HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/03/25 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY MARCH 25, 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
March 11, 1998
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after
speaking.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIRt FOR GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENTS 96-038 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 98-038 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 dwel:ing 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 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) 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. (Continued
from March 11, 1998)
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAt PLAN
AMENDMENT 96-03B - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A
request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Utility
Corridor (UC) to Ldw 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; and the consideration by the
City of alternative land use designation of Low-Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site between the Railroad
Tracks and Base Line Road -APN: 227-091-41,227-393-01 and 02,
and 227-351-65.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY
PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A
request to amend the Community Plan to change the Development
District 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; the consideration by the City
of alternative Development District of Low-Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre) for the project site between the Railroad
Tracks and Base Line Road; and the consideration to modify the
ultimate width of the parkway at the east side of future Day Creek
Boulevard from 7 to 25 feet - APN: 227-091-41,227-393-01 and 02,
and 227-351-65.
Page 2
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 97-01 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A
request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Utility
Corridor (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 designation of
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site between
Base Line Road and Church Street - APN: 229-021-56 and
227-201-33.
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY
PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A
request to amend the Community Plan to change the Development
District from Utility Corridor (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; the consideration by the City of alternative land use
designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project
site between Base Line Road and Church Street; and the
consideration to modify the ultimate width of the parkway at the east
side of future Day Creek Boulevard from 7 to 25 feet -
APN: 229-021-56 and 227-201-33.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15783
- G&D CONSTRUCTION - A residential subdivision and design review
of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located on the west
side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64.
Associated with this request is Tree Removal Permit 98-06. Related
Files: Tract 14263 and Variance 96-02. Staff has prepared a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
G. VARIANCE 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION - A request to modify the
following development standards: 1) reduce the minimum area
requirement for the use of Optional Development Standards, 2)
reduce the rear yard setback along the north and west project
boundary, 3) reduce the building-to-curb setback, 4) reduce the
building-to-building separation, 5) reduce the average and minimum
landscape setback along Carnelian Street, 6) reduce the parking
streetscape setback, and 7) increase the wall height along the north
Page 3
and west project boundary for a residential subdivision and design
review of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located on the west
side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64.
Related Files: Tract 14263 and Tentative Tract 15783.
V. NEW BUSINESS
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
97-29 - 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts
for consideration. Related File: Development Review 91-08.
(Continued from March 11, 1998)
I. MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08 - CAP
BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to modify the
master plan for an incfustrial park on 8.8 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. Related File:
Development Review 97-29.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Commission. Items
to be discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VII, COMMISSION BUSINESS
VIII, ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11. O0 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
I, Gall 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 19, 1998, at least 72 hours prior to
the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center
Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 4 /
VICINITY MAP
'k' CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MAR ~4 ~98 18:34 . i p.~
L,~W OFFICES
BARGER &.WOLEN
· ~o~..~ ,..~ ~o,~ City Of RanChO Cucamonga
~ ~CS~D ,~: ~09) 4~-~47 Planning Division
Ms. N~y Bo~, ~
City Pl~er
~e City of ~c~ Cu$onga
1~ Civ~ Cen~r Drive
Post gce ~x 807
gho Cupola, ~o~ 91~9
Re: E~kom~n~ As~smem ~d Victoria Commu~
Plan Am~Mment 97~1 - Sou~rn C~ifor~ E~on
~ MS. Fo~:
~s o~ reprints CSM&C ~p~ion, LLC ('CSM&CD, ~e ow~r of a
poEion of ~e f~mr gn Ut~i~ C~i~r w~ ~ ~e subj~t of ~e ~e re~es~d ~tion.
8gc~y, CSM&C owm ~t po~on of ~e U~i~ ~rri~ in gcho Cu~monga which
We appeal ~e action of ~ Plannln~ ~pu~nt in ~eir prog~ ~ wor~
m~d ~ A~ment of ~e ~mmnni~ P~ ~ ~ge the ~velopment D~ict ~om
U~ Cogi~r m ~e e~t~ adja~nt ~ng so ~t ~e Pro~ my ~ develop~ com~mm
wi~ s~ou~ l~ m~ desi~on.
Howeve, ~ o~r of ~t po~on of ~e pr~ wh~h would be re~
Regio~ ~ O~ce/Commerc~, CSM&C ~ co~rned wi~ ~e pro~ ~difio~
~miderat~n which would 'm~i~ ~e ulm~ wid~ of ~ ~ay ~ ~ ~t side of
Day Cr~ ~ev~d ~om 7 m 25 f~t."
O~ ~m ~ g on ~e follo~g:
(1) F~st, ~ou~ we ~dersmnd ~at ~e pu~e of ~e ~cr~ p~ay
wid~ is to mR~ ~ 15 of v~w ~d ~en spg r~ult~g from ~ removal of ~e Ut~ity
MAR 84 ~98 18:35 P.3
LAW OrifICES
BARGER & WOLEN LLP . Ms. Nancy Fong
Page 2
Corridor designation, we question the intent of such parkway when applied to tim Property. The
easterly view from the proposed Day Creek Boulevarcl over to the Property would be largely that
of the 1-15 berm which forms the southeasterly boundary of a portion of the Pro erty, Stated
different/y, because of the proximity of the Properly to the 1-15, there is little vFew of open space
which would be lost by the ultimate development of the Property. The 1-15 cuts diagonally a/ong
the sou~y bolmdsry, resulting in an insignificant impact on view from the proposed Day
Creek Boulevard south of Foothill.
(2) Second, view, open space and density ar~ably have more relevance in the
context of residential development than comm~rclal. The proposal for the Property is that it will
all be Regional Related Office/Commercial with no residential elements.
(3) Th/rd, we assume that the purpose of the widened parkway would not be
intended for pedestrian or bicycle paths. The approximate 1 100 feet of frontage alon,, the future
Day Creek Boulevard from Foothill in a southerly direction' would dead end at the I'~5 and thus
there would be ' '
little or no benefit tbr pedestrian or bicycle passage.
(4) Finally, the increase in the width of the parkway would, on a square
footage basis, affect approximately one-half acre of the 7.2 acre site. This is in addition to the
r e
· ding ag and commercial use of the project will be impacted. This will
result in not only less potential commercial baHcling space, but also a consequential reduction in
sales tax revenue for the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
For the reasons set forth above, CSM&C respecfful/y reqtmsts that the parkway
requirements be maintained at the existing 7 foot width.
~MEINDL For the Firm
JMM:cly
co: Christopher M. Leggio (via facsimile)
/
I 1
26',-- ., p.~,gp~.e_--.r:, pP~P~L:~'Pt
c...J ~1T~2_._5"
ITY OF RANCHO.CUCAMONGA ITEM: CUP c?b-~.~ ..._.Z "--'
[EXHIBIT:/~4''~ SCALE: ~'
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 25, 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. (Continued from March 11, 1998)
BACKGROUND: This item was continued to this hearing for the purpose of complying with the
30-day public review period. Attached is the March 11, 1998, staff report.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR and adopt the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
Res
Brad
City Planner
Attachments: Staff Report dated March 11, 1998
Resolution Recommending Certification of EIR to the City Council
ITEM A
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-03B & 97-01, VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 - SCE
March 11, 1998
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. Puroose of an EIR: The purpose of the Environmental Impact Report is to inform the public
about any significant impacts to the physical environment as a result of a project, identify
ways to avoid or lessen the impacts, identify alternatives, 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 97-01 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: US.
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. Scooino and Neiqhborhood Meeting: On July 10, 1997, a notice of the
scoping/neighborhood meeting was sent to all 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 artended 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 review period ending on March 25, 1998.
C. Summary of Sianificant Imoacts and Miticlation: 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 impacts and the mitigation.
1. Drainaoe: 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 less 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
· I-15 southbound ramp and Base Line Road
· East Avenue and Base Line Road
· · I-15 between Jurupa Street and I-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 96o03B & 97-01, VCPA 96-01 & 97-01 - SCE
March 11, 1998
Page 4
5. Schools: Project area is within Etiwanda School District and Chaffey Joint Union High
School District. Schools within the two districts are at or above capacity. Future
development will generate more students for the 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 density on the total acreage of ~_ach 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 to enter in an agreement with both school
districts to provide adequate mitigation and participate in the school districts' Melio-
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 Community 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 time of 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 mitigation is to require a qualified archeologist
to be present on site during rough grading and other significant ground disturbing
activities.
10. Biological Resources. and ResPonse from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: A biological
assessment was prepared for the project area. The consultant followed the "protocol"
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFVVS) 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 Project
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 altematives were considered,
namely, no project/development, 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 in-fill 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 Mitiaation Monitorina Proaram (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 is 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-foot radius of the project 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.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
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 & 97-01
TRANSMITTED UNDERSEPARATE COVER
EXHIBIT "A" ~ ~;
Lt .D USE,AMENDMENT FOL
EDISON UTILITY CORRIDOR
CITY RANCHO CUCAMONGA
GPA 97-01 & VCPA 97-01
M .: ~
,P : >
1000 0 1000 2000 Fee~ ~'~ }l Figure 3
Land Use Amendment for
Edison Utility Corridor
(GPA 96-03B & GPA 97-01)
(VPCA 96-01 & VPCA 97-01)
, r, HIGHLA:NDiAV~E;- , !~ ~: , !.
,.
Figure 2
EXH[B]T B ]
0.57 0 0.57 ~.14 Mil~
S
LA.,D USE AMENDMENT FOE
EDISON UTILITY CORRIDOR
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GPA 96-03B & VCPA 96-01
Highland Ave
VC
L
L
S.B.C.F,C, LM
LM
RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & QUAB|-I'UBLIC
L L.nw Dcn~ily (24 DU/AC) E Elcmcnlnl3t School
K& &~g~,,~a R~l..~d om~=/c,,.,m~;.t 1GO0 0 1000 2000 Fee
EXHIBIT B2
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 (1 O-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 TIA
Task No. 4 - Draft EIR
DrF"~'~a~EIR Circulation (NOC) 11/12/97 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) 2/18/98
Notice of Availability of Draft EIR for
Public Review 2/23/98 Advertised 2/23/98 - 30 day Public Review Period ends 3/25/98
Task No. 6 - Public Hearings
3/11/98
Planning Commission Public Hearings 3/25/98 10 day notice
City Council 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" ~ I.-~
Table 1.1-1 - Environmental Summary of the Edison Company General Plan
and Victoria Community Plan Amendments
IsSues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4. ! Drainage
Impact 4.1.1. The proposed project would substantially 4.1.1A. Any development proposed between Iltghland Avenue Mitigated to below a level of
increase the Impervious surface coverage. resulting in an and Base Line Road shall be conditloned to convey on-site significance.
increase in the total quantity and rate of water draining from drainage tu the west to Day Creek Channel by storm 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.IB. The developer shah amend the City's Final Master Plan of
impact on existing drainage facilities. Drainage Repo~ prior to Final Map approval to account for the
change in land use from open space to residential uses.
4.1.1C. The develoner shall remove the existing 96-inch RCP
stubout. located aooroxlmatclv 462 feet from Victoria Park Lane
and install an 108-inch RCP from Day Creek Boulevard to Dav
Creek Channel. w~th the nine entering the channel one foot above
the channel invert.
4.2 TrafRc
Impact 4.2.1 - Eight key study area intersections are 4.2.1A. The project proponent shall contribute a traffic fee in Mitigated to below a level of
forecast to exceed the CMP LOS E standard under 2015 accordance with the City's adopted traffic fee program (Transpor- significance.
traIBc conditions in one or both peak hours, with the tatIon Department Impact Fee Ordinance No. 445) as the
without the project. 1]~e intersection of Eliwands Ave- project's fair share contribution to circulation improvements
nun/Base Line Road is forecast to 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 improvements shall consist of the following:
the intersection and degrade operations to LOS F in the
p.m. peak hour. This is a potentially significant impact. Mllllken Avenue/Foothfil Boulevard. ,',~,~';;;,,,;
~,.,-.:c;a.,~'. ~lodify Ihe eastbound and westbound so-
nroaches be modified to include a third throu.~h lane
each direction on Foodtill Boulevard as well as convert the
eastbouBd right turn lane to a through nlus right turn lane.
.__ Rochester Avenue/ilighland Avenue. Signal ohaslng of
the e-xistin~z tt~alBc signal shah be uograded to accommodate
the future tral~c vo[umes.
· = R~;~c. hester Avenue/Base Line Road. Signal nhaslng of the
existing traffic signal shah be ut~graded to accommodate the
future tral~e volumes.
Z/~/98(R:\CRG730xFEIR\TABLEI_I .FNL) ] -4
L~A Associates. [tic.
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.2 Traffic (Conlinued)
· _ Rochester Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. Signal nhasing of
d~e existing trag'~c si.nnal ~hall b~ upgraded to accommodate
dae future traffic volumes.
Day Creek Boulevard/!ltghland Avenue ~
, _ , L, , :~c~,The following is recom-
mended mitigation for this intersection:
; (::Qnst~;0on of a northbound left turn lane.
; Addition of a second northbound through lane and a
~;hared through olus right turn lane.
i Construction of a southbound left turn lane.
; ,Additlgn of a second southbound through lane and a
~harCd through olus right turn lane.
; (;On~tructlon of eastbound left turn lane.
I ~ddltton of an cutbound through plus right turn
; (:Onstructlon of a westbound left turn lane. and
: ,Addition of a m,cstbound through plus right rum lane.
Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road, The following is
recommended mitigation for this intersection:
: Construction of dual northbound left turn lanes.
; ~ddiirion of second and third northbound through
lanes.
.: (;Oll~ruclion of a northbound right turn lane.
; (;on~ruction of dual southbound left turn lanes.
; ,Addition of second and third southbound through
lanes.
; Construction of a southbound right turn lane.
; Construction of dual eastbound left turn lanes,
-_. Addition of a third eastbound throuRh lane.
~ Construction of an castbound right turn lane,
2/8/98(R:\CRG7)O',FEIR\TABLEI_I.FNL) I -5
LSA Associates, DIe.
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.2 Traffic (Continued)
-_. Construction of dual westbound left turn lan~,
; Addition of a third weslbound through lane· and
; Construction of a westbound rinht turn lane.
Day Creek Boulevard/Foothill Boulevard. C~.~;,.,s;~,,~
· .The followinu is rccomnle;lldcd
mitigation for this intersection:
; Construction of dual northbound left turn lanes.
; Addition of a second and ~hird northbound Ibmugh
.- Construction of a northbound free rtRht turn lane.
: Construction of dual southbound left turn lanes.
; Addition of second and third southbound through
lanes.
; Construction of a frcc southbound rluht turn lane.
: Construction of dual castbound left turn lanes.
; Addition of an castbound throuuh plus right turn
lane.
: Construction of a westbound left turn lane.
~ Addition of a fouuh wcslbound through lane. and
i Construction of a westbound [rcc rtul~ turn lane.
Etlwanda Avenue/Base Line Road. C~.,~;, .-..;;~,,;
,',.: J ..........
:.,~,. ~.~; .~.o.. :~:,~,..~..aJ.Thc eastbound and westbound
aDDroaches shall be modified to provide a third through
lane in cacll direction on Etiwanda Avenue.
Etlwanda Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. Addition of a
southbound right mm lane and a third castbound thfomzh
2~/98(11:\CRG730%FEIR\TABLEI_I .FNL) ] '~
L~A Associates,
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.2 Trailtic (Continued)
1-15 Southbound Ramps/Base Line Road. Acl,:~;,~ ,,f
we~ilbound left turn lane (dual left turn lane~ for on-ramo
|ea~ic at the westbound annroach and a southbound trec
ih ur f if-ram ~ic
~d,~d .... ' ' ~e ~st~und aoomach shall
4.2.1B. Cl~latlon impm~menu ha~ ~en identified to achle~
Randa~s le~ts ofse~ (i.e., I~al ju~sdictlon an~ot 5~BAG)
at study ares inte~ections. To address the timing, funding, and
implemenmrion of these Impmvemen~, the following mitigation
measu~ or condition of Gene~l Plan ~endment appm~l is
recommended.
Prior to the appm~l of any t~ map, a t~c study shall
completed to detector whether the inc~mental inc~ase
in ~c from the ~ct map a~a causes any of the intersec-
tions under in~stlgation to ~sult In unsalishclo~ levels of
seaice. If unacceptable levels ofse~ice ~sult, this
anal~is shall detector the ~lon of the ultimate inte~ec-
tions' impm~ments that are required, the phasing of the
impm~ment, and the ~nding source.
1-7
2At/98(R:\CRG730XFEIR\TABLEI_I .FNL)
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.2 Trafilc (Continued)
Impact 4.2.2. The proposed project will contribute. tu 4.2.2. 1'he project shall contribute on a fair share basis to the cost Mitigated to below a level ofsignt~-
deficlenclesalongl-15belweenJurupaAvenneandl-IOand ofpmvtdingthefollowingfreewaylaneaddttions: cance.
between 41h Street and Foothill Boulevard.
1-15 between Jurupa Street and I-lO - two lane mainline
lanes In each direction.
1-15 between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard - two
mainline lanes in each direction.
4.3 Air Quality
Impact 4.3. l. Construction equipment emissions would 43.1A. The Construction Contractor shall select the construction Mitigated to below a level of
_~ exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds for the criteria pollut- equipment used onstte based on low emission factors and high significance.
-"" ant of NOx, which is 2.5 tons per quatier or I00 pounds per energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that
(~ clay. Emissions of other criteria pollutants would be below roastmellon grading plans Include a statement that all construe-
the standards, This is a significant impact. lion equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with
the manufacturer's specifications.
4.3.1B. The Construction Conlractor shall utilize electric or
diesel-powered equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines
where feasible.
4.3.1C. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construc-
tion grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut
off equipment when not in use. During smog season (May
through October), the overall length of the construction period
should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of the area
prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating
at the same time.
4.3.1D. The Construction Contractor shall time the construction
activities so as to not interfere with peak hour tra~'lc and minimize
obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if neces-
saP/, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to
existing roadways.
I-8
2/Bfi)8(R:\CRG730~FEIR\TABLEI~I .FNL)
LSA Associates, l,c.
Issues/impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.3 Air Quality (Continued)
4.3.1E. The Constntctlon Contractor shall support and encour- !
age ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage
ridesharing and transit Incentives for the construction crew.
4.3.4F. The developer shall contract with a mitination monitor to
assure compliance and imDlementation with the mitination
monitorinn Dronram.
Impact 4.3.2. During grading activities dust emission 4.3.2A. Dust generated by the development activities shall be Mitigated to below a level of
would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 150 pounds per retained on site and keep In a minimum by following the dust significance.
day. This is a significant impact. control measures listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or
transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving
the site and to create a crust aher each day's activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall
be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp
enough to prevent dust from leaving the site, At a mini-
mum, this would include wetting down such areas In the
later morning and after work is completed for the day, and
whenever 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 the area is paved or
othenvlse 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 materials and/or
construelion debds to or from the site shall be tarped from
the point of origin.
2/8/98(R:\CRG730%FEIR\TABLEI_I.FNL)
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.5 Air Quality (Continued)
Impact 4.3.3. Volati|e Organic Compound (VOC) emls- 4.3.3.The Construction Contractor shah utilize as much as possible Mitigated to below a level of
slons associated with architectural coatings are not calcu- ppecoated/natural colotrd building materials, water-I:nsed or low. VOC significance.
lated because Ihere is no sufficient information available for coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer
emissions produced by the painting of residential and eflk*tency, such as high v~h:me low pressure (HVLP) sirsT method, or
commercial facilities. VOCs produced during construction manual coatings application such as paint bt~sh, hand n~Her, tn3w~l,
may be a potentially significant impact. spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge.
Impact4.3.4. Vehicolar trlps assoclated with the proposed 4.5.4A. The pt~jectshallcomplywith'Btle24oftheCAlifumtaCode Opecational emlsslons ofthe pro-
project would produce emissions that would exceed the of Regulations established by the Energy Commission regarding posed project would result in a total
SCAQMD daily thresholds forthe criteria pollutant of CO, enevgy consetvation standards. The pmject applicant shall lncorlx~ of8511bs./day ofCO, 64 Ibs./day of
ROC, and NOx, This is a significant impact. rate the following in building plans: ROC, 136 IbsJday of NOx, 15
Ibs./day of SOx, and 19 Ibs./day of
Planting trees to provide shade and shadow to building; PM 10' Among them, the emissions
Solar or low-emission water }leaten shall be used with combined for CO, ROC, and NOx would cx-
space/water heater unit; ceed the SCAQMD thresholds for
Refrigerator with vacuum powtr Insulation; daily operations by a large margin
Double-pained glassorwindow trearxncnt lorenergrconscrvation (especially NOx). Even after tmple-
shall be used in all exterior windows; and mentalion the mitigation mcasures
· Energy-efficient low-sodium parldng lot lights shall be used. identified, it is not guaranteed that
the emissions would be reduced to
4.3.4B. Use of Iranspoflation demand measuR's (I'DND such as below the thresholds. Therefore, It
preferential parking for vanpooltng/caqx~oling, subsidy for transit would remain a significant impact.
pass or vanpooling/carpooling, flextime work schedule, bike racks
lockers, showers, and onsite cafeteria shall be incorporated in the
design of the commercial land uses.
4.3.4C. The nsulect mo.ix3ncnt shall deternline with the City and the
elecuical ourvt-vor ff it Is feasible to are-win: houses for electrical
chast, es fur EV cats and/or ootic-Ilbers fur home offices. li feasible,
install EV charges and/or optic-fibers mr the electrical ourvcvolr'~
dittctlon PriOr tO Certificate o[Occuoantw.
4.3.4D. Install EV chanters or alternallvl: fuel sta0ons fnamral eas} fur
community wide use at key ccrnmmrclal and oillie iocaUon(sl such
oark and ride lots. Metrolink stations. and commercial centers.
4.]..4E. The deveioner shall contract with a mM.Eation moniIO}r tO
assure comDliance and imnlementation with the mlthza091n FnQOitOr-
JnE
2/B/98(R:\CRG730~FEIR%TABLEt_I.FNL) ! -I 0
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.4 Noise
Impact 4.4.1. Noise levels from grading and other con- 4.4.1/L During all project sile excavation and grading on-site, the Mitigated to below a level of
structionactivities forthe proposed project mayrangeup to proJect contractors shallequlpallconstructlouequlpment. fLxed significance.
91 dBA at the closest residences immediately to the east of or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers
the northern part of the project site between I!lghland consistent with manufacturers standards.
Avenue and Base Line Road for very limited times when
construction occurs near them. The construction-related 4.4.1B. The project Contractor shall place all stationary construe-
noise impacts of the proposed project would be a poten- tion equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from
tlafiy significant impact. sensitive receptors to the east of the site.
4.4.1C. The construction contractor shall locate equipment
staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors
to the east of the site during all project construction.
4.4.1D. During all project site construction, the construction
contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would
result in high noise levels to betxveen the hours of 6:30 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, unless such construction
activities do not result in noise levels exceeding 45 dBA at
residences to the east of the site. No construction shall be
allowed on Sundays and public holidays.
[napact 4.4.2. Increases in noise levels could result from 4.4.2.Noise studies shall be required to be submitted to the City Mitigated to below a level of
~roject.related tralBc on access roads leading to the project forrevlewandapprovalprtofto~na[mapapprovalforresidentlal significance.
site, especially given the higher noise generation associated unR5 proposed within the following areas:
with trucks. project-related long-term vehicular trip in-
creases are anticipated to be moderate. The incremental Within 408 feet of Base Line Road centerline;
traffic noise level increases would be less than significant. Within 770 feet of Foothill Boulevard centefllne;
No significant tta~c noise impacts on off-site sensitive uses Within 337 feet of Day Creek Boulevard centerline between
are anticipated. |lowever, proposed on-site residential uses !llghland Avenue and Base Line Road;
would potentially be exposed to traffic noise levels exceed- · Within 438 feet of Day Creek Boulevard centerline between
ing the 60 dBA Ldn standard recommended for residential Base Line Road and Church Street; and
· Withln344feetof|llghlandAvenuecenterfine-
uses.
Mitigation such as setback, concrele block wall, or earthen berm
or their combination along the property line, proper building
orientation, building facade upgrade, double-paned windows
and/or mechanical ventilation shall be provided.
1-11
2/B/98(R:XERG730~FEIR\TABLE I_1 .FNL)
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.5 Public Services
~ch~Ql~l
Impact 4.5.1. As a result of the overcrowding in the 4.5.1A. Aschool mitlgatlon plan shall be enacted between the Mitigated to below a level of
classrooms of Ihe Etiwanda and Chaffey School Districts ESD and the developer to provide for a per dwelling unit fee rate significance.
both districts have urged and continue to urge the City not for the residetulal portion of lhe project site. The fees will offset
to approve development applications unless adequate ~ the additional demand placed on school district facilities by the
school facilities are available to serve the development residential portion of the project
~roject. Future development will generate more students
for the already impacted school districts and is considered 4.5.1B. The developer shall join Chaffey School District Mello-
significant. School mitigation plans would be enacted Roos Community Facilities District No.2 (CFD No. 2). in order to
between the ESD/CJUI ISD and the project developer ~rovide an alternative method to finance the mitigation of school
prnvidingforaperdweUtngunitfeeratefortheresidential impac(sofdevelopment.
)oftion of the project site.
4.5.1C. The developer shall be required to execute an agreement
with ESD and CJUIISD to provide adequate mitigation. Such an
agreement shall be execuled prior to Planning Commission
approval for any residential project within the General Plan
Amendment area. Actual implementation of the agreement by the
payment of fees, dedication of sites or other mitigation will take
31ace as building permits are obtained.
