducing de ays, expenses, and regulatory duplication. It is iniended that the plan will eliminate uncertainty in developing private projects and will Prescribe a system to en;.,,-e that the costs of compensation and mitigation are applied equitably to all. 2.3 ~Redu.ce _C_~mulative Effecl=,. To prescribe mitigation measures for private development and agency actions to lessen or avoid cumulative impacts to the covered species and elim nate whenever possible, case-by-case review of impacts of projects when ~:onsistent with the mitigation and compensation requirements Prescribed by the plan. 2.4 I-ncidental~Take PermiJ;. To obtain the necessary permits or take authorizations from the Service and the Department to authorize the incidental take of listed species covered in the plan in connection with otherwise lawful activities within the area subject to the plan as provided by Section 10(a) of the ESA and Section 2081 of the CESA. 2.5 Conservation (Pre-fistinq) Agreemenl=~. The MSHCP is intended to provide for the long term Preservation of covered species not currently listed as threatened or endangered Pursuant to the ESA or CESA such that should they become listed, the Department and the Service shall, barring "unforeSeen or extraordinary" cond tions, authorize incidental take for the species. To accomplish this, all non-listed species being considered under this plan will be treated as if they are already listed. "Unforeseen or extraordinary" conditions shaft be defined in the 'MSHCP and its implementation Agreement, but such conditions, for the Purposes of this MOU, are generally understood to be: (1) environmental, demographic and/or genetic stochastic circumstances that were not and could not be anticipated during the Preparation of the Plan, or (2) information developed during MSHCP implementation monitoring that identifies consequences of MSHCP implementation Procedures that may jeopardize the continued existence of the species. 2.8 ~qht. Control MeaSur.e8 andj. J;and.ards Of Succes,,,. To establish a means in which the MSHCP will provide aPPropriate and successful methods of: (1) reporting; (2) accounting audits; (3) funding (short and long term); (4) periodic and independent biological evaluation; and participation. (5) oPPortunities for adequate public ~ISHCP MOU - Revised 8-4_95 3 t~L" 3.0 HABITAT CONSERVATION Pt,.AN OOMPONE~NTR 3.1 The Plan, The principal component of this effort is the preparation of a MSHCP. The plan will adopt and adhere to the best available information on or methods of conservation biology and identify listed and unlisted species to be covered in the plan. It will seek to minimize the threats that would lead to listing of presently unlisted species covered in the plan and identify a reserve system, financing and management which are sufficient to conserve the covered species. The plan will include the development and analysis of appropriate biological data, an alternatives analysis that includes, but is not limited to, an alternative that would not resL'* in "take" of listed species and the reasons why not selected. the delineation of sensitive habitat areas supporting the covered species addressed in the plan, and the identification of a habitat preserve system that will support the continued existence of all species proposed to be covered in the plan. 3.2 Section 10(a) Permit and 2081 Take Authorization ApplicatiOns. Applications for permits under Section 10(a) of the ESA and Section 2081 of the CESA will be submitted to the Service and the Department when the d ' ' sued. The plan will function as the MSHCP for the purpose of making t:Jh.e,~.~~lications. Plan implementation will be described in an accompanying Im~lemer~ation Agreement. It is intended that the review and approval of the MSHCP by the Participating Agencies will satisfy the requirements of applicable Federal and State environmental law. It is the intent of the parties to eliminate project-by-project review of the effect of development activities on the Covered Species, to the full extent authorized by law, and to ensure that mitigation/compensation measures are not imposed beyond those detailed in the MSHCP for such development activities provided conditions under which the MSHCP was formulated have not significantly changed. Such a plan will satisfy the Federal and State agencies with respect to the protection of the Covered Species by, among other possible mechanisms, providing uniform and biologically viable mitigation/compensation measures for application to development activities. Such mitigation measures will be developed subject to the approval of Federal and State agencies. Individual landowners, groups of landowners, or development interests may choose to comply with the terms and conditions of the MSHCP affecting their proposed activities. Alternately, they may choose to prepare and submit their own conservation plan and Section 10(a) permit application when their activities may result in incidental take of fedorally listed species and, if State or local agency approval is required, they may choose to submit their proposal outside the existing conservation plan umbrella. 3.3 . Implementation Agreement. The conservation plan shall be implemented through an enforceable agreement. The Agreement shall specify the operating parameters of the conservation plan for the San Bemardino Valley. The Agreement specifies the obligations, authorities, responsibilities, liabilities, benefits, rights, and privileges of all parties or signatories to the subject conservation plan to be prepared and submitted with the Section 10(a) permit and 2081 authorization applications, The Agreement shall also provide for expeditious issuance of Section 10(a) permits and 2081 authorizations for Covered Species not currently listed pursuant to the ESA or MSHCP MOU- Revised 8--4-95 ,~ 2::~' G ;~ CESA by incorporating "Pre-listing" commitment's into the Agreement. It is intended that the Agreement will be entered into by all Participating Agencies approving the conservation plan, and any private party having ~an obligation or role in implementing the conservation plan. The Agreement will pro~'ide specific mitigation commitments for private parties and Public Agencies condu,Cting otherwise lawful activities, and assurances by the Participating Agencies to prevent the imposition of inconsistent or overlapping mitigation/compensation requirements under any Federal, State, or local law. 3.4 CEQA AND NEPA Compliance. Concurrent with preparation and rele,.:',-~ of the draft and'final plans, a joint environmental review document will be prepared and released which will satisfy Federal and State requirements. 3.5 Decision. The acceptance of the plan, the CEQA and NEPA environmental documents and the Section 10(a) permit applications and the signing of an Implementation Agreement by the Service will result in the issuance of Section 10(a) permits, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the ESA, to the local agencies that are participants in the planning effort for the public and private lands involved. The acceptance of the plan and the CEQA environmental documentation and the signing of an Implementation Agreement by the Department will result in the issuance of 2081 take authorizations for the covered species that are adequately protected by the plan pursuant to the CESA to local agencies that are participants in the plan for the public and private lands involved. Other appropriate decision documents will be issued by the Participating Agencies. 3.6 ~. Following or concurrent with the issuance of the biological opinion, adoption of the plan, and receipt of the 10(a) permits and 2081 take authorizations, the signatories Will revise their land use plans and policies to conform with the plan and the 10(a) permits and 2081 take: authorizations or withdraw from the program. Take authorizations may not be in effec! until land use plans are amended. Should any participant withdraw from the program, it may adversely affect the plan area and covered species lis~ and therefore may require appropriate modifications of the plan. The signatories will also ensure that future plans, policies. and actions will be in conformance with the plan and the Section 10(a) permits and 2081 take authorizations. Should the need arise to amend the plan in accordance with established procedures due to new information or the development' of more effective management prescriptions or techniques, such amendment willl occur through a cooperative effort involving the agencies and the public in the southwestern San Bernardino County that - are subject to 10(a) permits and 2081 take authorizations or biological opinions that may have already been issued. 3.7 Conservation Strategy. The plan shall maximize the use of appropriate publicly-owned lands, comply with legally mandated conservation measures, and provide incentives for conservation of private lands, (land acquisition, density transfers, land swaps, tax incentives, mitigation banks, etc.). MSHCP MOU - Revised 84-95 5 LZ ~ G 3.8 Implementation Funding. The scope of the plan and any preserve system must take into account realistic, affordable funding sources. The plan shall be based upon tangible and affordable sources of funds and may provide for increased conservation if other local, state or federal funding becomes available· 4.0 ROLE OF THE PARTICIPATING AGENCIES 4.1 General Roles an~ Responsibilities. The County of San Bernardino shall act as the functional lead agency utilizing the assistance, support and cooperatio,. '~f the cities and local agencies in preparat!on of the plan. The county, cities and local agencies shall have administrative responsibility for preparation and implementation of the plan. When and if a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is established to facilitate and oversee the plan preparation or implementation, the lead responsibility shall pass to the JPA. Until a JPA is established for that purpose, a Coordinating Committee shaft coordinate the preparation and implementation of the plan. The Coordinating Committee shaft consist of a Chairperson appointed by the Board of Supervisors, one additional member appointed by the Board of Supervisors, one member appointed by each of the other signatory Participating Agencies, and additional persons appointed as follows. The Coordinating Committee may appoint additional persons to its membership, on such terms as it deems appropriate, who may include representatives of conservation organizations, industry, private interest groups, and public volunteers. The Coordinating Committee shall provide for public involvement in plan preparation. The Service and the Department shall participate in the planning process by responding to work products and by providing direction on the acceptability of proposed habitat preserve designs and implementation mechanisms. 4.2 Assistance to the Count~. Each Participating Agency agrees to provide to the County, without cost to the County, the following information and assistance: (a) Data. All relevant information it possesses for the lands within its jurisdiction. (b) Technical Assistance. Staff and support to assist with the following planning tasks: (1) Developing management prescriptions relevant to the land within its jurisdiction. (2) Providing effective liaison with adjacent jurisdictions. (3) Developing and Implementing a public participation program to ensure adequate public participation within its area of jurisdiction, as required by State Law or local ordinance. (4) Preparing 10(a) permit and 2081 take authorization applications. (5) Providing any other assistance and/or support as might be mutually agreed upon with the County. (c) Point of Contact. Designate, in writing, the name of the individual official(s) who will function as the primary agency contact for MSHCP MOU - Revised 84-95 S ~ G '7 coordination with the County. The~ names, addresses, phone numbers and affiliations of these individuals are set forth in Attachment C. 4.3 Plan Conformonce. In order to be a p~ermittee, Participating Agencies will ensure that their land use plans and policies are ;~evised to conform with the approved plan and the 10(a) permits and 2081 take authorizations, and any other applicable regional, state or federal resource management p~lans. 4.4 Plan PreparatiOn, Funding. Funding for this plan will come from a variety of sources -- Participating Agency contributions, endowments from private or non-profit entities, matching grant programs such as offered by the National Fish an. w~ldlife Foundation, and other State and Federal funds such as those established by the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), Traffic Management Environmental Enhancement (TMEE) program and Land and Water Conservation Fund program. The Participating Agencies will also provide a fair share contribution to funding the plan preparation and implementation by allocating appropriate staff and support services. 4.5 Proposed Schedule. Signatories acknowledge that time is of the essence and hereby agree to make their best efforts to compiete and obtain final approval of the plan by a target date of June 30, 1996. A timeline setting forth specific dates for the completion of each identified task necessary tc~ complete the plan is contained in Attachment D. 4.6 Environmental Compliance. In recognition of the goal of achieving the timely preparation and approval of the plan, all Participating Agencies hereby agree that they will submit any and all comments on the appropriate environmental documentation on a timely basis, unless otherwise provided by law. 5.0 ROLE OF THE COlJNTY The County of San Bernardino agre.es to provide the fol!owing resources and to perform the following functions according to the funding mechanisms agreed to by the cities, local agencies, county and other interested parties: 5.1 Lead Agency. Act as lead agency for the plan. As lead agency, the County will provide overall leadership and coordination among the Participating Agencies in the development of this plan. This includes functioning as Local Lead Agency in complying with the CEQA in conjunction with the Department and coordinating NEPA compliance in coordination with the Service. 5.2 Planning Team Personnel. Provide the primary members of the planning team. 5.3 Facilities Equipment. and Suo~o~. Provide office facilities to house the planning team and provide necessary support such as office machine supplies, etc. The County also agrees to provide automated support, such as word processing and geographic information system products directly or through contracts. MSHCP MOU - Revised 8~-95 7 ~ (j~ ~ 5.4 Data· Provide any relevant data in its possession for the use of the plannin~ team and the Participating Agencies and secure additional data on public lands as needed to allow completion of the plan and encourage private landowner participation. The County also agrees to participate in the analysis of the data and formulation of management prescriptions. 5.5 PubliC. Assume lead responsibilities for ensuring adequate public participation by affected parties and interests and actively seek overall public participation in the plann. ing effort. 5.6 Point. Designate, in writing, the name of the person designated as the primary County contact for the planning effort. 5.7 Endangered Species Acts. Submit the draft plan and draft environmental compliance documentation to the Service and the Department for analysis, review, and comments. The County will then submit final applications to the Service and the Department for review and processing. 5.8 ~ Funding. Funding for this plan will be as described in Section 4.4 above. As a Participating Agency, the County will also provide a fair share contribution to funding the plan preparation and implementation by allocating appropriate staff and support services. 6.0 ROLE OF THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAMF 6.1 Technical Assistance. BioloGical Data and AdviCn. The Service and the Department shall advise and make available all public information on the species and their habitats and shall agree to a final list of species and habitats to be addressed during the initial stages of plan preparation. The Service will also provide guidance on what constitutes the best available scientific and commercial information for the purpose of permit applications. 6.2 Interim WOrk Product/~DDroval. The Service and the Department shall provide comments and guidance (in writing) on intedm work products at major milestones in the planning process so as to contdbute to an efficient, cost-effective MSHCP that is capable of being completed according to the schedule in Attachment D. The following actions are identified as major milestones for the purpose of this paragraph: (1) agreement on the proposed list of species to be covered in the plan, (2) agreement on the list of associated habitats or ecosystems, (3) agreement on scientific criteria for conducting field surveys and the format for compiling and reporting information, (4) a determination of what constitutes mitigation to the maximum extent practicable, (5) preliminary approval of a proposed preserve system and related Implementation Agreement, and (6) agreement on of the appropriate environmental documentation for the plan. To assist in providing data pertaining to current or future development plans of individual projects during the preparation of the conservation plan, and to provide MSHCP MOU - Revised 8--4-95 8 EL' G ~ opportunities to minimize negative impacts upo'n long-term conservation planning and the viability of biological resources, and to assis't in the preparation of the conservation plan and its ultimate implementation, the Participating Agencies will utilize the Interim Project Review Process, included as Attachmerht F, to consider the potential effects of individual projects on the MSHCP. 8.3 issuance of Section 10(a~ Permits and 2081 Take Authorization,-,. The Service and the Department agree to issue the required permits and take authorizations for listed species to the local agencies upon findinr~ that the plan and permit/authorization applications meet the criteria, for issuance of an incidental take permit and authorization contained in Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA and Section ~[Jb; of the Public Resources Code for those species through the establishment of a preserve system that conserves adequate habitat and provides for the retention and management of such preserves in perpetuity. The Service and the Department also agree to provide for expedited issuance of Section 10(a) permits and 2081 authorizations for Covered Species not currently listed pursuant to the ESA or CESA in the event that a non-listed covered species is listed in the future. 6.4 Assurances to Plan Participants The approved plan shall provide assurances to Participating Agencies and landowners that if the plan is implemented as proposed, no additional land or financial compensation will be sought from them without their consent if "unforeseen" or "extraordinary" circumstances should arise with respect to either listed or unlisted species that are covered by the properly functioning plan. It is understood that species not covered by the plan will not be afforded the same assurances as those that are covered. However, in the event that a species not addressed in the MSHCP is listed at some future date, the Service and the Department agree to use the MSHCP as a fo'rum for addressing the conservation needs of the species as required by the ESA and CESA in the same manner that Covered Species have been addressed. All Participating Agencies will make every attempt at accommodating the conservation requirements of the newly listed species within the existing conservation strategies and preserves of the MSHCP. 7.0 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 7.1 Good Faith. This Memorandum is entered into freely and in good faith by the signatory agencies. Each agency affirms that execution of this document is within its legal purview and agrees to fulfill the role slated herein and any other tasks and responsibilities incumbent upon Participating Agencies. All of the Participating Agencies by signature to this Memorandum agree to diligently pursue completion of the subject MSHCP and endorse consensus decisions of the Coordinating Committee as long as the proposed actions are within the statutory and regulatory ability of their respective agency. 7.2 Interim Proiect Re~2iewS and Approvals All Participating Agencies recognize that planning efforts undertaken pursuant to this Memorandum can be prolonged beyond anticipated planning schedules due to various unforeseen circumstances. All parties agree that interim land use actions shall be considered on a case by case basis within the purview of each agencies' individual jurisdiction and in compliance MSHCP MOU- Revised 8-4-95 9 ~ rTb with existing laws and regulations. The MSHCP planning effort shall not be cause to create a "de facto" moratorium for on-going, otherwise legally adequate programs and activities. All permit applications processed during the period of the MSHCP development will be evaluated on their individual merits and in consideration of cumulative impacts to the species and their habitat. Appropriate incentives. to land holders for the protection on non-listed species may be achieved through consideration of density transfers, land swaps within the MSHCP area, "Debt for Nature" exchanges, tax incentives through gifts, donations and conservation easements, mitigation banks and purchase of affected property. 7.3 Future Listinqs. It is understood by all parties that the MSHCP planning process and the plan itself, when adopted, is not a substitute for necessary listings of species pursuant to the ESA or CESA. Rather, for all currently unlisted species covered by the approved plan, it is understood that, should future listings occur, the Service and Department shall not require the commitment of additional land or financial compensation beyond the level of mitigation which was otherwise adequately provided for covered species under the terms of the properly functioning plan. 7.4 Limit of Authority and Funding. The signatory agencies agree and understand that performance under this agreement by any party is dependent upon the lawful appropriation, availability, and allocation of funds by proper authorities and that this agreement does not constitute a commitment of funds, which must be made by separate action of the appropriate officials of each party. 7.5 Public InvOlvement. It is the intent of the parties to the Memorandum that the public will be afforded sufficient opportunity to provide input to the MSHCP, not only during the required CEQA and NEPA review process, but during the scoping and planning process, as well. 7.6 Effective Date of Aqreement. This agreement shall take effect upon the dates of signature. 7.7 Amendment of This Memorandum. This Memorandum may be amended at any time with the concurrence of all parties. Approved amendments must be in writing. 7.8 Termination. This agreement shall automatically terminate upon approval and adoption of the plan or on December 31, 1997, which ever occurs first, unless extended as provided in Paragraph 7.7 above. MSHCP MOU - Revised 84-95 10 IN ~VITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO hav~ executed this Memorandum, on the date(s) set forth below, as of the day and year flint abov~ written, By Date Chair, San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and~ Flood Control District San Bemardino, Califomia By Date Mayor, City of Chine Chine, California By Date Mayor, City of Chine Hills Chine Hills, California By Date Mayor, City of Colton Colton. California By Date Mayor, City of Fontana Fontaria, Califomia By Date Mayor, City of Grand Terrace Grand Terrace, California By Date 'Mayor, City of Highland , Highland, Califomia By Date Mayor, City of Loma Linda Loma Linda, California By Date Mayor, City of Montctair Montclair, California By. Date Mayor, City of Ontario Ontario, California By Date Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, California Date Mayor, City of Redlands Redlands, California By Date Mayor, City of Rialto Rialto, California By Date Mayor, City of San Bernardino San Bernardino, California By Date Mayor, City of Upland Upland, California MSHCP MOU - Revised 8-4-95 12 By Date Mayor, City of Yucaipa Yucaipa, California By Date Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon By Date California State Director, Bureau of Land Management By Date District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers By Date Forest Supervisor, San Bernardino National Forest U.S. Forest Service By Date Director, California Department of Fish and Game By Date Region Director, Southern California Edison Company By Date District Manager, Southern California Gas Company Date Regional Director, : Metropolitan Water District MSHCP MOU - Revised 8-4-95 13 By Date Board President, San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District By Date Board President, San Bemardino Valley Municipal Water District MSHCP MOU - Revised 8-4-95 14 A'FFACHMENT A BOUNDARIES OF THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN The Habitat Conservation,Plan for the San Bemardino Valley will encompass the area generally bounded by the county lines between, San Bemardino County and Los AngeleS, Orange and Riverside Counties on the west and south and the Sah Bemardino National Forest Boundary on the north and east. [ A-1 ATFACHMENT B List of Species Proposed to Be Coverd in the Valley-Wide Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Status Species Federal State INVERTEBRATES Insects Greenest tiger beetle FC2 Cicind~t~ tranouebafica viridissima Delhi Sand flower-loving fly FE RhaDhiomidas terminatus abdominalis VERTEBRATES Fishes Santa ~na sucker FC2 - CatostQmus santaanae Santa Ana speckled dace FC2 Rhinichthvs osculusosculus ssp. Amphibians Arroyo southwestem toad PErFSS CSC Bufo microscaDhus c~lifomicu~ Red-legged frog PErFSS CSC Rana aurora drayioni Mountain yellow-legged frog FC2_YFSS CSC Rana muscosa bovlei Reptiles Western pond turtle FC2/FSS CSC CIemnvs marmorata pallida Coastal western whiptail FC2JFSS CSC Cnemidoohorus ticJrif multiscutatus B-1 Status Species Fede.'rat State Coast horned lizard FC2jFSS CSC Phrynosoma coronat~m blainvillei San Bemardino ring-necked snake FC2/FSS DiadoDhis Dunctatus modestL!~ Coastal rosy boa FC2/FSS Lichanura t~virgata rO~afusca Coast patch-nosed snake FC2/FSS CSC SalvaCQra hexaliDis viroultea Two-striped garter snake FC2/FSS ThamnoDhis hammondii Birds White-tailed kite CFP Elanus feucuru~ NortHern harrier CFP Circus cvaneus Sharp-shinned hawk FSS CSC Accioiter striatus Cooper's Hawk FSS CSC Accioiter cooperil Ferruginous hawk FC2 CSC Buteo regalis Golden eagle CSC Aeufl~ chrysaetos canadensis American peregrine falcon FE SE Fal¢9 oereafinatus Prairie falcon FSS CSC Falc9 mexicanus E?t B-2 Status Species Federal State Westem Burrowing owl FC2 CSC Seeo_tyto ~ hyDugea Long-eared owl CSC Asio otus Southwestern willow flycatcher PEjFSS SE i~ traillii ex~imus California horned lark FC3 Eremophila alDestris actia Coastal cactus wren FC3B CSC Camovlorhvnchus brunneicaoillus California gnatcatcher FT/FSS CSC Poliootila califQmic,,a Least's Bell's vireo - FE SE ' V~r~Q I~llii pusillus California yellow warbler CSC Dendroica aetechia brewsted Yellow-breasted chat CSC Icteda vir~rl California rufous-crowned sparrow FC2/FSS CSC Aimoahil8 rufice~s canescens Bell's sage sparrow FC2 CSC AmDhisDiza ~!1i I~lli Tricolored blackbird FC2 CSC Aaelaius tricolor Mammals Greater mastiff-bat FC2 CSC EumoDs perotis califomicus E?) B-3 Status Species Federal; State San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit FC2 CSC Le~us ~ bennettii Los Angeles pocket mouse FC2 CSC Perognathus I~ngimembris brevinasus San Diego pocket mouse FC2 CSC h.G..b.a_e,_LC_q[~ fallax faltax San Bemardino kangroo rat FC2 CSC Dioodomy~ merriami Danms Southem grasshopper mouse FC2 CSC ~ torridus ramona San Diego desert woodrat FC2 CSC Neotoma leDida intermedia Status Family Species Federal State CNPS Plants Marsh sandwort CRY FE SE 1B Arenarig Daludicola Coulter's saltbush CHN 1B AtriDlex coulterf Padsh's brittlescale CHN FC2 1B AtriDl~; padshii Nevin's barberry BER FC1 SE 1B Berbeds nevinii Round-leaved boykinia SAX 4 ~ rotundifolia Thread-leaved brodiaea LIL FC1 SE 1B ' Brodiaea fifffOfia- -- ' Brewer's calanddnia POR 4 ~ breweri Plummer's lily LIL 1B Calochortus plummera¢ Peninsular spineflower PLG 4 Parish's spineflower PLG FC2 hd~ Darryi var. parry_i Prostrate spineflower PLG 4 ~ arocumbens Saw-grass CYP 1B Or 2 I. GJ,EC!j,~ califomicum ; Stender-homed spineflower PLG FE SE Dodecahema leDtocera~ Status Family Species Feden State CNPS Many-stemmed dudleyea CRS FC2JFSS Dudleva mutticaulis Santa Ana River woollystar ' PLM FE SE Edastmm densifolium sanctorum Hot Spdng fimbristylis CYP FC3B 2 Fimbristyli~ thermalis Califomia bedstraw RUB FC2 SR 1B Galium califomicum primum Los Angeles sunflower AST FC2 1A Heliathus nuttallii Darishii Smooth tarplant AST FC2 1B Hemiz0ni8 Dungens laevis Southern California black walnut JUG 4 Jualans califomica califomica Coulter's goldenfields AST FC2 1B ~ glabrata coulteri RobinsoWs peppergrass BRA 1B ~ virginicum robinsonii Ocellated Humbolt lily LIL FC2 4 Lilium humboldtii ocellatum Padsh's desert-thorn SOL 2 J..~;.[JZm_ Dadshii Parish's bush mallow MLV FC2 1A Malacothamnus adshii Pdngle's mortardella LAM FC2 1A Monardella Ddnglei California spineflower PLG 4 Mucronea califomiCa B-6 ~ Status Family Species Federal State CNPS California muhly POA 1B Muhlenberctia calif0rnica Little mousetail RAN FC2 3 Myosurus minimu8 apuS Padsh's gooseberry SAX FC2 1B Ribes divaricatum OariShii Salt spring checkerbloom MLV 2 Sidalcea nq~0mexicana Wedge grass POA 2 h.