4.5.1D. In the event that the developer declines to execute a
mitigation agreement, the City shall require full mitigation as a
condition of approval. Full mitigation shall be accomplished by
means of a requirement to form a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities district for school facilities. In order to reduce the
burden on the future homeowners, it Is possible to structure the
community facilities district such that some of the special taxes
would be prepaid by the developer.
2/8/~8(R:\CRG7}O~FEIR\TAI~LEI_I.FNL) l - 12
Issues/Impacts Mttlgado, n Measures Analysis of Significance
4.5 Public Services (Continued)
Recreation
!4.5.2(1). 'i'hc residential portion of tl~e proposed project ! 4.5.2(1)A. The developer shall bc subject to Ordinance No. 105 Mitigated to below a level of
would increase tile demand for active recreation facilities set by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to significance.
causing a significant impact to park facilities. To mitigate establish regulations for dedication of land, payment of fees, or
this shortage of aclive recreation, future dcvclopmcnt botll, for park and recrcational land in sutxfivisions and planned
proposals must provide additional acreage to meet the communities. The devoiDnor is resnonsihte for 113 acres of
rccrcational necds of this community. parkland either by [ce or by dcdicatiom
4.5.2(1)B. At the time of filing a tentative tract map or a minor
· ~> suLvJivtsion plat for approval, the City park aad Recreation
Commission shall determine whether dedication of property for
~ 13 acres of park and recreational purposes or in lieu of fees arc
~ necessary. If Ihe City desires dedication, tile area shall be
designated on the tentative tract map when submitted ~nd a
General Plan amcndmcnt indicating the location of any Dark shall
be processed subject to Park and Rccrcalion Commission rcvtcw
~nd recommendation.
4.5.2(1)C. 'where dedication is olTcred and accepted it shall be
accomplished in accordance with Ihe provisions of the Sutxlivi-
sion Map Act. Where fees are required, the same shall be depos-
ited with Ihe City prior to the issuance of building permits.
Impact ,i.5.2(2). The residential and commercial areas ~.5.2(2). The parkway on the cast side of "future' Day Creek Mitigated to below a level of signifi-
}roposed would lncre,'Lse the dcmand for active recreational Boulcvardshafibewidcnedbr20to25fcettoprovidcamuhi-usc :ante.
[acilitics causing a signlficant impact to trail use in thc CitY. trail from l lighland Avenuc south to tcrminatc at lhc City's aduh
To mitigate the potential impacts to trails and to also sporLs complex. Specific design or the trail shall be determined hy
implement the Ctty's Master Plan of Trails, future develop- the City at tile time development plans arc sul}mittcd for review
meat proposal must provide additional acreage for trails to and approval for any development proposals adjacent to "future"
ncct the need within the City. Day Creek Boulevard. The specific design shall tie {n with the
' City's Day Creek Boulevard M.'Lstcr Plan design. The trail shall be
designed ro connect to planned and existing trail systems in the
F, liwanda Norlh Specific I'lan and slmll connect tile residential
areas north and south of Base Line Io the regional comnlercial
areas adjacent to Interstate 15.
~-~3
//B/98(R:\CRG730~FEIR\TABLEI_I.FNI.}
LSA Associates, l,c.
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Si~nificance
4.5 Public Services (Continued)
Police "
, Impact 4.5.3. The proposed project will result in a 4.5.3&As stated in the General Requirements and Approvals for Mitigated to below a level of
potentially significant impact as an increase in demand for the Police Department for the City, a signed consent and waiver !s gn ficance.
police services. An additional five police personnel would form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community
be required for the proposed residential and commercial . Facilities District shah be filed with City Engineering prior to final
development. Mitigation of this impact would require that map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever
the City exact fees from the developer through an existing occurs first for any projects within the project area between
assessment district or form one to gain the necessary funds Ittghland Avenue and 1-15. Formation costs shall be borne by the
for the additional police personnel needed. Developer.
Fire
Impact 4.5.4. Impacts of the proposed project on fire 4.5.4/L The developer shall join the Mello-Roos Community Mitigated to below a level of
service for the City of Rancho Cucamonga are potentially Facilities District to provide fire protection set'vices to the site. significance.
significant. Based on the standard response time threshold
of five minutes, and the project's location relative to Stations ~.5.~-~..'~,,,c
3, 4, and 5, the site is anticipated to fall within the 5 minute f~,;
response time criteria. ,-,-fiSG|;di~.~G.~ Gf fuel
4.5.4B. The developer shall install automated fire sprinkler
systems in commercial, industrial, and multi-family residentia[
units in accordance with Foothill ~ Fire
Protection District Ordinance No. 15 and Rancho Cucamonga Fire
4.6 AestheticsNisual
Impact 4.6.1. The proposed project would replace an 4.6.1A. New buildings within 100 feet of future Day Creek Mitigated to below a level of
84.15-acre undeveloped, open space corridor with residen- Boulevard shall be restricted to 35 feet in height to protect the significance.
tim and commercial uses, and would significantly alter view corridor of the mountains for motorists traveling north. The
existing and future view corridors. This is a potentially City Planning Department shall ensure that this condition is
significant impact. applied prior to approval of the proposed General Plan
2/8/98(R:\CRG730~EIR\TABLEI_l.FNL) 1-14
LSA Associates, Inc.
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.6 Aesthetics/Visual (Continued)
4.6. IB. Noise walls along future Day Creek Boulevard shall be no
more than eighl feet tall to avoid a sense of '*visual enclosure" for
this Scenic Corridor, and should be set back an adequate distance
to allow landscaping on the road side of the sound wall. This
:requ rement shall be attached as a condition of approval by the
CRy Planning Department prior to approval of any development
bordering future Day Creek Boulevard.
4.6.1C. The City Planning Department shall amend the Commu-
nity Design Crtteda Pail II of the Victoria Community Plan at lime
9fDfinu tentative man or minor subdivision DIal for its "recom-
mended edge conditions" for future Day Creek Boulevard to show
a similar landscape and setback treatment on both the east and:
west sides of Day Creek Boulevard. While a row of palm trees is
now recommended for the west side of Day Creek Boulevard, Ihls
~roposed landscaping shall be enhanced by short and tall
drought-tolerant shrubs adjacent to sound walls to.reduce the
visual impacts of such walls.
4.6.1D. Landscape requirements shall be established for the far
~outheru end of the pro~ect site to screen new development from
the view of motorists along 1-15 looking north. IIowever, this
landscaping should also allow views no~h towards the moun-
rains, using the view corridor provided by the future Day Creek
Boulevard. The CIty Planning Department shall address such
landscaping as a condition of approval for any development in the
area of I- 15.
Impact 4.6.2. New light and glare would be created by the 4.6.2. The Design Review process for commercial establishments Mitigated to below a level of
addition of residences and commen:lal establishments In an shall ensure that no significant light or glare Impacts shall result: significance.
area previously proposed as a utilit,/corridor. The most from the proposed project. Specific issues to be evaluated at the
significant glare would be generated by commercial uses at time of design review shall include the following: proposed
the southern end of the project site, especially In association exterior lighting and landscaping of parking areas to reduce
with outdoor parking that may be lit at night and that would visible lighting from outside these areas; use of shielding on
be visible from roadways such as the future Day Creek exterior lights to focus light onto the ground; and, proposed
Boulevard and Foothill 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.
2~/98(R=\CRG730~FEIR\TABtEI_IFNL) I - 15
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.6 AesthetlcsNisual (Continued)
Impact 4.6.3. The project could conflict with policies of 4.6.3A. Provisions shall be made to account for protection of Mitigated to below a level of
the CRy's General Plan Community Design Element and viewsheds and plant palette plans shown in the victoria Commu- significance.
lanclscape recommendations found in the Victoria Commu- nlty Plan for major intersections along future Day Creek Boule-
filly Plan. This Is a polentlally significant impact. vard. Such provisions may Include the following: building
setbacks within the pm]ect site; varied allowable heights with
lower heights nearest the Inte~changes; clustering o[ buildings;
and. landscaping to complement the viewshed. These issues shall
be addressed by the City Planning Department as recommends-
lions for the Design Review process at the time of developing
conditions of approval for any projects within the proposed
~roject corridor.
4.6.3B. To reduce potential conflicts with policies of the City's
Community Design Element, recommended miUgaUon measures
found under 4.6.1 shall also be implemented.
4.6.3C. The Communlty Design Crlte;la Part ll o[ the Victoria
Community Plan shall be amended immediately following proleer
approval to address new uses proposed as part of the project.
I Iowever, as pan of this amendment, some requirements shall be
included to reduce visual Impacts of new development by
inclusion of landscaping near major roads that matches that
proposed by the VIctoria Community Plan. For example, trees
shall be planted along the site's property lines and along road-
ways to screen new development from view. Within the site and
adjacent to major east-west corridors, the City shall designate
areas for landscaping, ensuring that land adjacent to the roads is
llanled with low-growing vegetation to maintain a degree of
visual open space on the project site.
4.7 Biological Resources
Impact 4.7. !. The proposed project would replace 84.15 4.7.1. Not considered to be significant and no mitigation is Not considered to be significant anti
acresofundevelopedlandwithresidemlalandcommereial required. no mitigation is required.
uses resulting in the loss of 47.35 acres of coastal sage
scrub, 25.22 acres of abandoned vineyard, and I 1.59 acres
ofruderal habitat. These impacts are not considered to be
significant and no mitigation is required,
2/B/98(R:\CRG730~FEIR\TABLEI_I.FNL) 1 - 16
Issues/Impacts Mitigation Measures Analysis of Significance
4.6 Biological Resources (Continued)
Impact 4.7.2. Constr~ctlon of the proposed project site 4.7.2 Not considered to be significant and no mitigation is Not considered to be significant and
would result in the loss of San Bernardino Merrlam's required. no mitigation is required.
kangaroo rat habitat. The oss of the habilat is considered
adverse but not significant.
Impact 4.7.3. The coastal sage scrub present on the site 4.7.3. Not considered to be significant and no mitigation is Not considered to be significant and
may constitute potential (but unoccupied) habitat for the required. no mitigation is required.
California gnatcatcher. The loss of potential habitat is
considered adverse but is not a significant impact.
i4.8 Cultural Resources
~ Impact4.8.1. The polentlal for histortc human burlals may 4.8.1. InconJunctionwiththesubmittalofappficationsforrough Mitigated lo below a level o[
T''~) be present in the portion ol the project area that contains grading pennnits, the applicant shall provide written evidence to significance.
'~ Site PIO84-271L This Is a potentially significant impact. the Community Development Department that an archaeologist,
listed on the County of San Bernardino list of qualified
archeologists, has been retained and will be present on site
dudng all rough grading and other significant ground disturbing
activities. The a~cheologist shall meet with the Community
Development Department to t~vtew procedures to be used dudrig
such activities.
2/8/98(R:\CRG730~FElR\TABLE I_1 .FNL) I - 17
EIR for
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES
AND
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
EXHIBIT "E"
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
The comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 0EIR) and individual
responses to each axe 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 analy~es contained in the report. The California Environ-
mental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the City respond to all sign2~^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 included 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 right margin of each letter delineate each comment. Following 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 PF_RSONS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING
ON 11-11~' DRAFf FIg
The persons, organizations, and public agencies that have submitted comments
on the DraXt Ell{ 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-
search (OPR) did not require comment since its purpose wa~ 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 W~ter District
Orick H. Robinson
Senior Engineering Associate/Specialist
A-2Southern California Association of Governmen~
J. David Stein
Manager, Performance Assessment and Implementation
A-3 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
GaLl C. Kobetich
Field Supervisor
A-4 · County of San Bernardino Transportation/Flood Control Depart-
merit Surveyor
GaAI Cotugna
Senior Associate Planner, Environmental M3,nagemcnt Division
A-5 Governor's Oj~ice of planning and Researcl~
Antero A. Riversplata
Chief, State Clearinghouse
A-6 ChaffeyJoint Union High School District
Susan B. Sundell, Ed.D
Director, Business Services
CHINO BASIN 9,000he, A,e.B,d .A.,on,, a.c 92335
E'O. Box 597 · Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91729
~ ~AT'~ ~ TEL (909) 357-0241 · FAX (909) 357-3884
e,..obb D.O.i.cey R _~ C E I V ~ O
Chief Executive Officer
General Manager
December 18, 1997 DE~ 2 2 1992
City of Rancn6 C
Ms. Nancy Fong, AICP
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) General Plan Amendments 96-
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 opportunity 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 service provider for the south-western portion
of San Bernardino County which includes the Cities of Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga,
Ontario, Upland, Montclair, Chino and Chino Hills. The District also provides service
to a portion of the former Chino Agricultural Preserve.
Programs the District is involved in can be broken down into four primary service
programs. These pro.qrams 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 1
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) j
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
Prestoant Vice Presic~ent Secretary/Treasurer Director Director
Am
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
G:~GROUI~Pt,AN'~ORICK\CEQA~RCUC~)EIR.COR
RESPONSE TO 12~R A-1
Cbino Basin Municipal Water District
1. Section 2.5, Effects Found Not to be Significant, page 2-8, paragraph 2,
sentence 2 has been revised as follows:
"RP-4 is planned to be located on Etiwanda Avenue to the east ~,f the
proiect site between Sma Bemardino Avenue and Arrow Highway. This
plant will have a first phase treatment capacity of -28 _ million gallons
per day. Either of these facilities could seNe the project site dependent
on project phasing; however, R.-1 would be the most likely treatment
facility."
L
REOEIVED
SOUTH[~N CALIEORNIA
December 17, 1997 DEC Z 2 1997
City ~of i~ancno Cucan?
'7 ~. ~ ~o~, ~e '.;,ning Division °riga
" Ci~ of ~cho Cu~on6a, P~g ~on
ASSOCIATION Of 1~ Ci~c ~ ~ve
s O V E e N M E N T S ~cho Cu~on6z, CA 91730
C~ oa ~e ~ ~n~B~ ~d ~e~ for ~e
Cmm~ ~ ~~ - BCAG No. I ~1
Main 0~ce
8~8 West Seventh Street ~ ~S. FO~g:
s2th Floor
LOS Angeles, California ~ yOU for sub~g ~e ~ ~~ ~ ~e~ for ~e
)D )OW ~o Curamo~ ~ ) ~d Vi~o~ Comm~
9oo~7-3~3s ) ~en~ m SCAG for ~ew ~d ~nt. As ~de
cl~ghou~ for ~o~y ~t ~j~, SCAG ~ d~, ~i~
t (2~3) 23648oo
~,~> ,~-,8~s ~d o~er ~ ~ ~e~g pmj~ ~d p~s for ~n~s~cy ~ ~o~
p~.
~w.scag,ca,gov
~e a~h~ d~ ~mm~ ~ m~t ~ p~dc g~ for ~de~g
.............. ~'-" ' ..........~e p,o~ pmj~ ~ ~e ~n~t of o~ ~o~ g~s ~d ~d~. If you
~-' ~" "~ ............................~ve ~y qu~ons ~g ~e ~ch~ ~mm~, pl~ ~n~t B~ ~yd at
COMMENTS ON ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
EDISON RIGHT-OF-WAY
GENERAL PLAN AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMEN'IS
DRAFr ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The linear project site is approximately 330 feet in width and is 10,756 feet long and contains
multiple parceis. The 84.15-acre site is located east of the Day Cheek Channel and the proposed
alignment of Day Cp~_lc Boulevard and extends from the I- 15 Freeway north to Highland Avenue
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The linear site is undeveloped and was pre~'iously set aside for
a Southern C~lifomia Edison (SCE) utility corridor. The site is zoned Utility Corridor within the
Victoria Community Plan. SCE proposes to change the Utility Corridor de~gnation 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 cornmr~,..~.l ~3~ There is no
development proposed for the site at this time.
INTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS
The document that provides the px'ima~ reference 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 Quality (adopted ~ 1995), I-laTardous Waste Management (adopted
November 1994), and Water Quality (adopted January 1995) chapters constitute the core chapten.
These core chapten respond directly m federal and ~ planning requirements. The core chapten
constitute the base on which local governments enstn'e consistency of theix plans with applicable
regional plans under CEQA. The Air Q,~nty and Grow',h Management chapten contain both core
and anCillary pOlicies, which are differeIitlatt~d ill the comment portion of this letter. The Regional
Mobility Element (RME) constitutes the region's Transportation Plan. The RME policies axe
Ancillary chapters a/e those on the Economy, Housing, Human l~__-so_urces and Services, Finance,
Open Space and Conservation, Water l~_e_;~,zrce~, Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management.
These chapters address iraportant issues facing the region and may xefiect other regional plans.
AnCillary chapten, however, do not contain actions or policies requix~ of local government.
Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region.
Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapten, functioning as links between the
Core and Ancillary ch,3pters of the RCPG.
Each of the applicable policies related to the px'q~osed project axe identified by number and
reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the
project with those policies.
A-2
Con~i~encv With Reform1 Comp~hensive Phn ~d ~ PoH~
1. ~e Gm~ Mampsent ~aDter fGM~ of ~e R~o~ Compmh~ve P~ mn~s a
nm~ of ~ ~ m ~c~ly ~H~le m ~e ~n ROW ~j~t
~ ~ Gm~ M~g~ Po~
3.01 ~ ~p~n, ~ing, ~ jobs fo~, ~ ~ ~pt~ ~ 5~G's Regio~
~1 ~ ~ ~a ~ p~ ~ ~d~, s~ ~ ~ ~ S~G in dl p~ of
~m~on ~ ~.
~ ~o ~ ~v~ sub~on. ~e ~ ~ on ~e 4.3-19
~owl~g~ ~t ~e ~d~ d~m~t ~d~ ~e pm~ p~ ~ons ~ ~t
p~ by SCAG. ~e ~j~t h ~n~t ~ ~ ~m R~ ~.
3.03 ~ ~ng, ~ng, ~ ~on of p~c f~a, ~ ~, ~ ~n~on
~st~ s~ ~ ~ ~ S~G w ~ t~ ~gion's gm~h
~ mm n: ~e ~ ~ ~howl~g~ ~ no ~c pm~s
p~-~ ~ ~e d~um~t gov~g ~e ~g, ~g ~d l~fion of pubfie
~, ~, em~, ~h~h ~d ~B), u~ ~s~ (~r, ~w~, ~m ~e,
~ ~d ~fid ~) ~d ~on ~s~ms. We ~ ~le m deme whe~er
~j~ ~ ~n~t ~ ~ ~ R~
b. ~ Gm~ M~g~m PoHci~
~ourage ~ j~o~' ~o~ m ~e~ a ~e ~men ~ ~ of jobs
se~ to ~ ~ ~ng pHc~.
A ~ mm~ No ~o~on ~ ~ h ~e ~ ~ on ~e Ci~ of
~eho ~onga's ~om m ~eve a ~ ~ ~ ofj~s ~ey ~ m
~d ho~g pfi~. We ~ ~le m d~e wh~ ~e ~j~t is su~ffive of
3.~ ~o~age ~e~ of u~ ~p~m ~ ~ ~e ~ ~e cos~ on i~~
colon ~ ~ ~er ~e of ~ng f~i~a~.
~. ~e D~ ~ no~ ht ~j~ wo~d ~e d~ment of
m ~j~t m p~y ~ d~m~ ~d would ~u~ ~e ~st of ~cmm
3. 07 S~n s~gio~ ~Hci~ ~ ~cog~ agHc~ ~ ~ i~, s~n t~ eco~c
~ili~ of agHc~rM ~, proem ag~rd ~, ~ pw~ m~on for
! A-2
property o~4rners holding lands in greenbelt areas.
~Zil~Oj31~l]Ia~: No irfformation is presented in the Draft EIR on whether any of the
project ~ite is loc=__t~ on ptirne ~riculturaI land. We are unable m determine whether the5
Project is supportive of this a~llary RCR3 policy. ~.[
3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic '~xdiry of
the subregion, including the development and use of rnari~ng programs, aria other
economic incentfves, which support cmainment of subregional goals and policies.
A staff mmen. No information is presented in the Draft EIR on local or "'[
subregional plans for the Project area that p~___~ent an economic strate~ to maim~in the6
economic vimlity of the subregion. We are unable to determine whether the Project is
stUporrive of this ancillary RCPG policy
3.09 Support local jurisdiczions' effort3 to minimize the cost of infi'ustrucrure and public service
delivery, and e_fforu to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of
services.
~f.A~J3]LC,~lllDID~. The l>roject will ~sult in providing land that will minimize the cost
of infrastructu~ and public sexvice delivery. The Project is supportive of this ancilhry
RCI>G policy.
3.11 Support provisions and incentfves created by local jur~rd~caons Io attract housfng growth in
job rich subregions and job growth in housing subregions.
A mm n .. No information is lcn~__~"nted in the Draft EIR on the City of1
P,~ncho Cucamonga's efforts to achieve a balance between housing and job growth,
although .ffie Project area would appear to have a near equal amount of land planned and8
zdned for housing and job producing activities. We are unable to de2.,rmine whether the..J
Project is supportive of this ancilhry RCPG policy.
3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisd~c~ons' programs aimed at designing land uses
which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce
the number of auto raps and vehicle miles traveled, and create opporruniaes for residents ~o
walk and bike.
S]7.AFLi~I.eL~II4~ Air quality mitigation measu~ 4.3.4B encourages the use of TDM.~
measures in the design of commercial land ,?~. The l~oject is supportive of this ancillary
RCPG policy.
3.]4 Support local plan~ to increase density of future development located at strategic points
along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and acavity centers.
3.]5 Support local jurisd~caons' to ~tablish mixed-use clusters and other transit-oriented
developments around transit statfons and along transit corridors.
3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation node corridors,
undenailizt. d infrastructure sysu~ns, and areas needing recycling and redeveIopment.
A n The Draft EIR mfenmces the potential for mixed land uc,-x along
the ~:tllct~n corridor, including uses which am supportive of public wansit. The project is 10
also a good example of the development of areas needing n:cycling and mev.~','mment.
The Project is supportive of these throe ancillary RCPG policies.
3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least lil~y to cause adverse en~ronmentai
impact.
A m The Draft EIR addr~__?~ efforts to minimize and mitigate against
adverse environmental impacts r~arding drainage, traffic, air q, mlity, noise, public 11
services, aesthe. fic/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 &itna~ed in local, state, and
fetterai plans.
A mm The Draft EIR acknowledges that the project area is identified as q
Utility Corridor/open spate 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 altea-native is acknowledged as being environmentally superior to 12
the proposed Project and should be given due consideration by the City of Rancho .~
Cucamonga. The Project is not supportive of this anc~n~ry RCPG policy. If Alternative 2
is chosen, the Project would be supportive of this RL'I~ policy.
3.20 Support the protection of ~tal resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas,
woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and
A mments The Draft EIR acknowledges that development of the project will
contribute to the on-going loss of coastal sage scrub habitat in the region, including habitat
for various sensitive species including the San Bemardino M~rriam's kangaroo rat and the
California gna~tehe~. No mitigation measures are proposed, although the Draft
acknowledges the potential for participation in the San Bemardino Valley Multi-species
Habitat Conservation Plan. The Project is not supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy.
3.21 Encourage the impltrnenzadon of measures aimed at the preservation and protenon of
recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.
A taft mmen The Draft EIR acknowledges that no archeological sites have been
identified on the project area and proposes mitigation measures should sites be determined
during the development process. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy.
3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with
steep slopes, hightim, flood, and seismic hazards.
~ The Dr~ EIR includes a complete clxah~e study of the axea and
concludes that no advene impacts are anticipated. The Project is supportive of th~s
ancillary RCPG policy.
3.23 Encourage rtatigation measures tha~ reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at
preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures thai would r~rlu~e exposure to
seismic hazards, rrdramize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and
A mm The Dr~ EIR includes mitigation measures for the idemffied 16
envixonmenral impacts. The Project is sup~rtive of th~s anCillary RCPG policy.
3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdiaions in the implementation of programs that increase the
supply and qualify of housing and provide affordable hotaing as evaluated in the Regional
Housing Need~ Asses, rment.
A mff mmen The Proje~ area in the Draft EIR has not been asse,.~sed as to its
impact on incr~ng the supply and quantity of housing and providing affordable housing. 17
We a~ unable to deir.~t~ine whether the Proje~'t is supportive of tb. Ls anCillary RCPG policy.
3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service proriders in their efforts to develop susta2nable
cornmun~ties and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services
such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreazional facilaies, law
enforcement, and ~re proteaion.
A staff cornmen The Draft EIR in Chapter 4.5 (Public Services) appropriately 18
addresses the pn~vision of n__ec~ary fanilities and services. The Project is supportive of this
anCillary RCPG policy.
2. The ReL, ional MobiliW Cha~ter (RMC) also has policies, all of which are core, that perutin to
the propo_~r~ project. This ca'~pter links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering
economic development, enhancing the environment, n:ducing energy consumption. protooling
wansportation-friendly development paileros, and encounging fair and equitable ~c_~,~_ss to xesidents
affected by socio-economic, 'geographic and commerei~ limitations. Among the relevant policies
in this chapter are the following:
Transportation Demand Management and Regional Transit l:~ram Policies
4.01 Promote Transportation Demand Management programs along with transit and ridesharing
facilities as a viable and desirable part of the overall program while recognizing the
particular need~ of individual subregions.
4. 03 Support the extension of TDM program implemenlation to non-commute t~ps for public and
A-2
private sector activities.
4.04 Support the coordination of land use and transportation decisions with land use and
transportation capacity, taking into account the potential for demand management strategies
to mitigate travel demand if provided for as a part of the entire package.
4. 06 Support effo~ to educate the public on the efficacy of demand management str. c,oeies and
increase the use of alternative transportation~
4.07 Public transportation programs should be considered an essential public service because of
their socid, economic, and environmental benefits. '~l
SCAG staff comments. See smt:f comment on SCAG policy 3.12. The Project is consistent 19
with these five RCPG policies. J
Regional Slxeets and Highways Prom Policies
4.20 Expanded transportation system management by local jurisdictions will be encouraged.
4. 23 TSM activities throughout the region shall be coordinated among jurisdictions. ,,]
~ The Draft ~ acknowledges that traffic impacts from the project 20
n_ _,y~_ to be mitigated and pmpose~ mitigation recastires 4.2.1A and B and 4.2.2 ID address
these impacts. The l:'rojeet is consistent with these two RCPG policies. J
Regional Non-Motorized Trans'normtion Prom Policies
4.25 The development of the regional transportation system should include a non-motorized
transportation system that provides an effe~ve alternative to auto travel for appropriate
~ps.' The planning and development of transportaaon projects and systems should
incorporate the following, as appropriate:
a o Provision of safe, convenient, and continuous bicycle and pedestrian
infrastracture to and throughout areas with existing and potential demand
such as activity areus, schools, recreational areas (including those areas
served by trails), which will ultgnately offer the same or better accessibility
provided to the motorized vehicle.
b ' o Accessibili~ to and on transit (bus terminals, rail stations, park-And-Ride
lots), where there ls demand and where transit boarding time will not be
significantly delayed.
c o Maintenance of safe, convenient, and continuous non-motorized travel
during and after the colon of transjx~rtation and general development
projeas. Existing bikeways and pedestrian waJkways should not be removed
without rniagation that is as effective as the original facility.
A-2
4.27 Urban form, land use and ~e-de. xign policies should include requirements for safi and
convenient non-motorized transponaaon, including the development of bicycle and
pedt~an-~endly environments near transit.
rnen The Draft EIR ad~ the provision of trail linkages along the
east side of Day Creek Boulevaxd in Pubic Services mitigation measure 4.5.?-q)C. he
Project is consistent with these two RCPG policies.
3. The Air Ouali_ty Cha~ter (AOC~ core actions that are generally applicable to project axe as
follows:
~.07 Z~levnine spedtic prograzn~ a~l axsod~re~ a~lon~ needed (e.~.. ~ndirea source ru~,
enhanced b~e of relecommunicazions, pro~sion of corzvn~ ba~ed ~hutrle services,
pro~ion of ~ vu2naSe~nent l~2sed proSterns. or ~ehicle-mHe. s-traveled/en~ssion fees)
~o zhat opz~ons ro co~ and control re~u~ions can ~e assessed.
' m No information is presented in the application on the City of
Rancho Cucarnonga's efforts to ad&rP.,ss the various new technology and transportation
demand m2na~ement strate~es mfe~nced in this policy in the Project area and surrounding
vicinity, with the exception of general TDM measures referenced under SCAG policy 3.12.
We are unable to detem~e whether the Project is consistent with this RCPG policy.
5.11 Thro,gh the environmental docw-nent review process, ens,re that plans ~r all lepeis of
government (regior~l, jr basin, cowxry, .~bregior~l ~ loc~) consider jr q~ir~, ~
use, trw~sponarion w~l econorr~c relationships w ensw'e consistency ~ min~rr, ize conflicts.
A m The Draft ~ acknowledge that the Project incorporams regional
~o~th forecasts into the transportation and air q!mHty mcxieling for the Project area and
surmuncLEng environs. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy.
4. The Water Ouali_ty Chapmr (WOC} core n~oramepthfions and policy options relate to the two
water q,~llty goals: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the
nation's water; and, to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are n_~y~x~ary to protect
all beneficial uses of all waters. The core recommenehtlons and policy options that axe particularly
applicable to the project include the foliowing:
22.02 Encourage 'watershed management' programs and strategies, recognizing the primary role
of local governments in such efforts.
mm The application references a number of 'walershed management'
strategies that have beem incorporated in the Project. The Project is consistent with this core
RCPG policy.
21.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, and
appropriate to rpduce reh'ance on imported water and wastewater discharges. Current
A-2
Conclusions and Recommendations:
(1) As noted in the staff comments, the pmpose~ Project is consistent with or suppore a~
number of the corn and allCilhry policies i.q the Re.~onal Compr,..hens~ve Plan and Guide.27
The application lacks sufficient infonalion to assess the environmental impacts andj
consisUmcy with many of the noteel/v. gional plan policies. ][
('2) All mitigation measures associ~t~ with the pwjea should be moniton:d in accordance with/T[
AB 3180 n~:lui~ments. 28
SOUTI:~]~T CALWORNIA A.~0CIATION OF
Roles and Agt~ori~s
THE SO~ CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS is · Joira Powers AKency
established under California Government Code Section 6502 el seq. Under federal and stst~ law, the Association
is clesign~t,~l as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Trsnsportstion pl~,nn~ng Agency CRI." s/. and a
Melropolitsn p}Rnnlng Or~,,nh,stlon (lVlPO). Among its other msndated roles and r~sponsibilities, the Association
is:
· Designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning O~anir. al~n and m~n,;hted to
m~n~ain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation p}smnln~ process restd~Bg in a Regior~l
Transl~rmtion Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursugnt ~o 23 U.S.C. §134(g)-(h), 49
U.5.C. §160?(f'~.g) et seq., 23 C.F.R. ~450, and 49 C.F.R. ~613. The Association is also the designated
Re, hal Tmnsporlal~n Platmini, Agency, and as such is ~,~ponsible for both preparation of the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Tnmsportat'ion Improvement Program CKTIP) under California
Government Code Section 65080.
· Resl~nsible for developing the demos.n'aphic projections and the inteEr~,,'~l land use, housing, employment, and
transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air ~ Manageme~ Plan,
pursuant to C'~llfomia Health and Safety Code Section ,t04(~Xb)-(c). The Association is also designated under 42
U.S.C. §7504{a) as a Co-Lea~ Agets~ for air quality p!=,,nlng for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air
Basin District.
· Responsible under the Federal Clesn Air Act for A_,l~m;e~eg COqfOnS~y Of Projects, Pls, us and Progr~m~
the Sta~ Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.-~.C.
· Responsible, pursuant so California Governroe. hi Code Section 65089.~, for n~v/e~bsg aH Cengesti~n
Managesera' Plans (CMPs) for con.vi.~ency ~ ~ Imttspona.~n plans required by S~:tion 65080 of the
Government Code. The Association must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such pwgr=m~ within
the region.
· The authorized regional agency for Iraer-Ge~emmen~al Re~it~ of Programs pwposed for federal
assistsnee and direc~ development activities, pursuant W Presicle~tisl Executive Order 12,~72 (replacing A-95
Review).
· Responsible for reviewing, pursusnt to Sections 15125Co) and 15206 of ~he CEQA Guidelines, Env/rmvnen/a/
ln~vaa Reports of projects of r%,ionsJ si~mi~cance for consistency with regional plans.
· The authorized Areawizlt Waste Tt?.atmtnl Managerat~l Plantang Ageac~, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1288(a)(2)
(Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act)
· Responsible for preparation of the Regional Housiag Needs Ass~ssmenl, pursuant to California Government
Code Section 65584(a).
· Responsible (along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Ssnts Barbara County/Cities A~a
plnnninE Council) for preparing the Sosahem California Hazanious Waste ManaSeme,1 Plan pursuant to
California Health and Safety Code Section 25 135 .3 .
LSA Associates. Inc.
RESPONSE TO LIfI~I~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 then is no development propos~t pro-
posed. At the time a development proposal is processed for the prolcct
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
pwvide 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 an opportunity for a variety of hous-
ing types to be constructed in close proximity to a regional commercial
area. Also refer to response to Comment A-2.6 that discusses the eco-
nomic viability of a proposed pwject in an EI1L
4. Comment noted.
5. The project site is not located on prime agricultural land. Please refer
to Appendix A Notice of Preparation, 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 presendy 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
(CBQA 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 Drafx 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 Drafx BIR. Geol-
ogy and soils were determined to not have a potentially significant
effect on or from the proposed project; therefore, the analysis of the
proposed project on agricultural soils was not carried forward in the
EI1L
6. This policy is not appropriate at a project specific level. The proposed
project is providing the opportunity for the development of residential
~nd commercial ls_nd uses. The general plan amendments also provide
for regional commercial development. The land use amendments
would have a positive effect on the economic vi~bility of the City~ how-
ever, a 6sc~ analysis for the proposed amendments has not been pre-
pared, or is necesssr)~ for the EI~. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)
states ..."economic and social chs.nges resulting from a proiect shall not
be treated as sil~6cant efect~ on the environment. Economic or social
changes may be used, however, to determine that a physical c~nge
shall be regarded as a significant effect on the environment...." 'ane
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 persorts 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 dose 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
amount of jobs and housing to meet the jurisdiction's jobs/housing
bM~nce. 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/tr~ik system, the City would have to 1) purchase the prop-
erty, 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.
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 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
tion measures are not warranted for the loss of coastal sage scrub
the site. Also refer to response to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Letter A-
3, responses 1, 2, and 3.
14. Comment noted.
15. Comment noted.
16. Comment noted.
17. The projeet's consistency with SCAG policy 3.24 is not appropriate at
the project specific level. The City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan
Housing Element contains the appropriate housing policies. The provi-
sion for providing affortt~hle housing is addressed in the City's Housing
Element. The proposed project is a general plan amendment to a vari-
ety of housing densities and regional 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 afforHahle
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 afforei~hle 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 mew 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 that 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 EIIL
The following two mitigation measures have been added to the Final
EIR under Section 4.3, Air Quality to forther reduce the impacts of the
proposed project on air quality.
"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-
tionprior to Certificate of Occupancy.
4.3.4D. install EV charges or electrical fuel station$/natural gas for
community wide use at key commercial and public location(s) r.,-.h 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 EIIL Section 2.5 on page 2-7,
discusses the projeet's impam 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 Initial Study prepared
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 was 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 carded 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 EI1L
Page 2-8 of the Draft EIR states...'The dosest of these is Regional Plant 1
(RP-1) in the City of Ontario. This facility currendy 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 (RP4) 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 first 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 Guide for which the proposed project
is not consistent. Refer to response to comments A-2.I, -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 EIR.
A$3
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services ~,~ .....,'
Carsbad Field Office
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
DEC P. 3
Ms. Nancy Fong ~ ' e/~/~~,k?
Ci~ of ~cho Cuc~onga, Pl~ng Division C/~ or ~ ~.~
10500 Civic Center Drive, P.O. Box 807
R~cho Cuc~onga, CallroSa 91729 A/~;~bo Coce
Re: Enviro~enml Impact Repo~ Gener~ PI~ ~endmen~ 96-03B & 97-01 ~d Victoria
Co~ P)~ ~en~en~ 96-01 & 97-01 ~dison Comply (SCH~ 97071043)
De~ Ms. Fong:
~e U.S. Fish ~d Wildlife Se~ice (Se~ice) h~ ~viewed ~e above referenced doc~ent,
received by o~ o~ce on November 17, 1997. We provide ~e follo~ng co~en~ in
accord~ce ~ ~e End~gered Species Act of 1973 (~ ~ended), ~e Fish ~d Wildlife
Coordination Act, ~d ~e Memor~d~ of Unders~ding 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 Semite finds ~at ~e ultimate development allowed by ~e
proposed project is likely to have sig~fic~t impac~ to biological reso~ces. We, ~erefore,
reco~end mitigation measles to offset ~e impac~ to biological reso~ces ~d reduce
biological impacts to a level below signific~ce.
~e proposed project is to rezone ~ 84.15 acre line~ set of p~cels ~om a designtalon of utili~
co~idor to v~ous Co~ercia) ~d Residential designations. ~e proposed project ~ea is a
no~h-sou~ 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. ~e ~ea is on ~e alluvial
f~ complex foxed by Day Creek ~d a n~ber of o~er stre~s that flow ~om ~e S~
B em~dino NationaI Forest, al~ough ~e ch~eli~tion of Day Creek along ~e proposed project
~ea h~ altered ~e active hydrology ~pical of~luvia) f~ fo~ations. ~e biological resources
on site include t~ee patches of sage scab totaling about 50 acres, abecloned viney~ds, ~d
~der~ habi~t.
The sage scab ~in the proposed project ~ea w~ historically ~verside~ alluvial f~ sage
scab (~S), a habitat ~e designated by ~e State of California ~ S1. ) (most sensitive). 1
Habitat dist~b~ce ~d hydrological modificatio~ have led to a sage scab co~i~ ~at
resembles the more generalized ~versidean sage scab. However, fiodstic elements of AFS,
Ms. Nancy Fong 2
such as scale broom (Lepidospartum squamatum), remain as components of the sage scrub
habitat in the proposed project area. The habitat is likely suitable for both coastal California
gnatcatcher (t~olioptila californica californica; gnatcatcher) and San Bernardino kangaroo Rat
(Dypodorays merriamiparvus; SBKR), although neither were detected during recent surveys for
this project. In 1994, SBKR. was detected near the project area, and gnatcatchers were cb-~.rved
within the North Etiwanda Preserve approximately one mile to the north. Contiguous suitable
habitat-exists between 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 all of the biological res. ources within
the project area. No mitigation is offered to offset these impacts to biological resources.
The City ofRancho Cucamonga, the County of San Bemardino, 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 viability 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 southward 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 to 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 mitigation 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 adequa,te 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 committed 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 Scott
Eliason of my staff at (760) 431-9440.
Sincerely,
Gall C. Kobetich
Field Supervisor
HC-1-6-98-88
co: Bill Tippets, CDFG
Glenn Black, CDFG
Randy Scott, San Bemardino County Planning
Kim Gould, Southern California Edison
RESPONSE TO I2i~,~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:'nilar
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 budcwheat. 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 the site during recent focused surveys
for each species, as the U.S. Fish and ~rddlife 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-
too 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 SpeCiflc-ally, the project will not
"substantiaily affect a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or
the habitat of the species" nor will the project substantial~ 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-
eramost 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 (MOLl), signed by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, to cooperate in the development of a Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for the San Bernardino Va2dey does
" establish interim review guidelines for proiects 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, modify, or deny a
proiect remains in the hands of the lead agency (in this case, the City of
Rancho Cucamonga) pursuant to existing laws. The interim review
guidelines state that each lead agency shill determine whether a p,'oiect
shall be reviewed pursuant to the guidelines. Further, the lead ageh.-3r
retains the discretion to determine that a proiect within the plan area,
because of the proiect'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 warranted
for the loss of coastal sage scrub from the site.
SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA C0M DEV; 1- 8-98 1:19PM; 9094772847 => 9097814277;
A4
TRANSPORTATION/FLOOD CONTROL 2;'- =ouN. oF s..
DEPARTMENT- SURVEYOR
825 East Thi~ STy1 · Sen Bernaffiino, CA 9241~8~ · (9~) ~7-28~ ,~. I C ~ ~ ~ ~
Janua~ 2, 1998
Nancy Fong AICP 3~~ ~ 1 O~
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Dept. ~
10500 Civic Center Dr. ~
Rancho Cu~monga, CA 91730 Fite~: 10~NV)~,01
RE: NOTICE OF AVAILABILI~ FOR THE D~FT PROG~M EIR - GENE~L
P~N AMENDMENT - CI~ OF ~NCHO CUC~ONGA
Dear Ms. Fong:
Thank you for allowing the San Bemardino County Transpo~ationlFIood Control
Depa~ment to review the adore 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 generally in a~ordance with the 1986 San
Bemardino County Hydro]ogy 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 1,2~ feet from the site.
Prior to any a~iviW on Flood Control Distri~ 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 info~ation available at this time that the 96-inch
RCP stubo~. Ionted approximately 462 feet from Victoria Park Lane, is
adequate to convey the ~lculated peak Q of 776 ~s. The hy~rology and
hydraulics should be reviewed prior to issuance of a permit.
Should you have any questions please contact Gall Cotugna at (909) 387-2620.
Siocerely,
z" ~1 ~--
~_ ;.~_~.~. ,.j
/. _.~. /
GAlL COTUGNA, Senior Associate Planner
Environmental Management Division
GC:jm/RcG.kooc
CC: Jim Borcuk
61-68-9e 13:lB RECEIVED FROM:g894772847 P.e3
RESPONSE TO
County of San Bernardino Transportaaon/Flood Control Departraent Surt~yor
1. Comment noted.
2. Comment noted. At the time a development proposal is proposed, the
project proponent would be conditioned to obtain a permit fre.*n the
San Bernardino County Flood Control District for any activity on
Flood Control District right-of-way.
This system is shown as Line 400-A on the City's storm drain improve-
ment plans for Community Facilities District 91-1. Per the drainage
study prepared by Associated Engineers for this project, this system
carries ?56 cfs from Day Creek Boulevard to an inlet approximately 180
feet east of Day Creek Channel, where the discharge increases to 776
cfs, 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 hyctraulics software reveals that the
existing 96-inch RCP causes an unacceptable increase in the hydraulic
grade line in the upstream (108-inch) reach. Hydrology data is pro-
vided in Appendix I of the Final ETR. 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. Tbede~elopersballrernovetbeexisting96-~ncbRCPstubout,
located approximately 462feet from Victoria Park Zane and install a
208-incb RC, P from Day Creek Bouleeard to Day Creek Channel, with
the pipe entering the cbanrtel one foot above the channel invert.
The addition of the mitigation measure does not change the impact
analysis in the Drafx EIR.
2/6/98(l~:\CRG730~E~'LESPTOCO.WPD)/~C(~ 28
SENT 9Y: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; 1- S-S8 1:19PM; 9094772847 => 9097814277; #2
tatt alifa in
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLINNING ~ND R~SEARCH '~,'
1400 TENTH STRbET
pET~WILSON SACRAMENTO 9591~
~t~CY FO~G
CITY OF ~2BO CUC~0NGA COM~3ITY DEVELOPME]~ DPT
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
~CMO CUC~ONGA, CA 91730
Subject: GF~ER~L P~N AME~MENTS 9[-03B&~7-01 A~D Vi~ORIA
COMMUNITY SCH fi: 970~1043
Dear NANCY FONG:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named envj. ro:lmenta!
document to selecr. ed state agencies for review. The review period
is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This
letter acknowledges %hat you have compiled with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for dr~ft environments]
documents, pursuant to ~hc California Environmcntal ~a!i~y Act-
Pi~e call at (916} 445-0613 if you have any questions regardin9
zhe environmental review precess. When contacting ~hc
Clear~n~hDuSe in this tastier, pl~:a~e use the eight-digit Sta~e
Clearinghouse nu~ar so thai we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
12:17 RECEIVED FROM:9894772847 P.82
SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV; I- 8-9B I :20PM; g0~4772847 => 9097814277;
Notice of Completion
o ~:27 ' ' · ~---~,r,~ ....· T~'-%c~' o o.=_
RESPONSE TO I2"j]I~R A-5
Governor's O.O~ce of Planning and Research
1. Letter A-5 from the Governor's Office 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.
SENT BY: R CUGAMONGA COM DEV; 2- 6-98 9:23AM; 9094772847 => 909781,:,277;
A-6
711 W~ FISh 5~1 ~T~R~D CAUF~HIA 91762-~69B
November 21, 1997
Ms. Nancy Fong, AICP
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Community Development Department
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendments 96-03B & 97-01 and Victoria Community
Plan Amendments 96-01 & 97-01/Edison 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.
W~ have reviewed the Public Services section and suppod both the analysis and
proposed mitigation measures contained therein. We urge the Planning Commission
and City Council to support these proposed mitigatiDn 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
92-~6-98 89:21 RECEIVED FROM:g9947~2S47 P.93
RESPONSE TO
Chaffey Joint Union High School Dist~ct
1. Comment noted.
2/6~98Cp,:\CI~,G'730~X:Bt~SpTOCO.WpD) 33
EIR for
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
MOU AND MSHCP
INTERIM REVIEW GUIDELINES
EXHIBIT "F"
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BY AND BETWEEN THE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, THE CAbIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME, THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, THE FIFTEEN AFFECTED
CITIES IN SOUTHWESTERN SAN BERNARDINO 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 govemmental Participating Agencies are 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 are 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 Califomia 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 regulator,/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 8-4-95 I
VVHEREAS, the local governments 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
that attempt to balance the ecological and economic needs for the region, and
WHEREAS, efforts to coordinate conservation programs among local, State, and Federal
agencies in California are exemplified 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 Bemardino 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 Bemardino 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 planning 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 wilt be a coordinated multi-agency, multi-species conservation plan
focusing on certain covered species within the plan boundaries. The purposes of the plan
are:
MSHCP MOU - Revised 8-4-95 2
2.1 Protectior] .of Covered SOecie,.. To conserve and protect covered species and
the ecosystems on which they depend in Perpetuity within southwestern San
Bemardino County pursuant to the ESA and CESA, and not Preclude recovery of
listed species.
u~tV in RegulatiOn. To provde'a comprehensive means to
rdi tandardize mltj at
"g ion and compensation requirements so that public
and private actions will be regulated equally and consistently, reducing de ays,
expenses, and regulatoR/duplication. It is intended 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 P, eduCe Cumulative Effecl:, To prescribe mitigation measures for private
development and agency actions to lessen or avoid cumulative impacts to the covered
species and eliminate, whenever possible, case-by-case review of impacts of Projects
when consistent with the mitigation and compensation requirements Prescribed by the
plan.
2.4 locidental Take PermijL 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) Aoreemer,~. 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 shall be defined in the MSHCP and its
ImPlementation Agreement, but such conditions, for the Purposes of this MOU, are
generally u'nderstood to be: (1) environmental, demographic and/or genetic stochastic
circumstances that were not and could not be anticipated dudrig 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.
2.6 Pr vie v r i h n r re rd f To
reporting' (2) accounting audits' 3 fund n p p e and successful methods of: (1)
i.depend;nt b,o,og,oa, eva,ua;, n>; and g <,ho, and ,ong term>; <,> period,c and
Participation. (5) oPPortunities for adequate public
v~SHCP MOW - Revised 8-4-95 3
3.0 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN COMPONENTS
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 rest.'* 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 p an
will function as the MSHCP for the purpose of making tl~~lications. P an
implementation will be described in an accompanying irn~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
federally 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 Imolementation 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
CESA by incorporating "Pro-listing" commitments 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 provide specific mitigation commitments
for private part)es and Public Agencies conducting 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 Comaliance. Concurrent with preparation and role. --~. 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 witI 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 effect until land use plans are amended.
Should any participant withdraw from the program, it may adversely affect the plan
area and covered species lis"t 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 will occur through a cooperative effort
involving the agencies and the public in the southwestern San Bernardino County that
are subject to lO(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.).
3.8 Imolern~ntation 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 and Resoonsibilities. The County of San Bemardino shall act as
the functional lead agency utilizing the assistance, support and cooperatir~,. '~f the
cities and local agencies in preparation 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 shall
coordinate the preparation and implementation of the plan. The Coordinating
Committee shall 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 signator~ 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 Co~n~. 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
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 permittee, Participating Agencies will
ensure that their land use plans and policies are revised 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 plans.
4.4 Plan PreDaratioq Fundino: 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~. wildlife
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 ~.$~. Signatories acknowledge that time is of the essence and
hereby agree to make their bestg efforts to complete 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 to 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 COUNTY
The County o~' San Bemardino agre.es to provide the following 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 pdmary members of the planning team.
5.3 Facilities EduiDment. and SUDDOrt. 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 MOLl - Revised 84-95 7 //~bC)~
5.4 Data. Provide any relevant data in its possession for the use of the planning
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 ~. 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 ~. Designate, in wdting, 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 Advice. 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
dudng 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/~,Doroval. The Service and the Department shall provide
comments and guidance (in wdting) on intedm work products at major milestones in
the planning process so as to contribute 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 A''7(~
opportunities to minimize negative impacts upon long-term conservation planning and
the viability of biological resources, and to assist in the preparation of the conservation
plan and its ultimate implementation, the Participating Agencies will utilize the Interim
Project Review Process, included as Attachment F, to consider the potential effects of
individual projects on the MSHCP.
6.3 Issuance of Section 10{a) Permits and 2081 Take Authorizations The Service
and the Department agree to issue the required permits and take authorizations for
listed species to the local agencies upon finding 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 2[J~; 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 adse 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 forum 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 Project Re~iews 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
with existing laws and regulations. The MSHCP planning efforL 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 ~. 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 'vPJ.~pJji;_jZ:i~. 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
dudng the required CEQA and NEPA review process, but during the scoping and
planning process, as well.
7.6 Effective Date of Agreement. This agreement shall take effect upon the dates
of signature.
7.7 Amendment of This Memgrl.3dUrri. 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 8-4-95 10 /~"72_._
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERDO have executed this Memorandum, on the
date(s) set forth below, as of the day and year first above written,
By Date
Chair,
San Bemardino County Board of Supervisors and Flood Control District
San Bemardino, California
By Date
Mayor,
City of Chino
Chino, California
By Date
Mayor,
City of Chino Hills
Chino Hills, Califomia
By Date
Mayor, ·
City of Colton
Colton, California
By Date
Mayor,
City of Fontana
Fontana, Caiifomia
By Date
Mayor,
City of Grand Terrace
Grand Terrace, California
By Date
Mayor,
City of Highland
Highland, California
MSHCP MOU - Revised 8.-4-95 11
By Date
Mayor,
City of Loma Linda
Loma Linda, California
By Date
Mayor,
City of Montclair
Montclair, Califomia
By. Date
Mayor,
City of Ontario
Ontario, California
By Date
Mayor,
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Date
Mayor,
City of Redlands
Redlands, Califomia
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/~ ''TL'~
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 Bemardino 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,
Southem 'California Gas Company
By Date
Regional Director,
Metropolitan Water District
By Date
Board President,
San Bemardino Valley Water Conservation Distdct
By Date
Board President,
San Bemardino Valley Municipal Water Distdct
MSHCP MOU - Revised 84-95 14
A'R'ACHMENT 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
Bemardino National Forest Boundary on the north and east.