~ obtusata Status Codes: FE Listed as Endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service FT Listed as Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service PE Proposed Endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service FC1 Category I candidate for federal listing for which substantjal information on the biological vulnerability and threat supports the appropriateness of proposing the species to be listed as endangered or threatened. FC2 Category 2 candidate for federal listing for which insufficient biological information exists to support listing. FSS Forest Service Sensitive Species SE Listed as Endangered by the Califomia Depal bnent of Fish and Game SR Listed as Rare by the balifomia Deparb'nent of Fish and Game CSC California Department of Fish and Game "Species of Special Concem" CFP California Fully Protected CNPS California Native Plant Society 1A Plants presumed to be extinct,. 1B Plants that are rare, threatened or endangered. 2 Plants that are rare, threatened or endangered in California, but common elsewhere. 3 Plants for which insufficient data is available. 4 Plants that are of limited distribution in California and their susceptibility to threat appears low at this time, NOTE: Appearance of a species on this list does not imply the presence or occurrence of the species in all jurisdictions located within the boundaries (Attachment A) of the MSHCP. ATTACHMENT p ' LIST OF PARTICIPATING AGENCIES AND POINT OF CONTACT San Bemardino County City of Highland Planning Department .Planning Department Randy Scott, Planning Manager Steve Walker, City Planner 385 N. Arrowhead Ave., Third Floor 26985 East Base Line Avenue San Bemardino, CA 92415-0182 .Highland, CA 92348 (909) 387-4146 (909) 864-6861 Ext. 215 (909) 387-322,3 (FAX) ,(909) 862-3180 (FAX) City of Chino City of Loma Linda Community Development Department 'Planning Department Jerry Blum, City Planner Dan Smith, Director of Community 13220 Central Avenue Development Chino, CA 91708 25541 Barton Road (909) 590-5520 Loma L, inda, CA 92354 (909) 591-6829 (FAX) (909) 799-2830 (909) 799-2890 (FAX) City of Chino Hills Community Development Department City of Montclair Jeff Adams, Planner I Community Development Department 2001 Grand Avenue Rob Clark, Community Development Directoa Chine Hills, CA 91709-4869 5111 Benito Street (909) 590-1511 E.xt 286 Montctair, CA 91763-0808 (909) 590-5646 (FAX) (909) 625-9431 City of Colton (909) 621-1564 (FAX) Public Works Department City of Ontado John C. Hutton, Director Planning Department 650 North La Cadena Drive Otto Kroutil, C~ Planner Colton, CA 92324-2893 303 East "B" Street, Civic Center (909) 370-5065 Ontado, CA 91764 (909) 370-5164 (FAX) (909) 39%2506 (909) 391-0692 (FAX) City of Fontana Planning Division , City of Rancho Cucamonga Chades LaClaire, Deputy Planning Manager Planning Department 8353 Sierra Avenue Scott Murphy, Associate Planner Fontana, CA 92334 10500 Civic Center Ddve (909) 350-7627 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (909) 350-6613 (FAX) (909) 989-1851 (909) 948-1648 (FAX) City of Grand Terrace Community Development Department City of Redlands Patdzia Materassi, Community Development Planning Department ' Director Edc Norris, Principal Planner 22795 Barton Road 30 Cajon Street Grand Terrace, CA 92313 Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 824-6621 (909) 798-7555 (909) 783-7629 (FAX) (909) 798-7503 (FAX) C-1 City of Rialto U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Development Services Department Antal Szijj Planning Division 10421 Corporate De., Suite A Donn Morttag, Pnncipal Planner Redlands, CA 92374 150 South Palm Avenue (909) 478-5000 Rialto, CA 92376 (909) 478-5511 (FAX) (909) 421-7218 (909) 8734814 (FAX). U.S. Forest Service Gene Zimmerman City of San Bernardino 1824 S. Commercecenter Circle Department of Planning and 'Building San Bemardino, CA 92408 Services (909) 884"8634 AI Boughey, Director (909) 383-5770 (FAX) 300 North "D' Street San Bemardino, CA 92402 Califomia Department of Fish and Game (909) 384-5071 Liam Davis, Associate Wildlife Biologist (909) 384-5461 (FAX) 4949 V~ewridge Ave. San Diego, CA 92123 City of Upland (619) 4674207 Community Development Department (619) 4674235 (FAX) Sylvia Scharf, Senior Planner 460 North Euclid Avenue Southern California Edison Company Upland, CA 91785 Michael C. Gardner, Region Manager (909) 9314144 287 Tennessee St. (909) 9314123 (FAX) Redlands, CA 92373 (909) 307-8732 of Yucaipa -- (909) 307-8795 (FAX) Planning Department John McMains, Director of Planning Southern California Gas Company 34272 Yucaipa Boulevard Judith W. Battey, District Manager Yucaipa, CA 92399 624 W. Fourth St., Suite F (909) 797-2489 Ext. 231 San Bemardino, CA 92401 (909) 790-9203 (FAX) (909) 335-7941 (909) 381-2635 (FAX) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Jeff Newman Metropolitan Water Distdct 2730 Loker Ave. West Laura Simonek Carisbad, CA 92008 350 S. Grand Ave., 10th Floor (619) 431-9440 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (619) 431431-9624 (FAX) (213) 217-8242 (213) 217-8119 Bureau of Land Management Joan Oxendine San Bemardino Valley Water Conservation District 63-500 Garnet Ave. Nereus L. Richardson, General Manager North Palm Springs, CA 92258-2000 P.O. Box 1839 (619) 2514804 Redlands, CA 92373-0581 (619) 2514899 (FAX) (909) 793-2503 (909) 793-0188 (FAX) A'FrACHMENT D San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservelion Plan Plan Preparation Outline 1. Inleragency Coordination and Plan Development Agreements 5 months U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; California Depadment of Fish and Game Cities; Local agencies, utilities and environmental groups; Local business 2. Biological and Land Ownership Database Assembly 25 months Aerial photography; Data automation; Fielcj verification; Wildlife component; Vegetative component; Map assembly (GIS) 3. Plan Preparation 19 n~onths 4. Environmental Compliance 8 months 5. Programmatic Permit Preparation and Implementation Agreement 4 monlhs 6. Plan Adoption /T~ 1 month ~ Tenlalive Schedule {5"' 1005 1D96 Tasks InlorageacyCoo~dination Database Assembly Plan heparalion Environmental Compliance " Plogfammatlc PenTfit PTeparallon I~lan Adoplion 1996 1997 ~a.ks I J"' I A.g. I Sop I Oct I .or I Dec I J"" I Feb I Me, I '~P' I MaYl J"" I ~"~ I A"" I S~p I O~, I Uo~ I D,.',: Inle,'ageacy Coordinalioe Dalebase Assembly ' Plaa Preparalion Enviroomental Compliance P~ogrammatic Pert'nil Preparation ' ' , Plan Adoplion D-1 ATTACHMENT E DEFINITIONS ~. Plant and animal species which will be found adequately protected from extirpation by the implementation of the MSHCP, and meet issuance cfiteda for a 10(a) permit. 2. MCti-Soecies Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP~. A plan developed to allow incidental take of species as described in Section 10(a)(l)(B) of the fed=ral Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended. 3. Implementing Aareement(s~. A contract entered into by the Wildlife Agencies and a Local Jurisdiction in which the parties agree to implement the conditions and actions described in a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 4. Lj.tt.e,J;LS.p_~. Plant and animal species protected by listing as threatened or endangered species by one or both of the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts. 5. Preserve System. Area to be perpetually preserved for its habitat value through the coordinated implementation of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 6. ~. Land in the ownership or perpetual control of a local, State or federal government agency. 7. :~.;~j/LC~/L~.~. Plant and animal species that are listed as endangered or threatened pursuant to the Federal or State Endangered Species Acts, a candidate species proposed to be listed pursuant to these acts, or rare species in the plan area. 8. ~. A term to describe the collective permits, authorizations, and agreements which will'be issued by the Service or the Depa~huent to participating local jurisdiction permittees. Take authorizations may be given by the Service and the Depa~'t.~ent: (a) The Service may issue take authorizations under ESA Section 10(a)(1 )(B), and Section 4(d) for the Califomia gnatcatcher. (b) The Department may issue take aLrthodzations under California Fish and Game Code Sections 2081 for candidate, threatened, and endangered species; and Section 2835 for the NCCP Act of 1992. E-1 A'PFACHMENT F INTERIM PROJECT REVIEVV GUIDELINES This document establishes an agreement among th~ U.S. Fish and WTIdlife Service ("Service"), the Califomia Department of Fish and Go:me ("Department") and all other federal, state and local agencies participating in th~ San Bemardino Valley Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) pertainihg to an Interim Project Review Process to be utilized dudng t. he preparation of the Plat~. The Interim Project Review Guidelines (IPRG) have two related purposes: (1) to ensure early review and consideration of proposed projects by the Service and the Department so that projects which could preclude the successful de~zelopment of the MSHCP will be identified at the earliest possible point in the development review process, and (2) to provide a opportunity for dialogue between the lead agency, the project applicant and the regulator,/agencies to explore aitematives or mitigation measures which could minimize and mitigate potential project impacts. Local Agencies have identified that significant problems have arisen in the past when comments on proposed projects are not received from the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and VVildlife Service until very late in the lead agency's decision- making process. To address this problem with respect io projects which may have the potential to preclude long-term conservation strategies: addressed in the MSHCP or impact the viability of biological. resources, the Service and the Department are committing to meet with the appropriate project proponent at the eadiest feasible point. Early identification of potential impacts will assist in the preparation of environmental documents for the project and provide the opportunity to identify potential project alternatives and mitigation measures for consideration in compliance with Public Resources § 21080.3(a). The IPRG specifically does not create aniaddi'donal layer.of project review nor to confer any addi'donal authority on the Department, the Service or lead agency. The recommendations of the Service and Department are advisory; the final decision of whether to approve, modify, or deny a project remains in :the hands of the lead agency pursuant to existing laws. A. Guidelines for Projects to Be Included in the Review Process Each lead agency and/or project proponent shall determine whether a project should be reviewed pursuant to the IPRG. Generally, the lead agency or project proponent may consider that a project as defined by CEQA § 21065, except those projects statutory or categdrfcally exempt from CEQA, located within the sensitive habitat areas of the MSHCP boundaries, has the potential to preclude long term preservation planning or impact the viability of biological resources, and it is appropriate to utilize the IPRG. The lead agency retains the discretion to determine that a project within the plan area, because of the project's characteristics, has no impact on the viability of biological resources and would not preclude long term preservation planning. F-~ B. Overview of the process/RelationshiP to CEQA and NEPA :, Planning Director or the Planning Director's designee- Other participating Agency will : be determined on an as-needed basis. The Planning Directorldesignee or project proponent shall initiate consultation by notifying the designated representative of the i ' Service and the Department of the need for a review meeting for one or several specified projects. Where th,e project proponent is a pdvate ~andowner/develoPer, the Planning Director for the lead agency shall also be notified. Prior to the project review meeting, the Planning Directortdesignee or project proponent shall provide basic .~E information (as delineated under -procedures" below) to the Service and the ., Department- For purposes of CEQA, the project review meeting and any related activities (:site visits, follow-up correspondence etc.) shall constitute a consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.3(A)- If possible at the meetjng, but otherwise in not more 1,'~,'.: than 30 days following the meeting or such shorter period of time as shalI be necessary to enable the lead agency to comply with Title 14 California Code of Regulations §15102, the Service and the Department shall provide input to the lead agency as to whether either agency believes the project may have the potential to preclude long-term L::' preservation planning or impact the viability of a biological resource. The Service and "':~' the Department shall also indicate specific issues which either believe should be ressed; suggest any studies they believe may be necessary to assess proje.ct cts to' specific biologi~--:$1 resources; and propose any mitigation measures or project alternatives which they believe should be considered, which may include such incentives to land holders as density transfers, land swaps within the MSHCP area, "Debt for Nature" exchanges, tax incentives through gifts, donations and conservation easements, mitigation banks and purchase of affected property. When either the Service or the Department identifies the potential for a project to preclude long-term preservation plan.nthg and that the project will have a significant impact on biological resources and identifies either project alternatives and/or mitigation measures, which are addressed in a Mitigated Negative Declaration or a Draft Environmental Impact Report, the lead agency/project proponent, the Service and the Department may agree to schedule an additional meeting to discuss the Negative Declaration or the Draff Environmental Impact Report within 30 days after the preparation and release of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and within 45 days after the preparation and release of a Draft Environmental impact Report. It is recognized that implementing the PRG is a voluntary cooperative process and neither confers any authority not granted by existing planning and environmental laws nor negates any authority so granted. The IPRG is intended only to facilitate }eration among the lead agencies, the resource agencies and project applicants to ~sure 'timely review of projects which have the potential to preclude long term preservation planning and to facilitate the resolution of issues which might affect the success~l preparation of the MSHCP. F-2 C: PROCEDURES 1. At least three weeks pdor to the desired IPRG meeting date the Planning Director/designee or project proponent shall notify the Service and the department and the MSHCP contact person in wdting of any project(s) which the lead agency or project proponent wishes to have; reviewed at the IPRG meeting. For each project, the lead agency/project proponent will transmit two copies of each of the following: · a location map on a 7.5' quad sheet identifying the project site · a site plan or other illustration depicting the project as proposed · the project application or other summary sheet identifying existing general plan designation and zoning, and any proposed changes; existing land use on the site; and the type and intensity of land u. se proposed. · the Initial Study or Environmental Assessment and a biological resource survey if one has been prepared; if one has not been prepared then a description of the site including vegetation, presence of a floodplain, blueline stream, or other environmental resource, hazard or constraint, and a list of sensitive species which have the potentjal to occur on site. · Any other infon"nation deemed pertinent by the lead agency. 2. The lead agency or project proponent shall be responsible for notifying the other party of the date, time, and location of the IPRG review meeting, if the attendance of the project applicant is desired. 3. At the review meeting, the lead agency, project proponent, the Service and the Depa~buent will have the opportunity to discuss bhe project, answer questions, etc. A representative from an adjacent jurisdiction which may be affected by the proposed project may also attend the meeting at that jurisdiction's discretion. At the review meeting if possible, otherwise in not more than 30 days after the review meeting, the Service and the Depa~b~ent representatives shall provide the following information to the lead agency and the project applicant · A statement as to whether, in the agencT's opinion: - The project will not preclude long term conservation planning or adversely impact the viability of a species. - The project has the potential to prectude long term conservation planning or adversely impact the viability of a species and additional studies on specific species may be necessary, and project alternatives and/or mitjgation measures need to be assessed in the environmental review process. 4. A project may be scheduled for an additional IPRG meeting at an appropriate date if there is a need for the Service or the Department to respond to a Draft Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration. F-3 EIR for GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION EXHIBIT "G" ~' °l ) 6.0 ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) requires that an Environmen- tal Impact Report CEIR) include a discussaon of reasonable project alternatives that are "capable of avoiding or substantial~,y lessening any significant effects on the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attain- ment of the project objectives, or would be more cosfly" (CEQA Section 15126(d)(1)). The analysis provided in Chapter 4.0 determined that short *erm pollutant emissions during construction and long-term local air quality impacts would be significant. All other impacts are considered less than significant or reduced to below the level of significance with mitigation. If the environmen- tally superior alternative is determined to be the No Project Alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives, if the analysis indicates that significant impacts can be avoided by one or more alternatives. Following is a discussion on alternatives to the pro- posed project. 6.1 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION The following development scenarios have bccn identified as potential alterna- tives to implementation of the proposed project. Alternative 1 - No Project/No Development AlternatiVe Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the project site would remain in its existing vacant condition. The site could contain electric transmis- sion towers in the future under the current zoning; however, for the purpose of the "No Development Alternatives" analysis, the no development scenario is analyzed. Alternative 2 - Open Space Park Greenbelt and Trails System Alternative This alternative is a rational choice as a land use alternative for a long slender 84.15-acre parcel (330 feet wide by 10,756 feet long). This strip of land would contain a landscaped parkway along the l~ngth of future Day Creek Boulevard to enhance views of Mt. Baldy to the north and would also contain a trails system that would connect the existing and future planned residential areas in the Victoria Windrows area to the east and west of future Day Creek Boulevard (south of Highland Avenue and north of Base Line Road) to the proposed regional commercial area south of Base Line Road and north of Interstate 15 0-15). Alternative 3 - Lower Density Alternative Under the Lower Density Alternative, a General Plan and Victoria Communtity Plan amendment would bc proposed that would bc the same as proposed with the project between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road. However, the 2/B/98CR:\CRG730~FEll/,SECT-6.FNL) densities would be limited to the lower range within each land use category (i.e., Low Density [2 units/acre], Low-Medium Density [4 units/acre], and Me- dium Density [8 units/acre]). In the area south of Base Line Road, the land uses proposed would include 10.4 acres of Low-Medium Density (4 units/acre) from Base Line Road south to one-half the distance between Base Line Road and Church Street and Medium Density (8 units/acre) on 10.4 acres from one-half the distance between Base Line Road Church Street south to Church Street. The 27.7 acres south of Church Street would remain Regional Relate''1 Of- rice/Commercial as proposed with the project. The intent of this alternative is to potentially reduce the proposed project's impacts on public services, specifi- cally schools. Alternative 4 - Off-Site Alternative Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider only those feasible alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant impacts identified for the project alternative. The General Plan Land Use Element of the City of Rancho Cucamonga allows for the development of residential uses in a number of areas primarily within the northerly portion of the City, in areas designated for a wide range of resi- dential densities similar to the proposed General Plan Amendments. Southern California Edison (SCE) owns utility corridor easements to the north and south of the proposed project area that are actually an extension of the same utility easement as the proposed project. Potentially, the area that con- tains the utility easement north of Highland Avenue could be processed for a proposed General Plan Amendment to allow a variety of residential densities similar to the proposed project. 6.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The following discussion compares the impacts of each alternative with the impacts of the proposed project, as detailed in Chapter 5.0 of this EIIL A con- clusion is provided for each impact as to whether the alternative results in one of the following: 1) reduction or elimination of the impact; 2) a greater impact than the project; 3) the same impact as the project; or 4) a new impact in addition to the proposed project impacts. Table 6.2-1 compares the impacts of the alternatives with those of the proposed project. Alternative I - No Project/No Development Alternative With the No Project/No Development Alternative, the site would remain in its existing vacant condition. Most of the potential impacts associated with the proposed project would be avoided, especially the proposed project's impact on air quality which remained significant after mitigation. ,1~ c~ 6-2 2/B/98(l{:\CRG730XFEIR~ECT-6.FNL) Table 6.2-1 - Snrntnary of the Comparison of the Project Alternatives to the Proposed ProjeCt Environmental Lower Analysis Proposed No Project Open Sp~ace Density Off-Site Subject Project Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative ..bnc Se~ces[][] [] [] [] .,o,ogic~, .eso.~es[][][] [] [] C.:~.~Resou.:es[][] [] [] [] NOtes: [] ~ Less than significant impact after mitigation. [] = Greater than significant impact afxer mitigation. [] = A~ compared to the proposed project the impact is the same. Drainage Without further development of the project site, drainage improvements to convey increased runoff from introduced,impervious surfaces would not be required. However, existing sheet flow conditions would continue on site. Drainage improvements associated with the proposed project would ameliorate existing on-site drainage and sheet flow conditions. Erosion of exposed soils;during the construction phase would be eliminated with this alternative. However, this alternative would not reduce the erosion of currently exposed soils, and existing sedimentation levels would continue into Day Creek Channel. The existing level of sedimentation is greater than would occur with the proposed project. Compared to the proposed project as mitigated, this alternative would have reduced impacts on drainage, with the exception of slight erosion of currently exposed soils and sedimentation. Traffic The No Project/No Development Alternative would not generate any additional traffic on the arterial circulation network. With or without implementation of the proposed project, seven intersections axe forecast to exceed the County Management Plan (CMP) Level of Service (LOS) E standard under 2015 traffic conditions with or without the project; thus, this alternative would not serve to reduce existing or projected congestion. Compared to the project, this alter- native would not result in any increased traffic or the need for roadway im- provements. Air Quali~y This alternative would eliminate short-term air quality impacts from fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions generated by the project during construction. Operational emissions of the proposed project would result in a total of 851 Ibs./day of CO, 64 lbs./day of ROC, 136 lbs./day of NOx, 15 lbs./day of SOx, and 19 lbs./day of PM10. Among them, the emissions for'CO, ROC, and NOx would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds for ctnily operations by a large margin (e~pecially NOx). Even after implementa- tion of the mitigation measures identified, it is not guaranteed that the emis- sions would be reduced to below the thresholds with the proposed project. When compared to the proposed project's significant long-term air quality impacts, this alternative would eliminate vehicle and stationary source emis- sions resulting from project related traffic and energy consumption. Noise The project as proposed would not contribute significantly to increased noise levels at off-site receiver locations, either during construction or in the long term. This Alternative would eliminate any potential project related increases in noise levels attributed to project traffic and construction activities. All road- way segments analyzed for the proposed project would have the 60 dBA Ldn extending more than 50 feet from the roadway centerline. Therefore, all noise- sensitive uses, existing or proposed, located within the impact zone would be exposed to noise level exceeding 60 dBA Ldn. This is a potentially significant noise impact, even though the proposed project's contribution would be small and mostly negligible and would exist with or without the proposed project. Public Services Antl Utilities Without new development on the project site, increased demand for public services, such as police and fire suppression services, schools facilities, and parks would not occur. The proposed project does not identify significant impacts to paxks, police, and fire services before implementation of the identi- fied mitigation. This alternative would eliminate any potential effects and the need for mitigation. Future development would generate more students for the already impacted school districts and is considered significant. School mitigation plans would be enacted between the Etiwanda School Dis- trict/Chaffey Joint Union High School District and the project developer provid- ing for a per dwelling unit fee rate for the residential portion of the project site. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce impacts on schools to a less- than-significant level with the proposed project. With the proposed project, future development proposals for the area must provide 3.4 acres of active recreation within the Windrows planning area and 5.9 acres of active recreation withEn the Vi~'toria Lakes planning area, for a total of 9.3 acres of park space. This alternative would eliminate the need for addi- tional park space based on population indrease. Biological Resources Biological resources studies conducted for the proposed project concluded that no significant biological resources occur on site including the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat and the California gnatcatcher, both protected species. It was determined that the proposed proiect would not have a significant im- pact on biological resources and no mitigation would be requited. This alter- native would have the same impact on biological resources as the proposed project. Cultural Resources This alternative would eliminate any potential impacts to unknown subsurface historic artifacts or cultural resources. Although with mitigation the proposed project would not result in any significant unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural resources, this alternative would eliminate the need for mitigation. Aesthetics This alternative would avoid the visual alteration of the physical appearance of the site due to project construction HoweVer, this alternative would also elimi- nate the aesthetic public benefits provided by the proiect including: 1) provi- sion of infill development that would complement the c.xisting residential neighborhoods to the east; and 2) development of a planned community that establishes a landscape progrm-n and mechanism for long-term maintenance of landscape amenities while enhancing the public views of the San Gabriel Moun- tains to the north. Conclusion The No Project/No Development Alternative would reduce an(t/or eliminate all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project. In particular, significant adverse impactS related to short-term construction emissions and long-term local CO, ROC, and NOx that would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds for dally operations by a large margin (especially NOx), would not occur with this alternative. However, this alternative would result in impacts by eliminating opportunities to provide housing and meet the goals of the City's General Plan Housing Element. This alternative would fail to meet three important objectives of the project and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The first objective is to preserve the single family character of residential neighborhoods within the City and provide a variety of housing types for various income levels; the second objective is to protect the neighborhood quality and residential nature of the neighborhood I2A Associates. Inc. to the east; the third objective is to provide infttl residential and commercial development within the contex~ of a planned community. Alternative 2 - Open Space Greenbelt and Trails System Alto, ,~ative With the Open Space Greenbelt and Trails System Alternative, the site would be developed as a greenbelt and contain a trails system. Most of the potential impacts associated with the proposed project would be avoided, especiaht proposed project's impact on air quality which remained significant after miti- gation. This alternative is determined to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative after the No project/No Development Alternative. Drainage Construction of impervious surfaces with this alternative would create similaz water runoff impacts to those identified for the proposed project. Appropriate drainage facilities would be required as part of site design, as has been com- pleted for the proposed project, demonstrating adequacy of the existing and proposed facilities to accommodate projected discharge. Since drainage associ- ated with the proposed project can be accommodated by the existing and proposed facilities, it is expected that runoff associated with Alternative 2 can also be accommodated. Potential drainage impacts are considered less than significant for either the proposed project or this alternative after mitigation. Traffic Alternative 2 would result in a fewer number of daily and peak hour vehicle trips than the proposed project. The amount of traffic generated by this alter- native would be contingent on the user that the site would attract. For in- stance, would there be on-site parking provided for the trails use? If not, this alternative would generate few rlaily vehide trips. With or without implementa- tion of the proposed project, seven intersections are forecast to exceed the CMP LOS E standard under 2015 tra~c conditions with or without the project, therefore, this alternative would not serve to reduce projected congestion. Compared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in a reduced number of traffic impacts. Air Quality This alternative would create similar significant short-term air quality impacts from fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions generated by the project during construction, because grading and construction activities would occur under both Alternative 2 and the proposed project. Operational emissions of the proposed project would result in a total of 851 lbs./day of CO, 64 lbs./day of ROC, 136 lbs./day of NOx, 15 lbs./day of SOx, and 19 lbs./day of PM10. Among them, the emissions for CO, ROC, and NOx would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds for daily operations by a large margin (especially NOx). Even after implementation of the mitigation measures identified, it is not guaranteed that the emissions would be reduced to below the thresholds. Therefore, it would remain a significant impact with the proposed project. When compared to the proposed project's significant long-term air quality impacts, this alternative would eliminate ~,ehicle and stationary source emis- sions resulting from project related traffic knd energy consumption. Noise The project as proposed would not contribute significantly to increased noise levels at off-site receiver locations, either .during construction or in the long term. This Alternative would eliminate any potential project related increases in noise levels attributed to project traffic. All roadway segments analyzed for the proposed project would have the 60 dBA kin extending more than 50 feet from the roadway centerline. Therefore,. all noise-sensitive uses, existing or proposed, located within the impact zone would be exposed to noise level exceeding 60 dBA Ldn. This is a potentially significant noise impact, even though the project's contribution would be small and mostly negligible and would erast with or without the proposed project. Public Services And Utilities Without development on the project site that generates a population increase, increased demand for public services, such as police and fire suppression services, schools facilities, and parks would not occur. The proposed project does not identify significant impacts to parks, police, and fire services before implementation of the identified mitigation, this alternative would eliminate any potential effects and the need for mitigation. Future development would generate more students for the already impacted school districts and is consid- ered significant. School mitigation plans would be enacted between the Etiwanda School District./Chaffey Joint Union High School District and the project developer providing for a per dwelling unit fee rate for the residential portion of the project site. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce impacts on schools to a less-than-significant level with the proposed project. With the proposed project, future development proposals for the area must provide 5.4 acres of active recreation within the Windrows planning area and 5.9 acres of active recreation within the Victoria Lakes planning area, for a total of 9.5 acres of park space. This alternative would eliminate the need for addi- tional park space based on population increase and would have a beneficial impact by providing 84.15 acres of open space and a trail system in the Victoria Community Plan area. The proposed project would also be required to provide a multi-use trail sys- tem the leng~ of "future'7 Day Creek Boulevard to reduce the project's impacts on the City's trail system and to mitigate any view shed impacts. This Aherna- tire would provide a trail system eliminating the need to mitigate the proposed project's impacts on the viewshed and trail system. Biological Resources Biological resources studies conducted for the proposed project concluded that no significant biological resources occur on site including the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat and the California gnatcatcher, both protected species. It was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant im- pact on biological resources and no mitigation would be required. This alter- native would have the same impact on biological resources as the pronosed project. Cultural Resources This alternative would have identical grading impacts and possible effects on unknown cultural resources. There is the same potential for encountering subsurface historic axtifacts during construction activities. However, with mitigation identified, neither the proposed project nor this alternative would result in any significant impacts to cultural resources. Aesthetics This alten~ative would result in a visual and aesthetic alteration of the physical appearance and character of the project site as viewed h'om travelers along future Day Creek Boulevard. This alternative would preserve views of the San Gabriel Mountains by providing an open green linear corridor of pleasing aesthetic value and is compatible with the goals and pohcies of the Victoria Community Plan. Conclusion Alternative 2 would have less significant adverse environmental impacts than that of the proposed project discussed in Section 5.0. In particular, significant unavoidable adverse impacts to local air quality would be reduced under this alternative. ALl other impacts of the proposed proiect would also be reduced under this alternative including impacts on public services, traffic, potential exposure of residences to noise related impacts, and aesthetics. Alternative 3 ' Lower Density Alternative With the Lower Density Alternative, the site would be developed with residen- tiaJ land uses at a lower density than with the proposed proicct. The commer- cial land use designations would remain the same as proposed with the project. Most of the potential impacts associated with the proposed proiect would be avoided, especially the proposed projcct's impact on air quality which re- mained significant after mitigation. Drainage Construction of impervious surfaces with this alternative would create similar water rnnoff impacts to those identified for the proposed project. Appropriate drainage facilities would 'be required as part of site design, as has been com- pleted for the proposed project, demonstrating adequacy. of the existing and proposed facilities to accommodate projected discharge. Since drainage associ- ated with the proposed!project can be accommodated by the existing and proposed facilities, it is expected that run6ff associated with Alternative 3 can also be accommodated. Potential drainage:impacts are considered the same as with the proposed project. TraJ~c Alternative 3 would result in a fewer num, ber of daily and peak hour vehicle trips than the proposed project. The amount of traffic generated by this alter- native would be contingent on the number of vehicle trips generated with the lower residential densities on site. Comt~ared to the proposed project, this alternative would result in a reduced number of traffic impacts and would have a lesser impact on areawide cizculation. Air Quality This alternative would create similar significant short-term air quality impacts from fugitive dust and construction equipment emissions generated by the project during construction, because gradifig and construction activities would occur under both Alternative 3 and the proposed project. Operational emissions of the proposed project would be reduced with imple- mentation of Alternative 3- It has been determined that the proposed project would have a significant unavoidable impact on air quality exceeding the South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds for CO, ROC, and NOx. Even after implementation of the mitigation measures identified, it is not guaranteed that the emissions would be reduced to below the thresholds with the pro- posed project. When compared to the proposed project's significant long-term air quality impacts, this alternative would reduce vehicle and stationary source emissions resulting from project related tra/~c and energy consumption and may reduce the project's impacts on CO, ROC, and NOx below levels of significance. Noise The project as proposed would not contribute significantly to increased noise levels at off-site receiver locations, either during construction or in the long- term. This Alternative would eliminate any potential project related increases in noise levels attributed to project traffic by reducing the number of vehicle trips generated. All roadway segments analyzed for the proposed project would have the 60 dBA Ldn extending more than 50 feet from the roadway centerline. Therefore, all noise-sensitive uses, existing or proposed, located within the impact zone would be exposed to noise level exceeding 60 dBA Ldn, with or without the project. This is a potentially significant noise impact, even though the proposed project's contribution would be small and mostly negligi- ble and would exist with or without the proposed project. Therefore, the incremental noise increase generated by traffic would be reduced slightly. Li4 A~sociates, Inc. Public Services And Utilities With new development on the project site, increased demand for public ser- vices, such as police and fire suppression services, schools facilities, and paxks would occur. The proposed project does not identify significant impacts to fire services before implementation of the identified mitigation, however, this alternative would lessen any potential effects because of a reduction in popula- tion from 2,275 with the proposed project to 659 with a lower density alterna- tive. Table 6.2-2 provides the number of students that would be generated with Alternative 3- Alternative 3 would generate a total of 178 students in the Etiwanda School District (elementary) and 56 students in the Chaffey School District. The proposed project would generate a total of 625 student (474 elementary students and 151 secondary students). The proposed project would generate a total of 391 more students than the lower density alternative for the Beady impacted school districts and is considered significant. School mitigation plans would be enacted between the Etiwanda School Dis- trict/ChaffeyJoint Union High School District and the project developer provid- ing for a per dwelling unit fee rate for the residential portion of the project site. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce impacts on schools to a less- than-significant level with the proposed project and Alternative 3- Table 6.2-2 - Number of Students Generated by Alternative 3 Proposed Residential Number Number of Students Students Students land Use Designations of Acres Dwelling Units~ K-52 6-83 9'124 Area Between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road Low Density 10.8 22 10 4 4 (2-4 DU/AC) Low-medium Den- 17.8 71 31 14 14 sity (48 DU/AC) Medium Density 8.3 66 28 13 13 (8-14 DU/AC) Subtotal 36.9 159 69 31 31 Area Between Base Line Road and 1-15 Low Medium Density 10.4. 41 18 8 8 (4-8 DU/AC) Medium 10.4 83 36 16 17 (8-14 DU/AC) Subtotal 20.8 124 54 24 25 TOTAL 84.5 283 123 55 56 1 Highest density level used to calculate Dwelling Units per Acre. Notes: 2 Smdent Generation Rate~ for the Etiwanda School District for K-5 @ 0.4343 Per uniL 3 Student Generation Rate~ for the Etmanda School District for 6-8 @ 0.1934 per uniL 4 Student Generation rates for the ChaHeyJoint Union High School District for 9-12 @ 0.2000 per unit. L.$A Asaoc~ates. Inc. With the proposed project, future develbpment proposals for the area must provide 3.4 acres of active recreation within the Windrows planning area and 5.9 acres of active recreation within the Victoria Lakes pinning area, for a total of 9.3 acres of park space. Table 6.2-3 provides the number of acres of park land that would be required by the lower 'density alternative. With this alterna- tive, the area between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road would require 1.4 acres of park land, Zand between Base Line Road and 1-15 would require 1.9 acres of park land. However, as shown in Table 6.24 there is a surplus of 1 acre of park land in the Windrows area and 1 acre in the Victoria Lakes a~ea. Therefore, Alternative 3 would require .0.4 acre in the Windrows area and 0.9 acre in the Victoria Lakes area. This alternative would eliminate the need for additional 9-3 acres of park space based on population increase of the proposed project. Table 6.2-3 - Acres Required for Active Recreation for Alternative 3 Acres Number of Requind For Dwelling Activ~ Land Use Density Acres Unitst Persons2 Recr~ltlons Area Between Highland Avenue to Base Line Road Low Density (2-4 DU/AC) 10.8 22 66 0.3 Low-Medium Density 17.8 71 21 0.1 (4-8 DU/AC) Medium Density 8.29 66 199 1.0 (8-14 DU/AC) Subtotal 36.9. 159 286 1.4 Area Between Base Line Road to Foothill Boulevard Low-Medium Density 10.4 41 123 0.6 (4-8 DU/AC) Medium Density 10.4 59 250 1.3 (8-14 DU/AC) Subtotal 20.8 124 373 1.9 TOTAL 57.69 283 659 3.3 I L~west DweHing Unit Per Acre. Notes: 2 Household Rate of 3.01 Persons Per HOusehold. 3 Ratio of 1 Ache of Active Recreation Park for Every 200 persons (1/200). Table 6.2.4 - Active Recreation within W'mdrows and Victoria Lakes planning Areas No~ of No. of People Per No. of Acres No. of Acres planning Area Dv,,elllng Units planning Area 1 Needed 2 Provided Windrows 1,740 5,237 26 27 Lakes 2,185 6,577 33 34 Notes: 1 Household rate of 3.01 persons per household. 2 Ratio of lacre for every 200 persons. Impacts would be in the form of a need for expanded services routinely associ- ated with residential growth. According to the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department, Alternative 3 would require one-half additional officer, plus sup- port personnel, equipment, and facilities. This number was obtained by using the City's officer generation rate of 0.741/1,000 residents. Using an estimated 3.01 persons per household, 659 residents would be generated by the 283 residential units for this alternative. One-half officer would be needed for the residential portion of the project and one additional officer to respond t~ calls for the 300,000 square feet of commercial use that is proposed. This altenia- five would generate the need for four and one-half less police officers than the proposed project. In addition, site development would require adequate access into the site for all emergency vehicles. The additional number of homes and commercial areas would provide on-site targets for criminal activity. The proposed project and Alternative 3 would contribute to an incremental increase in demand on police service as the proposed project. Biological ResOurces Biological resources studies conducted for the proposed project concluded that no significant biological resources occur on site including the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat and the California gnatcatcher, both protected species. It was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant im- pact on biological resources and no mitigation would be requh'ed. This alter- native would have the same impact on biological resources as the proposed project. Cultural Resources This alternative would have identical grading impacts and possible effects on unknown cultural resources. There is the same potential for encountering subsurface historic artffacts during construction activities. However, with mitigation identified, neither the proposed project nor this alternative would result in any significant impacts to cultural resources. Impacts would be the same as with the proposed project. Aesthetics This alternative would result in a visual and aesthetic alteration of the physical appearance and character of the project site as viewed by travelers along future Day Creek Boulevard. Development with Alternative 3 would be similar to that of the proposed project with lesser intensity because of the reduced residential densities. Impacts on aesthetics and the view corridor of the San Gabriel Mountajns would be the same with this Alternative as with the proposed pro- ject. Conclusion The proposed project's impacts on air quality, traffic, fire, police, schools, and parks would be reduced with implementation of Alternative 3- There would be a slight reduction in vehicular traffic noise impacts with this alternative. The proposed project's impacts on drainage, biological resources, cultural re- sources, and aesthetics would remain the ~ame with Alternative 3- Alternative 4 - Off-Site Alternative Analysis of the availability of adequate alternative parcels for implementation of the proposed project utilized information provided in the City's Genera. and the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The focus of this investigation v,~s to determine whether appropriately sized parcels are available within the City to accommodate the proposed project while meeting the project objectives, primarily those associated with provision of infiLI residential development within a context of a planned community ~nd preservation of th~ single family character of residential neighborhoods within the City. SCE owns utility corridor easements to the north and south of the proposed project area that are actually an extension of the same utility easement as the proposed project. Potentially, the area that contains the utility easement north of Highland Avenue could be processed for a proposed General Plan Amen- dment Erom Utility Corridor to Residential to allow a variety of residential densities similar to the proposed project. However, it may not be appropriate to propose a General Plan Amendment to allow the higher intensity land use of the regional related office/commercial designation of the proposed project in this area, but the residential land uses may be appropriate. The residential land uses at a lower intensity may be more appropriate in this area to be compatible with existing residential densities in the area which are low density (2-4 du/ac.). Overall, the proposed project's impacts on drainage, traffic, noise, public ser- vices (fire, police, schools, and parks), biological resources, and cultural re- sources would remain the same with this alternative site. The significant un- avoidable impacts on air quality would also be the same as with the proposed project since the air quality impacts of the proposed project are a result of operational vehicle emissions which would not be reduced with this alternative. Biological resources studies conducted for the proposed project concluded that no significant biological resources occur On site including the San Bernardino Merriam's kangaroo rat and the California .gnatcatcher, both protected species. It was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant im- pact on biological resources and no mitigation would be required. This alter- native would require biological resource surveys be conducted to determine whether the San Bernardino Merriam's ~kangaroo rat and/or the California gnatcatcher occur on site. This alternative does contain habitat that could support both species. If the species are not present on site, this alternative would have the same impact on biological resources as the proposed project. Impacts on aesthetics may potentially be the same with this alternative site. The alternative site is not within the Victoria Community Plan but is in the Etrwanda North Specific Plan that is similar to the Victoria Community Plan and also has design guidelines which protect and enhance aesthetics and view corridors. L~4Associate~ Inc. In conclusion, an alternative site within an Edison utility corridor would have the same impacts as the proposed project and would not reduce the proposed projects' significant unavoictnhle long-term impact on air quality. 6.3 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The No Project/No Development Alternative is an Environmentally Superior alternative since no development would occur on the project site. Unlike. *he proposed project or the project alternatives, the No project/No Development Alternative would not increase demand for public services, increase traffic volumes, circulation, air emissions and noise levels (associated with construc- tion and operation of additional land uses), cause the additional need for recreational facilities, or increase potential impacts to biological or cultural resources, drainage, and aesthetics that may otherwise result from development of the project site. Significant short-term construction emissions would be eliminated, and significant unavoidable long-term CO, ROC, and N0x emis- sions would be reduced with the No Project/No Development Alternative. As required by CEQA (Section 15126(d)(4), if the No projectf No Development Alternative is selected as the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alterna- tives. Among the alternatives considered, the open space/trails system alterna- tive has the least damaging environmental impacts. Of the viable alternatives, the open space/trails system alternative would result in fewer daily and peak hour vehicle trips and contaminant emissions, and incremental increases in ambient noise levels, and impacts on schools and parks. Potential long-term local air quality impacts are considered significant unavoidable adverse impacts under either the proposed project or Alternatives 3 or 4. Alternative 2, how- ever, would result in reduced impacts to long-term air quality and is environ- mentally superior to all other alternatives. There are economic impacts to the City with the implementation of Alternative 2. If the site is to be converted to a open space/trails system, the City would have to 1) purchase the property, 2) construct the trail system, and 3) provide long-term maintenance of a trail system on the 84.15-acre site. The cost to purchase the property, and construct and malnta.in the trails may cause an additional financial burden on the City residents depending on how the City chooses to provide funding. In light of proposition 218, additional use taxes would have to go to City wide vote. Long-term funding for a City trail system on this site is not certain. EIR for GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM EXHIBIT "H" E 106 APPENDIX K - MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN This mitigation monitoring plan has been prepared for use in implementing mitigation measures identified in the Envii'onmental Impact Report for General Plan Amendments 96-03B and 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amend- ments 96-01 and 97-01/Edison Company' project. This program has been pre- pared in compliance with the State law to ensure compliance with mitigation measures adopted for the project by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code, Paragraph 201081.6), effective January 1, 1989, requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for those condi- tions of approval placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the environment. The law states that the monitoring or reporting program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The monitoring program contains the following elements: 1. Conditions of approval that act as impact mitigation measures are re- corded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure compliance. In Some instances, one action, such as plan review, may be used to verify implementation of several conditions of approval. 2. A procedure of compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This procedure designates who will take action, what action will be taken and when, and to whom and when compliance will be reported. 3- The program has been designed to be flexible. As monitoring pro- gresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessar/based on recommendations by those responsible for the program. If c. hanges are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be developed and incorporated into the program. 2,B/980i:\CRG730XFEIRxMITMON,FNL) K- 1 MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT lIEPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-O1/EDISON COMPANY Monitoring and Monitoring Responsible Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Reinarks DRAINAGE t.l.lA. Any deveIopnlent proposed be- Developer shah prepare Prior to approval City's Engineering :xveeo lligfiland Avenue and Base Line ~nd submit to tile City for of Final Tract Dept. Road shall be conditioncd to convey on-site review and apl)rova[ de- Map. :lrainage to the west to Day Creek Channel veloplnent plans. by storm drain systen~s in Victoria Park Lane City's Engineering and Base Line Road, Dept. ~. 1.1B. The developer shall amend the Developer sfiall prepare Prior to approval Applicant sfiall pay City's Final Master Plan of Drainage Report and subhilt to the City for of Final Tract for mitigation ~rior to Final Map approval to account for approval amendments to Map. monitor hired by tile change in land use fron~ open space to the City's Final Master City. residential uses. Plan of Drainage. City's Engineering Dept. ~roxitnately 462 feet from Victoria Park review and approval Map. Lane and install an 108-inch ItCP from Day drainage plans. (;reek Boulevard to Day Creek Channel, wid~ the pipe entering the cfiannel one foot 4.2.1A. Tfie project prol)onent shall coil- Paynlent of traffic l~:es to Prior to issuance .City's Engineering Iribute a traffic fee in accordance witl~ the the City by the developer. 3f building per- ~Dept. City's adopted traffic fee progran~ (l'rans- :nits. ~ortation Departn~ent hnpact Fee Ordi- I1ance No. 445) as the project's fair share identified as necessary at the tilne of issu- ance of building pernfits. These improve- ments shall consist of the following: Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard - Modify the eastbound and westbound approaches be modified to include a third through lane in each direction oil Foothill Boulevard as well as convert the eastbound right turn lane to a through phls right turn lane. 2/8/98 (It:\CF, G 730XFEI RXM H'MON. FN 1,) K-2 MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX FINAL [iNVIItONMI!NTAL ]MI'ACT [~l~llOIt'l' GI!NERAL PLAN AMI!NDMI~N'I'S 96-03B AN[) 97-01 AND VICTOItlA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENI)MENTS 96-01 AND 97-0J/EDISON COMPANY Monitoring and Monitoring Responsible J J Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remarks TI~FFIC (Continued) Rochester Ave. tte/}lighland Avert tie - Signal phasing of tile existing trafl~c sig- nal shall be upgraded to acconlnlodate the future tra[]~c volunles. RochesterAvenue/Foothill Botdevard - Signal phasing of tile existing traffic sig- Rochester' Avert ue/Base Line Road - Sig- nal phasing of the existing traffic signal shall be upgraded to accommodate tile Day Creele Botdevard/llighland Ave- -... Constrx. lction of a northbound left ~ turn lane; - -- ~ Addition of a second northbound Ihrough lane and a shared through plus right turn lane, Construction of a southbound left Addition of a second southbound plt~s right turn lane, Addition of an eastbound through l)lus rigfit turn lane, Constrt~ction of a xvestbound left Addition of a westbound through plus right turn lane. MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX GENERAl. PLAN AMliNDMENTS 96'03B AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMliNDMENTS 96-01 AND 97'0 t/EDISON COMPANY Monitoring and Monitoring Ilesl}onsible Mitigation Measures Reporth~g Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remarks TItAFFIC (Continued) Day Creek Botdevard/Base Line Road - The following is recommended mitiga- Addition of second and third north- Addition of second and third ConsInaction of dual eastbound left Addition of a third eastbound Addition of a third westbound through lane, and Dt9, Creek Boulevard/Foothill Boule- vard - The following is reconm~endcd mitigation for this intersection: ConsInaction of dual northbound Addition of a second and third northbound through lanes, Construction of dual southbound left turn lanes, 218/98(It:\CRG730\J:I:-IR~MITMON.FNl.) ~[ITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX GENERAL PLAN AMI~NI},'.IENTS 96'03B AND 97'01 AND VICTOIHA COMMUNITY I~LAN AMENDMI!NTS 96'01 AND 97'0 I/EDISON COMPANY Mottltorhxg and Monitoring Responsible Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Re,harks TRAFFIC (Continued) Addition of second and third sot~thbou~c[ through lanes, Construction of a free southbotmd Construction of du;d castbound left Addition of ;m eastbound through plus right turn lane, Constnlction of a westbound left Etiwanda Aoenue/Base Zinc Road - The shall I~ modified to provklc a third Etixvanda Avenue. 