ATTACHMENT B
List of Species Proposed to Be Coverd in the
Valley-V~de Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Status
Species Federal State
INVERTEBRATES
Insects
Greenest tiger beetle FC2
~ tranauebadca viridissima
Delhi Sand flower-loving fly FE
RhaDhiomidas terminatus ~
VERTEBRATES
Fishes
Santa ~,na sucker FC2 -
~ santaanae
Santa Ana speckled dace FC2
Rhinichthys ~ ssp.
Amphibians
Arroyo souffiwestem toad PE/FSS CSC
Bufo microscaohus c~lifomicu~
Red-legged flog PE/FSS CSC
Rana aurora dravtoni
Mountain yellow-legged flog FC:2/FSS CSC
Rana r~Uscosa boylei
Reptiles
Western pond turtle FC2/FSS CSC
Clemnys marinerata Dallida
Coastal western whiptailFC2/FSSCSC
,igri mu,t,s .t t.s'78
B-1
Status
Species Federal State
Coast homed lizard FC2_/FSS CSC
Phrvnosoma ~ blainvillei
San Bemardino dng-neckea snake FC2/FSS
~ Dunctatus modestus
Coastal rosy boa FC2.JFSS
~ t~virgata rosa~sca
Coast patch-nosed snake FC2/FSS CSC
Salvadom hexaliDis vir_oultea
Two-striped garter snake FC2.JFSS
Thamnoohis hammondii
Birds
White-tailed kite CFP
Nortl'~em harrier CFP
CiFCUS Cy_aneus
Sharp-shinned hawk FSS CSC
AcciDiter striatus
Cooper's Hawk FSS CSC
AcciDiter cooperil
Ferruginous hawk FC2 CSC
Buteo regalis
Golden eagle CSC
Aauila chrvsaetos canadensis
American peregrine falcon FE SE
Falco Dere_~finatus
Prairie falcon FSS CSC
Falco mexicanus
Status
Species Federal State
Western Burrowing owl FC2 CSC
SDeOtVtO cuniculada hvDuoea
Long-eared owl CSC
Asio otus
Southwestern willow flycatcher PE/FSS SE
~ tr¢llii ex'timus
California horned lark FC3
~ itlDestris actia
Coastal cactus wren FC3B CSC
California gnatcatcher FT~SS CSC
~ ~alifomica
Least's Bell's vireo FE SE '
Vireo bellii DUSilIUS
Califomia yellow warbler CSC
Dendroica Detechia brewsteri
Yellow-breasted chat CSC
Icteria viren
California rufous-crowned sparrow FC2/FSS CSC
Aimoohila ru~ceos canescens
Bell's sage sparrow FC2 CSC
mh~belli belli
Tdcolored blackbird FC2 CSC
Agelaius tricolor
Mammals
Greater mastiff-bat FC2 CSC
EumoDs perotis califomicus
B-3
Status
Species Federal State
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit FC2 CSC
LeDuS~~
Los Angeles pocket mouse FC2 CSC
Peroanathus IQngimembds brevinasus
San Diego pocket mouse FC2 CSC
Chaetodious fallax filllax
San Bemardino kangroo rat FC2 CSC
D_jILQ.(J.2.~.,Y.f mer~ami paNus
Southern grasshopper mouse FC2 CSC
Onvchomys torridus riamona
San Diego desert woodrat FC2 CSC
Neotoma leDida intermedia
Status
Family
Species Federal State CNPS
Plants
Marsh sandwort CRY FE SE 1B
Coulter's saltbush CHN 1B
~ coulteri
Padsh's brittlescale CHN FC2 1B
Nevin's barberry BER FC1 SE 1B
Berbeds n~Vinii
Round-leaved boykinia SAX 4
~ rotundif01ia
Thread-leaved brodiaea LIL FC1 SE 1B
' ~ ~lifoli~l- --
Brewer's calanddnia POR 4
Plummer's lily LIL 1B
Calochortus Dlummerae
Peninsular spineflower PLG 4
Chodzanthe leDtothe~l
Padsh's spineflower PLG FC2
~ Dam/_ i vat. Darrvi
Prostrate spineflower PLG 4
Saw-grass CYP 1B or 2
Cladlure califomiCUm
Slender-horned spineflower PLG FE SE
~ leDtoceras
B-5
Status
Family
Species Federal State CNPS
Many-stemmed dudleyea CRS FC2/FSS
Dudleya ~
Santa Ana River woollystar ' PLM FE SE
E~ast~m densifolium san~o~m
Hot Spring fimbdstylis CYP FC3B 2
Fimbds~lis thermalis
California bedstraw RUB FC2 SR 1B
Gallurn ~ D~mum
Los Angeles sunflower AST FC2 1A
Heliathus ~ barishii
Smooth tarplant AST FC2 1B
Hemizonia Dungens laevis
Southern California black walnut JUG 4
Ju_olans califomica ~alifornica
Coulter's goldenfields AST FC2 1B
~ qli~brata coulteri
RobinsoWs peppergrass BRA 1B
~ vim_ inicum robinsonii
Ocellated Humbolt lily LIL FC2 4
Lilium ~ ocellatum
Parish's desert-thorn SOL 2
~ padshii
Padsh's bush mallow MLV FC2 1A
J~}.t[t.~,.O. jrJ~ orishii
Pdngle's monardella LAM FC2 1A
Monardella odnnlei
California spineflower PLG 4
Mucronea ~
Status
Family
Species Federal State CNPS
California muhly POA 1 B
Muhlenbergia CalifOmiGa
Little mousetail RAN FC2 3
Mvosurus minimus aDUS
Padsh's gooseberry SAX FC2 1B
Ribes divaricatum Darishii
Salt spring checkerbloom MLV 2
~ neomexicana
Wedge grass POA 2
.~;2b.e.D.QiZb.Q~ 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 1 candidate for federal listing for which substantial 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 California Department of Fish and Game
SR Listed as Rare by the California Department of Fish and Game
CSC California Department of Fish and Game "Species of Special Concern"
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 C '
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
Ban Bemardino, CA 92415-0182 Highland, CA 92346
(909) 387-4146 (909) 864-6861 Ext. 215
(909) 387-3223 (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) 59%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 Director
Chino Hills, CA 91709-4869 5111 Benito Street
(909) 590-1511 Ext 286 Montelair, CA 91763-0808
(909) 590-5646 (FAX) (909) 625-9431
(909) 621-1594 (FAX)
City of Colton
Public Works Department City of Ontario
John C. Hutton. Director Planning Department
650 North La Cadena Ddve Otto Kroutil, City Planner
Colton, CA 92324-2893 303 East 'B' Street, Civic Center
(909) 370-5065 Ontario. CA 91764
(909) 370-5154 (FAX) (909) 391-2506
(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 Drive
(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
Patrizia Materassi. Community Development Planning Department
Director Eric Norris. Principal Plan,nor
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)
City of Rialto U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Development Services Department Antal Szijj
Planning Division 10421 Corporate De., Suite A
Donn Montag, Principal 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 Bemardino 1824 S. Commercecenter Circle
Department of Planning and 'Building San Bemardino, CA 92408
Services (909) 884-6634
AI Boughey, Director (909) 383-5770 (FAX)
300 North 'D" Street
San Bemardino, CA 92402 California Department of Fish and Game
(909) 384-5071 Liam Davis, Associate Wildlife Biologist
(909) 384-5461 (FAX) 4949 V~ewddge Ave.
San Diego, CA 92123
City of Upland (619) 4674207
Community Development Department (619) 4674235 (FAX)
Sylvia Schaff, 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) 307-6732
' of Yucaipa -- (909) 307-6795 (FAX)
Planning Department
John McMains, Director of Planning Southern California Gas Company
34272 Yucaipa Boulevard Judith W. Battoy, Distdct 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
Carlshad, CA 92008 350 S. Grand Ave., 10th Floor
(619) 431-9440 Los Angeles. CA 90071
(619) 431431-9624 (FAX) (213) 217-6242
(213) 217-6119
Bureau of Land Management
Joan Oxendine San Bernardino Valley Water Conservation District
63-500 Gam.et Ave. Nereus L. Richardson, General Manager
North Palm Spdngs, CA 92258-2000 P.O. Box 1839
(619) 2514804 Redlands, CA 92373-0581
(61 g) 2514899 (FAX) (909) 793-2503
(909) 793-0188 (FAX)
C-2 ~
ATTACHMENT D
San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Plan Preparation Outline
1. Interagency Coordination and Plan Development Agreements 5 months
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen/ice; California Department of Fish and Game
Cities; Local agencies. utilities and environmental groups; Local business
2. Biological and Land Ownership Database Assembly 25 monlhs
Aerial photography; Data automation; Fiekj verificalion; Wildlife component;
Vegetative componenl; Map assembly (GIS)
3. Plan Preparation 19 r~onlhs
4. Environmental Compfiance 8 months
5. Programmatic Permit Preparalion and Imp emenlation Agreement ! 4 monlhs
~ 6. Plan Adoption 1 monlh
~ Tenlallve Schedule
1995 1996
Tasks
I;;teraOency Cooldinalion
Database Assembly
Plan Preparation
Environmenial Compliance
P,oglammallc Perrail Preparelion
Plan Adoption
1995 1997
ras|,s I J.I I "'"q I sop I o,:t I No,, I De,: I J"" I Feb I ~"' I Apt I Ua~, I J"" I .~.l I A.g I Se~, I Oc, I "°" I Dec
Inlefagency Coordination
Database Assembly '111~1~~1~1~~
Plan Preparation
Environmental Compliance
Pmgrammalic Peffnil P~eparalion '
Plan Adoption ~
D-1
ATI'ACHMENT E
DEFINITIONS
GjL~.~L,.~J~,j~. Plant and animal species which will be found adequately
protected from extirpation by the implementation of the MSHCP, and meet
issuance criteda for a 10(a) permit.
2. Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSNCP~. A plan developed to allow
incidental take of species as described in Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the fed,,ral
Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended.
3. ImDlementina 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. LL,~. 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. ~t~,i~i,~LGD~3ceJ~. Plant and animal species fiat 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 spe:ies
in the plan area.
8. :~llLej~i~a~73~. A term to describe the collective permits, authorizations,
and agreements which will'be issued by the Service or the Depa~t,nent to
participating local jurisdiction permittees.
Take authorizations may be given by the Service and the Department
(a) The Service may issue take authorizations under ESA Section
10(a)(1)(B), and Section 4(d) for the California gnatcatcher.
(b) The Department may issue take authorizations under California
Fish and Game Code Sections 2081 for candidate, threatened, and
endangered species; and Section 2835 for the NCCP Act of 1992.
AI' IACHMENT F
INTERIM PROJECT REVIEVV GUIDELINES
This document establishes an agreement among the U.S. Fish and W~ldlife Service
("Service"), the California Department of Fish and Game ("Department") and all other
federal, state and local agencies participating in the San Bemardino Valley Multi-
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) pertaining to an Intedm Project Review
Process to be utilized during t, he preparation of the Plan.
The Intedm 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 development 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 regulatory agencies to explore alternatives 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 Wildlife Service until very late in the lead agency's decision-
making process. To address this problem with respect to 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 an addi'donal layer of project review nor to confer
any additional 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
categorically 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 viabilit~ of biological
resources and would not preclude long term preservation planning.
F-'~ A~>~
B. Overview of the process/RelationshiP to CEQA and NEPA
and the Department shall each identify a lead person for project review
planning Director or the Planning Director's designee. Other participating Agency will
be determined on an as-needed basis. The Planning Director/designee or project
proponent shall initiate consultation by notifying the designated representative of the
Service and the Depa~tn~ent of the need for a review meeting for one or several
specified projects. Where th,e project proponent is a private landowne~develoPer, the
planning Director for the lead agency shall also be notified. Pdor to the project review
meeting, the planning Director/designee or project proponent shall provide basic
information (as delineated under -procedures" below) to the Service and the
Department.
For purposes of CF_.Q.A, the project review meeting and any related activities (site visits,
follow-uP correspondence etc.) shall consffiute a consultation pursuant to Public
Resources Code §21080.3(A). If possible at the meeting, but otherwise in not more
than 30 days following the meeting or such shorter period of time as shall be necessarY
to enable the lead agency to comply with Trtle 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
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
Iressod; suggest any studies they believe may be necessarY to assess proje.ct
to' specffic biological 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 Depa~i~,,ent identifies the potential for a project to
preclude tong-term preservation plan.ning and that the project will have a signfficant
impact on biological resources and identifies either project alternatives andJot 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
Depa~i,,',ent may agree to schedule an additional meeting to discuss the Negative
Declaration or the Draft 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 IPRG 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
nsure '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
successful 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
depa, b.ent and the MSHCP contact person in writing 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 intens~ of land use 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 potential to occur on site.
· Any other information 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
Depament will have the opportunity to discuss the 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 jurisdictjon's disu,~rion. At
the review meeting if possible, otherwise in not more than 30 days after the
review meeting, the Service and the Department representatives shall provide
the following information to the lead agency and the project applicant:
· A statement as to whether, in the agency'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 preclude 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 mitigation 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 Depa~b.ent to respond to a Draft
Environmental Impact Report or Mitigated Negative Declaration.
EIR for
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
EXHIBIT "G"
6.0. ALTERNATIVES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmen-
tal Impact Report (Eli) include a discussion of reasonable project alternatives
that are "capable of avoiding or substantially 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 costly" (CEQA Section
15126(d)(I)). The analysis provided in Chapter 4.0 determined that sho:: ,erm
pollutant emissions during construction and long-term local air quality impacts
would be significant. AH 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 been 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 length 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
0-1S).
Alternative 3 ' Lower Density Alternative
Under the Lower Density Alternative, a General Plan and Victoria Communtity
Plan amendment would be proposed that would be the same as proposed with
the project between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road. However, the
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 umts/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 IAne Road and
Church Street and Medium Density (8 units/acre) on 10.4 acres from one-half
the distance between Base IAne Road Church Street south to Church Street.
The 27.7 acres south of Church Street would remain Regional Relate'4 Of-
rice/Commercial as proposed with the project. The intent of this alternative is
to potentiMty 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-
dentiM 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' 1 - No Project/No Developrgsent 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.
2/B/98(R:\CRG730~EIItxSECT-6.1q%) ]~ C~x3C
Table 6.2-1 - Summary of the Comparison of the Project Altematlves
to the Proposed Project
Environmental Lower
Analysis Proposed No Project Open Space Density Off-Site
Subject Project Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
cul - Resoure [][] [] [] []
Notes: [] -- Less than significant impact after mitigation. [] -- Greater than significant impact after mitigation.
[] = As compared to the proposed .project the impact is the same.
Drainage
Without further development of the project site, drainage improvements to
conv.~ increased runoff from introduced impervious surfaces would not be
required. However, existing sheet flow conditions would continue on site.
Dtainage 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
cumntly 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 sedimentatinn.
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 3xe forecast to exceed the County
LSA Associates. Inc.
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 Quality
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 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
N0x would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds
for daily operations by a large margin (especiMly 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 f~et 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 And 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 parks, 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/ChaffeyJoint Union High School District and the project developer provid-
ing for a per clw~lling 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, hamre development proposals for the area must
provide 3.4 acres of active recreation within the Windrows planning area and
5.9 acr~ of active recreation within the Victoria 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 increase.
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 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 m'ti~cts 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 project including: 1) provi-
sion of in~ll development that would complement the existing residential
neighborhoods to the east; and 2) development of a planned community that
establishes a landscape program 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 and/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 daily 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 obiectives 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
to the east; the third objective is to provide infill residential and commercial
development within the context of a planned community.
Alternative 2 - Open Space Greenbelt and Trails System Alternative
With the Open Space Greenbelt and TraRs 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, especiah:
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 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 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.
Tra;17ic
Alternative 2 would result in a fewer number of d~ily a~d peak hour vehicle
trips than the proposed project. The mount 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 tr~il~ use? If not, this
alternative would generate few daily vehicle trips. With or without implements-
Lion of the proposed project, seven intersections are forecast to exceed the
CMP LOS E standard under 2015 traffic 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 PMt0. Among them, the emissions for CO, ROC, and NOx
would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds for
cl~ily operations by a large margin (especially NOx). Even after implementation
of the mitigation measures identified, it is not gnaxanteed that the emissions
2/B/gB(R:\CRG730XFI~IR~$ECT-6.FNI-) AC~~) 6-6
would be reduced to below the thresholds. Therefore, it would remain a
significant impact with the proposed project.
When compared to the proposed proje~t'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 significaxxtly to increased noise
levels at off-site receiver locations, either during construction or in the long
term. This Alternative would ehminate 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 Ldn mending 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 exist 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 p~rks 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 mipaeted 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 3.4 acres of active recreation within the Windrows planning area and
5.9 acres of active recreation within the Victoria l~l~es 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 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 length of "future, Day Creek Boulevard to reduce the project's impacts
on the City's trail system and to mitigate any view shed impacts. This Alterna-
tive 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 Bernaxdino
Merriam's k~ngaxoo l-at and the Cali/ornia 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 artifacts during construction activities. However, with
mitigation identified, neither the proposed project nor this alternative would
result m any significant impacts to cultural resources.
Aesthetics
This alternative would result in a visual and aesthetic alteration of the physical
appearance and character of the project site as viewed from 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 policies of the Victoria
Community Plan.
Alternative 2 would have less significant adverse environmental impacts than
that of the proposed project discussed in Section 5.0. In particulax, significant
.. unavoicl~hle adverse impacts to local air quality would be reduced under this
alternative. All other impacts of the proposed project 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-
tial land uses at a lower density than with the proposed project. The commer-
cial land use designations would remain the same as proposed with the project.
Most of the potential impacts associated with the proposed project would be
avoided, especially the proposed project's impact on air quality which re-
mained significant after mitigation.
Drainage
Construction of impervious surfaces with this alternative would ereate similar
water ronoff impacts to those identified for the proposed project. Appropriate
2/B/98(R:\CRG7a30xFEIlx~ECT'6'FNL) ~ X CC)
~ As~x-~ates, Jnc,
drainage facLlities would be required as part of site design, as has been com-
pleted for the proposed project, demonstrating adequacy of the existing and
proposed fac/lities 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 3 can
also be accommodated. Potential drainage impacts are considered the same as
with the proposed project.
Tra~c
Alternative 3 would result in a fewer number of rta0y 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
lo~,er residential densities on site. Compared to the proposed project, this
alternative would result in a reduced number of traffic impam and would have
a lesser impact on areawide circulation.
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 3 and the proposed project.
Operational emissions of the proposed project would be reduced with imple-
mentation of Alternative3. It has been determined that the proposed project
would have a significant unavoirtnhle impact on air quality exceeding the South
Coast Air Quality Management District thresholds for CO, ROC, and N0x. 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 traffic 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 receiverlocations, either during construction or in the long-
term. This Alternative would eliminate any potential project related increases
· ' in noise levels attributed to project trattc by reducing the number of vehicle
trips generated. All roadway segments analyzed for the proposed project
would have the 60 dBA Ldn mending more than 50 feet from the roadway
centerline. Therefore, all noise-sensitive uses, existing or proposed, located
within the impact zone would be exlx~ed to noise level exceeding 60 dBA Ldn,
with or without the project. This is a potentially significant noise impact, even
though the proposed prnject's contribution would be small and mostly neghgi-
ble and would exist with or without the proposed project. Therefore, the
incremental noise increa$e generated by tra~c would be reduced slightly.
ZSA Asso~ates. lnc,
Public Services And Utilities
With new development on the project site, increased demand for public ser-
vices, such as pohce and fire suppression services, schools facilities, and park~
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 2,273 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 m the
Etiwanda School District (elementmy) and 56 students in the Cha~ey 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 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 and Alternative 3.
Table 6.2-2 - Number of Students Generated by Alternative 3
Proposed Residential Nittuber Number of Students Students Students
Itsnil USe Dt~i~natiOI!S of Acres Dvvelllng UnitsI K-52 6-85 9-124
Area Betu~en Highland A~enue and Base Line Road
Low Density 10.8 22 10 4 4
(2-4 DU/AC)
Low-medium Den- 17.8 71 51 14 14
sity
(4-8 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 84.5 283 125 55 56
Notes: I Highest density level used to calculate Dvn:lling UniLs Per Acre.
2 Student G~neration Rates for the Etiwanda School District for K-5 @ 0.4~43 p~r UmL
3 Student Generation Rams for the Ettwancla School District/or 6-8 @ 0.1954 per umt
4 Student Generation rates for the Chaticy Joint Union High School District for 9-12
@ 0.2000 per unit.
/ loz-
2/8/98(R:\CRG730XHam'$ECT-6.FNL) 6-10
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 ofacuve recreation within the Victoria Lakes planning area, for a total
of 9.5 acres of park space. Table 6.2-3 provides the number of acres of park
land that would be requited 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, ,and 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 sur~.lus of
1 acre of park land in the Windrows area and 1 acre in the Victoria Lakes a~ea.
Therefore, Alternative 3 would requite 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
Ntunber of RequiR'd For
Dwelling Active
t~d Use Density Acres Unitst Persoas2 Recreation3
Area Between Highland Avenue to Base Line Road
Low Density (24 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
Notes: i Low~st Dwelling Unit Per Ae~e.
2 Household Rate of 3.01 Persons Per Household.
3 Ratio of 1 Acre 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
pl~..ang Area Dwelling Units Planning Area 1 Needed 2 Provided
Windrows 1,740 5,237 26 27
Lakes 2,185 6,577 33 34
Notes: I Householcl rate of 3.01persons per household.
2 Ratio of lacre for every 200 persons.
2/~fl:)B(R:\CRG730NFEIi'~ECT4.FNL) ~/03 6-11
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 5 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
5.01 persons per household, 659 residents would be generated by the 285
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~" cabs
for the 500,000 square feet of commercial use that is proposed. This alten~a-
the 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 5 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 Bernaxdino
Merriam's kangaroo rat and the California gnatcatcher, both protected species.
It was determined that the proposed project would not have a significant ha-
pact on biological resources and no mitigation would be required. This alter-
native would have the same impact on biological resources as the proposed
project.
Cultural Resources
This alternative would have identical grading impam and possible effects on
unknown cultural resources. There is the same potential for encountering
subsurface historic artifacts 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 chancter 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
Mountains would be the same with this Alternative as with the proposed pro-
ject.
Conclusion
The proposed project's impacts on air quality, wa~c, ~r~, police, schools, and
pa~ks would be reduced with implementation of Alternative 3, There would be
.t.v, Ax.,oc,,,tes. :~.
a slight reduction in vehicular traffic noile impacts with this alternative. The
proposed project's impacts on drainage, biological resources, cultural re-
sources, and aesthetics would remam the same with Ahemative 3.
Alternafipe 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 was to
determine whether appropriately sized parcels are awl|able within the City to
accommodate the proposed project while meeting the project objectives,
primarily those associated with provision of infill residential development
within a context of a planned community and preservation of thee 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 from 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 ottce/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 (24 du/ac.).
Overall, the proposed project's impacts on drainage, traltc, noise, public ser-
vices (fire, pohce, 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 Bemardino
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 Bernardtoo 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
Etiwanda North Specific Phn that is similar to the Victoria Community Plan and
also has design guidelines which protect and enhance aesthetics and view
corridors.
2/8/gBCR:XCRG730x~hu~,$ECT4.FN~) 6-13
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 unavoidable long-term impact on air quality.
6.3 ENVIRON. I~,NTALLy SUPERIOR AZTERNATIVE
The No project/No Development Alternative is a.n Environmentally Superior
alternative since no development would occur on the project site. Urdik;
proposed project or the project alternatives, the No Project/No Development
Alternative would not increase demand for public services, increase trattc
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 NOx emis-
sions would be reduced with the No Project/No Development Alternative.
As required by CEQA (Section 15126(d)(4), if the No Project/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 spacePtrails 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 maintain the trails may cause an
additional financial burden on the CiW 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.
2/8/98CR:\CRG730XFEII~xSECT-6.FNL)
EIR for
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
EXHIBIT "H" /~ O~
APPENDIX K -
MITIGATION MONITORING PLA~v
This mitigation monitoring plan has beefi prepared for use in implementing
mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report for General
Plan Amendments 96-03B and 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan
Amendments 96-01 and 97-01/Edison Company project. This program has
been prepared in compliance with the S~ate law to ensure compliance with
mitigation measures adopted for the project by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Assembly Bill 3180 CPublic Resources Code, Paragraph 201081.6), effective
January 1, 1989, requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring program for
those conditions 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
recorded 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
progresses, changes to compliance procedures may be necessary based
on recommendations by those responsible for the program. If changes
are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be
developed and incorporated into the program.
2/8,98(R:\CRG730XFEIR~.MITMON.FNL) K-1
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Reinarks
DRAINAGE
4.1.1A. Any development proposed Developer slla[I prepare Prior Io approval City's Engineerhag
between llighland Avenue and Base Line and sul3mit to the City for of Final Tract DCpL
Road shall be condilioned to convey on-site review and approval Map.
drainage to the west to Day Creek Channel development plans. City's Engineering
by storm drain systems in Victoria Park Lane Dept.
anti Base Line Road.
4.1.1B. The developer shall amend the Developer sfiall prepare Prior to approval Applicant shai[ pay
City's Final Master Plan of Drainage Report and subn~it to the City for of Final Tract for mitigation
~rior to Final Map approval Io account for approval an~endmenls Io Mall monitor hired by
Ihe change in land use from open space to the Cily's Final Maslcr City.
t. 1. IC. The developer shal[ stndy the Developer shall prepare Prior to appro~l: City's Engineering
axisting 96-inch RCP stuhout, located and sul}n~it to the City for of Final Tract Dept.
approximately 462 feet from Victoria Park review and approval Map.
Lane to determine ils adequa~. drainage plans.
In~pro~ments shall I~ installed as
required.
4.2.1A. The project proponent shall Payment of traffic fees to Prior t0 issuance ~City's Engineering
conlril~ute a traffic fee in accordance with tile City by Ihe developer. Bf bulkling Dept.
the City's adopted traffic fee program ~ermits.
(Transportation Department Impact Fee
Ordinance No. 445) for backbone
infrastnncture improvements. Ill addition,
the project proponent shall make a fair
;hare contribution to additional circnlalion
acceptable level ofsemice as identified in a
Tra~c Impact Analysis. Both the tra~c fee
and the hit share conlribulion shah be paid
at Ihe time of issuance of building permits.
The adclitiona[ circulation improvements
shall consist of the following:
2/8/~)8(R:\CR(;730\FEIIt\M[TMON'FNI') K-2
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAl. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REI'OIIT
GENI~ItAI. PI.AN AMI!NI)MI~N'I'S 96- )3B AND 97-0 I
AND VICTORIA COMMIINITy PI.AN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-0 I/EDISON COMPANY
· [ Monitoring and ] Monitoring [ Responsible
Mitigation M{~asures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remarks
I'RAFFIC (Continued)
Milliken Avenue/Foothill Bo,levard -
Modify Ihe easd}ound and weslhoond
approaches be modified to include a
third through lane in each clirection on
Foothi[I Boulevard as well as convert
tile easthound right tun1 lane Io a
through plus right turn lane.
Rochester Avenue/ltighland Avenue .
Signal phasing of Ihe existing traffic
signal shall be upgraded to
accommodate the future Iraffic
volumes.
e""'
Rochester Avenue/l:~otbill Boulevard -
(~ Signal phasing of the existing traffic
signal shall be upgraded to
accommodate the future traffic
vohlmcs.
RochesterAvenue/Base Line Road -
Signal phasing of the existing traffic
signal shall be upgraded to
accomnlodate the future traffic
volumes.
Day Creek Boulevard/ltighland
Aven,e. - Tile fo[[owing is
recommended mitigation for this
intersection:
ConsInaction of a northbound left
ttlrll lane,
Addition of a second northhound
through lane and a shared through
plus right torn lane,
Constn~ction of a southbound left
ttlrll lane,
=RG730XFEIIt~MITMON.FNL)
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMLINITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-O1/EDISON COMPANY
Monitoring and [ Monitoring Responsible [ [ ]
Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Rentarks
TRAFFIC (Continued)
Addition ofa seconcl southbound
through lane and a shared through
pins right turn lane,
Construelion ofeasd>onncl left turn
lane,
Addition of an castbound through
plus right turn lane,
Constn~clion of a wcslbound left
turn lane, and
Addition of a westbound through
plus right turn lane.
Day Creek Boulevard/Base Line Road -
The following is recommended
mitigation for this intersection:
Constrx~ction of dual northbound
lea turn lanes,
Addilion of second and third
norlhbound Ihrough lanes,
Conslruclion ofa nord~bound right
ttlrn [ane,
Construction of dual southbound
Addition ofsecontl and third
southbound through lanes,
Construction of a southbound
right turn lane,
Constroction of dual eastbound left
Addilion of a third castbound
[hrotigh lane,
Construction of an eastbound right
Construction of dual westbound
]eft [tim lanes,
Addition of a third westbound
through lane, anti
Constructiou ofa weslbound righi
turn lane.
2/B/98(R:\CIIG730XJ:EIR~MITMON.FNI.} K-,I
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT
GENERAl. PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMUNITy PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-O I/EDISON COMPANY
Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remarks
FRAFFIC (Continued)
Day Creek Boulevard/Foothill
Boulevard - The foBowing is
recommended mitigation for tills
intersection:
Constn~clion of dual norillbound
]eft turn lanes,
Addition of a second and tfiird
nord~bound Ihrough lanes,
Constrx~ction of a northbound free
right turn lane,
ConsInaction of dual soulhbound
left turn lanes,
Addition of second ant[ third
southbounil dlrough lanes,
Constn~clion of a free southbound
riglit turn lane,
Conslnlction of dual easthound left
turn lanes,
Addition of an eastbound through
plus right turn lane,
ConsInaction of a westbound left
DIm lane,
Addition of a fourth westbound
through lane, and
Constnnclion of a westbound free
right turn lane.
Etitva~tda Aventte/Base LDte Road - The
eastbound and westbound approaches
sh:dl he modified to provide a third
through lane in each direction on Base
Line Road.
1-15 Southbound Ramps/Base Line
Road - Addition of a second wcslbound
left furl1 lane (clual left ttlrn lane) for
on-ramp Iraf fie at the westbound
approach and a soulhhound free right
turn for off-ramp traffic.
I I L
RG730XFEIRMMITMON.ENI.)
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
F/NAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GI~NERAL PLAN AStliNDMI!N['S 96-0311 AND 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMIJNITY PLAN ASlENDSlENTS 96-01 ANt) 97-01/EDISON COMPANY
Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Reinarks
TRAFFIC (Continued)
1-15 Southbound Ramps/Foothill
Boulevard - Conversion of the
castl~und right turn lane to a free right
traffic.
East Avenue/Base Line Road - ~
mitigation for this intersection, it is
recommended that the westbound
approach inc[ucle a third through lane.
4.2.1~. Circulation improvements have
I~en identified to achieve standards levels
of sexier (i.e., [oral jurisdiction and/or
SANBAG) at study area intersections. To
address the timing, ~nding, and
implementation of these improvements, the
following mitigation measure or condition
of General Plan ~endment appro~l is
recommended.
Prior to the approval of any tract map, a Yhe developer shall Prior to approval Cily's Engineering
traffic study shall ~ completed to submit to Ihe City for of any tentative Dept.
driermine whether the incremental review and approval a tract map.
increase in tra~c from the tract map Iraf~c study.
under investigation to result in
unsatishcto~ levels ofse~ice. If
unacceptable levels ofse~ice result,
tfiis Irate analysis shah determine the
portion of tile tdtinlate intersections'
improvements that are required, the
phasing of the improvement, and tile
~lnding source.
4.2.2. Tile project shall contribute on a fair The developer shall Prior to approval City's Engineering
share basis to the cost of providing the ~rovide evidence Io the of Final Tract Dept.
following freely lane additions: City of compfiancc witfi Map.
Ihe Congestion
1-15 bctweenJunlpa Street and 1-10 - Management Agent.
direction.
2/8/98(R:\CItG730~EIHR~VlITMON.ENL) K-ti
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FIliAl. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMUNITy PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-01/EDISON COMPANY
Monitoring and [ Monitoring Responsible ] [
Mitigation Measures ReportlOg Process Milestones P.-u'ty Initials Date Remarks
TRAFFIC (Continued)
1-15 between 4th Street and Footbill
Boulevard - two mainline lanes in each
direction.
AIR QUALITY
4.3.1A. The Construction Contractor shall Applicant shall subn~it to Prior In issuance City's But[cling &
select tile constRIction equipment used the City proof that tbe of grading ~afety Dept.
onsite based on low emission factors and mitigation listed is permits.
high energy efficiency. The Construction included in the
Contractor shall ensure Illat constn~ction constriction documents ! Apl}licant shall pay
gra(ling plans include a statement that all with tile developcr's for mitigation
~onstruction equipment will be tuned anti contractor. monitor hired by
maintained in accordance with the City.
alanufacturer's specifications.
4.3.1B. The Construction Contractor shall Applicant shall subn~it to Prior to issuance City's Building &
utilize electric or diesel-powered tbe City proof that the of grading Safety Dept.
equipment in [ieu of gasoline-powered mitigation listed is )ermits.
engines where feasible. included in the Applicant shall pay
constn~ction documents for mitigation
with tile developer's monitor bired
contractor. City.
4.3.1C. The ConstR~ction Contractor sball Applicant shall submit to Prior to issuance City's Building &
ensure that construction grading plans tbe City proof Ihat the of grading Safety Dept.
include a statement that work crews will mitigation listed is }crmits.
shut niTequipment when not in use. included ill the Applicant shall pay
During smog season (May through construction documents for millgallon
October), the overall length of the ~vilh the dcveloper's nlonitor bired
constriction period shonltl be extended, contractor. City.
thereby decreasing the size of the area
prepared each clay, to minimize vehicles
and equillment operating at tile same lime.
4.3.1D. The Construction Contractor shall e~pplicant shall sul}mit to Prior to issuance City's Bttilding &
time the constRaction activities so as to not the City proof that tile of grading Safety Dept.
interfere with peak hotlr trafilc and mitigation listed is )ermits.
nlillinlize obslnaction of through traffic incluclcd ill the Applicant shall pay
flagperson shall be retainell to maintain wilh the ¢lcvelopcr's monitor hired by
I I
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAl. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAI. PI.AN AMI~NI)MENTS96- 3BANI) 97-01
AND V[CTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-01/EDISON COMPANY
Monitoring and ] Monitoring Responsible ] ]
Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remarks
AIR QUALITY (Continued)
4.3.1E. The Constnlction Contractor shah Applicant sllal[ submit to Prior to issuance City's Building &
support and encourage ridesbaring and the City proof that tile c~f grading Safety Dept.
transit incentives for the construction crew. mitigation listed is ~crmits.
The Conslnlctton Contractor sitall support included in the Applicant shah pay
anti encourage ridesharing and transit constn~ction docun~ents for mitigation
incentives for the construction crew. with the developer's monitor hired by
contractor. City.
4.3.2A. Dust generated by the
development activilies shah be retaineel on
site and kept to a minimum by following
the dust control measures listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, Applicant shall subnlit to Prior to issuance City's Buiftiing &
excavation, or transportation of cut or the City proof that the of grading Safety Dept
li[[ materials, water trucks or sprinkler mitigation listed is permits.
systems shall be used to prevent dust included in tile Applicant shall pay
from leaving the site and to create a constn~ction docunlcnts for ntiligation
crusl after each day's activities cease. witit the clcvclol~cr's monitor hired hy
contractor. City.
b. During construction, water tn~cks or Field inspections City's Buiftling &
sprinkler systems shall be used to keep Applicant sitall submit to during grading. Safety Dept.
all areas of vehicle movement ([amp the City proof Ihat Ihe
Apl~licant shal[ pay
enough to prevent dust from leaving mitigation listed is Prior to issuance for mitigation
the site. At a minimum, this would included in Ihe of grading monitor hired by
include wetting down such areas in the constn~ction documents permits.
later morning and after work is xvith the deve[oper's City.
completed for the day, and whenever contractor.
wind exceeds 15 miles per hour. Field inspections
during grading.
2/B/98(R;\CRG730WE[RXMITMON.FNL) K-8
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAL ENVIRONMEN'rAI. IMPACT REPORT
AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-0 I AND 97-01/EDISON COMPANY
Mitignllon M~nsures Reportlag Process Milcsloncs Party Inilinls Date Rctnnrks
AIR QUALI~ (Continued)
c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or Applicant shall suhmit to Prior ~o issunncc Building & Safely
exc~vntioo is completed, the entire nrca the City proof Ihat Ihc ofgrnding Dept.
ofdislur~d soil shall I~ Ircnlcd mitigation listcol is ~crmils.
immcdialcly by pic~lp of Ihe soil until included in the Applic;tnt shall pay
the area is paved or othc~isc constnlction documenls Field inspcclions for mitigation
developed so that dust generation will with the clevelopcr's during grading. monitor hired hy
~o[ occur. ColHf~clor. City.
Prior to issnnncc IBuikling & Safety
d. Soil stockpiled for more thnn m days Applicant shall subn~it to 3fgrncling Dept.
sh~ll I~ covered, kept moist, or Ircatcd ~he City proof that the ~crmils. :: '
with sol[ binclefs to p~vcnt dust mitigation listed is Applicant sl~all pay
generation. inchadccl in ll~e ~Field inspections for mitigation
consInaction documents during grading. monitor hirccl hy
with Ihe clevclopcr's City.
contractor.
e. Tn~cks t~nsporiing soil, sand, cut or fill Applicant sha[I submit to Prior to issuance Building & Safety
malcrials anChor constntction debris to the City proof Ihat the of grading Dept.
or fronl the site shall k tarpcd from the mitigation liSled is ~crmits.
point of origin. included In the Applicant sl~all pay
consInaction documents Fic[d inspections for mitigation
with the devclopcr's during gadlag. monitor hired hy
4.3.3. The Construction Contractor shall Applicant shall suhmit ~o Prior Io isstlancc Building & Safely
~flilizc as much as possible precoatc~ the City proof that the of building Dept.
haloral colorcd huilding materials, water- mitigation listcd is ~crmits.
I~ascd or Iow-VOC coating, and coating included in Ihc Applicant shall pay
tr:msfcr or spray equipment with high constntction documents for n~iligation
:transfcr cf~cicn~, such as high volume low wilh the devclopcr's monitor hirccl by
~prcssurc (H%P) spray method, or manual contractor. City.
;coatings application such as paint bn~sh,
~hand roller, trowel, spatula, daukr, rag, or
]sponge.
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAl. IMPACT REPORT
GENERAl. PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMUN[TY PI.AN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-O1/EDISON COMPANY
Monitoring and ] Monitoring ] Responsible [ [
Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party lnitlals Date Remarks
AIR QUAI.IT~ (Continued)
4.3.4A. The project shall comply wilh Title The applican{ shall Prior to issuance Building & Safety
24 of the California Code of Regulations prepare and subhilt of building Dept.
estahlished by the Energy Commission bnilding plans to the City [ ~ermits.
regarding energy conservation standards. for review and approval t,i)p[icant shall pay
The project applicant shall incorporate the Ihat contain the listed For nlitigation
rollowing in building plans: mitigation. monitor ]lired by
Eity.
Planting trees to provide shade and
shadow to bulkling;
Solar or low-emission water heaters
shall be used with combined
space/water heater unit;
Refrigerator with vacuum power
Double-pained glass or window
lrealment for energy conservation shall
be used in all exterior windows; and
Energy-efficienl low-sodium parking lot
lights shall be used.
4.3.4B. Use of transportation demand The applicant shaft Prior to issuance Buikliug & Safely
measures (TDM) such as preferential prepare and submit to of I)uihling Dept.
~arking for vanpooling/carpooling, subsidy tile City for review anti pcrnlits.
for transit pass or vanpoo[ing/carpooling, approval development Planning Dept.
flexlime work schcdule, bike racks, lockers, fians that incorporate ihe
showers, and onsite cafeteria shall be (isted TDM measures.
incorporatcd in the design of the
colnmercia[ land uses.
4.3.4C. The project proponent shall TIle applicant shall Prior Io issuance Planning Dcpt.
determine with the City and the electrical subn~it Io the City writlen of a certificate of
mrveyor if it is feasible to pre-wire houses evidence tllat he/she bas occupancy.
for electrical charges for EV cars and/or constlhcd with tile
opfic fibers for home offices. If feasible, electrical purveyor and
install EV charges an(I/or optic-fibers per the City.
the electrical purveyor's direction prior to
Certificate of Occupancy.
2/8/t)8(II:\CItG730XFEIlIXMITMON-FNI,) K- ] 0
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
I:INAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAl. PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-0 I
AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-0 I AND 97-0 I/EDISON COMPANY
Monitoring and [ Monitoring [ Responsible ] [
Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Ren~arks
AIR QUALITY (Continued)
4.3.4D. Install EV charges or electrical fi~el TIle developer sha[I Prior to issuance Bulkling & Safety
stations/natural gas for commontry wide use prepare and submit to of huilding Dept.
at key commercial and puh[ic location(s) the City for review and )ermils for any
such as park and ride lots, Metrolink approval buik[ing plans comnlercial
Station, and commercial centers. tbat incorporate the building.
Field inspections Bnilding & Safety
)riot to issttanc~ Dept.
of a certificate of
occtlpancy.
P[anning Dept.
4.3.4E. l'fie developer shall conlract wilh a l'he devclol}er sJlaJJ Prior Io issilallcc Planning Dept.
and implemenlation with the mitigation evidence tbat tfie ~ermits.
with a mitigation monitor
program.
NOISE
4.4.1A. During all project site excavation Applicant sball submit to Prior to issuance rtuiiding & Safety
and grading on-site, tile project contractors tile City proof tfiat the of grading Dept.
~hal[ equip all construction equipment, mitigation listed is permits.
Fixed or mobile, with properly operating included in the 'Applicant shall pay '
~nd maintained rnufllers consistent with construction documents for mitigation
manufacturers standards. with tile dcvclopcr's monitor hired by
4.4. IB. The project contractor shah p[ace Applicant sha[[ snbmit to Prior to issuance Buihfing & Safety
all stationary consInaction equipment so II~c Cily proof that the of grading Dept.
that emitted noise is directed away from mitigation listed is ~crmils.
sensitive receptors to the east of the site. incloded in the
constnection doctlnlents Field inspeclions Building & Safety
with tile dcveloper's during grading. Dept.
contractor. AI)plicant shall pay
for mitigalion
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL iMPACT REPORT
GENERAl. PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-O3B AND 97-0 I
AND VICTORIA COMMUNITy PLAN AMENDMENT5 96-O1 AND 97-OI/EDISON COMPANY
Monitoring and ] Monitoring [ Responsible ] ] [
Mitigation M~asures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initi,'ds Date Remarks
NO1SE (Continued)
4.4.1C. Tile construction cont~ctor shall t~pplicant shall submit to Prior to isstlance Building & Safety
locate equipment staging in areas that will the City proof that tile of grading Dept.
create tile greatest distance between n~iligation listed is ~ern~its.
constnsction-relaled noise sources mid included in Ille Applicant shall pay
~ilc during all project construction. ~vilh tile devcloper's monitor hired by
:oatfactor. City.
4.4.1D. During all project tile txpplicant shall submit to Prior Io itstrance Prior to issuance of
mnslnmtion, the construction contractor the City proof Illat the of grading grading pernlits.
shall limit all constn~ction-related activities mitigation Ested is ~ermils.
that would result in I~igh noise levels to included in tile Applicant shall pay
~.m. Monday through Saturclay, unlcss such tvith the dcvclopcr's monitor hirccl by
levels exceeding 45 dBA at residences to Ihe
allowed on Sundays and pubEc holidays.
4.4.2. Noise studies shah be required to be Fhe applicant shall Prior to approval Planning Dept.
suhmitted Io the City for review and ~ubnlit noise studies to of Fina[ Tract
al)l)roval prior to final map approval for Lhe City for review a~ltl Map. Applicant shall pay
residential tinits proposed within tile ipprova[ for the listed for mitigation
Following areas: residential tinits. monitor hired hy
Within 408 feet of Base Line Road
Within 770 feet of Foothil[ Boulevard
centerline;
Within 337 feel of Day Creek Boulevard
centerline between llighland Avenue anti
Base Line Road;
Within 438 feet of Day Creek Boulevard
center[the between Base Line Road and
Church Street; and
Wilhin 3'14 feet of I lighland Avenue
2/B/98(II:\CItG730q:IHIt~AITMONFNI.) K- I 2
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAl. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AI*.tENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-OI/EDISON COMPANY
Mitigation M{:asures Reporting Process Milestones Parly Inilla[s Date Remarks
NOISE (Continued)
Mitigation such as setback, concrele block
wall, or earthen ~rm or their comb/nation
alc>ng the [>ropetry line, proper building
orienlation, buihling facade upgrade,
double-paned windows, an~or mechanical
ventilation shall I~ provided.
PUBLIC SER~CES
Schoo[~
4.5.1A. A school mitigation plan shall be The developer shall P?iOr t0 ihe I~nihling &Safcly
cnacled between the ESD and the submit to the City a copy issuance of Dept.
developer to provide for a per dwelling unit of a school mitigation building permits
fee rate for the residential portion of the ~lan execnted I~lween for any
project site. Tile fees will offset the the developer and the residential uniL
additional demand placed on school district Eti~vanda School District.
faci[itics by the residential portion of the
project
4;5.1B. The developer shall join Chaffey Fhe developer shall PriOr to tl~e Planning Dept.
Schoo[DistrictMcllo-RoosCommunity ~ubmittotheCitywritten nssuanceof
Facilities District No.2 (CFD No. 2), in order ~roof that Ihe develol~r bnilding permits
to provide an alternalive method to finance has joined the Chaffey for any
the miligation of school impacts of ~School District Mello- residential unit.
development. Roos ComnRH~ily
Facililies District No.2
(CFD No. 2).
4.5.1C. Tile developer shall 1~ required to Tile developer shall Prior to Planning Planning Dept.
exectllc all agreement with ESD and snhfllit Io die City a copy Conlnlission
CJUIISD to provide adequate mitigation. of the executed approval for any
Such an agreement shah ~ executed prior agreement het~vcen the residenlia] unit.
to Planning Conlmission approval for any ESD and CJUIISD.
residential project within the General Plan
Amendment area. Actual implementation of
Ihe agreement by the payment of fees,
dedication of sties or other mitigation wil[
take place as buildin~ permils are oblained.
:ItG730\FEIRWlITMON.FNI.)
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAl. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAl. PLAN AMIiNDMI!NTS 96-03B AND 97-0 I
AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-0 I AND 97-0 I/EDISON COMPANY
· Monitoring and Monitoring Responsib|e [
Mitigation Measures Rcportit~g Process Milestones Party Initials Date Ren~arks
PUBLIC SERVICES - Schools (Continued)
4.5.1D. hi the event that the developer If a Illitigatiol~ agrccnlcnt Prior to Planning Planning Dept.
Ihe City shall require fidl mitigmion as a developer shall form a approval for any
condition of approval. Full miligation shall MeHo-Roos Community residential unit.
be accomplished by means of a requirement Faci[ities District.
to fornl a MeHo-Roos Community Facilities
(listtier for school fact[tiles. in order to
reduce Ihc I)urdcn osl Ihe funIre
of the special taxes would be prepaid by the
developer.
Recreation
4.5.2(1)A. The developer shall be suhjcct to The developer shall Prior Io approval Planning Dept.
Municipal Code Chapter 16.32 set by the execute an agreement of the Final Tract
City Council of the City of Rancho with the City to dcdicalc Map.
Cucanlonga to establish reguhtions for ~arkland or pay in lieu Parks & Recrcalion
dc(lication of land, paymcnt of fees, or fccs as determined by the Dept.
both, for park and recreational land in City's Park anti Recreation
subdivisions and planned communities. Comnlission.
The devcloper is responsible for 11.3 acres
of parkland el[her by fee or by dedication.
4.5.2(1)B. At the time of filing a tentative The City Park anti At the tilnc of Parks & Rccrcalion
tract map or a minor subdivision plat for Recreation Commission filing a tonialive Dept.
approval, the City Park and Recreation shall dctcrminc xvhethcr tract map or a
Commission shall dctermine whether [[cdication of property for minor
dedication of property for 11.3 acres of 11.3 acres of park and subdivision plat
~ark and recreational purposes or in [ieu of recreational purposes or for approval
fees are necessary. If tile City desires in lieu of fees are
dcdicalion, the area shag be designated on nccessaP/.
a General Plan Amendment indicating tile The developer shall
location of any park shall be proccssed subn~it an application for
snbject to Park and Recreation Commission a General Plan
location of any parks.
2/8/98(R:\CRG730~FEIR~MITMON.FNL) K- I,l
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAl, ENVIRONMIiNTAI. IMPACT REPORT
GENI!RAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMUNrry PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-O1 AND 97-OI/EDlSON COMPANY
] Monitoring and [ Monitoring [ Responsible ]
Mitigation M/~asures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Ren:arks
PUBLIC SERVICES - Recreation (Continued)
4.5.2(1)C. Where dedication is offered and FIve developer sha[[ Prior to isstsancc Building & Safety -
accepted it shall be accomplished in either execule a ofbuikling Dept.
accordance with the provisions of the dedication agreement ~crnlils.
Subdivision Map Act. Where fees are with the City or pay Parks & Recreation
required, Ihe same shall be deposited with established fees. Dept.
the Cily prior to the issuance of building
4.5.2(2). The parkway on Ihe east side of Fhe developer shall Prior to apl)roval Planning Dept.
"fnture' Day Creek Boulevard shall be tul)ntit to the City for of any
lerlninate at tl~e City's aduh sports complex. parkway on the east side Day Creek
Specific design of live trail shall be of Day Creek Boulevard Boulevard.
(levclol}fncnt plans are subnlilled for review nlitigalion,
and approval for ally (levclopment
I)roposals adjacent to "ftllure" Day Creek
Boulevard. The specific design shaft tie in
willi Ihe Cily's Day Creek Boulevard Master
Plan design. The trail shall be designed to
connect to planned and existing trail
systems in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan
and shall connect Ihc residential areas
north and sotrib of Base Line to the
regional commercial areas adjacent to
Interslair 15.
Police
4.5.3A. As stated in Ihe General The developer shall sign a Prior Io issuance !Engineering Dcpl.
Requirements and Approvals for the Police consent and waiver form of buihling
Department for the City, a signed consent to joht and/or forin the permits.
and waiver form Io join and/or form the l,a~v Enforcement
Law Enforcentcnt Contmunity Facilities Comn~unity Facilities
District shall be filed with City Engineering District. A copy of the
~rior to final map approval or tl~e issuance s:gned fornt sllall
Iff l)uikling permits, whichever occurs first sul)miued to Ihe City's
for any projects within tile project area Engineering Departn~cnt.
bcl~veen lJ ighland Avenue anti l- 15.
Forthalton costs shall be borne by Ihe
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAl. PI. AN AMENDMENTS 96-03B ^ND 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMI~NDr, tENTS 96-01 AND 97-01/EDISON COMPANY
. [ Moniloring and ] Monitoring Responsihle [
Mitigation Measures IIeporting Process Milestones ParIy Initials Dale Reinarks
PUBLIC SERVICES (Continued)
Fire
4.5.4A. The developer shall join the MelJo- The developer shall join a Prior Io issuance Fire DepI.