1-15 Southbound Ra,tps/Base Zine Road - Addition of a second %vestbound left turn lane (dual left tun~ lane) for 1-15 Sotttbbound Ratrips/Foothill Bottle- yard - Conversion of the eastbou nd right turn lane to a free right turI~ lane East Averttie/Base Zinc Road - As mitiga- include a third through lane. MITIGATION MONITORING MATItlX FINAL ['_'NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I{EPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMMt/NITY PLAN AMENI)MENTS 96-0 I AND 97-01/EDISON COMPANY Monitorh~g and [ Monitoring Responsible Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Renlarks HLAFFIC (Continued) i.2.1B. Circulation improvcn~cnls have been identified to achieve stanciarcls levels :ffscrvice (i.e., local jurisdictiol~ and/or SANBAG) at study area intersections. To adtlress the tinling, ~mding, and inlplelnen- tation of these inq)rovenlenls, the following Prior to the approval of any tract map, a The developer shall sub. Prior to approval City's Engineering traffic study shall be completed to tie- mit to the City for revicxv of any tract map. Dept. levels of service. If unacceptable levels of service result, this traffic analysis shall deteHnine the portion of the uhi- :ire required, the phasing of the inl- 4.2.2. The project shah contribute on a fair The developer shall stth- Prior to approv:tl ~2ity's F. ngineering sh:tre basis to the cost of providing tile fol- mit to the City l~:es deter- af Final Tract Dept. lowing freexvay lane additions: mined al~propriate by tile Map. City for hit share contri- 1-15 betxveen Jurupa Street and 1-10 - button to freeway lane txvo lane mainline ktnes in each direc- additions. 1-15 bctxvecn ,hh Street and Foothill 2/S/98(R;\CItG730XFHItXMH'MON.FNI.) K-6 MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX (;I!NEItAI. PLAN AMI!NDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-0 [ AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN A,%I[iNDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-O1/I:'DlSON COMPANY Monitorh~g and Monitoring Resl~onsible },litigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remarks AIR QUALITY 4.3.1A. The Construction Contractor shall Applicant shall sublnit to Prior to issuance City's lluilding & select tile construction equipment used the City proof that tile ofgracling per- Safety Dept. high energy efficiency. The Construction chided ill the constrtlc- Applicant shall pay 4.3.1B. The Construction Contractor shall ~pplicant shallsubn~it to Prior to issuance City's Iiuilding & : utilize electric or diescl-i}owercd cquil>- tile City proof Illlit the of grading per- Safety Dept. where lbasihlc. eluded in tile construc- Applicant shall pay City. 4.3. IC. The Construction Contractor shall ~q~plicant shall submit to Prior to issuance City's lluilding & ensure that constr~ction grading plans in- the Cityproof that the of grading per; Safety Dept. - clude a statement that work cre~vs xvill shut mitigation listed is in- mils. off ecltfipnlent when not ill rise. During :luded in the coz~struc- Applicant shall p:ty overall length of the constrttction period :leveloper's contractor. monitor hired by should be extended, thereby decreasing the City. size of the area prepared each day, to mini- 4.3.1D. The Construction Contractor shall ~pplicant shall suhn~it to Prior to issuance City's lluiklil~g & time the construction activities so as to not ;he City proof that the of grading per- Safety Dept. interfere with peak hour traffic and mini- a~itigation listed is in- mils. mize obstruction of through tr'~c lanes Auded in the construc- Applicant shall pay adjacent to the site; if necessary, a tion docuntents with the for mitigation flagperson shall be retained to maintain developer's contractor. monitor hired by safety adjacent to existing roadways. City. \CItG730WEII{~',IH'MON.FNL) GENI!ItAL PI. AN AMENDMENTS 96-0311 AND 97-0 l Moltitorh~g and Monitoring Responsible J Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Ren~arks AIR QUALITY (Continued) 4.3.1E. The Constrtlction Contractor shall Apl)[icant shall sul3nfit to Prior to issuance City's Building & supl~ort anti encourage ridesharing and tile City proof that the 3f grading per- Sali:ty Dept. The Construction Contractor shall support eluded in the construc- 'xpplicant shall pay 2ity. 4.3.2A. Dust generated by the develop- a. l)uring clearing, grading, earth nloving, Apl)licant shall submit to Prior to issuance ~ City's Building & b. 1)uring construction, water trucks or Applic;tnt shall subn~it to Field inspections City's Building & sprinkler syslems shall [Y2 used to keep tile City proof that tile during grading. Safety Dept. enough to l~revent dust l~om leaving eluded ill the construc- Applicant shall pay pieted for tile day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Field inspections during grading. 2t~/98(It:\CI{G73OXI:EIR~MITMONFNL) K-8 MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX GIENERAL PLAN AMliNDMENTS 96-03[i AND 97-0 [ Monitoring and Monitoring ] Responsible Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remarks AIR QIJAI~I'I~' (Continl~e(I) c. After clearing, graclil~g, earth moving, or Al)l)licant shall std)mit Io Prior to issuance l~uilding & Safety excavation is ctmq>lcted, tile entire area the City prot~f that tile t~[' grading per- DclH. of disturbed soil shall be treated in~lue- mitigation listed is in- mits. diately by pickup of tile soft until the eluded in the construc- Applicant shall pay area is paved or othersvise developed so tion docun~ents with tile Field inspections for mitigation that dust generation will not occur. developer's contractor. during grading. monitor hired by City. d. Soil stockpiled for more than txvo days Applicant shall submit to Prior to issuance Building & Safety shall be covered, kept moist, or treated the City proof that the of grading per- Dept. with soil binders to prevent dust gener, mitigation listed is ill- mits. ation. cluded ill the constn~c- Applicant shall pay tion docunlents with die Field inspections for mittgallon developer's contractor. during grading. monitor hired by City. e. Trucks transl~orting soil, sand, cut or fill Applicant shall sul~n~it to Prior to issuance Building & Safety materials and/or construction debris to the City proof that the Df gradiI~g per- Dept. or fron~ the site shall be tarped fro=n the mitigation listed is in- hilts. point of origin. . cluded in tile constnlc- Applicant shall pay - tion docun~ents with tile Field insl)ections for nlitigation develope.r's cootractoL during grading. monitor hired by City. 4.3.3. The Construction Contractor shall Applicant shall submit to Prior to issuance Bulkling & Safety utilize as nluch as l}ossible precoated/natu- the City proof that the of building per- Dept. ral colored bulkling materials, water-based mitigation listed is in- mits. Dr low-VOC coating, and coating transfer or cluded in the construc- Apphcant shall pay spray equil~ment with high mtnsfer effi- tion documents with the for mitigation ciency, such as high volun~e low pressure developer's contractor. monitor hired by (IIVLP) spray method, or manual coatings City. al)plicalion such as paint bn~sh, hand sponge. IITMON.FNL) ~ MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX [:INAI. ]iNVIRONMliNTAI. IMPACT flEPOlIT GI~NERAL PLAN AMI~NDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PI.AN AMENDMENTS 96-0 I AND 97-01/]:.DISON COMPANY Monitoring and ] Monitoring Responsible ~ [ Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party l~fitials Date Remarks AIR QUALITY (Continued) 4.3.4A. The project shall conq~ly xvith Title The applicant sfiall pre- Prior to issuance l~uilding & Safety 2,t of the California Code of Regulations pare and subnfit building 3f building per- Dept. estabfished by tfie Energy Con~nlission re- ~[ans to the City for re- tl~its. garding energy conservation standards. viexv and approval that Applicant shall pay The project applicant shall incorporate tfie contain the listed mitiga- for mitigation following in building plans: tion. monitor hired by City. Planting trees to provide shadt2 and shadowy to building; 'Solar or lo~v-emission water heaters shall be used witfi colubined space/xvatcr healer tinit; flefrigerator ~vith vactltlnl po~ver itlstlla- ment for energy conservation shall be tlscd in aft exterior willdo~vs; and I~.nergy-efllcient IO~V-SOCfitHll parking lot lights shall be used. 4.3.4B. Use of transportation demand met- Tfie appfical~t shall pre- Prior to issuance I~uikfing & Safety sures (TDM) such as preferential parking pare and submit to the of building per- Dept. forvanpooling/carpooling, subsidy fortran- City for revie~vand ap- mits. sit pass or vanpoofing/carpooling, flextime proval devcloptuent plans Planning I)ept. work schedule, bike racks, lockers, showers, :fiat incorporate tfie fisted and onsitc cafeteria shall be incorl~orated in I'DM measures. tfie d~:sign of tfic commercial land uses. 4.3.4C. The project proponent shall deter- l'fie applicant shall sub- Prior to issuance Pitnixing Dept. mine with the City and the electrical put- ndt to tfie City written of a certificate of veyor if it is feasible to pre-wire houses for ,vidence that fie/sfie has occupancy. electrical cimrges for EV cars and/or optic 2onsu[ted xvitfi tile electrl- ~bers for hon~e offices. If feasible, install F.V :al purveyor and the City. ~ :fiarges and/or optic-fibers per the electrical ,urveyor's direction prior to Certificate of 2/Bt98(R:x,CitG730qrEIi{XMiTMONFNL) K- I 0 GI!NI~RAL PI.AN AMENI}MI!NTS 96-03B AND 97-01 Monitoring anti Monitoring l{esponsible Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Reinarks A1R QUALI'I'Y (Continued) 4.3.4D. Install EV charges or electrical l~lcl The developer shall pre- Prior to issuance l~uilding & Safety stations/natural gas for comn~unity wide use late and subn~it to tile of building per- Dept. at key comn~ercial and puhlic location(s) City for review and ap- mits for any conl- such as park and ride lots, Metrolink St;t- ~roval building plans that mercial building. liotl. Ficzld inspections Btli[ding & Safety of a certificate of Planning Dept. 4.3.4E. The developer shall contract xvith a l'he developer shall sub- Prior to issuance PIanning I)ept. "~ NOISE 4.4.1A. During all project site excavation ~pplicant shall submit to Prior to issuance Bulkling & Safety and grading on-site, the project contractors ~he City proof that the of grading per- Dept. shall equip all constrttction equipment, :nitigation listed is in- mits. fixed or nlobile, with properly oper, tting _quded in the constn~c- Applicant shall pay City. 4.4.1B. The project contractor shall place Applicant shall submit to Prior to issuance Building & Safety all stationary construction equipment so the City proof that the Dfgrading per- I)cpt. that emitted noise is directed away fron~ mitigation listed is in- tuits. sensitive receptors to the east of the site. eluded in the construc- tion docunlents with tile Field inspections Building & Safety developer's contractor. :luring grading. Dept. t~pplicant shall pay for mitigation monitor hired by ~dI'I'IGATION i%IONITORING MATRIX AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMIiNTS 96-01 AND 97-01/EDISON COMPANY Monitoring and [ Monitoring Responsible t ] ~ Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Itfitials Date Remarks NOISE (Continued) 4.4.1C. 'l'he construction contractor shall !Applicant shall submit to Prior to issuance l~uilding & Safety locate equil>mcnt staging in areas Ihat xvill :he City proof that tile of grading per- Dept. site during all project construction. :leveloper's contractor. monitor hired by City. ,4.4.1D. During all project site construc- t~pplicant shall subsnit to Prior to issuance Prior to issuance of lion, tile construction contractor shall litnit tile City proof that tile of grading per- grading permits. ;~11 construction-related activities that would mitigation listed is in- mils. result in high noise levels to bet~veen tile luded in tile construc- Applicant shall pay hours of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.nL Monday lion doctHnents with the lbr mitigation ;~ctivities do not result in noise levels ex- City. ceeding 45 dllA at residences to the east of the site. No constrt~ction shall be allo~ved t)n Sundays and public holidays. 4.4.2. Noise studies sixall be required to be l'he applicant shall sub- Prior to approval Planning Dept. ubmitted to the City for reviexv and ap- I~xit noise studies to the of Final Tract iroval prior to l~nal xll:ll~ approval for rest- City for revie~v arid ap- blalL Apl~licant shall [~ay City. Within 408 feet of Base I.ine Road center- Within 770 feet of Fc}othilI lloulcvard con- Within 337 feet of Day Creek Boulewtrd centerline between Highland Avenue and Base lane Road; · Withill .138 feet of Day Creek lloulevard centerline between Base Line Road and Church Street; and · Within 34.l fcct of I lighland Avenue Cell- 2/8/98(It:\CRG730XFEIR~,IITMON.FNL) K-12 · . MITIGATION MONITORING MATBIX (;ENERAL PI, AN AMENDMENTS 96-0311 AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMEND,%IENTS 96-0 I AND 97-OI/EDISON COMPANY I Monitorb~g and Monitoring I Responsible I I Mitigalion Measures Reporth~g Process Milestones Party Initials Date Ren~arks NOISE (Continued) along the property line, proper bulkling orientation, building facade upgrade, ventilation shall be provided, PUBLIC SERVICES Schools 4.S.1A. A school mitigation plan shall be The developer shall stlb- ! ' or to the ~sstl- IIuilding & Safety enacted between the ESD and tile devel- mit to the City a copy of a ante of building Dept. ,aper to provide for a per dxvelling unit fee school mitigation plan pernfits for any :ct site. The fees will offset the additiona[ developer alld the ~ien~and placed on school dislrict facilities Eti~vanda School District. by tile residential portion of tile project 4.5.1B. The developer shall join Chaffey The developer shall sub- Prior to the issu- Planning Dept. School Distric~Melto-ltoos Con~n~unityFa- mit to tile City~vritten ante of-building :ililics District No.2 ICED No. 2), in order ~roof that the developer I)crmits for any to provide all alternative method to finalice has joined the Chaffcy rcsklential tinit. the nfitigation of school impacts of develop- School District Mello- ties District No.2 (CFD No. 2). 4,5.1C. The devclol)er shall be required to The developer shall sub- Prior to l']anning I'lanning Dept. :xecute an agreement with ESD and mit to the City a copy of Conemission ap- CJUI ISD to provide adequate mitigation. Ihe executed agreenleut ~roval for any %ch an agreelncnt shall be executed prior betxveen the I.:SI) and residential unit. residential project xvithin the General Plan ~xmclKhBellt area. Actual iznplefnclltation of the agreenlent by tile payment of fees, dcdi- zation of sites or other mitigation will take FINAL [!NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I{I!POItT GENEItAI. PLAN AMENDMENTS 96'0311 AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMbltINI'I'Y FLAN AMI!NI)MI!NTS 96-01 AND 97-O1/EDISON COblPANY Monitorbig and Monitoring Rcsl~onsible I ] Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party htitials Date Remarks IqFBLIC SERVICI'.'S - Scbools.(Colltilllled) 4.5.11). In tile event that tile dcvch~pcr tf:t mitigation agrccn~cnt Prior it> Planning lqanning l)cpt. declines to exertire a mitigation agreenlent, is riot executed, tile de- Cofllnlissioll ap- tlie City shall require fuJI mitigation as a ~'c}oper shall form a ~roval for ally condition of approval. Full mitigation shall Mello-Roos Conlmunity residential be accoml~lisbed by means of a requircn~ent Facilities District. to form a Mel[o-Roos Conlmunity Facilities district for school facilities. bl order to re- :]tlce tile btlrdell on tile flittire bonleown- :rs, it is possible to structure the comnlu- nity facilities district such that solne of the q~ecial I:LXeS would be prepaid by tile devel- 31)er. t.5.2(1)A. The developer shall be subject to l'he developer shall exe- Prior to Planning Flanning Dept. 3f Ihe City of Rancho Cucan~onga to estab- tile City to dedicate [):Irk- ~roval of the Fi- lish regulations for dedicaOon of [and, pay- land or pay in lieu fees as hal Tract Map. ment of fees, or both, for park and recre- 3etermined by the City's Parks & liecreation ational land in subdivisions and planned Park and Recreation Con~- Dept. by dedication. 4.5.2(1)B. At tile tinle of filing a tentative ['he City Park and Recrc- At tile time of Parks & Recreation tract map or a minor subdivision plat Ibr ;nion Conunission shall filing a tentative l)ept. approval, tile City Park and Recreation determine whether dcdi- tract nmp or a Comnlission shall deternline xvhether dedi- ration of property for minor subdirt- ration of property tbr 11.3 acres of park 11.3 acres of park and sion plat for ap- re necessary. If the City desires dedica- in lieu of fees ;ire neces- tion, tile area shall be designated on the sary. General Flan Amendment indicating the ]'he developer shall suh- Planning Dept. Iocationofanyparkshallbeprocessedsub- mit an application for a 2ct to Park and Recreation Commission General Plan An~endn~ent review and recomn~endation. for tile location of any 218,.98(R:\Cli(;730\FEIR%MlTMON.FNL) K-I4 MITIGATION MONITORING i~[ATRIX FINAl. ENVII(ONMENTAL IMPACT REPOItT GENERAl. PLAN AMI!NDMENTS 96-0311 AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-01/EDISON COMPANY Monitoring and { Monitoring [ Responsible [ } Mitigation Measures Reporth~g Process Mileslones Party Inilials Date Remarks PUBLIC SERVICES - Recreation (Continued) 4.5.2(1)C. Where dedication is offered and I'he developer shaft ei- Prior to issuance l~uilding & Safety accePted it shall be accoml~lished in accor- therexecuteadedication ofbuildingper- Dept. dance with tile provisions of the Subdivi- tgreement xvith the City mits. sion Map Act. Where fees are required, tile 3r pay estahfished fees. Parks & Recreation sanle shall be deposited with the City prior Dept. to the issuance of building permits. 4.5.2(2). The parkxvay oil the east side of The developer shall sub- Prior to approval Pkuufing Dept. "future" Day Creek lloulevard shaft be wid- mit to the City for review of any develop- ened by 20 to 25 feet to provide a multi-use and approval a trails plan nientplansadja- Parks&Recreation trail from I lighland Avenue south to termi- for the parkway oil tile cent to Day Dept. ~ hate at the City's aduh sports complex. east side of Day Creek Creek Boulevard. Specific design of tile trail shaft Ire deter- lloulevard incorporating nilned by the City at tile time development the stated mitigation, ~lans are submitted for review and approval [or any development proposals adjacent to ~'future" Day Creek lloulcvard. The specific design shall tie in with tile City's Day Creek IIotdevard Master Plan design. The trail shall he designed to connect to planned ..... ;tnd existing trail systems in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and shall connect tile residential areas north and south of B;tse lane to the regional conuBercial areas adja- 2ent to Interstate 15. Police !4.5.3A~ As stated in the General liequire- The developer shall sign a Prior to issuance Engineering l)ept. merits and Approvals lbr the Police Depart- coilsent and waiver fom~ of building per- ment for the City, a signed consent and to join and/or form the hilts. waiver form to join and/or form the Law La~v Enforcenlent Conl- l".nforcelnent Community Facilities District nlunity Facilities District. shall be filed with City l!ngineering prior to A copy of tile signled form lhlalmapapprovalortheissuanceofhuild- shall be subntitted to the mg permits, whicfiever occurs first for any City's Engineering De- projects within the project area between lartment. Ilighland Avenue and 1-15. l:ormation costs shall be borne by the l)eveloper. MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX Monitoring and Monitoring Responsible },litigation Measures Rel~orting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Ren~arks PUBLIC SERVICES (Continued) 4.5.4A. The developer shall join the Mello- The developer shall join a Prior to issuance Pire Dept. Roos Co~nlunity Facilities District to pro- Mello-Roos Con~nlunity of building per- vide fire protecttoll services to tile site. Facilities District for fire mits. 4.5.4B. The developer shall install attto- The developer shall sub- Prior to issuance ]:ire Dept. mated fire sprinkler systems in comnlercial, mit to the City for reviexv of buikling per- ! ldt s r t lc multi-fanlily residential units and approval building mits. ~Cucanlonga) Fire Protection District Ordi- mated fire sprinkler sys- Building &Safety [~roteclion District Ordinance No. 22. ~ESTIIETIC/V1SUAL ~.6.1A. New buildings within 100 feet of l'he developer shall sub- I'rior to approval Planning Dept. [uture Day Creek Boulewtrd shall be re- tuit to the City for review of any develop- Z'T7 ~trictcd to 35 feet ill beigbt to protect the :rod approval develop- ment plans for isis traveling nortb. The City lqanning De- ivitbin I00 feet from Day 100 feet fronl Building & Safety partment sball ensure that this condition is Creek Boulevard Day Creek Boule. Dept. U applied prior to al~proval of the proposed wtrd. 4.6.1B. Noise xvalls along future Day Creek l'be developer sllall sub- Prior to approval Planning Dept. lk~ulcvard shall be no more tban eight feet mit to tile City for review of any develop- lbr Ibis Scenic Corridor, and should be set ment platis for noise future Day Creek back an adequate distance to allow land- ~valls along Day Creek !l~otdcvard. soaping on the road side of tile sound wall Boulevard. This requiren~ent shall be attached as a con- dition of approval by the City Planning De- partment prior to approval of any develop- nlent bordering future Day Creek Boule- 2/8/98(It:\CI{G730~l:EIRX~MITMON.FNL) K-16 MITIGATION MONITOItlNG MATRIX FINAL liNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REI'OIt'F GENERAL PLAN A,',IENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01 AND VICTORIA COM,MUNITY PI.AN AMENDMI!NTS 96-01 ANt) 97-01/EDISON COMPANY Monitoring and ] Monitoring ] Responsible } Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remark~ AESTIIE'I'ICN1SUAL (Conlitlued) 4.6. IC. The City Plall~litlg Department I'he City shall ;Hl~e~ld the I'rit:r Io liling of Plal~nillg Dept. shall artlend the Community Design Criteria :omnuH~ity Design Crite- filing tentative visiotl l)lat for its "reconln~ended edge con- stated mitigation. ditions' for future Day Creek Boulevard to Day Creek llonlevard, this proposed land- scaping shall be enbanced by short aild tall ' : walls to reduce the visual inq)acts ofsucb walls. establisbed for the far southern end of tile mit to the City for review Df any develop- from tile view of moto[ists alogg I-15 look- plans fo_r ally develop- development ii{g north. llo~vever, this landscaping ment in tbe area of 1-15. adjacent and in should also allo~v views north towards tile tile vicinity of l- Parks & Recreation eided by the future Day Creek Boulevard. l'he City Harming I)epartn~ent sball address Ibr any development in tile area of 1-15. 4.6.2. The Design Review process for coin- The developer shall sub- Prior to develop- Planning Dept. mercial cstablishnlents shall ensure tbat no mit to the City for revie~v nlent plan ap- significant light or glare inq3acts sball restllt and al)proval develop- proval by the [toni tile l)roposed project. Specific issues ment plans that indicate ~ity's Design to be evaluated at tile time of design revie%v the type and location of Review Cornhilt- shall include the fol[oxving: proposed exte- exterior lighting. tee. riot lighting and landscaping of parklog ~reas to reduce visible ligbting from outside these areas; use of shielding on exterior Lights to lbcus light onto the ground; ;tfld, · ) 17 MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX FINAL F. NVIItONMI!NTAL IMPACT REI'ORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-0313 AND 97-01 AND V1CTORIA COMMUNVI'Y PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-01/EDISON COMPANY Moxfitoring and [ Monitoring Responsible ] ~ Mitigation Measures Iieporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remarks M~STIIETIC/VISUAL (Continued) 4.6.3A. Provisions shall be made to ac- The developer shall sub- Prior to approval I'lanning Dept. ~ount for protection of viewsheds and plant nlit to the City for reviexv 3f development palette plans shown m the Victoria Comnlu- and approval landscape plans by the nity Plan for major intersections along fu- ~lans for major intersec- City's Design lure Day Creek Boulevard~ Such provisions lions along Day Creek Review Cornhilt- may include the following: building set- Boulevard~ tee. backs within the project site; varied al[oxv- able heights with lower heights nearest the il~terchanges; cltlstering of buildings; and, landscaping to con~pieluent the vie%vshed. These issues shall be addressed by the City for the liesign Review process at ti~e time of developing conditions of approval for ally projects within the i~roposcd project corri- 4.6.3B. To reduce pt>tential conflicts with Prior to issuance Planl~ing l)ept. ~olicics of tile City's Conlmunity Design 0f building per- ;ures lbund under ,i.6.1 sllall also be inlple- 4.6.3C. The Cohen/unity Design Criteria The City shall amend the Prior to approval Planning Dept. l'art 11 of tl~e Victoria Con~munity Plan shall Conununity Design Crite- of tentative tract be anlended in~nlediately following project ria Part I1 of the Victoria map. }art ofthe project. lloxvever, as I)art ofthis stated mitigation.. included to reduce visual inlpacts of new development by incltlsion of landscaping 3osec[ by the Victoria ConHuunity Plan. For exanlple, trees shall be planted along the site's property lilies and along roadxvays to screen nexv developtnent from view. Within the site and adjacent to major east-west cor- ridors, the City shall designate areas for [andscal)ing, ensuring that land adj;tcent to .lie roads is planted xvith low-growing vege- space on the project site. 2/B/98(R;\CRG7 30~I:EIIIx~M['IMON.FNL) K- I 8 ~IlTIGATION ~IONITORING MATRIX [:INAL [{NVIRONMENTAL iMPACT R[!PORT (;I!NERAL PLAN I\MENI)MENTS 96-03B AND 97-01 AND VICTOIt[A COMMUNITY PLAN AMENI)MENTS 96-01 AND 97-01/I.:DISON COMPANY Monitoring and Monitorh~g [ Responsible ] },litigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Reinarks CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.8.1. In conjunction xvith tile submittal of The applicant sitall pro- Prior to issuance I'lanning l)ept. applications for rough grading permits, tile vide written evidence to Dfany grading applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that an archeolo- ~ernlit. ti~e Con~munity Development Department gist has been retained to that all archaeologist, listed on tile County be present during grad- Df Sail Bernardino list of qualified mg activities. ;trcheologists, has been retained and will be ~resent oil site during all rough grading and other significant ground disturbing ac- tivities. 'FIle arcileologist shall meet with :he Community Development Department !to review procedures to be used during such activities. NUMBER OF STUDENTS GENERA ID FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Low Density (2-4 DU/AC) ~0.8 4~ Lo~-~edium Densi~ (4-8 DU/AO) ~e~i~m Densi~ (8-14 DU/AC) 8.3 116 66 116 50 29 50 22 13 22 23 13 23 Area Be~een Bass Line Road and 1-15 Medium Density (8-14 DU/AC) 7.4 104 59 104 45 26 45 20 11 20 21 12 21 Medium-high Density (14-24 DU/AC) 8,6 206 69 120 90 30 52 40 13 23 41 14 24 High Density (24-30 DU/AC) 4.8 144 38 67 62 16 29 28 7 13 29 8 13 TOTAL 84.5 755 417 592 328 182 257 146 80 114 151 84 118 ~ l. Highest densi~ level used to calculate Dwelling Units Per Acre. 2. Student Generation Rates for the Etiwanda School District K-5 ~ .4343 per unit. ~ 3. Student Generation Rates for the Etiwanda School District 6-8 ~. 