IIoos Community Facilities District to Mello-Roos ComnuHlity of htdlding
~rovide fire protection services to the site. Facilities District for fire permils.
4.5.4B. The developer shall install Fhe dcve[oper shall Prior to issuance Fire DCpL
aulomatcd llrc sl)riukler systems in ~ul:,nlit to lhc Cily for of building
comnlcrcial, industrial, and nlulti-fan~ily review and al)proval )ern~its.
residential tinits in accordance with Foothill but[cling plans that Building & Safety
Rancho Cucamonga) Fire Protection include automated fire
District Ordinance No. 15 and Rancho ~prinkler systems. Dept.
Cucamonga Fire Protection District
Ordinance No. 22.
AESTilETIC/VISUAL
4.6.1A. New buildings wilhin 100 feet of Fhe developer shah Prior to approval Planning Dept.
fiHure Day Creek Boulevard shall be ~ubmit Io the City for of any
restricted to 35 feet in height to protect the review and approval development
view corridor of Ihe mountains for ;levelopment plans for ~lans for Building & Safety
Inotorists traveling norlh. The City ~trt~ctures within 100 feet stn~ctures within Dept.
Planning Department shall ensure that this Fron~ Day Creek 100 feel from
condition is applied prior to approval of tile Boulevard Day Creek
proposed development plans.. Boulevard.
4.6.1 B. Noise walIs along illIll re Day Creek The developer shall Prior to approval Planning Delhi.
Boulevard shall he no more than eight feet ~ul~mit to the City for of any
tall to avoid a sense of "visttal enc[osurc" review and approval dcvc[opn~cnl
for this Scenic Corridor, and should he scl :lcvclopment plans for hordering future
hack an adeqnate dislance to allow noise walls along Day Day Creek
[andsraping on tl~c road side of Ihc sound Creek Boulevard. Botllc',,;trd.
wall. This requirement shah be attached as
a condition of approval by the City Planning
Dcparm~enl prior Io approval of any
development bordering fulure Day Creek
Boulevard.
2/8~)8(lI:\ClIG730XFIilRXMITMONFNL) K- I 6
MITIGATION/~ONITORING MATRIX
FINAl. ENVIItONMI!NTAI. IMPACT RI~PORT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-0 I
AND VICTORIA COM/~tUNIT¥ PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AND 97-0 I/EDISON COMPANY
Mitigalion Measures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Date Remarks
~ES'I~IE'flC~SUAL (Continued)
1.6.1C. The City Planning Department 'FIle City shall amend the Prior to ~fing of Planning Dept.
~hall amend the Comnlunity Design Criteria Conlnlunity Design filing tealalive
Part I1 of Ihe Victoria Communjiy Plan at the Criteria Part l] of lhe real> or minor
(ime of filing tentative map or minor Victoria Comnlunity Plan subdivision plat.
subdivision plat for its "recommended edge >er I]~e stated mitigation.
conditions" for future Day Creek Boulevard !
1o show a similar landscape and setback
treatment on ~tll the east anti west sides
of Day Creek Boulevard. ~lilc a row of
)aim Irees is now recommended for tl~e
west side of Day Creek Boule~rd, this
proposed landscaping shall I~ enhanced by
short and taft drought-tole~nt shades
adjacent to SOtIll{[ Wa]]5 10 reduce the visual
impacts of such walls.
4.6.1D. Landscape rcquirenlcnls shall I~ The developer shall Prior to approval Planning Dept.
established for the far soulherll end of the subnlit Io Ihe Cily for nf ally
ln~jccl silt Io screen nexv ([cvclopnlcnt review and apl}rovaJ development
fronl the view of mnloriMs along l- 15 lanclsCalie plans for ally ~J3llS fi)r
tooking north. Ilowever, this landscaping development in the area development Parks & Recreation
should also allo~v views north Iowards the of I-I 5. adjacent and in Dcpl.
mounlains, using Ihe view corridor the vicinity of I-
~rovided by the fiflurc Day Creek 15.
B~u[cvard. The City Planning Dcpartn~cnt
shal[ address such landscaping as a
condition of appro~l for any devclopn~cnt
in Ihe area of l-15.
4.6.2. The Design Review process for The c[cvchq)er shall Prior Io Planning
resuh from the proposed project. Specific develoltment plans that the Cily's Design
review shall inc[ude the following: localion of exterior CommitIce.
proposed exterior lighling and landscalling lighting.
Df parking areas to reduce visible lighting
rro:n oulsk[e Iltcse areas; use of shielding
;round; and, prol~osed architectural
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL [MPACT REPORT
GIiNERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-03B AND 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMIJNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01 AN[) 97-01/EDISON COMPANY
Monitoring and Monitoring IIesponsible
Mitigation Measures Reporting Process Mileslones Party Initials Date Ren~arks
~tESTIIET CRISUAL (Continued)
1.6.3A. Provisions shah be made to l'he developer shall Prior tn approval Planning Dept.
~ccount for protection ofviewsheds anti ~ubmit to the City for o[development
[~[ant palette plans shown in tile Victoria review and approval plans hy the
Uommunity Plan for major hltenections landscape plans for major City's Design
Ilong filtHre Day Creek Botdcvard. Such interseclions along Day Review
,rovisions may include the following: Creek Boulevard. Conemiller.
i~uihling sethack~ within the project site;
?aried allowable heights with lower heights
nearest the interchanges; clustering of
~uildings; and, landscaping Io complement
;lie viewshed. These issues shall be
tddresscd by Ihe City Planning Department
~s recommendations for the Design Review
]process at the time ofdeveloping
ronditionsofapproval for any projects
~vithtn the proposed project corridor.
1.6.3B. To reduce potential conllicts with Prior Io issuance Phnning Dept.
i)olicies of the City's Community Design c)fbuilding
Element, recommended mittgallon )crmits.
~lcasures found under 4.6. I shall also be
implemcnled.
1.6.3C. The Community Design Crileria The City shall amend the Prior Io approval Planning Dept.
Part 11 of the Victoria Con~munity Plan shall Community Design of tentative tract
)c amended immediately following project Criteria Part II of tile map.
lpproval Io address new uses proposed as Victoria Comnlunity Plan
,art of the project. t lowever, as part of this per the stated miligation..
tnlcndnicnt, some requirements shall be
included to reduce visual impacts of new
:levelopment by inclusion of [andscaping
ilear major roads Ihat matches Illat
i)roposcd by tile Victoria Conlmunity Plan.
I~or exanq]le, trees shall be planted along
Lhe site's property lines and along roadways
to screen new development from view.
%Xzilhin tile site and adjacent to major east-
wcst corridors, tile City shall designate
;ireas far landscaping, ensuring thai land
;tdjacent to tile roads is planted with Ioxv-
;el xvillg vegetation to maintain a degree of
visual open space on the project sile.
2/8/98(R:\CIt(;730XFlilRNMI'[MON.FNL) K- ] 8
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
· [ Monitoring and Monitoring [ Responsil)le ]
Mitigation M~asures Reporting Process Milestones Party Initials Dale Rcnlarks
CULTURAL RESOURCES
4.8.1. hi conjunction with the submittal of The al)plicant shall Prior to issuance ~Planning Dept.
applications for rough grading permits, Ihe lrovide wrilten evidence of any grading
applicant shall provide written evidence to to the City thai an pcrnfit.
that an archaeologist, listed on tile County retained to be present
Df Sail Bernardino list of qualified dtl ring grading activities.
archeologists, has been relained and ~vill be
~rescnt oil site during all rough grading
and other significant ground disturl)ing
~clivities. The archeologist shall meet with
]tile Cofnmunity Development Departnlcnt
such aclivitics.
NUMBER OF STUDENTS GENERATED FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Area Between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road .
Low Density
(2-4 DU/AC) 108 43 43 43 19 19 19 8 8 8 9 9 9
Low-medium Densi~
(4-8 DU/AC) 17.8 142 142 142 62 62 62 28 28 28 28 28 28
Medium Densi~
(8-14 DU/AC) 8.3 116 66 116 50 29 50 22 13 22 23 13 23
Area Be~een Base Line Road and 1-15
Medium Densi~
(8-14 DU/AC) 7.4 104 59 104 45 26 45 20 11 20 21 12 21
Medium-high Densi~
(14-24 DU/AC) 8,6 206 69 120 90 30 52 40 13 23 41 14 24
High Densi~
(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
1. Highest densi~ level used to calculate Dwelling Units Per Acre.
~ 2. Student Generation Rates for the Etiwanda School District K-5 ~ .4~3 per unit.
~ 3. Student Generation Rates for the Etiwanda School District 6-8 ~. 1934 per unit.
~ 4. Student Generation Rates for the Chaffey Joint Union High School District for 9-12 ~ .2000 per unit.
EXHIBIT I
EIR for
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 and VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
PROPOSED STATEMENT OF FACTS OF FINDINGS
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
See Exhibits A and B to City Council Resolution
EXHIBIT "J"
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 Report 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 reports,
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
raoord and ,he F,na, E,R.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
FIR FOR GPA 96-03B & 97-01 AND VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
March 25, 1998
Page 2
2) The Final FIR has identified all sigqificant environmental Impacts of the project
and there are no known potentially significant environmental impacts not addressed in the Final FIR.
3) All significant impacts identified in the Final FIR as a result of the project have
been mitigated. avoided or reduced to an acceptable level 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 FIR 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 Or 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 FIR, 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 FIR 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 Bernardino.
In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions
of the California Fish and Game Code, or the gu delines promulgated there under, condition shall
be deemed null and void.
3. . 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 ~ollowing 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:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING 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 Council in
conjunction with the Council'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 Report General Plan Amendment 96-03B and 97-01
and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 96-01 and 97-01 ."
3. The public comment period 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 and on March
25, 1998, adopted Resolution No. , recommending that the City Council certify the
Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
5. On ,1998, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application.
6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the 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 Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced
public hearing on ,1998, including wdtten and oral staff reports, 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 9%01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment
96-01 and 97-01, this Council hereby takes 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:
CITYCOUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
EIR FOR GPA 96-03B & 97-01 AND VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
,1998
Page 2
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.
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 level 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 or 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 !he 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.
3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
e2-25-98 89:35 LSA ASSOCIATES INC iD=9e97814277 P.(92
DRAFT
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS
FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AM~-NDMENTS 96-03B & 97-01
AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENTS 96-01
& 97-01/EDISON COMPANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The following statemen~ of findings sad f~cts ~n support of fmd/n~ is adopted
for ,--:rh environm~'~tal impact idenri6ed in the FF_IR as signiticant or potentially
significant. For a more detailed descrilxion of ~elm impat, each mitigation
measure to be imposed, and the facts and ,4=r, v/nich support the conclusions
z~ached herein rt:garding the signilicanc'~ of,'~rh impact after smmitigatioo, please
refer to the applicable sections of the FEIR and the technical apl~iccs. The
City Council hereby adopts and inched the data and analysis set forth
thereto as a pan of this Resolution as though s¢~ forth here in full.
L DESCRIFrlON OF PROJECT
The pm~s~ pm~ ~ ~ ~cn~t to ~e CiW of ~cho Cu~o~
~p~~t~dm~tWfficV~Comm~P~. The
~ ~ ~e p~ ~ P~ ~d Ym~ ~m~
Utffi~ ~d~- Sou~ C~ ~n, ~00~ ~e
~t ~d pmpes ~ ~ ~e U~ Corndot d~ip~on to R~o~
R~t~ ~m~ ~d ~o~ C~,
~id~6eL Me~ ~id~"~1, ~-M~ p~id~, ~d Dw ~cnt~.
To p~c ~e s;-gle ~y ~ of ~iden~ n~~
~ ~e ~ ~d p~& a ~ of h~ ~ ~ ~ ~mme
· To pmtm ~e nei~
nci~ to ~e ~t.
To p~ ~ ~id~ ~d
cont~ of a ~ column.
H. EVAZUATION OF ALTERNA_77VES
For puxposes of analy'Ang potential cnvironmen~ impacts, the EIR evaluated the
proposed project and four alternatives. The four alternatives evaluated are the
No Project Alternative (as r~quired by CEQA), Open Space Pank Greenheir and
Trails System Alternative, Lower Dea'lsity, and Off-Site Alternative.
02-26-98 89:35 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9097814277 P.e3
These Statemen~ of Fac5 and Findings address the proposed project as the
alternative to be considered for app~.~ by the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
pursuant to staff% recommendation. Characteristics of the preferred alternative
are provided herein.
The following is a brief de~ription of th~ akematives considered, se~ Section 6
of the FEIR for more
l?nvtromnentally Superior
The No Project/No Development Alternative is an !invironnlentally Superior
alternative since no development would occur on the project site. Unlike the
proposed project or the ~roject alternatives, the No Project/No Development
Alternative would nor increase demand for public seavices, increase truffle.
volumes, circulation, air eml,tsions and noise levels (assoc4j~r~l with construction
and operation of additional land uses), cause the additional need for
recreational t~;llri~ or increase potential impacts ro biological or cultural
resources, drainage, and aesthetics that rnay otherwise result from development
of the project site. Significant short-term construction emlgsions would be
elim~rnt, and significant unavoidable kn~g-t~rm CO, ROC, and NOx emissions
would be reduced with the No Projeer/No Development Alternative.
As requited by CIiQA (Section 151 26(d)(4), if the No Project/No Development
Ahemstir= is ~_.lected as the environmentally superior altem~rlve, the EIR Shall
also identify an envLronmenmlly superior aJ. temativ~ mona the other
alm'nanves. Among the altemativ~ conside_red, the Open Space Greenbelt and
Trails S3~.em Aires-native ha~ the least ¢t~rn~ng envixonmental impacts. Of the
viable altea'naehnm, the open $paee2rails ~t~m alternative v~uld result in kwer
daily and peak hour vr_2fide rxil~ and containinapt emissions, and inc:~*memal
increases in ambient noise levels, and impacts on whooh and parks. potential
hzlng-tetlxI 1o¢~ air e~,,li~y il~l~_,~t~$__ are eormidered r~lificant unavoidable adveme
impacre under either the proposed project or the Lower Density and Off-Site
Altern-r~. The Ol:Rm Space Cn'R~beh:and Trails ~ Alternative, however,
would result in Muted impacre to long-c~"za ah' quality and is environme-,~lly
superior to all other alternatives,
Th~t'~: axe economic imp~_er~. to the City with the implementation of the Open
Space Crr~mbelt and Traih System Alternative. If the Mte is to be convexted to
a open spaee./traih system, the City would have to 1) purehR the property, 2)
construct the trail mere, and 5) provide lm~g-term maintenance of a trail system
on the 84.15e site. The co~t to purcha.~ the l~operty, and construct and
maintain the trails ma~ muse an 9eMitional financial burden on th~
depending on how the City ehoo~ to provide funding. In light of p~oposition
218 additional ug taxes would have to go to City wide vote. Long-t~tt, funding
for a City trail ~/stem on thi~ site is not certain.
No ProJea Alternative
Under the No Project/No Development Altexnal~, the project ~ would remain
in its e. Ii~ting raeant condition. The sire could contain elee~ic transmission
t~.xs i~ the future under the eunmt zoning;, however for t~e purples of the
e2-26-98 89:36 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=SeS?814277 P.84
"No Development Alternatives" analysis, the no development scenario is
analyzed.
Evaluation of the No Project Al~erg~Ii~e
The NO Project/No Development Alternative would R-duc~ and/or
eliminate all potential}y sig~_~ie~nt adverse environmental iml~ct$ of the
proposed project. In paZtiO,hr~ s~sni~cant adv~m irnpaet~ related to
short-term construction emissions and long-term local CO, ROC, and
NOxtilatwmakiemeeedtheSotrthCoastAirQ,,~lity-ManagemenrDistriet
threshol& for daily operations by a large margin (espe~y NOx), would
not occur with this alternative. However, thi~ alternative would result in
impazt~ by elimin-tiftg opport'umties to provide housing and meet the
goals of the City's General Plan Housing FAement.
This alternative would fail to meet three importam objectives of the
project and the City of Rancho Cu~f-onga. The ~ objective is to
pa:serve the single f:m,iiy cham,'r-r of rendential neighborhoods within
the City and provide avariety of housing types for various income levels;
the second objective is to protect the neighborhood quality and
residential natu~ of dine neighborhood to the east; the third objectiv~ is
to provide infdl reaidential and cornmet, q=1 development within the
contin of a planned community.
Open Spe_ ~-~ Park ~reenbe~t a~d Trails System Altertu~ve
This alternative is a rational choice as a land use alternative for a long slender
84.15-acr~ parcel (330 fee~ wide by 10, 756 feet long). This strip of land would
contain a ~,dccaped parkway along the length of future Day Creek Boulevard
to enhance views of Mr. Baldy to the north and would also contain a trails system
that would connect the ,.-Acting and future planned ff. sidential m m the
Victoria W'md_row~ ax~a to the east and west of future D~ Creek Boulevard
(south of Highland Avenue and north of Base Line ~,~a) to the proposed
regional commercial area south of Base Line Road and north of 1-1 5.
1?valuation of the Open ~ Park Greenbelt and TraiL~ Syaem
The Open Space Park Greenlie-l~ and Trails System Alternative would have
less ~ignificant advr~rse enviro.~_ental impac~ rh~. that of the proposed
project discussed m Seaion S.0 in the t In particular, significant
reduced under this almmative inciuc~ng impacts on public services,
traltc, potential exIx~ure of residences to noise relazed impacts, and
aesthetics.
Under t~le ]j~wer Den_~ty Alternative, a General Plan and Victoria Community
Plan ~nt would be proposed that would ~c the same as proposed with
the pr~}ecr between Highland Ammue and Bar~~ Line Road. Hov,-ever, the
e2-25-98 eg:S? LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9997814277 P.e5
densities would be limited to the lower ra~.e within each land use category (i.e.,
Low Density [2 units/acre], Low-Medium Dermity [4 units/acre], and Medium
Density [8 umts/acre]). In the area south of Base Line Road, the land uses
proposed would include 10.4 acres of Low-.Medium Densivy (4 units/acre) from
Base Line Road south to one-half the disvance bevareen Base Line Road and
Church Street and Medium Densivy (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 acr~ south of Church Street would remain Re~or:~ Related
Oitcef,,ommercial as proposed with the project. The intent of this alternative
is to potentially i~*duce the proposed ~project's impacts on public setwice$,
specifically schools.
1?valuation of zhe Lower Demtry A~emative
and parts would be reduced with implementation of the Lower Densivy
Alternative. Thexe would be a slight reduction in vehiod~r traffic noise
impacts with this alternative. The proposed prolect's impacts on
drainage, biological resources, cultural resources, and aesthetic~ would
n-m~in the same with Lower Density Altearnative.
Off Site A!kn.m~v~
Section 1~126(d) of the CEQA Guidelin~ ~ ~ ~ HR co~d~ o~y
si~t ~ iden~ f~ ~e p~je~ ~t~e.
The ~n~ P~ ~d Use ~m~t of ~e Ci~ of ~o C~o~ ~
~opm~t ~ ~i~ ~ ~ a nu~ of m p~y ~ ~e
no~ ~ of ~ ~W, ~ m ~si~ted f~ a ~de m~ d
demi~ s~ihr ~ ~e p~posed G~ P~ ~en~5.
SCE ~ u~iW ~r ~menB to ~e no~ ~d ~u~ d ~e p~pos~
pm~ ~ ~t e ~ ~ m~ion of the ~e u~W ~ ~ ~e
d ~ Anue ~d ~ p~s~ ~ a p~ ~ P~
to ~ a ~ of mM~ d~i~ s~ to ~e pmp~ project
EvaSion q ~ Off4ite
s~ (~, ~Bee, s~h, md p~h), biolo~ rsom, md
~ ~m ~d ~ ~e ¢~me ~ ~ ~t~t~e site. ~e
pwjm ~ a ~t d o~oM ~Mde m~ ~i~ ~d not ~
~ded ~th ~
Bio~ ~o~ sm~ conduaM for ~e pm~ pr~
~e Sm Bem~inn b~a's hn~ nt md ~e ~
~tat~, bo~ p~ s~d~. It ~ d~ ~t ~
pw~ p~ ~d ~t h~ a sight ~a ~ biolo~
02-26-98 09 37 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9097814277 P.06
resources and no mitigation wo~_!IA be r~Iuired, This altexnative would
rcc!uire biological resourc~ surveys be conducted tO dete~m lne whether
the San B~-nardino Me~Tiarn's kangaroo rat and/or the California
gnatcatch~z occur on site. This alternative does contain habi~tt that
could suppor~ both species. If the species are noi present on site, this
altonative would have th~ s~_me impac~ on biologicsl resources s.~ the
proposed projecL
Impacts on aesthetics rosy potentially be the ~me with this altanqative
site. The alteroalive site is not withirl the Victoria Commufiity PhI1 bUt
is in the Btiwlnds North Specffic Plan flue is similar to flu Victoria
Community Plan end also has d~si~n guidelines which protect end
enhsnce aesth~cs and view coredors.
In conclusion, en alternative site within en Edison utility corridor would
have the e.~me impaclls as the proposed pro~ec~ and would not l~:iuce the
proposed projects' sigr~csnt unavoidable long-term impact on air
FtF~CTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT OR MITIGATED TO A
LEST,, THAN-MGNIFICANT LEVEL
DRAINAGE
SignOr, ant Effect Na 1
The proposed projea would substantially incre. a~ the impervious surface
from the site. Kvi~ting drainage systems to the cast can not accommodsxe
increase end stormwater flow. The proposed prolea has the potcnEial to have
a signi~t hnp~ct On ~-z~qing drainage hcilities.
Finding No. l
Changes d alterations have been required in, or ~ed into the project
which mitigate or avoid the signific~nt effects on the euvizonmcnt.
Facts in Support ~(Ftnding No. 1
The poX:c~i~. imp~'~ pertaining t0 the total quantity ~n,5 rate of water
draining from the site have been e4iminated or reduced to a level ofless'than
-significant through implementation of the mitigation measures and project
design described withLn the Final EIIL Said measures will ensure thai
drainage from and through the site will be c0nveTed in a safe manner in
accordance with the City of l~_ncho Cucamonga enS~'ing standards.
1. Any development proposed between Highland Avenue and Base lane
Road shall be condi'tiO.~;d. to convey on-site drainage to the west to Day
Creek Channel by storm drain systeras in Victoria Park Lane and Base
Line Road.
ASSOCIATES ING ID=geg?8142T? P.86
2. The developer shall amend th~ Cir3es Final ,Master Plan of Drainage
Report prior to Final Map apl~oy,,l to account for the change in hnd use
fi-om opc~ space to residential tlses.
3- The developer shpJ.[ remove th~ ex~ing 96-inch RCP stubout, located
apprOx~mateb/~2 f~q~ froln V~-'~oria Park I~lne ~Lrid ilBtaJJ a_q 20 ~i~ch
RCP f~om Day C_.reck Boulevard' to Day Creek Channel, with the pipe
eatenng the charmel one f~)ot above the channel inve_21:.
~IC .AND CIIi'CULATION
$t, gntd6ta~t .La~ea No. 2
Ten inu~'sections'a~ fon~ast to exceed the C.M1~ LOS E sr~nr{=~cl under 2015
b=~ItSround plus project concllrious in one or both peak hours. These are:
· Milllk.n A,~nu~/Foot~fll Bou]eva-r[
· Day Creek Boulevard, qilghland Avenue
, Day Creek Boulcv'ant/Base Ijnc Road
· Day Creek Boulevard/Foothill Boulevard
· ~da Avenue/Base Line Road
· EtiwandaAvenue/Foothill Boulevard
· 1-15 sodbound ramps/Base Line Road
· I-I 5 nordxbound ramps/Base L/ne Road
· 1-15 southbound ramps/Foothill Bouleva~
· 1:~ .4,venuedBase Line Road.
Changes of alterations hav~ been required in, or incorporated into the project
which mitlga~ or avoid the siSni~can~ effcc~ on the cnviromnent.
Fa~s tn Support of Findin~ NO. 2
The potemial impair. penainin~ to ten intenecUons ~ceeding the CMP LOS
E s~andaxd under 2015 baAkgmund plL~ project condRions in one or both
peak houn have been clm~-~d or reduced m a ~ of less-than -s/gnm_~nt
through/mp]eanenmzlon of the miti~at/on me~suns and projec~ design
descr/bed within the Fir~ ~ The m~iga~ion measures de~ribed below will
enable r/ae Gity to imple~nent in ua05k. c fee prognun to fund off-site u'afllc
irnprove~en5 ~.~,~ as a resuk of the projecL The traffic fee program is the
most px-.K~ical avid feasible approach tc~ funcling u-affic mitigation me~zsures
1. The projecz pn2poner~t shall conu'jbute a traffic fee in accordance with
' the City's adopted traffic fee program CFransportation Development
Impact Fee Ordinance No. 445) as the projects fair share contribueiort to
circulation improvemenm identified as necessary at the time of issuance
of building permits. These impn:n, cmc. nts shall consist of the following:
· Militiaon Ar/en.ue/Foozhill Bou/evard. Modify the castbound and
westix}und approaches be modiiied to include a third through lane
/~/3C~ 6
62-26-98 G9:88 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9697814277 P,GB
in each direction on Foothill Boulevard as well as conve, n the
casEbound righ~ turn hnc ro a through plus fight turn lane,
· Rochester Avenue/H~g~land Avenue. Signal phasing cff the e:cisdng
tra~c signal shall be upgradcd to accomm0da~e the future tn~c
volumes.