1934 per unit. ~ 4. StudentGenerati~nRatesf~rtheCha~eyJ~intUni~nHighSch~Districtf~r9~12~.2~perunit. EXHIBIT 1 EIR for GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 PROPOSED STATEMENT OF FACTS OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION EXHIBIT "J" E I;7 e2-26-98 09:35 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9097814277 DRAFT IPCHTBIT A STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS FOR THE GENERAL PLAN A~_'-NDMENTS 96-03B & 9701 AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PIAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 & 97-01/EDISON COMPANY ENVIRON.MENTAL IMPACT REPORT INTRODUCTION The following statement of fmdin~ and facts in support of fi.qding~ is adopted for ,~etl eawironmenta.[ impact identified in the FE.IR as signifcant or potex~t;~Hy significant. For a more detailed description of each impact, each mitigation m¢zasure to be impc~ed, and the facts and data which suppo~ the condusiom reached herein regarding the significance Of e-~ch impact a/ter mitigadon~ please refer to the applicable sections of the FEIR and the techn/cal appendice5. The City Council hereby adopts and incoq2ox~ed the data and analy'$is sct forth thereto as a part of this Re~olution as though set forth here in full. L DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OBJEcz?vES The proposed project is an amendment to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Genend Plan Amendment and amendment to the Victoria Community Plan. The area o-f the proposed General Plan and Vk:toda Ccm~munRy Plan is designated as Utility Corridor. Southern California Ed/.son, who owns the property, is the applicant and proposes to change the Utility,- Corridor designation to Regmonal- Related Commercial and Regional Center, and High Residential, Medium High Re~idepri~l, Medium Resirle-~ri~l, Low-Medium P.x:.~idenfial, and Low Residential. There is no development proposed for t~e site ax this time. Projea Objectives To pcese_rve the single family character of residential neighborhoods within the City and provide a variety of housing types for various income · To protect the neighgood quality and residential nag of the neighborhood to the east. To provide infiil residential and commercial devdopment within the context of a planned community. II. EVALUATION OF ALTE!~M27VE~ For pt.trposes of analyzing potential environxnent~l impact, the EIR evaluated the pn3posed project and four alternatives. The four alterr, afive~ evaluated are the No Project Alternative (as required by CEQA), Open Space Park Greenbelt and Trails System Alternative, Lower Density, and Off-Site Alternative. 1 ~2-26-98 ~9:35 LSA ASSOCIATE~ INC iD=9897814277 P.~3 These Statement of Facts and Findings address the proposed project ~ the alternative to be considered for approval by the City of Rancho Cueamonga, pusuant to staff's recommendation. ~existics of the preferred alternative are provided heroin. The following is a brief description of the alternatives ecrnsidered, see Section of the FEIR for more detail En,rtr,......e'atally Su~,~or ~t~rna~ The No Project/No Development Alternative is an Environmental' Supexior alternative sines no development wotlld occu.r on the project site. Ur. iike the proposed project or the project alternatives, the No Projeer/No Development .-Llternative would not incYease demand for public sea-vices, increase tra~c vohLcne~, circulation, air emissiors and noise levels (associated with conslruction and opex:~tion of additional land uses), came the additional need for rea'eational f~rilities, or LBc.rease poteflti~ ~ilpa~5 to biological or ClLlttll'al resourceS, drainage, and aeSthetics that may otherwise result from development of the project site. Sigr~ficant short-term construction _e-missions would be eliminated, md significant unavoidable long-certn CO, ROC, and NOx eralesions would be reduced with the No Project/No Development Alternatrre. As required by CEQA (Section 15126(d)(4), fithe No Project/No Development Ahemative is selected as the environmentally superior altO, the EI.R shah also identify an environmentally supersor alternzttive among the othex altomauves..4mong the altexnafives considered, the Open Space GreenbeAt and Trails S~ Alternative has the least damaging env;.ronrnental impacts. Of the viable alterrmzrv~, the open sp~ce~rails sy~te:ro ~lterr~fi~e weuld result in fewer dai]'/and pe~k hour vehicle trips arid contaminant emissions, and inczemenml increases in ambient noise levels, and impacts on schools and parks, Potential long-term local air quality impacts are considered significant unavoidable advez~e impacts under either the proposed project or the Lo~,'er Density and Off-Site Altecn~rives, The Open Space Greenbelt and Tr, dls Systrm Akernafivc, however, would result in reduced impacts to long-term aiz quality and is environmepra lly superior to all other alternatives, There aze eccmomic impacts to the City with the implementation of the Open Space Greenbelt and Trails Sysmm Alternative, If the site is to be converted to a open space/wails system, the City would have to 1) purchase the property, 2) construct the D-aft system, and 3) provide long-term maintenance of a trail system on the B-i,15-aere site, The cost to purchase the ~'operty, and construct and m~.rain the trails may cause an ~d<~;tional firna:ial burden on the CiW reside~r~ depending on how the City chooses to provide fundinE. In light of l~Foposition 218, additional use r~xes would have to go to City Wide vote. Long-re. tin funding for a City trail sysrexn on this site is not certain. No Pro_/ec~r ALterna~ve Under the No Project/No Development Altexnative, the project sSte w~lel remain in its existing vacant condition. The site could contain electric transmission towers ~q the future under the current zon/ng; however, for tl~.,e purposes of the 62-2S-98 69:36 LSA ASSOCIATES DcveJopmcx~t Altern~ti~,~ee'' ~n~i~, the no d~dopment echo ~ ~ed. Evat~on of the No ~j~ A~ The No Proj~o D~opment ~ wo~d ~u~ ~or ~l~m~-=~ ~ pot~ Sight ~e en~m~ ~a~ ~e p~scd pmj~. In p~ic,,lar,' s~ ~m ~ ~ted to sho~-t~ c~aion m~ions ~d long-t~ 1o~ CO, ROC, ~d t~& ~r ~ om~ ~a 1~ m~ (~ N~), ~d not ~th ~ ~t~. H~, rh~i ~t~ ~d m~t ~ ~pa ~ el~u~g oppo~ to p~ hous~g and me~ ~e g~ d~e Ci~'s ~ne~ P~ Hom~g ~em~t. Th~ fitstire ~d ~ to meet tk~ imp~ obj~ of ~e pmj~t md the Ci~ of ~o Cu~mo~. ~e ~ obj~'e h to ~ Ci~' ~d ~de a ~ ofhous~g ~ f~ ~o~ in~e l~ls; the s~ond ~je~ ~ to pwt~ ~e nei~rh~ qu~ ~d to pw~ i~ mid~tifl ~d co~ d~dopm~t ~in the cont~ of a p~n~ conu~ Open Sp,.r- Park Crree~belt and Trails System Alterlurttve This alternative is a ra. tional choice as a land use alternative for a long slende~ 84.15-acre parcel (330 feet wide by 10,756 feet long). This strip of la~d would contain a ]andccaped parkway along the:length of furm'e Day. Creek Boulevazd to enhance views of Mr. Baldy to the north and would also contain a trails ~tem that would connect the e~ting axed fUture platreed residemtial areas in the Victoria Wmdrow~ ax~:a to the east and west of future Day Creek Boulevard (south of Highland Avenue and north of Base Line R~act) to the proposed regional coenrn ercial area south of Base line Road axxd north of I-15. Evalu~zion of the Open Space Park C~reenbetr and TraiL~ System ALternative The Ope~ Sl~ce Park Greerdr. A~ and Trails System ./~L-rrtative would have less significant adve~e enviro.y~_ental impacts than that of the proposed project di~scus~d in Section ~.0 in the FEFR. In particular, significant unavoidable adverse impam to local aft' quality would be reduced under this alternative. All other impactS: of the proposed project would also be reduced under this alternative inciu~lmg impacts on pubhc services, traffic, potential exposure of residences to noise rel~e~l impaca, and aesthetics. Lower Dem-ity Alt~i ~4ztive Under the 7~wer Density Alternative, a General Plan and ~,qctoria Commurdty Plan a-r0e~dmC'at would be proposed that would he the samc as propoised with the prbie~ b~tween Highland Avenue and Ba~ Line Road. However, the 5 e2-26-98 e9:37 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=ge97814277 P.e5 densities would be limited to the lower range within o~ch land use caxegory (Le., Low Density [2 units/acre], Low-Medium Density [4 unim/acre], and Medium Density [8 umts/acre]). In the a.,'ea south of Base Line Road, fie land uses proposed would include 10.4 acres 0f Low-Medium Density (4 units/acre) from Base Line Road sourib to one-half the distance between Base Line Road and Church Street and Medium Density (8'units/acre) on 10.4 acres ~ one-half the distance between Base lane Road Church Street south to Church Street. The 27.7 acres south of Church Street would remain Regional Related Office/C~mmercial as proposed with the project. The intent of this alternative is to potentially reduce the proposed project's impacts on public services, specifically schools. Evaluation of the Lower Density Alter'native and pades would be reduced with implementation of the Lower Density Alternative. There would be a slight reduction in ve. hiC-lar tra.f:fic noise impacts with this alternative. The proposed projects impacts on drainage, biological resoun:es, cultural resources, aad aesthetics would F-main the same with Lowe.r Density Akernative. Off-Site Alternative Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an FAR consider only those feasible alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant/rapacts identified for the project alternative. The General Plan Land Use Element of the City. of Rancho Cucamonga allows development of residential uses in a number of ireas prknarily wig the northexty pox~on of the City, in a.cea.s designated for a wide range of residential dertsities similar to the proposed General Plan Amendments. SCE owns utility corridor easements to the north and south of the proposed projex:t area that axe actually an extension of the same unlity easement as the propose~l project. Pcentially, the axea thax contains the utility easement north of Highland Avenue could be ptxx'essed for a proposed General Plan Amendment to allow a variety of residential densities similar to the proposed project. Evaluation of the Off-Site Altern~ri~ Ovea'all, the proposal projex:x's impagts on drainage, traffic, noise, public sereices (fire, police, schools, and paxks), biological resources, and cultural resources would remain the ~_~rne with this alternative site. The ~,ignificant una. vo~_ahle implets on air qn~14ty would alsO be the same as with the proposed project since the air q~lit'y, impa_e~.$ Of the proiect axe a result of operational vehicle emLssions which would not be reduced with th~ alternative. Biological resouxces studies conducted for the proposed projecx concluded that no significant biological resouxces orcctr on site including the San Bemaxdmo Merriam's kangaroo rat and the California gna~catcher, both proeected species. It was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact o~ biological 4 G2-26-98 G9:37 LSA ASSOCIATe5 INC ID=9~97814277 .06 resources and no mitigation wo~ld be requtred. This alternative would require biological resource surveys be conducted to determine whether the San Bernardtrio Men'iam's. kangaroo rat and/or the Ca/ffomia gnatcatcher occur on site. Thi$ alternative does contain habitat that could support both species. If the species are not present on site, this alte.remtive would have the _¢~me impact on biological resources as the propoaed prDject. Impacts on ae~thetic~ may potentially be the same with this alternative site. The alte.,-native site is not within the Victoria Community Plan but is in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan that is siretim' to the Victoria Community Plan and also has design guidelines which protect and enhance aesthetics and view corridors. In conclusion, an alternative site within an Ed/son utility corridor wottld have the same impacts a~ the proposed pro,jeer and would not reduce the proposed projects' significant unavoidable long-term impact on air EFFECTS DETERM.~YED HOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT OR MITIGATED TO A LESS- THA~'..MG.~IFICANT LEVtiZ Sign(ficant Effect No. 1 The prol:~3sed project would substant/a.tiy increase the impe. rrious surEace c. cP_rage, resulting in a.n increase in the total quantity and rate of wa.ter draining fi-om the site. ~x-/~ting dr/finage ~-ystems to the east can not accommodate the increase and stormwater flow. The proposed project h~ts the potential to have a significant irnpaet on ev/¢ting drainage ~ac. tlities. .Finding No. I Chas~geS of alteratiorts have been required ir~ or mcoxporated into the project wi-.ich mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environmont. Facts tn Support of Findtng No. 1 The potential impacts pert~ to the total quantity ,nd rate of watex' draining from the site have been .,e4~nix~ated or reduced to a level of les,gthan 4igrfificant th.,-ough impleraenta~on of the mitigation measures and project design described within the Final EIIL Said measur~ wiU ensure that drainage from and through the ~ite will be conve~-ed in a safe rnasme_r in accordance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga engineering stmldards. 1. Any development proposed between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road shall be c0nditior~d to convey. on-site drainage to the west to Day Creek Channel by storm drain ~ysterns in Victoria Park Lane and Base Line Road. 5 S2-25-98 2e:e8 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9~9781~277 P.e8 2. The developer shall amend the Cirfls Final Master PLan of Drainage Report prior to Final Map a~ptnval to account for the change in land use [rum open space to resideauial uses. 3- The developer shall remove the existing 96-inch RCP stubout, located approximately 'fi52 feet f~om Victoria Park Lane and install an 108-inch RCP from Day Creek Boulevard to Day Creek Channel, with the pipe entering the channeI one fuot above the channel invert. TR. AEFIC.4i~) CIRCULATION StgnOeicant Effect No. 2 Ten inte~sections'a~,~ forecast to exceed the CMP LOS E stap.~i under 2015 b=clcground plus project conditions in one or both peak hours. These ate: MiHiken Avenue/Foothill BouJevard · Day Creek BoulevavdjH.ighland Avenue Day Creek Boulevasd~ase Line Road Day Creek Boulevard/Foothill · Et. iwanda Avenue/Base Line Road Erj. waxKla Avenue~Foorhi!] · 1-15 southbound romps/Base Line Road · 1-15 northbound ramps/Base Line Road 1-15 southbound ramps/Foothill Boule~urd · East Avenue/Base Line Road. Changes of alterations have been requLred Ln, or incorporated into the prnjec which mitigaxe or avoid the s/gni~cant effects on the enviromuent. Facts tn Support of Flnd~ng ~Vo. 2 The potential impacts perishing to ten intexsections exceeding the CMP LOS E stand~d under 2015 b~round plus projec~ conditions in one or both peak hours have been el/xuina~ed or reduced to a level of less-than ~ignAficanl thrcmgh Lmplewnenration of the mitigation measures and pro~ect design descibed within the F~ ~ The mitigation measures described below will enable the City to implement its tra$.c fee program to fund off-site tra~c improvemen~ made as a resuk of the project. The u,-Afi~c fee program is the most practical am:l feasible approach to funding taf~c mitigation measures /n the vicini~- of the project. 1. The projcc~ proponent shall contrj~bute a tra$c fee in accordance with the Cites adopted traffic fee pingram (Trapsportal/on Development lmpacx Fee Ordinance NO. 4-~5) as the pro~cct's fair share contribution circulation kmprovemenm identified as necessary at the time of issuance of building permits. These improvements shall consist of the following: M~llt~n Aven~o/Footk~ll Boulevard. Modify the eastbound anti westhound appruac_.he~ be modified to include a third through lane 6 02-26-98 ~9:38 LSA ASSOCIATE8 INC ID=9097814277 88 in each direction on Foothill Boulevard as well as conv~.rt the eastbound right turn 12~e to a through plus right turn lane. · Rocbe. sl~ .4a, nue/Higbland .~e. Signa/phzsmg of the e~isting trs.ffic signal shall be upgraded to ar_commodae the future tra~c ~olumes. · Roe~s.~er ,4~'~.~/~.~e ,~ne ~a~, Signal phasing of the traffic signal shal/be upgraded to aecommod~e the furu.re tra~c volumes. · Roebetter A~enue/Footin'll Boulevard. Signal phasing of the existing traffic signal sh~II be upgraded to accommodate the funaxe traf~c volumes. · Day Creek Boulerard/Higbland Az~nue. The following is recommended miti~aIion for this intemection: Construction of a narthbound left turn lane, Addition of a second northbound through lane and a ~h~,~d through plus fight turn lane, Construction of a iouthbound le& rum lane, Addition of a second southbound through lane and a shared through plus right tu_n~ l~e, Construction of eastbound left nma lane, Addition of an eastbound through plus right turn lane, Construction of a westbound left turn lane, and Addition of awestbound through plus fight turn lane. · Day Cree~ 4~oule~ard/B~se Zine Ro~d. The following is recommended mitigation for this intersection: Consu'uct/on of dua/northbound left turn lanes, Addition of.second and third northb<~tnd through lanes, Construction of a northbound fight turn lane, Construction of dual southbound left tttrn lanes, Addition of second and thL, d southbound through lanes, Construction of a southbound fight rum lane, Constnacfion of dual eastbound lef~ turn lanes, Addition of a th/rd eastbound t.krough lane. Construct/on of an eastbound fight turn lane, Construction of dual westbound tef~ turn lanes, Addition of a third westbound through Lane, and Construction of a westbound .right turn lane, · Day Creek Boulerard~Footbtll Boulerard. The following is recommended mitigalaon for this intersection: Construction of dual ~orthbound lef~ rum lanes, Addition of a second and third northbound through lanes, Constraction ofa non:hbound free right rum lane. Construction of dual southbound left tu_n~ lanes, Addition of second and third southbound through lanes, Construction of a free southbound right turn Lane, 7 e2-26-98 ~9:38 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9~97814277 P,e9 Construction of dual eastbound left: turn lanes, Addition of an eastbound through plus zight turn lane, Construction of a westbound left turn lane, Addition of a fourth wgs~:n3und through lane, and Consu'uction of a w~stbound free fight rum lane. Etiwanda Avenue/Ba.ce Line RocuZ Thee:astboundandwestbound approaches sha~l be modified to provide a third through lane in each direction on Eti~?anda Avenue. · Etiwanda Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. Addition of a southbound right turn lane and a thixd eastbound through lane. 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Base Line Road. Addition of a second westbound left turn lane (dual left turn lane) for on-ramp traffic at the westbound approach and a southbound flee right turn for off- ramp traffic. · EastAteaue/BaseZineRoacl. The we~ound approach shall include a third through lane. 2. Circulation improvements have been identified to ach im'e standards leveAs of service (i.e., local jurisdiction and/or SANBAG) at study area intersections. To address the timing, fiaxtding, and implementation of these improvements, the following mitigation measure or condition of General Man Amendment approval is recommended: · Prior to the approval of any tract map, a traffic study. shall be completed ro determine whether the incremental increase in tr'alic from the tract map area muses any of the intersections under investigation to result in unsafisfat'tory levels of service. If unacceptable ltwe_.ls of getvice rest.dr, this traffic analysis sixall determine the portion of the ultimate Latersections' improvements that axe required, the phasing of the improvement, and the funding SOLliCe. Sign~qcant Effec~ No. 3 The proposed project will contribute to ddidencie~ along the foUowing freeway, sections: · 1-15 between Jurdpa Avenue and 1-10 · 1-15 bet~-een 4th Stre=et and Foothill Boulevard, Finding No. 3 Changes of aJterations have been rtxlun'ed in, or incorporated into the projec~ which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. p,,-t~ tn Support of Finding No, 3 The potential traffic impacts of the propo~,ed project pertaining to deficiencies along the freeway section 1-15 betwee_n Jurupa Avenue and 1-10 8 and section 1-15 between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard. have been eliminated or reduced to a level of less-than-significant through implementation of the mitigation measures and project des-,gn described within the Final EIiL The mitigation, measttres described below will enable the City to collect ires on a tair share basis for freeway lane additions. The tra~qc fee program is the most practical and feasible approach to finding Erafile mitigation mea.suxes in the vicinity of the project. The project shall contribute on a fair shaze basis to the cost of providing the following ireeway lane additioo_s: 1-15 between Jurupa Street and 1-10 - two lane mainline lanes ill each direclion. · 1-15 between 4th Su'eet and Foothill Boulevazd - two mairdine lanes in each direction. AIR QITAL/TY Sigrt6tica~mt gtTect No. 4 Air quality impacts may occur dttrmg the site preparation including grading and equipment e~rh~ttst a~ it is used onsite. Major sources of em~¢cions during tk/s phase/ndude exhaust emksions from construction vehicles and equipment and fugitive dust generated a.s a result of construction vehicles and equipment traincling over exposed surfaces, as wr. ll as soil disaces by ~ and filling. Conslzuction equipment emissions would ~¢ceed the SCAQMD daily thzeshokls for the criter/a pollut:mt of NOx, which is 2.5 tom per quarter or I00 pounds per day. EmissiocLs of other criteria pollutants would be below the standazds. Finding No. 4 Changes or altcrat/ons have been required in, or incorporated into the project witrich mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. F.~__-:'~_ in Support of Firuitng Ncx 4 The potential impa~:ts perta~ine to the emit¢ions of aitrogen oxides (NOx) during construction h,we been eliminated or reduced to a level of les,gthan- significant through implementation of the mitigation me and project design described within the Final EIE The mitigation measures are as follows: 1. The Corntraction Contractor shall select the comstruction equipment used onsite based on low emission f~ztors and high energy elic. iency. The Cormtruction Contrzctor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a sra-'rnent that all construction equipment will be tuned and mnlrmajned in accordance with the manufactttrer's specifications. 2. The Construction Contractor shall ur~l;Te electric or diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powea-ed engines wheTe feasible. ~2-26-98 e9:43 LSA ASSOCIATES INC iD=ge97814277 P.OI 3. The Constn~etion Contractor shah ensure tha~ construction gr~llrtg pL~a~s include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog season (M~y through October), the oresall length. of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to mh~mize vehicles ~nd equipment operating at the same time. 4. The Coosn-uction Contractor shall time the construction ac~Mfies so ~s to not interfere w~th pemk hour Lra~c and minimaze obsu-uc~on of through tr~e lanes adj~e~t to ~he site; ff necessary, a flagperson Shall be returned to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways. 5. The Construction Contracto~ shall support and encourage r/desharing and Lran~t incentives for the construction cxew. The Construction Contm_~.or shall support and encoura~c ~idesharing and war~it ince~ltives for the consLructi0n erev~. Sigrdficant F~ect No. 5 During grading activities dust ~-mi~sion would exceed ~e ~Q~ ~ld of 150 ~ per ~y. Fi~tng No. 5 C~g~ ~ ~te~o~ have b~ ~ ~ or in~ed into ~e pmj~ ~ ~te or ~d ~ ~ ~ on ~e ~t to ~e ;~t legible. F~ ~ Sup~ q~t~tng No,5 ~e pot~ ~ ~ to ~e em~ of d~ d~g ~on have ken ~;d or ~ to a levd of l~-si~t ~u~ ~pl~en~on of ~e ~tigafion m~ ~d p~je~ d~ign d~ Dust genested ~ ~e d~iopm~t a~fi~ s~ ~ ~t~ned on site md ~t to a miramum ~' foHo~g ~e dust conuol m~u~ ~t~ ~ow. a. D~g d~ ~, ~ mo~g, ~ or ~n of ~t or ~ mates, ~ ~ or sp~ ~ sh~ ~ ~ to pr~t d~t ~ l~g ~e site ~d to ~e a ~t ~er ~h ~}Js ~i~ti~ c~e. b. ~g ~;~ ~r ~ or sp~ ~te~ ~ ~ ~ed ~ ~ep ~; offhide m~ment ~p ~ou~ to pr~t du~ ~om l~g ~e site. At a rainimp, th~ wo~d ~ude ~mng ~ su~ ~ in ~e ~ ~o~g md ~ wo~ ~ ~pl~ f~ · e ~y, ~d when~r ~d ~e~ 15 ~ p~ ho~. c. -~ d~g, ~g ~ m~ ~ ;~on ~ ~mpl~, ~e ent~e ~ of dished ~ ~ ~ ~at~ ~me~ely ~ pimp 10 o~the soil un~ the area i~ paved or othetwlse developed so that dust generation will not Occur. d. Soil stockpried for more than two da?s shall b~ covered, kept moist, or treaxed with soil finders to prevent dust generation. e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or con~tructlon debris to or from the site shall be taxpeal fxom the point of origin. Stgn~cant L~Tecl No. 6 Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions associated with architee. m_,~ coatm. gs aze not calculated because there is no suffident irdorma~ion available for emissions produced by the painting of residential and commercial ~,-illti~. VOCs produced during construction may be a potentially significant impact. ~indtng No. 6 Changes or alteratior~s have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the sig~cant e~ects on the environment to the exlent feasible. Facts tn Support of Finding No. 6 The potential impacts pertaining to the emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) dunng construction have been eliminated or reduced to a level of ler, s-tha.n-significa.nt through implementation of the mitigation measures a~d project design described within the Final EIR. The mitigat/on measure is as follows: 1. The Construction Contra~or shall utilize ~ much as possible precoated/natural colored building maxerials, ~tter-ba.sed or low-VOC coating, and coaxing tran.sfer or spray equipment with high traasfex et~ciency, such as high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, tn:~vel, spainfla, dauber, rag, or sponge. Stgn~tcanl E~Tect N~ 7 Vehicular n'~ps associated ~ ~e propond pro~ect wo~ produce em~sio~ ~ ~d ~d ~e 5~Q~ ~ ~hoI~ for ~e ~t~ po~ut~t of CO, ROC, ~d N~ H~tngs No. 7 Ch~g~ or ~o~ have ~ ~d ~, or incurred into ~e pmj~ ~ ~ or a~ the ~c~t ~ on ~e ~t to the ~mt fe~le; hg, im~ of ~e o~6on of fie proposed pr~e~ ~ signet ~d u~voi~le tier ~. ~ go~ce ~2-26-98 le:e5 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=ge97814277 P.94 with the req~ents of CEQA. the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and rode findings regarding the benefits of the proposed project. Facts in Support of r~'nding No. 7 The potential impacts penraining to The ca~-~ions cff CO, ROC, and NOx have b~c:n r~duc~:d to the extent feasible; however, even after implementation of the mitigation measures and projecx design described within the Firml the impact is considered s~,3~i~zsnr and midable. Further mitigation is technimlly and economically in.feasible since, to some extent, any major deveJopment project in the region will incrementally increase emissions. The mitigation me:~sures are as follows: 1. The project shall comply with Title 24 of the ('.~lifomi2. Code of Regulations established by, the Energy Commission regarding energy consention standards. The project applicant shall incorporate the following in building plans: · Planting trees to provide shade and shadow to building; Solar or low-emission w-axcr hcatcrs sh~ll be used with combined s~ter hca~er unit; · Refrigerator with ~u:uum power insulation; Doubl~-pain~d glass or window tre:~tment for enerp' conservation shall bc used in all erieriot windows; and · Energy-efficient low-sodium parking lot lights shsJl be used. 2. Use of tra.~pormtion de'm nnd measures CrD~l) such as preferential paxking f0r wantx~linS/carpool/n~Z~ subsidy for ~'-a.n.sit p~tss or ~anpooling/ carpooling, flextime work schedule, bike racks, lockers, shova~s, and onsite c'at'etcria shall b<: incorporated in the design of the commercial land uses. 5. The project proponent shall determine with the City and the electrical purveyor ilr it is feasible to prc-~'~ houses for electrical chargc~ for E'V c.z~s and/or optic £bes for home offtices. If feasible, install EV charges and/or optic-fibers per the dectrical pur,~--yor's aon prior to Certificate of Occupancy. 4. Install EV ct'mrges or electrical fuel srations/na~und gas for community wide use at key commercial and public location(s) such as park and ride lots, Metrolink Station, and commercial centers. 5. The d~vdopcr shall contract with a mitigation morntot to assu_~ compliance and implementation with the mitigation monitoring prograsn. 12 ~2-26-98 18:04 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9897814277 P-D2 NOISE 8tgnt, flcant Ej~'eca'.No, 8 Noise levels from grading and other construction activities for the proposed project may range up to 91 dBA at the closest residences immediately to the east of the northern Fan of the project site between Highland Avenue and Base lane Road for very Limited times when construction Occurs near them. Finding No~ 8 Ch~r, ges of alteraZbn~ have ~n r~quked in, or incorponted ~,o the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Facts tn Support of lrilut:'ng P~b. 8 The potential impacts pe-rta. ining to noise levels from grading and other constructien activ/ties on nea~y residences have been el/mmated or reduced to a level of les.s-than-~ignifieant through implementation of the mitigation me~ures and project design described within the Final EIE The mitjff~on measures are as follows: 1. During all project site excavation and grading on-site, the project conEacxors sha.U equip all cot~truction equipment, f:med or mobile, with property operating and maintained mufflers consistent with 2. The project contractor shall place all staticmary construction equipment so that emitted no/se is directed away from sensitive receptors to the east of the site. 3. The construction corm'actor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will ereate the greatest distance bet~neen construction-related noise sources and no/~e scmsitive receptors to the east of the site during all project construction. 