· Rochester APenue/-n~---~e I~ne Roa~ Signal phasing of the
mr:flit signal shall be upgraded to accommodax~ the harufe wa~c
· Rochester At~,zu~/Footbill Bou/~ara~ Signal phasing of the exisl~ng
tnd]ic signal shall be upgraded to accommodate the future tn~6c
volumes.
· Day Cree/~ Bo~cl/Itigbla.d Ape~ue. The following is
tr,.ommended mitigation for rh{~ intersectiota:
Construction of a ncrdabotmd left turn lane,
Addition of a second northbound l~trough lane and a s~ecl through
plus right mrn
Construction of a ~outhbound left rdrn lane,
Addition of a second southbound through lane and a shared through
plus right turn
Construction of eastbound |ef~ turn lane,
Addition of an easeoound through p[us right turn lane.
Construction of a wcstbound left ~ lane, and
Addition of a w~stbound through plus right turn lane.
· Day Creel~ 4?~ouleoard/~ase Zme Roa~. The following is
recommended mitigation for this inlzwsecti0n:
Construction of dual northbound lef~ ram lanes,
Addition of second and third northlxxmd through lanes,
Construction of anorthbound right turn lane,
Construction of dual southbound l~t turn lanes,
Addition of ~eco_~d and third southbound through Ia~es,
Construcxion of a soughbound right mm lane,
Construction of dual eastbound lefx turn lanes.
Addition of a third eastbound through latle,
Cor~strncdon of an entbound right nmn lane,
Construc~on of dual wesa~und left turn lanes,
Addition of a 6nird westbound through lane. and
Constxuction of a westbound righ~ ram lane.
· Day Creek Boulevard/Footbal Boulevard. The following is
recommended mitigation for rhi~ interSeCtion:
Construction of dual noahbound lef~ nan lanes,
.A_~rlltion of a secDnd and third northbound through lanes,
Conssfuction of ~ northbound free right rum lane.
Construction of dual sou~hl~ound left narn lanes,
Addition of second and third souzhbound through lanes.
Construction of a free southbound right turn
62-26-98 69:38 LSA ASSOCIATES lNC I ID=9897814277 P,e9
Construction of dual eastbound leh turn lanes,
Addition of an e~stbound through plus ci_ght turn lane,
Construction of a westbound left turn lane,
Addition of a fourth weszbo~nd through lane, ~nd
Construction of a westbound fr~e ~ht mm hne.
.Etiw6~..~A~e~e/l~tseL~eRo~j. Thee~stboundandwesfi~und
appw~hes .~h:dl be mod~ed w provide a did throuBh lane in emch
direction cla Av 'e
on Etiwan enu .
· E~/wana~ ~/Foorba/Bou/ev~r~. Addition of · southbound
right mrn lane and a third asthound through lane.
1-1.5 So~ Ramt~s/Ba~ Line Ro~. Addition of a second
westbound leh turn lane (dual leh nLrn lane) for on-ramp waffic at
the westbound approach and a southbound ~'e right turn for off-
ramp
· tas~Ave'nue/Basel. ine~oa,~ The vailbound approach shldl include
a thi~l through lane.
2. Circulation improvements have been identified to achiev~ su~ndards
lev~ of service (i.e., local jurisdiction and/or SANRAG) a~ study ar~
intersections. To address the timin?~ funding, and implementation of
these improvements, the following mitigation measure or condition of
General Plan Amendment approval is recommended:
· Prior zo the approval of an,/tnct map, a traffic snicly shall be
completed w determine whether the incremental increase in
from th~ tract map ar~a c~uses any of the intersections under
invest/LJ'Afion to resuk in unsatisfactory levels of set?ice.
unacceptable levels oi service r~sult, this wa/fic srmlysis shall
determine the portion o~ the ultimaze intersections' im~ents
thai are required, the ph.~ng of the improvement, and the funding
Significant fffec~ N~ 3
The proposed projt::a will contr~te w de:~c:k:ncie~ 'long me following free~,y
r_,czions:
· I-15 bezween Junspa Avenue and 1-10
· 1-15 between 4th Stre~ and Foothill ,Boulevard.
Finding No. 3
Chax~ocs of altcntior~ have be~n rcqu~d in, or incOrporated into fi~e pwjea
which miteate or avoid the signScant effects on the caviromnent.
P-_~_ in Support of Finding No. 3
The potential traffic impacts of the propo~:l projcct pcn3jaiag
dcfu2ncies along the freeway section 1-15 betwcc-n3m'upa Avemue and
e2-26-98 l~:e4 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=geg7814277 P,e3
and section 1-15 between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard. have been
eliminated or reduced to a level of les.s~han-~igni~cant through
implementation of the mitigation measures and project deign described
wig the Final EI1L The mitigation measttrcs described below will enable
the City to collect fees on a fair share bash for freeway lane additions. The
tn~ic fee program i~ the most practical and feaMble approach to funding
traffic mitigation measures in the vicinity of the project.
The pz~ject thnll ecnntrlbute o~ a ~ she basis to the cast of pxx~viding
the following freeway lane additkms:
· 1-15beew~cnJm-upaSti~-~andI-10-t~-olancmai~!in¢lanesineach
direction.
· 1-15 between 4th Street and Foothill Boulevard - tw~ mainline lanes
in each direction.
AIR ~UALTIY
SignS, cant Effect No. 4
Air quality impacts may occur during the site prepaxatlon including grading
and equipment ,-chatter as it ~ meal on.site. Major source~ of em;¢tions
during this phase include exhaust emissions fi-om construction vehicles and
equipment and ~tugitive dust generated as a result of comtruction vehicies
and equipment traveling over exposed surface, as well as soil di.s~ces
by grading and filliqg. Cotl$trttctio~ equipment emissions would exceed the
SCAQMD daily thresholds for the criteria pollutant of NOx, wttich is 2.5 tons
per quarter or I00 pounds per day. EmissiDcts of other criteria poHutant~
would be Mow the standards.
F~dtng No. 4
Change~ or alterations have been requixcd in, car incorporated into the
project which mitigate or avoid t~he significant effects on the enviroranent.
Fa4~ in Support of Fimltng N¢~ 4
The potential impacts pextai-in~ to the e~jtcions of nitrogen oxides (N0x)
during consu'uction have been eliminated or reduced to a level of les,s-than-
signi~c~nt through implementation of the mitigation measul~ and project
design described within the Final I The mitigation measures axe as
follows:
1. The C0nstruetion Contractor shall select the construction equipment
used oftsite ba~ed on low emission factors and high energy eticiency,
The Comtruction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans
include a s~rement tixat all construction ¢xluipmemt will be t~m~d and
m~ntamed in accordance with the rn~nttfacr..trcea specificatiorm.
2. The Constraction Contractor shaJA ur;llye electric or diesel~powered
equipment in lieu of gasoline-powered engines where feasible.
92-25-98 e9:43 LBA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9997814277 P.91
The Constm~on Contractar sh~l ensure tha~ ~ ~ p~
mdude 1 s~em~t ~al ~ ~ ~ shut ~c~cnt ~¢n not
s~e of~e ~ p~d e~ch ~y~ to ~ v~id~ ~d ~ipm~t
~g at the ~e me, ,
Can~or s~ sup~ ~ ~co~ fi~g ~ad
SignScant F~,~t No. 5
During grading acth, itics dust ~mi~on~d ~d ~e ~ ~d
of 150 ~ p~ ~y.
Fi~t~ No. 5
C~g~ ~ ~o~ ~ve b~ ~ ~ or i~d ~to ~e
~e ~t legible.
~e ~ ~ ~ to ~e m~ ofd~ d~g ~on
have ~n ~tlmi~ or ~ to a levd of l~i~t ~u~
Dust gene~t~ ~ ~e d~opm~t ~ s~ ~ ~ed on site
md ~t to a m~um ~ foHo~ ~e dug conuol m~ ~
~ow.
a.
of ~t ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ sp~ ~ ~ ~ ~
to ~t d~t ~ 1~ ~e site ~d to ~e a ~t ~er ~
' ' m ~ ~ ~ ~hide m~m~t d~p ~ou~ to pr~ d~
~m l~g ~e si~. At a mi~mm, th~ woffid ~ude ~ng
~ su~ ~ ~ ~e hr~ mo~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~pl~ f~
~e ~y, ~d ~en~r ~d ~ 15 ~ p~ ho~.
c. ~ d~ ~d4~ ~ m~ ~ ~on ~ ~mpl~, ~e
en~e ~ of dis~d mfl s~ ~ ~at~ ~me~e~ ~ pimp
D2-26-98 09:44 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=ge97814277 P,e2
of the soil tmtil the area is paved or otherwize developed so that du~
generation ~ not oc~r.
d. Soft stockpiled f~r more than tw~ days shall be covered, kept mist,
or treax, ed with soft binders to prevent dust generation~
e. Trucks ~-aaspovting soil, sand, cut or fil~ materia~ and/or
cork~ruc~ion debris to or from the site shall be xarpecl from the point
of origin,
Significant Effea No. 6
Vol~_6~ Organic Compound (VOC) emissions associated with architectural
coatings are not t-~lculated because there is no sufildent informazion available
for emissions produced by the painting of resident~I and commercjal
h~-aifie~. VOCs produced during construction may be a poter~fi~lly signScant
Finding No. 6
Change~ or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
projeer which m~ri~o-are or avoid the signi~ca~t effects on the environment to
the e~xent feasible.
Fac~ in Support of Finding No. 6
The potential irapans pertainL~g to the emissions of Volatile Organic
Covnpounc~ C~rOC) dtLriag ennstructiox'~ have. been ,~|imir~'Red or reduced to
a |evel of less-than-signiFicant through iraplementation of the mit~gatlon
measuve~ and project design described within the Final E~R- The rmtigation
measure is as f~o~s:
1. The Cot~struction Contractor shall ug~li~e a~ much as possible
pr~c0atedRtatura-~ colored bulldog materiMs. water-based or low-VOC
coating, and coating trar~fer or spr~ equipment ~ high transfer
e.~c~ency. such as high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray method, or
maxreal coat~gs application such as paint brush, hand rotlex, trowel,
span~, dauber, rag. or sponge.
SignO~ant F~rect N~ 7
Vehicular t~ips assoctared with the proposed project would produce
emissions that would exceed the SCAQ~NtD daily thx~holds for the criteria
polluta,qt Of CO, ROC, and NOy~
Findings No. 7
Change~ or alteraxions have been t~qu~red in, or incorporated into the
projec~ v,~nich mitigate or avoid the s~t~i~ca~t effects on the env~ronxnerxt to
the exxent feasible; hox~ever, impac~ of the operation of the proposed
prc~ec~ remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation. L~ accoraance
e2-26-98 le:e5 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=ge97814277 P.e4
with the requirements of CEQA, tbe C~ Council adopted a St~emcnt of
Oven'iding Considerations and m~de f~ndmgs x~g~[ing the lx:ne6.m of tile
· propased project.
~Facts tn Suppo~ o/Finding No. 7
The potent~l impacts ~ to the ~is~ions Of CO, ROC, and NOx have
been x~:heed to the eaent feasible~:however, even after implementation of
the mi,~gation me~tsures and projecz design described within the Final EIR,
the impacx is considered s~gniBcant~and unavoidable. Further mitigation is
techni~'~l~y and economicaUy infe~ible since, to some extent. any major
development project in the region will incremenndiy increase examions. The
t. The projea shall comply with Title 24 of the C~ifnmia C~le of
Regtttations established by the Energy Commission regarding energy
conservation standards. The project applicant shall incorporate the
following in building plans:
· Planting txees to provide shade and shadow to bttilding;
· Solar or fow-~mission w'atex heaters sh~ll be ttsed with combined
space.~vater heater unit;
· Refrigentor with vacuum power insulation;
Double-pained glass or window treatment for enexgy conservation
shall be used in all e:aevior windows; and
. Enevgy-e~cient low-sodium paricing lot lights shall be used.
2. Use of transportation d,-~v,~nd measures (TD~%C) such as preferential
~ for wnlx~i-~/carpc~.n~, subsidy br ramsit pass ov wnpooling/
carpooling, eexlime work schedule, bike racks, lockers, showers, and
onsite ca/eteria shall be incited in the design o£ the commer~l
land uses.
The project proponent shall determine with n~e City and the electrical
purveyor if it is feasible to pre-wix~ houses for electrical Chaxg~ br k"V
cars and/or oplic fibers Eor home offices. If feasible, insl~ll EV charges
and/or optic-fibers per the electrical purveyor's direction prior to
Certiticaxe of Occupancy.
4. Install EV charges or elearicsl fuel s~tions/namral gas for community
wide use at ~ commercial and 15ublic location(s) such as ps~k and ride
lots, Mettolink Stalion, and commercial centers.
5. The develops' shall contnct with ~t mitigation monito~ z~ assure
complino,~ and implementation with the mitigation monitoring
program.
82-26-98 18:84 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9897814277 P.82
NOISE
SIgnificant Effe~ No. 8
Noise levds from grading and other construction activities for the proposed
project may nnge up to 91 dl~ az the dosest residences immediately to the
east of the northern part of the project site between Highland Avenue and
Base Line Road for very limited times when construction octurn neax them.
~inding Na 8
Ch..~oes ofake~__tions have been requLr~d in, or incorporated into the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant elects on the environment.
Fa4rts sin $u~ of finding No. 8
The potential impacts pe. xtaining to noise levels from grading and other
comaion activities on nearby re~dtmcts have been eliminated or reduced to
a level of less-than-significant through implementation of the mitigation
m{:~sul~$ and project design descl'il:R:d w/thin the Find. EIR. The mitigation
measures ax~ as follows:
1. During all project site excavation and grading on-site, the project
contxac~ots shall equip all comtruction equipment, famed or mobile, with
properly openring and maintained mufikrs consisumt with
2. The Ixoject nnntractor shaft place all stationary construction equipment
so that emitted notse is directed any fxom sensitiw teceptors to the east
of the site.
3. The construction coraxac~or skall locate equipment staging in geas that
will create the greatest distance between construaioncelated noise
sources and noise sensirivt receptors to the east of the site during all
project construction.
4. During all project site construction, the consauction contractor shall
limit all coninfusion-related activities that would result in high noise
levels to between the horus of 6:30 ~.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday, unless such cogn activities do not result in noise levels
esmeeding 45 dgA at residences to the east of the site. No ennsmsetion
Shg{| be allowed on Sundays and public holida?s.
5igt~_c_.arff E~ea Na 9
" InCreases in noise levels could result ~m proje~-~t~ tc on ~c~
~d¢ !~ng to me ~j~ ~te, ~m~ ~n ~e ~ n~e ~nm~on
$ared ~ ~$. P~ted l~g-t~ %'~ ~p ~ ~
~d k 1~ ~ s~t. No ~t tc nor ~ ~ ~ite
semitic u~ ~ ~dp~fl. H~r, p~p~ ~te mi~ ~
82-2S-98 e9:45 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=98978i4277 P,.83
would potcntm/ty be exposed to u'ai~c boise leve/s acceding me 60 ~ ~
. .s~ ~omm~d~ for t~ ~.
H~ No, 9
~ ~te or avid ~e si~ ~ ~ ~e ~ent.
F~ t~ Su~ of Ft~t~ No. 9
~e ~ ~ P~g w ~mg ~i~ mi~ ~ to n~
~duc~ w a 1~ of l~-~mt ~u~ ~plem~ of ~e
~fi~on m$$ ~ pwje~ desi~ d~d ~ ~e F~M E~ ~e
1. Ne sm~ s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~d to ~e C~ ~r m~ ~d
a~ p~ w ~ map a~ f~ ~id~ u~5 pw~ ~n
· e f~ong m:
~ ~ fe~ of ~ ~ne Rad
· ~i ~0 f~t of F~ Bo~ cents;
, ~rhln337~of~y~B0~~e~$d
A~ue ~ B~e ~e ~;
, ~438~of~C~B0~te~B~e
~ nd ~h S~t; md
· ~ ~44 fe~ Of ~d A~ ~ter~e.
comb~on M~ ~e pw~ ~, ~o~ b~ng o~m~n,
. . · ' big h~ u~e, do~l~-~ ~do~, a~or me~
~afion sh~l ~ pr~ded.
p[_rRLIC SERVICE5
Schools
Stgnfzf:l,c_..ant Effect No. 10
As a result of the overccowaing in the ~h~srooms of the Etivanda and
Chaffey School Disuicts, both districts have urged and continue to urge
the City not to approve developmemt applications unless adequate school
G~lir~ ~ available to serqe the development project. Future
development will generate more students for the already impacted
school districts. School mitigation plans would be enacted between the
ESD/CJUHSD and the project developer providing for a per dwelling unit
fee rate for the residential portion of the project site.
14
82-26-98 18:05 LSA ASSOCIATES INC iD=9097814277 P.O5
finding No. 10
" Changes of alte_r-ations hav~ b~n requi.r~i in, o.r incorporated into the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effect~ on the
environment.
Facts tn $uptn;~t of Ftndlng No. 10
The proposed project's hnpact on schools has been ,,l~minated or
nduced to a level of less*th~n-signfilant through implemenra~on of r. he
mitigation me;Lqn'es and projec~ design described within the Final EIR.
The mitigation measures are as £ollc~'s:
1. A school m~H~ntion plan shall be enacted between the ESD and ~he
developer to provide for a per dweiling uni~ fee rate for the residential
portion of the projea site. The fees will offset ~he additional demand
placed on school disuic~ fadlities by the residential portion of the project
2. The developer sh~" join Chaffey School Disu-ic~ Mefio-Roos Community
FaciLities Disu'ia No.2 (CFD No. 2), in order to provide an ah. ernarlv¢
method to finance the mitigation of school impacts of development.
The developer shill be required to erecurt an agreement wida ESD and
CJUFISD to provide adequate m/tigation. Such an agreement shall be
executed prior to Planning Comr~ion approval for any residential
proieet wifi~n the General Plan Amendment ami. Actual implemennmoa
of the agreement by the p.ayment of fees, dedication of sites or other
mitigation will take place as buLlcling permits a~ obtained.
4. In the event ~ the developer declines to execute a miUgation
~ent, the City ~h~ll r~quire full mitigation as a condition of
approv;d. Full mitigation shall be accomplished by means of a
requirement to form a MelIo-Pd2OS CommunR3r Fnt'/l~ies disLriC~ for
school f~t~lltie~. In order w rexiuce the burden on the future
homeowne:s, it is possible to structure the communiv), facilities distria
such tha~ some of the special ~x2~s would be prepaid b~ the developer.
Parks and Recreation
SignOrcant ~ffect No. 11
The r~jaential portion of the proposed project would mcrea.~ ~he
c~,nd for active recreation facilities causing a significant impa~ to park
· ' Ft~dtn~ No. 11
Cha~gcs of altcx~flo:xs have bc~x r~lu~'cd
proicc~ which mitigate or avoid ~hc
c~vin~mcnt.
e2-26-98 69:45 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=ge97814277 P.e4
$igntj~/_ff4t Fffect No. 12
The rcsidtm~izl and comm~ ~ p~ ~d ~ ~
d~d for aai~ ~ ~ti~ ~g a sight ~p~ m
~ ~e ~ ~e C~'.
C~ of ~ h~ ~ ~ m, or ~co~t~ ~to ~e
p~je~ ~ ~fi~te ~ a~M the si~t e~ on ~e
~ Su~ q F~t~ No. ~
The pot~z~ ~p~ ~ ~c pro~ed p~j~ on ~ ~ve ~
~p~ ~ffie ~fi~ m~ ~d p~j~ ~ d~
~ed ~ 20 ~ 25 f~t m p~de a mul~-u~ ~ ~m ~d
A~nue Souffi to ~tc at ffi= Ct~s ~t s~ ~p~ Sp~
~lopm~t p~ ~ su~ed ~r ~ ~d app~ for ~y
82-26-98 89:46 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9897814277 P.G5
specific design shall tie in with the C.,i~'s Day Creek Boulevard Master
Plan design. The trail shall be designed to connect to platrood and
existLn~g trail systems in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan and shall
cormcc~ the residential axeas north and south of Base IA~e to the regional
commea~ial areas adjacent to laterstate 15.
Pd/ce
Stgn6'~cant effect No. 13
The proposed project will result in a potentially significant impact as an
increase in demand for police services. An additional five police
personnel would be required for the proposed residential and
commerc_!nl development.
Findstag ATO. 13
Chn,,geS of alte:~ions have been required in, or incorporated into the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the
environment.
Fa__"~ ira Support of Finding No. 13
The potential impacts of the proposed project cta police have beam
eliminated or reduced to a level of less-than-significant through
implementation of the mitigation m~¢ures and project design described
within the Final EIIL The mitigation measttre is as follows:
1. Ks stated in the General Requirements and Approvals for the Police
Department for the City, a signed comeat and waiver form to join and/or
fore the Law Enforcement Comm-nity F_~lirie5 District $halt be filed
with City Engincesmg prior to final map approval or the issuance of
buLIding permits, whichever occurs fifft for any projects within the
project area between Highland Avenue and 1-15. Formation costs shall
be borne by the DeveAoper.
Fire
Sigraflcawt effect No. Z4
Impam of the proposed project on fire service for the City of Rancho
Cucamonga a~e poam,iony significant. Base~l on the sumdard rcspomse
time threshold of tlve minutes, and the pi'~cct's location E.l~r~te to
Stations 5, 4, and 5, the site ~s anticipated to fall within the five-minute
response mc criteria.
Finding No. 14
Changes of alterati~r~s have been required in, or incorporated into the
project whlc~p m~t~gatc or avoid the ,ignificant et~ects on the
e2-26-98 89:45 LSA ASSOCIATE5 INC ID-9e97814277 P.S5
F~_,~'~ in Support a] Pinding Atb. 14 l
p~de ~ proteaCh s~ t0 ~e s~e.
2. ~e CiW ~ ~m~e d~ter ~opm~ to pm~de ~ mo~
The d~op~ sh~ ~ automat~ ~ spfi~ ~t~ ~
No. 15 ~d ~o Cu~mo~ ~ pmte~on D~tfict O~ No.
22.
AESTP~I ~ C$
Sign#kant Effect No. 15
The pmpo6ed project would rephce an 84 . 1 54c_~ undeveloped, ol:~n
space corridor with residential and commercial uses. and woUld
signi~c~mfly alter ex~.~xg and future view corridors.
F/r~r~ No. 25
Changes of alterations bate been ~luired i~, or ~ncorporat~cl imo
pFo~eet ~hich mitigate or a~oid the sig~cant e_2ffec~ on the
env~ment.
Facts in Support of Finding No. 25
The pote'ntial visual impa~ts of the proposed proie~ have been
t'limir~red fir ~duced tO a lc~l of less-than-signiBcam Through
imptemenmnon of the mitigsticxx measures and project design described
within the Finsl EIR. The mi~gnfion measures arc as follows:
1. New buildings within 100 feet of future Day Cre~.k Boulev~d shall be
z~smcted to 55 feet in height to protect the view corndot of the
,, mountains for motorists traveling north. The City p!o-niag Deparuaent
shaaJ ex'lstlt~ th~ this condition is applied prior to approval of
proposed development plans.
2. Noise walls along future D~y Creek Boulevard shall be no more than
eight fee~ rail to l~:fid a sense of ~visual endosux~" for this Scenic
Corridor, and should be se~ back an adequate distance to arrow
landscaping on the road side of the sound wall. This requirement ~h~ll
be attached as a eonditio~ of approval by the City Planning Department
92-26-98 e9:47 LSA ASSOCIATES INC iD=9e97SI4277 P,e7
prior to approval of any deveJopment bordering future Day Creek
Boulevard.
3. The City p!~nning Department shall amend me Community Design
Criteria Pan II of the Victoria Commumty Plan at the time of filing
tentative map or minor subdivision plat far its "recommended edge
conditions" for future Day Creek Boulevard to show it simihr landscape
and setback t~atment on both the east and west sides of Day Creek
Boule~Led. While it row of palm trees iS now r~commended for the
side Of Day Cree. k BOul~ this proposed landscaping shall bc
e. ntu~ced by short and tall drought-tolenm shrubs adjacent to sound
walls to reduce the visual impacts of such walls.
4. Landscape requirements shsll be established for the far southern end of
the project site to sc~-en new d~-elopment from the ~iew of motorists
along 1-15 looking north. However, this landscaping should also allow
views norall towards the motw~in~. using the view ~or provided by
the future Day Creek Boulevard. The City planning Department shall
address such landscaping as a condition of approval for any dc-~lopment
in the area of I-I 5.
New light and gla~c would ~ ~ ~ ~e ~di~on of ~d~ ~
co~al ~_bli~hm~ ~ ~ ~ p~o~y pm~ ~ a U~
~r. ~e m~ s~mt g ~d be ~n~ed by wmm~
~ ~ ~e ~ ~d of ~e pmjea si~, ~1~ ~ ~n ~
outd~r pgg ~t may ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~at ~ ~ ~e ~
roa~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ g~d ~d Fg~
~, ~ ~ ~ m~or ~ to ~e ~t of ~c pmj~ ~te su~ ~
~ao~ ~p, Ch~& S~, ~d D~ C~k Boul~d
pmj~ ~i~ m~g or ~oid ~e s~t ~ on the
in Sup~ Of ?~g N~ I6
The D~i~n ~ pr~e~ for ~mm~ ~i~hm~ s~ ~
~ ~ to ~ ~ ~ ~t~s ~
e2-26-98 89:47 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=9897814277 P.88
S/Sn0e/cant Eff~ N~x 17
~e ~j~ could ~ct ~po~ of ~e CiW's
~e ~ Co~ P~-
Ch~ ~ Mte~om ha~ ~ ~ ~ or ~co~o~ted ~ ~e
p~je~ ~ieh ~ate or avoM
~ent.