4. During all project site construction, the consta-uction contractor shall limit all con.sm~ction-related activities that would r~sult in high noise levels to between the hot.us of 6:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, unless such construction activities do not result in noise levels eya2eeding 45 dBA at residences to the east of the site. No construction shaft be allowed on Sundays and public hol/days. Stgr~_ c..a'ra E2~'ect NO: 9 Increases in noise le~neis could result ~x~m project-related tratic on access roads lending to the project si~e, espe-'!~l ty given me h/gher noise genexation associated with trucks. Project-related long-term vehicular trip increases are anticipated to be moderate. The incremental traffic noise level increases would be te~s than significant. No significant ta-a~ic noise impales on off-site sensitive uses aze amticipa~ed. Hov?ever, proposed on-site zesldentia~ uses 82-26-98 e9:45 LSA ASSOCIATES INC iD=9897814277 P.83 would po:cnd~By b~ e_~posed to dc noi~ l~eb ~c~ ~e 60 ~ ~ stu~ ~o.~m~ded for r~d~ M. H~E No, 9 Ch~ ~t~ have b~ ~q~d m, or m~mt~ ~to ~c pmj~ whi~ initiate or avid ~e sight t~ on ~e ~ment. F~ in Su~ qFi~i~ No. 9 ~e ~ ~ p~n~g ~ ~g ~ite ~i~ ~ ro no~ l~eB ~ ~ ~g ~ m~P ha~ ~n ~mt~ or ~duced ~ a 1~1 of l~-~t ~u~ ~plem~on of ~e mifi~ion m~ ~d p~je~ desi~ d~d ~ ~e F~M E~ ~e initiation m~ m ~ fo~o~: 1. N~e s~s s~ k ~ ~ ~ s~d to ~e Ci~ ~r m~ ~d ap~ pfi~ ~ ~ map a~ f~ ~id~ u~m p~ ~n · e foHo~g ~: Wi~ ~8 feet oF B~ ~ne Road ~nt~ne; Wi~ 770 f~t of F~ Bo~ cen~Ene; ~rhln 337 f~ of ~y ~ Bo~ ~n~e ~ ~md Argue md B~e ~ne Ro~; ~ 438 f~ of ~ C~k Bo~ ~nt~ k~ B~ ~e Ro~ ~d ~ch S~t; ~d ~ ~4 feet of~d A~ ~ter~e. Mifi~on su~ ~ ~ conic blo& ~. ~ ~en ~ ~ ~ comb~on Mong ~e p~ ~ne, pro~ buB~ng b~g h~e upS, do~le-~ed ~do~, ~or me~ ~a~on sh~l k prodded. PUBLIC SER~7CES Schools Sign~cant Effect No. I0 As a result of the overcrowding in the cJassrooms of the Etiwanda and Chaffey School Districts, both districts have urged and continue to urge the City not to approve development applications unless adequate school faL'ilities axe available to serve the development project. Future development will generate more students for the already impacted school d~tricts. School smUtion plans would be enacted between the ESD/CJD'HSD and the project developer providing for a per dwelling unit fee rate for the residential pottion of the project site. G2-25-98 1~:~5 LSA ASSOCIATES INC tD=9697814277 .65 Changes of alterations have bee~ required in, or incorporated into the proiect which mitigate or avoid the $ignifican~ effect~ on the environment. F_a.__r~_ tn Support of FtndiRg Ab. 10 The proposed project's impact on schools has been ,~l;minated or reduced to a level of less-than-significant tba'ough implemenntion of the mitigation mes.sur~ and project design described within the Final EIR. The mitigation measures axe as forlows: 1. A school mitigation plan shall be enacted between the ESD and ~he developer to provide for a per dwcl/ing unit fee rate for the residential portion of the project site. The:fees will offset the additional demand placed on school disxric't faciJitic$ by the residential portion of the project 2. The developer shnH join Cha/~ School District Mc]lcyRoos Co~nmunity FacLtities District No.2 (CFD No~ 2), in order to provide an alternative method to finance the mjtigation of school/rapacts of development 5. The developer shall be requir~t ~o ,~cutc an agreement with ESD and CJUHSD to provide adequate mitigation. Such an agreement shall be executed prior to Planning Commi~¢ion approval fo~ any r~sidcntial project within the Genen/PLan Amendment :m::a. Actual implementation of the agreement by the p.aymcnt of fees, dedication of sites or other mitigation will take place as bui/~ing permits as~ obtained. 4. In the event tha~ the dcvcloper declines to execute a mitigation agreement, the City shall require fu/1 mitigation as a condition of approval. Full mitigation shall be accomplished by means of a requirement to form a Mctlo-Roos Community Fnc~l~ic~ district for school fneqlitics. In order to. reduce thc bin'den on the fururc homenwnc. rs, it is poss/blc to structure thc community facilities district such that some of the specia/taaccs would be prepaid by the dcvdoper. ParIts and Retreatlon Signetcant Effect No. 11 The residential portion of the proposed project would increase the clern~nd for active re__on Eacilities causing a significant impact to park facilities. Finding No, 11 Changes of alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significznt effects on the en,~ronmcnt. 15 ~2-26-9B 89:45 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=geg?814277 ~.~4 ~e pwp~ p~'s ~a on ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ ~uc~ to a [ev~ d l~i~t ~u~ impl~ ~e ~ag~on me~u~ ~ ~ f~o~: 1. The d~do~r ~ k s~ca to Or~ No. Counc~ d ~c Ci~ d ~o Cu~on~ to ~t~l~h ~fi~ for dc~tion of ~d, Fayau~nt of fe~, or ~, ~r p~k ~d rJO~ ~nd ~ su~i~o~ ~ p~n~ communities. The d~o~ ~p~le ~r 11.5 a~ of ~d ~ ~ f~ or by ~aon. 2. ~ ~e me d ~g a ~n~c ~ m~ or a m~or su~sion pl~ appr~, ~c Ci~ P~k ~d ~a~on ~s~n ~ de~e wh~ha d~fion d 7o~ for 1 pu~ or in Hen of fe~ ~ n~. ~ ~e Ci~ d~ d~o~ · c ~ sh~ k d~ on the ~tive ~ map when su~it~d ~d a ~ P~ ~t mffi~ the location of ~y p~ sh~ ~ p~cd subje~ m P~ ~d ~d~ Com~ss~n r~endation. 5, ~ &~ is o~d ~d ac~pted ~c nqu~ed, the sine ~ ~ d~imd i~ of bufl~g ~i~. SlgnOetcant.F, ffect No. 22 The residerim] and c0mmcrr. ial areas proposed would increase the demand for active recreaUonsd hcilities causing a significant impact to trml use in the Civt'. Finding No. 12 Changes of alteranom have been required in, or/ncorporated into the pr~jea which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 1;acts tn Supporl of Finding No. 12 The potent/2l impacts of the proposed projcc~ on tniLs have been e~imLn.~ed or reduced to a level of lcss-rhan-signiilcant through implementation of the mitigation measures and projea design described wirJ~in the Final E'IK The mir. igarjon measure is as follows: 1. The parkway on the east side of 'future" Day Creek Bout~'~rd shall be widened by 20 to 25 feet to provide a multi-use ~ from Highland Avenue SOuth to terminate at the Ci.w's adult sports con~ph~,_ Spe'~c design of the trajl shall be determined by the City at the time development pizns ~we submlrred for review and approv2/for any development proposals adjacent to "future" Day Cx~ck Boulevard. The 16 specific design shall de ~ with the City's Day Creek Boulevard Master Plan design. The trail shall be designed to cortnect to planned and existing trail systems in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and shall connect the residential mrea.s n0rthiand south of Base Line to the regional commercial areas adjacent to Interstate 15. Police Stgnbqcant effect No. 13 The lxop~ed project will result in a potentially signScant impac~ as an increase in demand for police services. .an additional five police personnel would be required for the proposext resitlentiM and commercial development. F/nd/-ng No. 13 C:h=nges of alteranons have been required in, or incorporated into the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the enviroranent. Facts in Support ofF/riding No./3 The potential impacts of the prOposed l:,roject on police have been elimimated or reduced to a level of less-than-significant through implementation of the mitigation measures and project design described wig the Final EI~ The mitigation measure is as follows: 1. As stated in the General Requirements and Approvals for the Police Department for the Ci~, a signed coment and waive form to join and/or form the Law Enfonzement Commtmi~' Facilities District shall be filed with City. Engineering prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, ~4~ichev~r occuss fixst for any projects within the project area between Hit, hl~nd Avenue as~ 1-15. Formazion co~ts shall be borne by the Developer. Fire Sig~catg Effect No. 14 Imparm of the proposed project on five service for ~e CiW of ~o Cu~o~ ~ ~ ~t. ~ on ~e ~ ~po~ t~e t~old ~ five m~u~, md fie p~ject's l~on ~l~t~e to S~ 3, 4, ~d 5, ~e site ~ ~ci~ to ~ ~t~ ~e ~e-m~ute mpome me ~t~ FI~t~ No. 14 Ch~g~ of ~tm~s ha~ ~en gd in, ~ ~c~t~ ~to ~e proje~ ~c~ ~i~te or avoid ~e giant ~e~ on ~ 17 02-26-98 09:46 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9097814277 ~:aas in $upt~rt o. f F~n~l~tng A,~. I ~ The ~t~ ~pa~ d~e pm~ pWj~ ~ ~ ~ ~vc ~ ellm~ted or ~duc~ to a l~ Of l~~t ~ ~e F~ ~. ~e ~ion m~ ~ ~ fo~: 1. ~c ~o~ ~ j~ ~e M~s Comm~i~ Fa~ D~ to p~de ~ protection s~ to ~e s~e. 2. The Ci~ ~ encou~e duster d~opma5 to pw~de for mo~ l~l~ed ~d ~ ~ pte~on m~ su~ ~ ~oHd~on ~ ~ buildup ~d ~m~t, ~ ~te~cc, e~pment ~e~s, ~d ~ se~ pw~io~- The d~loper sh~ ~ automa/~ ~e sp~ ~t~ in ;e~, indus~, ~d m~-~ ~denfi~ u~ ~ ~e~ee No. 15 ~d ~o Cupola F~ protenon D~t~ct O~i~ce No. 22. Stgn~:ara ~ea No. The proposed project would repine ~ ~.15-~ ~d~o~d, o~ space co~d~ ~th ~id~fi~ ~d co;e;~ ~, ~d ~d s~ ~ter ~g md ~ ~ co~do~. Ft~tng NO. ~5 C~gm of Mr;iota ~ ~n ~d ~, or mco~ proje~ ~i~ minute or avoid the sight ~ on en~t. F; ~ Su~ qF~g No. ~5 The pom~ ~ ~pa~ of ~e pro~d p~j~ Mve ~;~n~ or ~duc~ to a l~el of ~-~t ~u~ ~pl~oB of ~e ~fi~ m~ ~d p~ ~i~ d~ ~ ~e Fi~ E~. ~e ~fion me~; ~ ~ foHo~: 1. N~ bufld~ ~thin 1~ ~et ~ ~ Day Cr~ ~d ~m~ed to 35 fee~ ~ hei~t ~ prot~ ~e ~ co~r ~ ~e m~ for m~o~m ~v~g no~. ~e Ci~ p~an~ D~;ent sh~ e~u~ ~ ~ co~tion ~ app~ed p~or to ~p~ of p~d d~opm~ p~. 2. Nohe ~ ~ng ~E ~ Cr~k ~ s~ ~ ~o mo~ : ei~t f~t t~l tD ~id a ~nse of ~suM end~" for ~ Corndot, ~d ~0~d ~ se~ b~k ~ ad~uae ~ce ~ ~ow l~pi~ on ~e ~d si~ of ~e sou~ ~. ~ ~u~m~t be a~ ~ a eond{~ of appr~ ~ ~e Ci~ P~ ~t 18 e2-26-98 69:47 LSA ASSOCIATE5 INC ID-gG97814277 e7 prior to approval of any development box'de, ring future Day Creek Betzig. 3. The City planning Department Shall mend the Community Design Crite_rka Part II of the Victoria Community Plan at the time of fi.ling tentative m~tp or minor subdivLsion plat for its "recommended edge conditions" for furme Day Creek Boulevard to show a similax landscape and setback treatment on both ihe east and west sides of Day Creek Boulevard. While a rowof palm tries is now recommended for the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, 'this proposed landscaping shall be erdaanced by short and tall ctrought-tolexant shrubs adjacent to sound walls to reduce the visual impacts of such walls. 4. Landscape reqUiremen~ shall be established for the far southern end of the project site to screen new development from the view of motorists along 1-15 looking north. However, this landscaping should also allow views north towasds the mouptaln~, uSiZ~g the view corridor provided by the future Day Creek Boulevaxd, The City Planning Department shall address such landscaping as a condition of approval for any development in the area of 1-15. Si~ii~canz Bffea ~ 16 New light and glaxe would be created by the addition of L. e6denceS and commerc/al establishments in an area previously proposed as a utiliv/ corridor. The mc~st significant glare would be generated by commercial uses ax the sotahem end of the project site, es_pe~lk.- in association x~4th outdoor parking that may be lit at night and that would be visible from roadrays such as the future 'Day Creek Boulevard and Foothill Boulevard, as well as minor roads to the east of the project site such as Victoria Loop, Chuxch Street, and Day Creek Boulevard l~ast. Finding No. 16 Changes of alterations have been requ/xed in, or incorporaxed into the projea which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the errvironment. Facts in Support o/Finding s~b. 16 The poten~ja] visual impacts of the primposed pro~ea by the introduction of additicma] llgbt and glare into the project area have been eliminated o~ reduced to a level of less_than,significant thxough implementation the mitiga~itm measures and project de&ign descxibed within the Final F_qL The mitil~Xion measure is as fol/ows: l. The Design Review process for commerc4~! establishmenm shall ensure that no significant light or glax~ impac~ shall r~sult from the proposed project. Spedtic Lssues to be eealuated az the time of design review shall include the following: proposed exxerior lighting ..d landscaping of pat-king areas to reduce visible lighting from outside these axeas; use of Shielding on ~--~erior lights to focus light onto the ground; and, axchirecmnl materials to ensure that reflective mate~a/s are minimized. 19 (~2-26-98 89:47 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9897814277 P.88 S/gn~/:/ca.,a' .Effect No, 17 The project could conflict Winh policies of the Cit~'s General plan Corninfinity Design Elemenl: and landscape recontmends-tion-s found in the Victctria Community Plan. · Changes of alteralions have been required in, or incorporated into the proiect which mitigate or avoid the sigrLifk:mt effects on ~he environment. .~ac~s ~n .~./~por~ of F-h~lt~ No. 17 The potential conflict of the proposed project with the policies of the Cit-/'s General plan Community Design Element and landscape recommendations found in t~e Victoria Community Plan have been eliminaled or reduced to a level of less-than-significant through implementation of the mitigation measures and pro~ect d~sign dz:scribcd within the Final EIR. The mitigation measures arc as follows: 1. provisions Sh~|l b~ mac~e to account for protection of vi=w~heds and plant paleKe plax~ shown in the Victoria Community Plan for major inletsections along future Day Creek Boulevard. Such pro~-isiorls may include the following: building setbacks within the proiect site; varied allowable heigh~ with lova~ heights neaa~st the interchanges; dusterLug of buildirtgs; and, landscaping to complement the viewshed. These issues shall be addressed by the Ci~ planning Depa~t,llent as recommendations for the Desil~n P,~vic-w process al the time of cityeloping conditions of approval for any projecr~ withLn the proposed proiect ccu'ridor. 2. To r~duce potential conflicts with policies of the City's Communi~' Design ElemenI, r~commended mitigaulon measures found under 4,6.1 shall also be implemenxed. 5. The Commufxity Design Ctkeria Part II of the Victoria Community Plan ~ be arnenck;d intm.e~iateiy ~0llowing proiect approval to ~dttr~ss new uses proposed as par~ of the project. Howeve. r, as pall Of this axnend~nen~, som~ r~quL-exnents shall be included to reduce visual impacts of new dL'~elDpmenz by inclusion of landscaping near ma~or n:~ds thai matches thai: proposed by the Victoria Community plan. For exan~pte, trees shall be planted a]onfl the site 's propen'y lines and along roadways to screen new de'v~opment from view. Within the site and adjacent to major e:~st-west corridors, the City shall dc~igna~ areas for landscaping, ensuring that land ~ctiaEent to the roacLs is planted with lov,-- growing veEetation to mainta,i~n a degree of visual open spaa: on the proicct sir~, CULTURAL RESOURCES Signi2qc, ant Effect No. 17 2O 02-26-98 99:48 LSA ASSOCIATES INC iD=9097814277 P.IG DRAFT STATFYlENT OF O~~G CO~S~O~ INTRODUCTION The following Statement of Overriding Consldexations in connection with the General Plan Amendments 96-03b & 97-01 and Victoria Community plan Amendments 96-01 & 97-01/Edlson Company g and related discretionary ~vtlons (colle~Sw. ly refenx~ to as the "Projec~ is hereby adopted by th~ i~cho Cu¢~monga City Council CCoundl'~ pursuant to the requtreme~ts of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code seaion 21000 et seq. CCEQA"). CEQA requires the decision-making agency to [-~,!ance the economic, legal, 8c~i~ I; technological or other benefits of a project against its unavoidable enviroamental risks when aletea'mining whethe~ to approve the project. If the benefits af the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be comidered acceptable (CEQA Guidelines section 15095[a]). CEQA requires the agency to provide written findings (Exhibit A) supporting the specific reasons for ccmsidesing a project aeceptab~ when significant impacts axe tinavoidable. Such reasons must be based on substantiat evidence i~ the FE'IR or elsewhere in the ~dn~irtistrative record (CEQA Guidelines secuon 15095[b]). Those reasons are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considexations. The Council finds fl~t the economic, social or othex benefits of the Project outweigh all of the p~:)ject's significant and unavoidable impacts discussed in the Statement of CEQA Findings and Facts in Suppor~ of FLadings and any other remaining signi:rxcant effeds found to be unavoidable. In m~klng thi~ finc[ing~ the Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable impacts and has intticate~ its w~_'!lln~llet~ to accept those adverse impacts. The Court61 finds that each of the following benefits of the Project, independent of the other bcnefi~ would warrant approval of the Project notwithstanding the unav~'~hle impa. c~ of the project. OVERRiDiNG CONSIDERATIONS 1. All feasible mitigation has been proposed to reduce or avoid pote~ri~| ly significant imp~r''~ identif~-~l in the l~ml~, and no a~tditional mitigaZion is available to fm-ther ~educe all pot. en:6.~l ty sig;rtificant impa~s tO a level of insignificance. 2. The adoption of the Geneva1 Plan AmendmentS 96-O3b & 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendments 9~01 & 97*O1/Edlson ComOanY 1 F (92-26-98 89:48 LSA A850CIATES INC ID=9897814277 P.11 are necessary to prov~c ~ the orderly growth and developm~mt of the area by providing polides, regulations, and guidelines that will guide further development in a manner consistent with the polldes of the City of Rancho Cuearnonga General Plan and the desires of the community, and ensure !~on of infrastrun~,_Jre improvements that are to provide for adequaxe circulation, deliver/of utilities, control of dr~!nage, and disposal ofwasrL'v~ater. 3. The General Plan Amendmerits 96-03b & 97-01 and Victoria COmmunity plan Ame~dmenm 96-01 & 97-01,/Edison Company are necessary for the City to adequately control and regulate orderly development and help ensure that near development is consistent with the goals and politics of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. 4. The General Plan Amendments 9(>05b & 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendments 96431 & 97-01/Edison Company provides a drculation system which incorporat~ bicycle, pedestrian, and automotive consider- ations resulting in a 13'Jl~rtced transportation system within the project area. The trails will connect the residential neighborhoods with the commercial regional areas ~thln the community. 5. The General plan Amendments 964)3b & 97-01 and Victoria Conununity plan Amendments 96-01 & 97-01/Edison Company provides for health, safety, and welfare through ptropcx siting of public buildings/f~ and by incorporating federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to seismic safety design and constrtxction. 6. Although air quality impacts can be anticipated with any large-scale clevelopmenr of the subject property, the YE'IR imposes feasible mitiga- tion measures that will reduce those impacts to the extent feasible in both the short and long-term. 2,~4/g8(R3,C, Rfa73(k.rElje. HNDLNGSxSTAT.DlEN~a,D) 2 / RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-03B AND 97-01, AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 AND 97-01 WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-41, 227-201-33, 227-351-65, 227-393-01 AND 02, AND 229-021-56. A. Recitals. 1. A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been presented to this Commission in conjunction with the Commission's consideration of the General Plan Amendment 96-03B and 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-01 and 97-01. 2. The Final EIR referred to in this Resolution consists of that document dated February 12, 1998, entitled "Final Environmental impact Repod General Plan Amendment 96-03B and 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-01 and 97-01 .. 3. The public comment pedod for the EIR was duly and lawfully closed on March 25, 1998, following due notices to the public and all applicable public agencies. 4. On March 11, and continued to March 25, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings on the application. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. 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 substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public headng on March 11, and March 25, 1998, including written and oral staff repods, together with public testimony, and the consideration of the contents of the Final EIR in reviewing the approval of General Plan Amendment 96-03B and 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-01 and 97-01, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga take the following action with respect to the EIR: a. Certify that the Final EIR has been prepared for General Plan Amendment 96-03B and 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan 96-01 and 97-01 in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resource Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") with the state and City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations. b. Adopt a Statement of Facts of Findings for the EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations attached hereto as Exhibit "A' and "B" respectively, based on the following findings: 1) The facts and findings set forth in the Statement of Facts of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and the Final EIR. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EIR FOR GPA 96-03B & 97-01 AND VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 Mamh 25. 1998 Page 2 2) The Final EIR has identified all significant environmental Impacts of the project and there are no known potentially significant environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 3) All significant impacts identified in the Final EIR as a result of the project have been mitigated, avoided or reduced to an acceptable love! by the imposition of mitigation measures on the project. These mitigation measures are attached hereto as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and are incorporated herein by this reference. 4) The Final EIR has considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Potential mitigation or project alternatives have not been incorporated into the project because they might impede on the project objectives c~r create other significant environmental, economic, social impacts, or are determined to be infeasible based on the consideration set forth in the Statement of Facts of Findings. 5) The cumulative impacts of the project in relation to other projects in the area have been considered. Except for the one identified unavoidable impact described in the Statement of Facts of Findings and the Final EIR, mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to reduce such impacts to less than significant levels. 6) The unavoidable significant impact of the project as identified in the Statement of Facts of Findings and the Final EIR is' outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the project identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 7) Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), this application shall not be operative, vested or final until the Notice of Determination (NOD) is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bemardino. In the event this application is determined exempt from Such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines,promulgated there under, condition shall be deemed null and void. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of March 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EIR FOR GPA 96-03B & 97-01 AND VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 March 25, 1998 Page 3 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 11, 1998 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08} - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North Existing office/fight industrial buildings; Industrial Park (Subarea 7) South - Vacant; General Industrial (Subarea 8) East Existing Manufacturing building and vacant land; General Industrial (Subarea 8) West Existing Manufacturing building; General Industrial (Subarea 8) B. General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North Industrial Park South - General Industrial East General industrial West General industrial C. Site Characteristics: The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned Industrial Park approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. No significant vegetation and no structures exist on the property. Curb, gutter, and driveway approaches exist along the entire property frontages. Sidewalk and street trees, which have only been marginally maintained and will be replaced with development, exist along certain portions of the property frontages. The site slopes minimally from north to south. D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footaqe Ratio Required Provided Office 3,200 1/250 13 Manufacturing 22,500 1/500 45 Warehouse 74.050 1/1000 (first 20.000 20 1/2000 (2nd 20,000) 10 1/4000 (40,000 plus) 9 TOTAL: 99,750 97 99 ITEM F PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS CONST. CO. March 11, 1998 Page 2 ANALYSIS: A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop a 99,750 square foot building for Vanguard Tool and Manufacturing Company. The building is oriented so the main office area and most embellished elevations face Arrow Highway and the truck loading and storage area located behind screen walls away from major thoroughfares. One of the two existing drive approaches on White Oak Avenue will be used to access the site and the two existing drive approaches off Tacoma Drive win be utilized as the access for the truck storage/staging area. The second approach on White Oak Avenue and the existing approach on Arrow Highway will be removed and replaced with standard curb and gutter. Emergency access to the building will also be provided through crash gates in two locations along the east properly line. The overaN architectural scheme is consistent with other existing buildings within the Master Planned Industrial Park. Specifically, accents of brick veneer, sandblasted concrete. and smoked glass of like color and texture are proposed on the tilt-up concrete building, which will be applied in a similar manner to other buildings in the complex. B. Master Plan Modification: In conjunction with the new Development Review application, staff required a subsequent modification to the approved Master Plan be submitted for concurrent consideration of the Planning Commission. Staff requested this modification because of the significant change from the original Master Plan, where four smaller buildings were shown in the area where the much larger Vanguard Tool and Manufacturing building is shown under the current application. As stated earlier, the modification from four buildings to one larger building will allow for the removal of an existing driveway approach on Arrow Highway and a southerly relocation of the White Oak Avenue away from the Arrow HighwayNVhite Oak Avenue intersection. which in staffs opinion, will have positive impacts on vehicular circulation in the area. Along with the larger building. there will also be increased landscape buffers and smaller fields of parking visible from Arrow Highway, both of which will create a more aesthetically pleasing public view of the project. Therefore, staff supports the Master Plan modification in concept with specific conditions, which will be placed upon the development of the building under its primary application. C. Desjan Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed the project on two separate occasions, most recently on a Consent Calendar basis on January 20, 1998. The Committee (Bethel, Macias, Fong) recommended approval of the project subject to conditions contained in the attached Design Review Committee Action Comments from both meetings (Exhibit "G'). D. Technical Review/Gradinq Committee: On January 7, 1998, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed the project on two separate occasions, most recently on January 20, 1998, and recommended approval with conditions. E Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study was completed by the applicant. Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study, the Environmental Checklist, and found that there could be a significant effect on the environment relative to drainage patterns and potential lost habitat for the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly (DSF). The site is identified on maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as potentialJy having the appropriate Tujunga*Delhi soil classification to support DSF. A Habitat Assessment Survey was prepared by a federally certified biologist to assess the soils, vegetation, and species composition on the site. The study concluded that the site does not support PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS CONST. CO. March 11, 1998 Page 3 optimal DSF habitat due to the presence of non-native, invasive plant species, lack of open sandy areas, arid repetitive exposure to human-related disturbances. The site has been previously rough graded in conjunction with the construction of streets for the Master Planned Industrial Park. In addition, the study noted that the site does not appear to occupy a strategic location with respect to its potential incorporation into a regional wildlife reserve or corridor system due to adjacent commercial and industrial development. No other potentially significant environmental impacts are identified in the Initial Study. The issue of potential drainage pattern impacts generated by the project has been addressed by requiring that sufficient drainage/flood protection facilities be provided to the project area. If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review 97-29 and the Modification to Development Review 91-08 through adoption of the attached Resolution of approval with conditions and issuance of a Negative Declaration. Respectfully submitted. Brad Buffer City Planner BB:CG:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" Approved Master Plan Exhibit "C" Site Plan Exhibit "D" Landscape Plan Exhibit "E" Grading Plan Exhibit "F" Building Elevations Exhibit "G" Design Review Committee Action Comments dated January 6, and 20, 1998 Exhibit "H" initial Study, Part II Exhibit *'1" Habitat Assessment Survey Resolution of Approval with Conditions . - .....,_. ... ................... ' ~ ""~"""" ' """': ..... "' "' ~; '~1 I :'" v.-. v.... ,.....-.........,....-..., ...... !;-Z .~_:.v...'...y.. .' ", ": . ," ....-.~::::i~;~.,.-..:':;:.L.-~.:'.:.:.:.'.'.'.'-:'C~'.'.'.'-v~: o u 'r ~~ ~' ' III I I --' CLCEEE........... . .............,,:.-- ....... : 'j'Z. I ................... __~._' "EZZ ::: "' t;T':~':"I "~"F'I ....... ~:~ ... - .......::.:.;,::.. ;:; .......... :::: ::: ::;.'.:' ~.::.':::::: :::::: ::::: GRADING PLAN PARCEL HAP 12959 ...... :2:'- DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS 7:00 p.m. Steve Hayes January 6, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 (MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08) - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01, 06:07.08 and 09. Desiqn Parameters: The property in question is part of a Master Planned Industrial Park originally approved by the Planning Commission in 1992. The original Master Plan (Exhibit "A") consisted of 13 industrial buildings and, specifically, 4 smaller buildings on the parcels where this new building is proposed. Due to this significant departure from the original Master Plan, staff required that this application also be processed as a modification to the original Master Plan. The site has been rough graded previously and contains no significant vegetation and is void of any structures. The perimeter of the site includes curb, gutter, driveway approaches, sidewalk and street side landscaping. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 2 percent. Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion. Maior Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this project: 1. Circulation/Site Planninq: Staff has no major concerns with the proposed Master Plan modification from a site planning standpoint. As previously mentioned, the project consists of one large industrial building in an area where the approved Master Plan indicated 4 smaller industrial buildings, hence the purpose of the modification to the Master Plan portion of the application. With the proposed new project, an existing driveway approach on White Oak Avenue will be relocated southerly further away from the Arrow Highway/White Oak Avenue intersection and a previously approved and constructed driveway approach off Arrow Highway will be eliminated. In staff's opinion, both of these modifications will have positive impacts on vehicular circulation and safety. Furthermore, despite the larger scale of the new building proposed on the property, the landscape buffer and amount of parking fields adjacent to Arrow Highway will be significantly reduced. 2. Architecture: The proposed tilt-up concrete industrial building, as currently designed, incorporates secondary material accents of sandblasted concrete and brick veneer areas, consistent with the established design elements used on existing buildings throughout the industrial park. The secondary materials, along with areas of glass with brick veneer accents, have been used primarily to frame the large main en'trance area at the northwest corner of the building, the areas of the building visible from Arrow Highway, and the employee outdoor eating area on the west side of the building. Other areas of the building will receive sand blasted concrete banding and columns of sand blasted concrete at all building corners. Staff recommends architectural enhancement (i.e., sandblasted concrete and brick veneer areas) on East Elevation because of prominence along a Special Boulevard. EXHIBIT "G" FIb DRC COMMENTS DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS CONST. CO. January 6, 1998 Page 2 Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues: 1. Pedestrian connections from the public sidewalks to the main entrance area and the outdoor eating area should be provided. 2. A trash enclosure, architecturally compatible with the building, should be provided on the east side of the building where the trash bins and metal recycling bin are shown. 3. The landscaped area outside the screen wall on the south side of the project, between the two driveways, should be widened to accommodate a more dense landscape palette to soften the appearance of the 8-foot high screen wall. 4. Trees should be incorporated into the landscape planter area at the southeast corner of the site. 5. The proposed areas of special paving at the three vehicular entrances to the site should be extended to encompass the entire length of each drive throat and be extended into handicapped parking areas. Policy Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be incorporated into the project design without discussion: 1. Undulating landscaped berms, alluvial rock, shrub massing, etc., should be used in the street scape areas to provide visual interest in areas exposed to public view. 2. All transformers and other above ground mechanical equipment should be completely screened from view through the use of landscaping, wails, or a combination thereof. 3. Retaining walls should be composed of a decorative block material architecturally compatible with the building or rBceive a decorative exterior finish. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with the above items as recommended conditions of approval. Attachment Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes DRC COMMENTS DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS CONST. CO. January 6, 1998 Page 3 The Design Review Committee recommended that this project return to the Committee as a Consent Calendar item prior to Planning Commission review, addressing the following items: 1. Additional sandblast column and brick inlay elements, similar to those used on the north elevation, should be used on the eastern exposure of the building. 2. The Committee noted that only one pedestrian connection between the public sidewalk and the site would be needed. This connection point: could be from the White Oak Avenue sidewalk. 3. The special paving should be extended to the back of the driveway throat for only the main vehicular enterance off White Oak Avenue. 4. The screen wall along the south side of the project, between the two driveway approaches, should be moved northerly wherever possible to allow for more landscaped area on the outside of the wall. 5. All other Secondary and Policy Design Issues from above not already referenced in the action comments will be incorporated into the recommended Conditions of Approval for the project. CONSENT CALENDAR COMMENTS 8:50 p.m. Steve Hayes January 20, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 (MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08) - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01, 06, 07, 08 and 09. Desiqn Review Committee Action: Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong Staff Planner: Steve Hayes The Design Review Committee recommended approval of the revised architectural modifications to the east elevation, the location of the pedestrian connection from the public sidewalk to the main building entrance, the revised location of the screen wall along the south side of the property and the increased areas of special paving treatment as presented. ,,,,,~ City of Rancho Cucamonga ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM INITIAL STUDY PART II BACKGROUND 1. Project File: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 2. Related Files: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08 3. Description of Project: A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01, 06, 07, 08 and 09. 4. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Mr. Mark Capellino Cap Brothers Construction Company 1815 West 213th Street Torrance, CA 90501 5. General Plan Designation: General Industrial 6. Zoning: General Industrial (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan 7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The site is a previously rough graded pad within a Master Planned Industrial Park with similar buildings already constructed south and east of the site. 8. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 9. Contact Person and Phone Number: Cecilia Gallardo (909) 477-2750 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: EXHIBIT "H" F-)~ Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ( ) Land Use and Planning ( ) Transportation/Circulation Public Services ( ) Population and Housing (X) Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems (X) Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics (X) Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources ( ) Air Quality ( ) Noise ( ) Recreation ( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ( ) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. (X) 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ( ) I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ( ) I find that although the proposed project could have. a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and 2) have been avoided or mitiga!ed pursuant to that earlier EIR. including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Cecilia Gallardo. Assistant Planner February 19, 1997 Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONI~IENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers including a discussion of ways to mitigate the significant effects identified. 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposak a) Conflict with general plan designation or zomng? ( ( (X) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ( (X) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ( (X) d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community? ( ( (X) 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed o~cial regional or local population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Induce substantial gro~h in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( ) ) (X) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 4 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) (X) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) (X) f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) ( ) (X) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( ) (X) h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( ) ( ) Comments: h) The General Plan indicates the Tujunga-Delhi soil association for the site which "May have soil bearing capacities that could limit some development. Structures proposed on this soil type should be permitted only after a site specific investigation has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately support the weight of the structure." A soils report will be required by the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building 3ermits. The impact is not considered significant. 4. WATER. Will the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) (X) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) (X) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) (X) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 5 Potentially g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The project is expected to result in changes to absorption rates and drainage patterns. New inundation areas (separate document) will be recorded and old areas vacated, prior to the issuance of building permit. Drainage/flood protection facilities will be provided for the project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as follows: The run off (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site detention shall be based on a proration of available capacity of the undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cuPde-sac at the south end of Vincent Avenue, just north of the A.T.S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the east on file with the City. Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated, prior to the issuance of building permits. No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas. In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, ponding depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches. respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours. While the project could have a potential impact on drainage patterns, sufficient mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce the impacts to a level of insignificance. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 6 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or tra~c congestion? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e,g., sharp cuNes or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) (X) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ( ) (X) d) Insu~cient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ) ( ) (X) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ) ( ) (X) O Conflicts with adopted policies supposing alternative transpo~ation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ) (X) g) Rail or air tra~c impacts? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to: plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.~., heritage trees, eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 7 d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ) ( ) ( ) (x) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identifies the project area soil type as Tujunga- Delhi Sand Soils which is a type of soil that is associated with the endangered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (DSF). A habitat assessment was prepared (Impact Sciences, February 17, 1998) by a biologist permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct surveys for DSF. In summary, results of the habitat-based survey indicate that the site does not currently support optimal DSF habitat, and the site is not located directly adjacent to other areas of high quality potential or known occupied DSF habitat. Based on the reconnaissance-level habitat evaluation of the site's existing environmental conditions, the project site does not provide high quality habitat for DSF due to: (1) lack of substantial, open sandy areas, (2) relatively dense coverage of invasive, non-native vegetation, (3) soil disturbance from previous grading, and (4) low habitat linkage value due to surrounding land uses (e.g., commercial development). Based on this information, the proposed development of the 6.8 acre site will not likely result in adverse effects to DSF. No other unique, rare, or endangered animal species are known to be potentially located on the project site 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES, Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) ( ) (X) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) ( ) (X) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 8 9. HA~RDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including. but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) P~ssible inte~erence with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable brush, grass. or trees? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Comments: a) In conjunction with the manufacturing activities within the building, materials such as oil and other chemicals may potentially be used. Use of any such hazardous substances will require special permits to ensure safe handling, storage, and operation. The impact is not considered significant. 10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Exposure of peop e to severe noise levels9 ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 9 e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) : Comments: a) Manufacturing activities may include use of hazardous chemicals which would require special permits for the Fire Prevention District. The impact is no, t considered significant. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the loftowing utilities: a) Power and natural gas? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 0 Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( ) ( (X) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) ( ) ( (X) c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (X) ( ) Comments: c) New light and glare will be created on the property with development of the vacant site. A condition of approval requiring an on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram of the entire property, to be required for review and approval of the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheriffs Department, prior to Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 10 the issuance of building permits. The plan will be checked to ensure that it meets City policies relative to avoiding the casting'of excess light and glare onto adjacent properties. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 15. RECREATION. Would the proposah a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga DR 97-29 Page 11 b) Short term: Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time. Long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X) EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering. program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards, and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all that apply): (X) General Plan EIR (Certified April 6, 1981) (X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update (SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989) (X)Industrial Area Specific Plan EIR (Certified September 19, 1981) (X) Initial Study/Negative Declaration for Development Review 91-08 (Certified January 8, 1992) /'4ar'-05-98 12:14P P,p2 SENT BY: R CUCAUONGA ~OW D{V,: 3- 5-98 8:21A~; G'0~,,772847 =} #13t13 Inilial Study for OR 97-29 City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 1 / APPLICANT CERTIFICATION I ceqify [hat I am the applicant for [he project clcscrlbed in this Initial Study. I acknowledge/ha~ I have read this Initial Sludy and the Proposed mitigation measures. Fur~er, I have revisecl the project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the Proposed mitigation measures to avoid effects or miTigaTe Ihe effects to a point wher~ clearly no significan~ environmental effects wourd occur. , Signature: ~ Date: / City of Rancho Cucamonga NEGATIVE DECLARATION The following Negative Declaration is being circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act Section 21091 and 21092 of the Public Resources Code, Project File No.: Development Review 97-29 Public Review Period Closes: March 11, 1998 Project Name: Project Applicant: Cap Brothers Construction Company Project Location (also see attached map): Located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09. Project Description: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 (MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08) - CAP BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to construct a 99,750 square foot industrial building on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. FINDING This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this Negative Declaration based upon the following finding: [] The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. [] The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed Negatjve Declaratjon was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the proiect as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. ff adopted, the Negative Declaration means that an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Reasons to support this finding are included in the attached Initial Study. The project file and all related documents are available for review at the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division at 10500 Civic Center Drive (909) 477-2750 or Fax (909) 477-2847. NOTICE The public is invited to comment on the proposed Negative Declaration during the review period. March 11, 1998 Date oi= Determination Adopted By Cecelia Gallardo, Assistant Planner , City ofRancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: White Oak 82 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga Biological Assessment Report Dear Ms. GaIlardo: Enclosed for )'our review and file documentation is a copy of the Biologicai Assessment report tbr the subject property. Your review of this materiM should note that the prop~3sed development of this size will not iikeb' result in adverse effects to potentially occurring DSF. This report also indicates that the site does not currently support optionaI DSF habitat, and that the site is not located db'ectly adjacent [o other areas of high quality potential or known occupied DSF habitat. Should you have any questions or need of additional information, please contact me at your earIiest opportunity. Sincerely, Charles J. Buquet Charles Joseph Associates CB:sl Enclosure cc: Rick & Mark Capellino ~ '~._/'I I M P A C T S C ] E N C E S A~o.r~ Hitis - .~ Agoura Hills. Califomia 9130t San Diego ~ Telephone (SIS) 879-1 [CO FAX (SIS) 8T9-{440 impscigimpac:sciences.com Chino HE!is Feb~ 17, 1998 Charles Joseph Associates City Center 10681 FoothiLl Bo,.devard, Suite 395 Rancho Cucamonga, CalLforr6a 91730 Attention: NL-. Charles Buquet SUBJECT: ResuIts of Delid 5a_qds Flower-LovLng Fly' Habitat-Based Evaluation Conducted on the 4.18-acre Pv~ctite O&k .Avenue site, CiD' oi R~ncho Cuc~monga, S~ ~mLrd~o Co~q~,' CaNfomia Dear Mr. Buquet: This !ether report details findings of a recomna]ssa_nce-!evel survey to evaluate existing habitats potenlially suitable to support the De!lni Sands f!.ower-IovLng fly (Rha,vhiomidas terrn,.inat,dS =bdo,rnirrnlis) completed for the approLLmately 4. tg-acre site, located cn the comer of Arrow Rou~e ~nd ~,%"]ni.~e Oa]< Avenue in the Cit]:. of RLqc..ho Cu~c,2_'nonga. Sawn Bernardino Cou-nt', Califomia, A genera] evaluation for Lhe poten~a! occ~nnm. ce of several additional sensitive ',vLld~e species ;,.as also conducted duFLng the one-day field sur~'ey. Introduction Impact Sciences, hc. C. znpact Sciences) understands that a de:'elopment plan is being prepared on an approximately 4.18-acre project site located hn the Cib/of Rancho Cucamonga (Figure 1). The project site is cu~Tentlv vacant and is generally b~zxled by Axro;,,' Route to the north, Vv'h. ite Oak Avenue to the v,,'est, and Tacoma S~t to the souLh CFigure 2). This report is intended to provide Lhe project appUca~nt witlq genera] bioiogica] information regardLug potentially suitable habitat to sup..'z'o~ sensi~qve spedes for use in evaluating potential cop, zequu-no~ of endanger~,~d species act compE.e. nce and pe,.'~mh~'~mg. Addi tional b-' resujts of this study are intended to provide early input Lnto the plartr4ng process so that serusitive biologZca] resources potentially occurS, :mg on abe site ~ iden!qed. ~ l.," .,/ , · ---- ,__f '/ \'~,_.: .~'~ '~/ .... ':~.~:~ . ..~ ,~.~ .~ " .......,. ,..,,,,,,~,~ ~ ('~ """(~:""3':".~.,~. ~ ~~ ._ Regional Location Site VicinityI Charles ]osephAssociams February. 17, 1998 Page 4 Project' Parameters A sLngle building consisting of office, manufacm~ing--"~nd warehouse uuc-es, totaling 99,750 square feet located hn the Genera] Industrial District (Subarea 8), of Lhe Industrial Area Specific Plan (APN: 209461-01, 06, 07, 08, and 09), General Delhi Sands Bower-Loving Fly Background The Delhi sands flower-loving fly (DSF) was Listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser;'ice (Service) m September 23, 1993. This species is ordv kTto~,,'n to octmr in association with Delhi sand deposits cn at least ten disjtmct sites (USF~,VS 1996), chiefly wit.'rffn a radius of about eight tulles in the cities of Colton, Ealto, and Fonta_na located in southwesterr.. San Bemardino and noF'dn;~'estem Kiverside coLmiles. However, recent data (199/') indicates Lhat DSF occur in low numbers in Lhe Ontario area (Ontario Habitat Reco;'ery Urdt), which Lncludes Rancho Cucarnonga. The DSF is restricted to the Colton EXmes which covers appro.'d=mately 40 square zrLLlesL More than 95 percent of Lhe formerly .~ov'n habitat has been convened ~o human uses or se;'ereb· adfected by human activities, renderrig it apparently tinsuitable/or occupation by the species (Smith 1993, USF~,V5 1996 ~ Kingsley 1996). An estL,mate of er2v t55 acres of habitat is documented to contain populations of DSF. Flies of the o~,tzs Rhap;:i~r::idas prefer arid habitals and are t':'pically Iarge (up to 1.25-Lnches Lq bcdv length). Methods Literature Search Documentation pertinent to the biological resources in the vicinity of the site was reviewed and ana]yzed. L~o,,'-mation reviewed included: (1) the Federal Register lis~ng package for the federally [is~ed endangered DSF potentially oc,ozmng cn the project site; (2) literature pe~aLrd_ng ~'o habitat requizements of sensitive species poten~ia]!y occurring cn the project silt; (3) the CaE.:ornia Natural Diversi~' Data Base (CNDDB 199/') Lndorma~on regarding sensitive species potentially occuzr:~g cn the proi~t site in a computer report format for the Ontario, Sa_'~ D~Lmas, and Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, and (4) review of available reverts from this and other projects located Ln the general vicL-tity o~ the project site. Occupied DSF Habitat Evaluation A field visit '.'.'as conducted by Impact Sciences biologists in Januaz,,' I995 to note cuzr~nt habitat characterist:.cs of occupied DSF habitat located Ln the genera! area. Habitat characteristics Charles Joseph Associates FebmaD,' 17, 1998 Page 5 were noted in an attempt to discern any seasonal differences in biological characteristics which may relate to habitat suitability for [his endangered fly species. Potential habitat for the DSg is typically defined as axeas comprise~ of~:andy soil <Delhi series) ha open areas dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogomtm fasciculatum), California croton (Croton californica), end telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandifiora). Annual btzr-sage (Ambrosia acanthic=rpa), fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedla), vinegar weed (Lessingia glandulifera), sapphire eriastrum (Eriaserum sapphirinum), and Thu.rber's erlogcrnum (Eriogonum thurberi) are also commordy present at occupied DSF sites. Reconnaissance-level Field Survey Scott Cameron and David Crawford, Impact Sciences Senior and Staff Biologists respectively, conducted a recormaissance-level field sun!e,',' to evaluate potential habitat for DSF an January 9, 1998. BoLh Nk. Cameron and Mr. Crawford have obse~'ed DSF Ln the field, and are familiar wi[h the biotic characteristics of habitat occupied by DSF, as well as o[her sensitive wildlife species potentially occurrhag in ~e area. In addition, Mr. Ca.meron holds a federal permit (PRT-808242) to conduct sur,'eys for DSF. Weather conditions during the sm"vey were cool and raining, wi[h air temperatures at approximately 55 deuces Fahrenheit. The site was examined cn foot by wa22-,hng a series of trar~ects aczoss the subjec~ properrS,'. The primary objec~ve of tZ'qe one-day field visit was to evaluate [he site's potential ~o support DSF, and generally eva!uate habitat suitability for other potent/a!!?, CCCa,'Tmg sensitive wildlife species based on existing site conditions. General plant and wi!dlge species present at the site :','ere identified to assess the o;'eraLl habitat value. Existing Conditions The site has been historically rough graded (detaLled belo;,,,). L'x addition, surface evidence of dis'.',..hag rows is presenl, as the site is maintahaed for weed abatement on a~q en_qual basis. Three disthactly dLfierent elevations are present cn the site due to haitial site preparation. Average elevation at lhe site is approximately 1140 feet above me~'*t sea level, wi[h the highest graded leve! at the northern end of the site, "s~epping do~,.~" approximately four to sb< feet a t each of the P. vo successive levels. Figure 3-3a illustrate exLs~q_ng condi~ons of the subject property. .... Sile Photographs 1-4] II .......... Site Photographs 5-8 j JI Charles Joseph Associates February 17, 1998 Page 8 Disturbance History and Soils Analysis A SoLIs Engineering Report was prepared for effListbroyect and adjacent parcels by Samson & Associates (1992). The su~ect parcel is located within a larger site comprised of multiple parcels. Grading activil:ies occurred on the subject parcel as well as on surrounding parcels. The report indicated that the site, along with adjacent parcels, was graded during. 1992 and 1993 by removal of uncertffied fill and loose/soft alluvium within the depth of approximately 1.5 to 3.0 feet and armrod the perizneter of the footprint of the proposed buildings. Prior to grading operations, all vegetation and trash was cleared and stockpLIed for ctisposal off site. Fill materials placed on the site were cleaned of orgardcs and trash, moisture concLitioned, spread in thin Lifts, and compacted by heav-y construction equipment to a minLmutm relative compaction of 90 percent. Soils analysis indicates that m site sui3surface materials (top 12 inches) consist of fill, characterized by loose, daznp sand, fine to merit.tin grained, slight she content, brown, medium dense, damp to slightly moist with occasional gravel. Vegetation Approximately 80 percent of the site is densely vegetated with a combination of non-native ruderal (weedy) herbs and grasses and native plant species. Moderately dense telegraph weed with elements of armuM bur-sage are present over most of the site. Native mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) is also present in small patches near the southern boundary of the site where on- site drainage tended to pool in shallow recesses. Ruderal introduced plant species comprise the mosLly dense understory. Non-native species present on site include horehotmd (Marruln'um v"dlgare), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), foxtaiI chess (Bromtts madritensis ssp. rubens), Bermuda grass (Cy'nodon dactylon), filaree (Erodium cicutarium), mustard (Brassica or Hirschfeldia spp.), and Russian thistie (Salsola tragus). Non-native grasses and filaree constitute approximately 70 percent of khe vegetative cover present on the site. Wildlife BLrd spedes observed during the reconnaissance-level field su3, ey included ordy the savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). Ma.n'tmal species of which sign was detected, include Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), deser~ cottontail (SylviIagus auduboni), and CalLfomia ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Charles Joseph Associates February 17, 1998 Surrounding Land Uses The subject prope..~, is located in a m/xec~ industrial/commercial area of the CiB/of Px~rtcho 'Cuc2a'ncuxg~ The property is bordered by .~L,'mw Route and office and light indu~brial development to the north, ~'vl~ite Oak Avert,at {previously Vincent Avenue) and manufacturing and warehouse development to the we~, a vacant lot, similar in surface appearance to the sun,ey site (graded concurrently with the subject parcel), fol/owed. by li,ght industrial development to the east, and Tacoma Street, foliowed by a distn. tzbed vacant lot, currently proposed for a w~rehouse distribution facility (aho graded concurrently with the subje~ parcel). Along the southern and western borden of the site (White Oak Avenue and Tacoma Street), sidewalks, curb and gutte~z, and ornamental trees we present. Discussion Optimal DSF habitat is defined by low gi-owing perennial inmbs with frequent patches of exposed sandy soil, characteristics which are ru~t collective/y present at the site. However, result~ of recent suxveys (1997) in the Ontazio area suggest that DSF may cccur in areas that do not support perennial shrubs (e.g., buckwheat). DSF may occupy habitats that only support telegraph weed (aLong w~th the other defining characteristics such as opeq. frlabIe so//s). Conversely, in a study ccrnducted in Colton, California l:n/Kingsley (1996), DSF selected only those habitats that contain. ed both California buckwheat and telegraph weed. Observations of the 1996 Kingsley study suggest 'that both plant sp. edes may be necessary for Iong-tenn surv/va/of DSI=, and that arrangement and densi~ of cov~ is Lmportant. Kingsley (1996) also suggests that t:~ologists would likely f:md sit~s where both ~ thes~ plant s-pecies are present in patcb, y arrangen~,~ts more suitable to support DSF than sites witZnout these plant species or that suppca~ very dense vegemtien. DSF .have very narrow habitat requirements that ere determined by aVpropriate plant species and open send as ddining characteristics (Kingsley t996). Invasive non-native vegetation severely degrades or eliminates DSF habitat. Non-native plants especially noterZmzs in 'dis respect include Russian thisfie, borehound '(Marrub'urn vulgare), mus~axd, c,he~se weed (~Malva parviflora), and many spedes crf introduced grasses (Brornus sp.). These exotic plant~ may also alter the soft moisture or make the subsirate physically uns~tabh for [Be sur~ivaI of the DSF m~d oC'~er native ,abterranean invertebrates (USF~'S 1996a). Charles JosephAssociates Febnaary17,1998 Page 10 Conclusion ¢' ¢.;: Results of fie habitat-based survey indicate that portions of the proposed project site support surface (vegetative and soil) characteristics similar in certain aspects to potential DSF habitat. Moderately dense stands of telegraph weed and sandy soils are distributed cn portions of the project site. These two habitat components are typically associated with potential DSF habitat. However, approximately 75 percent of the site supports non-native vegetation. As previously ctlscussed, non-native vegetation types, particularly dense vegetation, are negatively assodated with optimal DSF habitat. Furthermore, the site contains sandy soLIs with only about 20 percent exposed surface soil (i.e., 80 percent vegetative cover). Optimal vegetative cover for DSF is probably less than 50 percent, and may be in the range of 10-20 percent CUSFWS 1996a). No extensive areas that support open, loose sands are present an site, which are more positively correlated! with high quality potential DSF habitat. Most of fie exposed soLIs present on the project site are assodated with vehicle paths (e.g., along the top and base of the graded and elevated areas), and are high2y compacted. The presence of existing adjacent commerdal/Lndustrial development Iimits the potential for current or .,cutuze DSF occupation of the site due to the apparent absence of a potential habitat linkage or corridor. AccorcLLngly, the site does not provide a connection bei~,'een detached areas of potentially suitable or kno~,-n occupied DSF habitat. Likewise, the site does not ocrupy a known strategic location with respect to it's potential incorporation into a prospective regional wildlife reserve or corridor system. Small, previously graded and cL~sked areas encompassed by paved roadways and commercial bullclings are usually less crucial to preserve for DSF than areas that support higher quality DSF habitats or that connect separate areas of higher quality potential or occupied DSF habitats. In addition, it is contrary to expec'catio~ that DSF could have persisted cn site (Lf historically present) during grading, topsoil removal, placement of fill material, and soil compaction activities cenducted in 1992-93 due to the higkly destructive ham.re (relative to impacts to habitat) of these activities cn potentially cccurrmg DSF. It Ls also unlikely that DSF (if h]storically present) cLisbuxsed onto the subject site from the adjacent vacant parcels (proposed warehouse complex area) following grading of the 4.18-acre site because the adjacent parcels were concurren~y .exposed to grading and soL1 cL/stu.rbances during site preparation of the adjoining warehouse complex (approximately SO totaI acres). Prior to site preparation, the CharlesJoseph Associates February17,1998 Page 11 entire complex, inclusive of fie sub~ec~ parcel, was comprL~d of a vieyard (Norcal Engineering, 1991). ~, ~_~ Based solely on the above-mentioned assumption.s, the propose:i development of the 4.18-acre site will not iLkely result in adverse effects to potentially occurring DSF. However, because portions of the site support moderately dense stands of telegraph weed and sandy friable soils, definitive conclusions relative to th~ species' presence or absence at the 4.18-acre site cannot be ascertained absent conducting focused protocol DSF surveys. In addition, it ~s possible that the Service may not accept any efforts short of the intensive seasonal DSF surveys iden~'ied in their a/orementioned interkn survey protocol. Furthermore, due to the site's exposu~ to grading, soil removal, fillLng, and compactdon, potentially occurring sensitive small mammal species such as Los .Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimernbris brevinasus), a federal spedes of co'nc'~m and Cal~forrda spedes of special ccrncem; and San Bemardino kangaroo ,"at (Dipodornys merriam. i parvus), a federally listed endar~gered spedes and Cal~orrda species of spedal c~ are not expected to occur cn site. No diagnostic sign (burrows, fecal peLleLs, ~racks) of the aforementioned small mammals spedes were recorded on site dur~g the survey. LLkew~se, o~y marginally suitable habitat is present m site to suppor~ the San Diego horned lizard (Phr,.rn, osoma coror~tum blainvillii). These species are not expected to occur on site due to the site's dis~domnce history and isolation from native plant communities that iim~t the current or future ,ocvzn'ence of low vagility vertebrate wildlife species. In s~, results of Lhe habitat-based survey in~cale Gnat the site does not currently support optimal DSF habitat, and the site ~s not located directly adjacent to other areas of high quality potential or known occupied DSF habitat. However, portions of the site do contain surface elements intercomparable with occdpied DSF habitat. These areas support frjabIe sandy soils and at least cue plant spedes (telegraph weed) that is strictly associated with other occupied DSF sites. Nevertheless, results of tlne recormaissance-level habitat evaluation of the site's envirovanental conditions sugges'c that he proiec~ site does not provide optimal habitat for DSF due to: (1) the lack of any substantially open, f-tiable, sandy areas; (2) relatively dense coverage (75%) of invasive, non-native vegetation; (.3) lack of native plant communities; (4) ~ to extensive grading, ',o? soil removal, pIacement of Lmport fill material, and soL1 compac~on activities; (5) recu_~'vlng exposu.~ to an on-site weed abatement prograrn (disking); and (6) low habitat linkage value due to surr~u,-nci~g land uses (e.g., Charles Joseph Associates February17,1998 Page 12 It has been a pleasure conducing this habitat-based eva/uafion for the DeLhi Sands flower- loving fly at the 4.18-acre proiect site located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County, California. H you have any questions regarding the resulLs presented in this report, please don't hesitate to call. Very truly )'ours, EN,LDACT SCIENCES, g,i'C. Senior Biolo~st Staff Biologist REFERENCES ~ ~ .~ .;: California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 1997. Computer Reports for the Ontario, San Dimas, and Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. Kingsley, Kenneth j'. 1996. Behavior of the Delhi Sands Hower-Loving Hy (Diptera: Mydidae), a Little Known Endangered Species..~Lnn. EntomoL Soc. Am. 89(6): 883-891. Norcal Engineering. 1991. SoLls Investigation-Proposed Commercial/Warehouse Development Located on the Southeast Comer of Arrow Route and Vincent Avenue, in the City of Ranch Cucamonga, California. Project Number 3w8-91. March 20. Sampson & Associates. 1992. SoiLs Engineering Report of Gracting for Proposed Commercial/Warehouse located on the Southeast Comer of .~Lrrow Route and Vincent Avenue, City of Rancho Cucaznonga, California. August 11. U.S. Fish and WLldllfe Service. 1996. interim General Sur~ey Guidelines for the Dell-ti Sands Hower-loving Fly. December 30. U.S. Fish and WLIdLLfe Service. 1996a. Technical/Agency Draft Recovery Plan for the DeLhi sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) U.S. Fish a~d Wildlife Service, Portland, OK 44+ pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Deltti sands Hower-lovLng Hy (Rhaphiomidas t~minatus abdominalis) Recovery Plar,. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 51 pp. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF · RANCHQ CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-29 AND MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 91-08, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 99,750 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON 6.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARROW HIGHWAY AND WHITE OAK AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-461-01 AND 06 THROUGH 09. A. Recitals. 1. Cap Brothers Construction Company has filed an application for the approval of Development Review No. 97-29 and Modification to Development Review No. 91-08, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is referred [o as "the application." 2. On the 1 lth day of March 11, 1998. the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded said meeting on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Par~ A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting on March 11, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue with an Arrow Highway street frontage of approximately 420 feet and lot depth of approximately 635 feet and is presently improved with curb, gutter, drive approaches, and street trees in streetscape areas along the sites three street frontages; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with light industrial/office buildings. the property to the south consists of vacant land, the property to the east is developed with an existing manufacturing/industrial building and vacant land, and the property to the west is developed with a large manufacturing building; and c. The application contemplates the construction of a single 99,750 square foot industrial building on a portion of an approved Master Planned Industrial Park site where four smaller buildings were originally shown. Because of this change, it was requested that a formal request to modify the approved Master Plan accompany the request for development of the site; and d. The proposed building is designed with the same primary and secondary exterior materials as all other existing buiIdings with the Master Planned Industrial Park; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS March 11, 1998 Page 2 e. The application contemplates the vacation and re-establishment of on-site inundation areas for drainage purposes. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and d. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to propedies or improvements in the vicinity. e. That the vacation and re-establishment of inundation areas on-site is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for 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 adopts a Negative Declaration based upon lhe findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, furlher, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That, based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Seclion 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. this Commission hereby approves the application subject 1o each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Planninq Division 1) Additional landscaping shall be provided to soften the appearance of the screen wall along the south side of the proper~y, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS March 11, 1998 Page 3 2) The final design and location of the crash gates along the east properly line shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit, prior to installation. The gates shall be view obscuring in nature and painted to match the color of the adjacent screen walls, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 3) The final design of the view obscudng rolling gates along lhe south end of the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. The gates shall be painted to match the color of the adjacent screen walls, to the satisfaction of the City Planner. 4) All elements of the streetscape design (landscaping, berming, walls) shall be coordinated for consistency and reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. 5) Catalog cuts of the proposed outdoor amenities within the outdoor eating/plaza area (benches, tables, etc.) and construction details of the proposed overhead trellis structure shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits. Engineerinq Division 1) A certificate of compliance for a lot line adjustment/merger shall be processed, to reconfigure the parcels as proposed, prior to lhe issuance of building permits. 2) Street trees shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer including areas where driveways wilt be removed. Dead or dying trees shall be replaced with current tree species for respective streets. An assessment by a certified arborist to determine the viability of any trees the applicant would like to preseNe shall be required. 3) Replace sidewalk, curb, and gutter where driveways are to be removed. 4) R26S "No Stopping Any Time" or R26" No Parking" signs shall be installed or protected in-place on all frontages. 5) Protect existing traffic signal improvements in-place. 6) Install all street lights not installed as pad of Parcel Map 12959. 7) Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public street improvements. prior to issuance of building permits. Fire Prevention/New Construction Unit 1) The final site plan shall indicate the method of providing secondary emergency access for the east, to the satisfaction of the Fire District. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS March 11, 1998 Page 4 Environmental Mitiqation Measures 1) New inundation areas described by separate document shall be recorded and old areas vacated, prior to the issuance of building permit. Drainage/flood protection facilities shall be provided for the project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as follows: a) The run off (Q100) from the site shall not exceed the capacity of the existing public storm drain system to the south. The amount of on-site detention shall be based on a proration of available capacity of the undeveloped parcels on a per acre basis for the area tributary to the cul-de-sac at the south end of Vincent Avenue, just nodh of the A.T.S.F. railroad main line. Reference the hydrology/hydraulic study prepared for Parcel Map 12959 to the east on file with the City. b) Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated, prior to the issuance of building permits. c) No public water shall be tributary diz:ectly to the inundation areas. d) In automobile and truck parking and maneuvering areas, ponding depths shall not exceed 12 inches and 18 inches, respectively, and shall not exceed 6 inches for more than 4 hours. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1998. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHQ CUCAMONGA BY: E. David Barker, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Buller, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, 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 1 lth day of March 1998, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ): fil COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT/C: Development Review 97-29 SUBJECT: 99,750 square foot industrial manufacturing building APPLICANT: CAP Brothers - Vanguard Tool LOCATION: Southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Time Limits Completion Date 1, Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. 2, The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to serve the development, The station shall be located. designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer sha[I comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation of the final map occurs. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water districl within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. B. Site Development The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Project No. DR 97-29 ]1 Completion Date 2. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shah be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a Custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 4. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all Sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 5. A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 6. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash receptacles shall be Subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 8.All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination. 9. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to the issuance of building permits. C. Shopping Centers 1. A uniform hardscape and street furniture design including seating benches, trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards, etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Provide for the following design features in each trash enclosure, to the satisfaction of the City Planner: a, Architecturally integrated into the design of (the shopping center/the project). __/ __ b. Separate pedestrian access that does not require the opening of the main doors and to / include serf-closing pedestrian doors. c. Large enough to accommodate two trash bins. d, Roll-up doors. / Project No. DR 97-29 Completion Date e. Trash bins with counter-weighted lids. f. Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis. g. Chain [ink screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the enclosure and designed to be hidden from view. 3. Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle, pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers, exposed aggregate, integral color concrete, or any combination · , thereof. Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The lighting fixture design shall compliment the architectural program. It shall include the plaza area lighting fixtures, building lighting fixtures (exterior), and parking lot lighting fixtures. D. Building Design 1. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent prope~ies and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction ol= the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. 2. For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll-up doors and service doors to match main building colors. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans) 1. All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including curb), 2. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards. 4. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn-around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into public right-of-way. 5. Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of stalls for use by the handicapped. Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet. Project No. DR 97-29 Completion Date 7. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first 50 bicyqle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required am 2.5 percent of the required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distributioD uses shall provide bicycle storage spaces at a rate of 2.5 percent on the required automobile parking spaces with a minimum of a 3-bike rack. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be rounded off to the higher whole number. 8, Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet. F. Landscaping 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan. including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. 2, A minimum of 20% of trees planted within industrial projects, and a minimum of 30% within commercial and office projects, shall be specimen size trees - 24-inch box or larger. 3, Vvlthin parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for even/three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21, 4, Trees shall be pJanted in areas of public,view adjacent to and along structures at a rate o~' ODe tree per 30 linear feet of building, 5 A~lprivates~~pes~f5feet~r~essinvertica~heightand~f5:1~rgreatersl~pe'but~essthan2:1 slope. shall be, at minimum. irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 6. All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and van/slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy. 7. For multi-family residential and non-residential development. property owners are responsible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site. as well as contiguous planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shaII be kept free from weeds and debris and maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. Project NO. DR 97-29 Completion Date 8. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 9. Special landscape features such as mounding. alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meandering sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along Arrow Highway. 10. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer, 11.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division. I2. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. G. Environmental 1. Mitigation measures are required for the project. The applicant is responsible for the cost of implementing said measures, including monitoring and reporting, Applicant shall be required to post cash, letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the amount of S719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfactory performance and completion of all mitigation measures. These funds may be used by the City to retain consultants and/or pay for City staff time to monitor and report on the mitigation measures. Failure to complete all actions required by the approved environmental documents shall be considered grounds for forfeit. In those instances requiring long term monitoring (i.e.) beyond final certj~cate of occupancy), the applicant shall provide a written monitoring and reporting program to the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. Said program shall identify the reporter as an individual qualified to know whether the particular mitigation measure has been implemented. H. Other Agencies 1, The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development 1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. Project No, DR 97-29 CompWetion D!te 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition to an existing development. the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. 3. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. J. Grading 1. Grading of the subject properly sha)l be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. City Grading Standards. and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantia) conformance with the approved grading plan. 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. 3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: K. General Fire Protection Conditions 1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project. 2. Fire flow requirement shall be 3,000 gallons per minute. a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the buildeddeveloper and witnessed by fire department personnel prior to water plan approval. b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel after construction and prior to occupancy. 3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed and operahie prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e.. lumber, roofing materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by ~re deparlment personnel. 4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants, __ __/__ if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4" and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers. 5. Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted / / to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required fire protection system. 6. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final / / inspection. Project No. OR 97-29 Compietion Date 7. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below: X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15. × Other: 1994 UBC. Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, fiammable liquids storage. high piled stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate for proposed operations. 8. Sprinkler system monitoring shall be installed and operational immediately upon completion of sprinkler system. 9. A fire alarm system(s) shall be required as noted below: X California Code Regulations Title 24. 10. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted: X All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22. X Other: Access points from east must be provided on Site Ran. 11. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards. 12. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shaft be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground up so as not to impede fire apparatus. 13. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 14.Gated/restricted entry(s) require installation of a Knox rabid entry key system. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific details and ordering information. 15. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC, UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15. L. Special Permits 1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below: a. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgement of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. Project No. DR 97-29 JL Completion Dai:e APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: M. Security Lighting 1. All parking. common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power. These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell. 2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire development. 3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandaPresistant fixtures. N. Security Hardware 1. All garage or rolling doors shall have slide bolts or some type of secondary locking devices. O. Security Fencing 1. When utilizing security gates, a Knox box sub-master system security device shall be used since fire and law enforcement can access these devices. P, Building Numbering 1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime visibility. Q. Alarm Systems 1, Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in turn save dollars and lives.