F~ in Su~ q~t~ NO. 17
Ci~'s ~ne~ P~ Commu~ D~ Hem~ ~d ~pe
~d ~ ~du~d to a l~l of l~i~t ~u~
~ ~e F~ ~R. The ~u~on m~
1. Pr~ sh~ll k m~e to a~t for pmte~on of ~w~h~
p~t p~e~e p~ sh~
include ~e foxing: bu~g
~le h~ ~ 1o~ h~ ~ ~e Mt~; d~t~g
of bufl~; rod, l~p~g ~ ~plment me ~hed. ~e
~$u~ sh~ ~ ad~
~en~fi~s for ~c D~i~ ~ p~ at ~e me of
~o~ ~ of ~pr~ for ~y pmj~ ~ ~e pm~d
pmjm ~or.
2. To ~ue ~t~ ~
~ H~, ~mmen~ ~fi~on m~ ~d ~r 4.6.1
3. ~~D~te~H~eVi~o~ C~mu~P~
~ pro~ ~ p~ ~
men~t, som~ ~mmm s~ ~ md~ to ~uce ~u~
~ ~ mat~ ~ p~d ~ ~e ~om ~ P~. For
~a~ to s~ n~ d~opm~t ~ ~- ~rhl~ ~e site ~d
~ja~nt to major ~t-w~ comdo~, ~e Ci~ s~ d~i~ m for
l~, ~ ~t ~d ~t to ~ ~ B phn~ i 1~
" ~g ~tion to mnlq~n a
CULTURAL RESOURCES
$igntft~ar~ Effect No. 17
B2-26-gB e9:48 LSA ASSOCIATES INC ID=91i97814277 P.Ie}
DRAFT
REPORT
INTRODUCTION
T~e following Statement of Ovgrridi~ Considerations in connection with the
G~e~_,'qd ~ Amcadmca~s 96-0'3b & 97-01 and Viaotia Comn~,,,~iW Ylan
Ameadmcn~ 96-01 & 97~}1/F~tison Company EIR. and rP..!ated disc~
actions (collccdw~ r, ferx~ to as the 'Project") is hereby ~a,~:d by the Rancho
Ct,,'-,~onga CRy Council CCouncil") pu~uant to the requirements of I~
California Envitonmeatal Quality Act, l~blic Resources Code ~_~r~o__n 21000 et
pe. hn,~ or o_rhPt befleliu O~ra pt~CCt agait~g i13 unav~ envi~mCs~~1
~sk~ when dc~.,a~ttng ~vhcthc= to approve the project If the bencfi~ o/the
projec'~ ou~Pigh the unavoidable adv~c e~, th~se effects may be
cO~side/~d accep~J~e (CEQA Gt ,ida~lifleS SeCliOtl 150C)~[a]). CEQ~ requires the
a~ency to pm~de wrigten Dnd_~,~ (F,~,~t A) suppo~,,S the specffic reg, soas for
reasons mus~ bc based on substaatial evidence i~ the FEIR oar elsewhere in ~e
~aml,dStrative record (C~QA Guidclines ~-~on 1509.~[b]). Tbo~c rc~ons arc
provided in this SUttealc~xt of Overriding Considerations.
The Council finds th~ th~ economic, social or other benefits of the project
Otlrwe~h all of the P~ojec~is si~callC 9rid urtavojdablc impm discussed in the
Sta~erncat of CEQA Findings and Facts in Suppo~ o~ Findings and any other
Council has balanced the behests of the Project against i~ unavoidable impacts
and has indicated i~s ~!n-Sncss m -~__~-pt d~ose adverse impacts, The Counc~
finds that each of ~e following behests of the ~, indepeadem of the crdacr
Ixrtefi~, would vatrant epptoval of the l~oject notwithstand~,~S the mum-d~hle
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I .
1. All f~te mitigation has bec~ proposed to reduce or avoid
" ~,nffimat i~pac~ ideatitled in ~he vgl~, and no addit/oRal F~ible
to a level of insig-ificancc.
2. Tbc adoption of the General Plaa Amcn_a_,,,em, 96-O5b & 97-01 and
Viaoria CommunlW Plan Amendmenu 96-01 & 97-O1/Edison Company
2~24F.98C~xFm.:.~u~..INDtNC.,~TA.I.F..~.~D)
e2-26-gB 89:48 LSA ASSOCIATES ]NC ID=98978X4277 P.I1
ate necessary w provide for she o[rdedy growth and development of the
further devP. Jopment in a manner consisten~ wiffi the policies d the City
of Rancho Cucamonip Gentrid. Plan and the desixes af the community,
and (~P, sur~ provision of itlh~tn~tnre impn3vem~lB that are
to provide fur adequa~ ~on, ~e~, of utOities, control of
5. TheGeneralplanAmendmenm96-05b&974)landVictodaCom'~umtY
l~lan Azntmdmet~ 96-01 & 97-01/Edison Company axe necessary for the
City to adecp_!~"'ly control a~i reg,~hre orderly development and help
ensu~ that new dew. lopment is consistent wiffi the goals and po_!i~es of
· e City of hncho Cucamcmga ~ Phn.
4. The C-~al Plan Amendments 96-(Bb & 97-01 ~ntl Vi~oria COmmBaity
Plan Amendments 96-0l & 97-01/~dison Cornpaw/p_,ovides a c/rculat/on
sys_,,~ which incorpora~ blcF, le, ped~r~ and =utomo~iv~ consider-
ations resulting in s bahnced wanspOrtafion system within the project
comme.,'cial r~ional areas within the community.
5. The Gen~ pLmAmencknems 96~3b & 97~1 and Victoria Communit~
Plan Amendments 96-01 & 97-01~dison Company pw?ides f~r health,
safety, and ~16el I}~t"Otl~l~ 1~%0p~..~ Sj.~ of public buildin~/Fsdlifies,
and I~ incorpor~inE federal, sm~, and local z~da~ions per~i,dn~
seismic sdety design and constrnai~n.
de~elopmen~ d the subjec~ propen?, ~e ~'p:~l~ imposes f~asible mifiEa-
~on measm'es ths~ will reduce daose imps~s m ~¢ exnmc fes~tfie in
both the shorz and long4erm.
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAlVIONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 25, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-03B -
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A request to amend the General Plan 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; and the consideration by the City of alternative land use designation of
Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site between
the Railroad Tracks and Base Line Road - APN: 227-091-41,227-393-01 and 02,
and 227-351-65.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENT 96-01 - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A request to amend
the Community Plan to change the Development District 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; the consideration by the City of
alternative land use designation of Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) for the project site between the Railroad Tracks and Base Line Road; and the
consideration to modify the ultimate width of the parkway at the east side of future
Day Creek Boulevard from 7 to 25 feet - APN: 227-091-41,227-393-01 and 02, and
227-351-65.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 -
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A request to amend the General Plan Land
Use designation from Utility Corridor (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 M5; and the consideration by the
City of alternative land use designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for the project site
between Base Line Road and Church Street - APN: 229-021-56 and 227-201-33.
ITEMS B-E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 AND VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
March 25, 1998
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENT 97-01 o SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON - A request to amend
the Development District from Utility COrridor (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; the consideration by the City
of alternative land use designation of Low! Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwel!ing units per acre) for the project site
between Base Line Road and Church Street; and the consideration to modify the
ultimate width of the parkway at the east side of future Day Creek Boulevard from
7 to 25 feet - APN: 229-021-56 and 227-201-33.
RELATED TO THE ABOVE ITEMS IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR) ,
ABSTRACT/BACKGROURD: Last April, Southern California Edison (SCE) submitted applications
to change the land use designation for their surplus utility corridor. The utility corridor is located
aJong 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. An Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed land use changes. Staff prepared a separate
report for the EIR, which will be reviewed by the COmmission at the same hearing. The
Commission will consider both the EIR and the land use changes and will make recommendations
to the City Council in that order.
PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Project Site and its Characteristics: The project site is linear in shape, approximately 330 feet
wide by 10,756 feet long, contains multiple parcels, and is 84.15 acres in size. It is located
approximately 1.200 feet east of Day Creek Channel and extends from the I-15 freeway north
to Highland Avenue. The linear site is undeveloped and was previously set aside for utility
corridor use. The project site is relatively fiat and vegetation consists of abandoned vineyards
and native plants. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Utility
Corridor and is zoned Utility Corridor/Open Space within the Victoria Community Plan.
B. Surroundinq Site and its Land Use: Surrounding the~ project site is mainly undeveloped land.
North ,of the site will be the future Route 30 freeWay where construction will begin soon.
West of the site is the future Day Creek Boulevard and undeveloped land. It is zoned
commercial and residential within the Victoria Community Plan. East of the site is
undeveloped except for the section between Highland Avenue and the abandoned Southern
Pacific Rail line which is developed with single family homes. The remainder portion is
zoned for commercial and multi-family development. South of the site is undeveloped and
zoned for industrial. Exhibits "B" and "C" show the existing land uses for the project site and
the surrounding areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 AND VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
March 25, 1998
Page 3
ANALYSIS:
A. General: SCE, proposes to change the land use from Utility Corridor to the same land uses
as those to the east of the project site. The following sections of the report focus on the
appropriateness of the proposed land uses and the consideration of alternative land uses.
B. General Plan Amendment 96-03B and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 98-01: These
land use amendments apply to the section of the project site between Highland Avenue and
Base Line Road. This section of the project site is divided into three areas, as shown in
Exhibit "B" for discussion and evaluation of land uses.
1. Areas 1 and 2 - Proposed Land Uses between Hiqhland Avenue and Abandoned Rail
Line: The applicant requested land use designations of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling
units per acre) and Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for Areas 1
and 2 respectively. East of the site is developed with single family residences and the
existing land uses are Low and Low-Medium Residential. West of the site between
Highland Avenue and Silverberry Street is designated Village Commercial, and between
Silverberry Street and the abandoned rail line is designated Medium and Low-Medium
Residential. The density ranges are 4-8 and 8-14 dwelling units per acre respectively.
Future residen:Lial development based on the proposed land uses for the project site
would not be impacted by the future commercial and multi-family development located
at the west side because future Day Creek Boulevard creates a buffer separation
between the uses. Further, the widened parkway (25 feet) at the east side of the street
based on the mitigation cited in the EIR will provide additional buffer from the major
arterial. The concern with single family development abutting the future fleeway toward
the north side is the impacts of noise and aesthetics. Because there will be a frontage
road with parkway landscaping for this stretch of Highland Avenue and the Victoria
Community Plan requires a Minor Community Entry design at the corners of Day Creek
Boulevard and Highland Avenue, the future residential area will be adequately buffered
from the future freeway. Exhibit "E" shows the Entry Hierarchy Plan within the planned
community. Staff believes that the proposed land uses of Low and Low-Medium
Residential would be appropriate because they provide density compatibility to the
existing residences to the east and the mitigation cited in the EIR adequately addresses
the buffering of residential area.
2. Area 3 - Proposed Land Use between Abandoned Rail Line and Base Line Road: The
applicant requested land use designation of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) for Area 3 as shown in Exhibit "B." East of the site is an existing mini-
storage and RV storage facility and east of the facility is undeveloped land but planned
for a future condominium complex. The existing land use designation is also Medium
Residential with the density range of 8-14 dwelling units per acre. West of the site is
undeveloped and the existing land use designations are Medium Residential and
Community Facility. The Community Facility designation at the southwest corner of
Day Creek Boulevard and the abandoned rail line is to allow for a future fire station, if
needed. Staff believes that a Medium Residential land use designation would be
appropriate as it will provide the same density as the existing land use.
3. Consideration of Alternative Land Use for Area 3: An alternative land use proposed to
be considered for Area 3 is Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). The
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 AND VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
March 25, 1998
Page 4
'City's Redevelopment Agency (RDA) owns the property at the northwest corner of Base
Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, which was set aside for future housing
development and for a future fire station. AcCording to RDA staff, the intention of the
Agency Board is to sell the property for single family housing development. A request
to change the land use from, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) to Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) will occur at the time of disposal of the
property to facilitate the residential development. Recently, the City received a single
family development proposal from Lewis Hom'es/ADR Development for this section of
the project site under General Plan Amendment 96-03B, that is between Highland
Avenue and Base Line Road. Again, the concern of having single family development
along two major arterials is the impacts of noise and visual aesthetics. Under the
Victoria Community Plan, the intersection of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard
is a Major Residential Entry as shown in Exhibit "E." The entry design would require
widened landscaping and edge treatment at the four corners. Also the EIR contains
mitigation to address the visual impact by increasing the width of the parkway at the
east side of Day Creek Boulevard from 7 to 25 feet. The major entry design together
with the widened parkway would adequately buffer the proposed single family
residential development from the two major artsrials. Therefore, the alternative Low-
Medium land u~e designation could be appropriate for this section of the project site.
Further, a residential land use designation, whether Low, Low-Medium, or Medium
Residential, would not preclude the oppC~rtunity to have non-residential uses such as
the expansion of the existing mini-storage and RV vehicle storage facility, churches,
private schools, child care centers, park and open space, etc. (See Exhibit "H")
4. Staff Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff concluded the appropriate land
use for Area 1 between Highland Avenue and Silverberry Street is Low Residential,
Area 2 between Silverberry Street and the abandoned rail line is Low-Medium
Residential, and Area 3 between the abandoned rail line and Base Line Road is
Low-Medium Residential.
C. General Plan Amendment 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendment 97-01: These
land use amendments apply to the section of the project site between Base Line Road south
to 1-15 Freeway. This section of the project site is divided into four areas, as shown in
Exhibit "C" for discussion and evaluation of land uses.
1. Area 1 - Proposed Land Uses between Base Line Road and Church Street: The
applicant requested a land use designation of High Residential (24-30 dwelling unit per
acre) for Area 1. The proposed High Residential for Area 1 with a density range of
24-30 dwelling units per acre will not provide the proper density transition to a Medium
Residential with a density of 8-14 dwelling units per acre within Area 2. Staff believes
that the best land use designation for Area 1 is to have a Medium Residential
designation, which will provide land use compatibility.
2. Areas 2 and 3 - Proposed Land Uses between Base Line Road and Church Street: The
applicant requested land use designation Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre) for Area 2 and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) for Area
3. These proposed land uses correspond to th~ existing land uses east of the project
site. Staff believes that the proposed Medium and Medium-High Residential for Areas
2 and 3 are appropriate because they will be compatible to the easterly land uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 AND VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
March 25, 1998
Page 5
3. Area 4 - Prooosed Land Use between Church Street and I-15 Freeway: The applicant
requested a land use designation of Regional Related Office/Commercial consistent
with the land use west and south of the site. Staff believes that the proposed land use
is appropriate because it will be compatible with the adjacent commercial use.
4. Consideration of Alternative Land Uses for Areas I throuqh 3: Alternative land uses of
Low Residential and Low-Medium Residential were considered for Areas 1, 2, and 3.
The two lower density alternatives may create land use conflicts between single family
development and multi-family development such as town houses and condominiums.
The existing land use south of the Church Street is predominantly commercial with the
City's Regional Center immediately south of Church Street. The lower density land use
in Area 3 would create a major land use conflict.
5. Staff Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff concluded the appropriate land
uses are Medium Residential for Areas 1 and 2, Medium High Residential for Area 3
and Regional Related Office/Commercial for Area 4.
6. Related Information on the Adjacent Victoria Lakes (Arbors): Staff recently received
land use amend. ment applications for major changes to the Victoria Lakes Village within
the Victoria Community Plan. The proposed project area encompasses the Victoria
Lakes project, areas west of Day Creek Boulevard, areas west of Etiwanda Avenue,
and includes the section of utility corridor under General Plan Amendment 97-01 and
Victoria Community Plan Amendment 97-01. The proposed changes involve reducing
the residential density within the Victoria Lakes project and changing some of the
commercially designated land at the west side of Day Creek Boulevard to multifamily
residential land uses. An EIR is required and staff has selected a consultant to prepare
the EIR. The purpose of this information is to give the Commission a "heads up" on the
future land use consideration. Essentially, the Commission would have another
opportunity to review comprehensively the land use pattern for this block of land area.
D. Proposed Modification to the Ultimate Width of the Parkway for the East Side of Day Creek
Boulevard: The existing width of Day Creek Boulevard is 120 feet with a 19-foot parkway at
the west side and a 7-foot parkway at the east side, as shown in Exhibit "F." The narrower
parkway on the east side was in anticipation of a future utility corridor with high tower
transmission lines. With the proposed land use changes for residential and commercial
development, an impact identified by the EIR is the loss of aesthetic and view shed. The
mitigations listed in the EIR are: increase the parkway width to 25 feet to preserve the view
shed and require the applicant who flies the first development or tentative map to submit
specific designs for the parkway, the sound wall along Day Creek Boulevard, the plant
palette; and other related graphics within the Victoria Community Plan. To follow through with
this mitigation, staff has modified pages 155 and 157 of the Victoria Community Plan to add
design criteria that requires the developer, at the time of filing a tentative map or
development, to pay for a consultant hired by the City to design the special parkway, the
landscape edge treatment, the sound wall, the plant palette, etc., for Planning Commission
review and approval prior to approval of a tentative map or development. Exhibits "F" and
"G" show the proposed modification.
E. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for
the land use amendments applications. The environmental analysis is contained in the
PLANNING C03BOMM~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-03B & 97-01 AND VCPA 96-01 & 97-01
March 25, 1998
Page 6
separate EIR staff report, which will be considered at the same hearing. The proposed
alternative land uses discussed in this report have~been evaluated in the EIR. The mitigation
with the monitoring program address the proposed and the alternative land uses.
FAC~'S FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the
Planning Commission can make the following facts forJfindings:
A. The project site is suitable for the uses allowed in the proposed Land Use and Development
District designations.
B. The proposed amendments will have significant adverse impacts on the environment as
described in the EIR, but the potential positive impacts of other environmental aspects will
provide sufficient benefits, as listed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
to the proposed City Council Resolution to certify;the EIR.
C. The proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan and the Victoria
Community Plan because they promote the goats and objectives for single family residential
development and commercial development.
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-foot public hearing signs, and
notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site and within
approximately 1,00 feet east of the project site between Highland Avenue and the abandoned rail
line.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval of General
Plan Amendments 96-03B and 97-01 and Victoria Community Plan Amendments 96-01 and 97-01
to the City Council through the adoption of the attached resolutions.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map
Exhibit "B" GPA 96-03B & VCPA 96-01 Existing and Proposed Land Use
Exhibit "C" GPA 97-01 & VCPA 97-01 Existing and Proposed Land Use
Exhibit "D" Proposed & Alternative Land Uses
Exhibit "E" - Victoria Community Plani Entry Hierarchy Plan
Exhibit "F" Day Creek Boulevard Street Section
Exhibit "G" - Victoria Community Plan' Plant Palette Plan
Exhibit "H" Uses Conditionally Permitted in Low-Medium and Medium Zones
Planning Commission Resolutions Recommending Approval of GPA 96-03B and
97-01 and VCPA 96-01 and 97-01
Land Use Amendment for
Edison Utility Corridor
(GPA 96-03B & GPA 97-01)
(VPCA'96:O1 -&-VPCA 97-01 )
Exhibit A N
~-~'~ W~~i~ E
0.57 0 0.57 1.14 Miles
S
L ND
A USE AMENDMENT FOF~I
EDISON UTILITY CORRIDOR
..... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM ONGA -- GPA 96-03B & VCPA 96-01
Highland Ave
Area L
S.B.C.F.C. ;try St' LM : '
Area 2'
' ~ '~ .:.... -
..:...'-..' . .
M '~' ~:
RESIDENTIAL PUIIIdC & QUASI-pUBLIC
RR Rcglur~l Related OPa~c/Cummcr=in[ 1000 ' O lCX3O
Exhibit B
L/~I~ID USE_AMENDMENT FOE
EDISON UTILITY CORRIDOR
CITY RANCHO CUCAMONGA
GPA 97-01 & VCPA 97-01
EDISON UTILITY CORRIDOR
CITY OF RANCHO!CUCAMONGA
GPA 96-03B & VCPA 96-01
Highland ~ve
L
VC
L
Area I L
S.B,C,F,C. 'ry St
I
I
Area 2' >
; '.. ..
· L
· ~ .'. -:-Z.' .- :.
I UC L L
2 UC LM LM
3 UC M ~ · LM
STAFFS RECOMMENDATION
Exhibit D-1 :
EDISON UTILITY CORRIDOR
CITY RANCHO CUCAMONGA
GPA 97-01 & VCPA 97-01
Area· I [~ [ --
·
·
i~, Area· ' -: >
·
cj ~j Area 3
~1 " '~'
.. I ".~c'.
' Ar:~ j . . , = .
- < . ' I~ ' .:- .=' '~ '; ..
~ ' . · I~ '~' "; ':' ""''
1 UC H M LM L
m 3 UC MH MH LM L
2 UC M M LM L
4 UC RR : RR RR RR
Exhibit
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION
/
/
, . f% ~ '
/
5P~
ENTRY HIERARCHY PLAN
-., i~D~::~'~"'~
2¢~ Major Residential En~ [ ' ' '
Z~ Minor C~mun~ Ent~
3~e~ l~u~;~ ~,~rme~c ~,Z~ ,~r~ ~u~ o~rr3 f~ro ..
s1~'.gTl be nec~,tr3 dttff,~ do'dqmen~. ' r '
/
Exhibit E ~,~,~ --,-_
B, INTERSECTION WITH ARTERIAL ROADS
A/,~ ~,~ ~ ~'~-~ ~,~ ~m,,..~
Exhibit E-1
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD
The developer, at the time of filing a tentative map or development, is
required to pay for a consultant to be hired by the City to design the
special Day Creek Boulevard parkway. the landscape edge treatment,
the residential and community entries design, the sound wall, the plant Exhibit
palette, etc., for Planning Commission review and approval prior to
approval of a tentative map or development.
%I%% ~FThe[developer, at the time of filing a tentative
- fo .........~% ~ ] consultant to be hired by the City to design
g g o ~ ·,the landscape edge treatment, the residential
.. ~ ~ ~ and community entries design, the sound
~ o~o I ] ~ } ~wdl, the plant palette, etc., for Planning
~ .......................................................~ .1g. .. Cmnnfission review and approval prior to
' o o approval of a tentative map or development.
/ ~ ~ .................................
~ ~ 'lI ~di~
t ~.~~ i.,.,q 6 ~ , .
PLANT PALETTE pLAN
I : ~ ~ ~ Vfc~ Loo
.~.~.-.~ .........
--.
.............. ,,.....{ ................. ,,....,.,.. .....
~.~'~?L,~~ ~:~ ~ ~ .~,,...~,_.~.~- ~, ,:, ~ _, e~o~ ~t ~t~.
Vtc~A c~o~,r,/ ~ Exhibit
Ordinance No. 287
Page 2
1. That the size and donfiguration of' the proposed
RV storage lot is adequate for the p~anned
development.
2. That the lonation ;of the proposed facility is
adjacent to a primary circulation route to permit
reasonable access: to the facility without
resulting in negative impacts for surrounding
properties. I
3. That the propose~ RV storage lot is compatible
with existing suErounding uses, or with those
further uses permitted in the land use
designations.
4. That the propos'ed RV storage lot would not be
detrimental to and result in significant negative
impacts for surrounding properties, property
owners, and/or residents.
5. That the total number of RV space~ provided,
whether as spaces on an individual lot basis or
within a RV storage lot, does ,not exceed more
than 25% of the total number of dwelling units in'
the Lo~, Lo~-Medium, and Medium land use
categories.
with an RV storage lot developed in conformante to the
above referenced req x emeots.
ur
I. A mini-warehouse shall be defined as a structure,
or group of structures, providing enclosed and
locked compartments for the dead storage of
customer goods and wares where i'ndividual lockers
or stalls are rented out to different tenants f or
storage. As with tbe primary RV storage lot, a
mini-warehouse facility shall be designed
primarily cater to'the needs of the residents of
the Victoria Planned Community. ~,.
2. RV storage lots wb'en developed with accessory
mini-warehouse sb~ll conform to the following
development standards:
a. The minimum: area of a lot for a
mini-warehouse facility shall be 2 acres.
b. The maxin~m building height shall be 2
stories or 25 feet, except that an~ building
or portion of a building within 25 feet of
the front or street side setback shall have
a maximum height of one-story or 10 feet.
c. Only one point of ingress and egress shall
be allowed, unless another is required by
the Fire Department. All driveways shall be
radius type, and shall have an unobstructed
length of 40 feet from the curb to prevent
vehicles and trailers from interfering with
traffic flow in the street.
ORDINANCE NO. 287
AN OPaINANCE OF THE CItY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY
AMENDMENT 85-O1, TO MODIFY THE COMMUNITY PLAN TEXT TO ALLOW
A RECREATION~ VEHICLE STOR~E LOT WITH MINI-W~aEHOUSE IN
THE MEDIUM-HIGH (MH) OR HIGH (H) LAND USE CATBSORY, AND TO
ALLOW ITS OPERATION ON A COMMERCIAL, FOR RENT BASIS, OPEN
TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, does
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby finds and determines the
following:
A. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, following a public hearing held in the time
and manner prescribed by law, recommends rhe Comnmnity
Plan text amendment hereinafter described, and this
City Council has held a public hearing in the time and
manner prescribed by law and duly heard and considered
said recommendation.
B. That this Community Plan text amendment is consistent
with the General Plan of the City of Rancbo Cucamonga.
C. That this Community P1 an text amendment is consistent
with the original intent of the Victoria Planned
Community.
D. This Community P1 an text amendment will have no
significant environmental impact as provided in the
Negative Declaration filed herein.
SECTION 2: The Com~,nity Plan text of the Victori~ Planned Com~nity
B.Condition ~6 of "General" of Resolution No. 81-37 to
read as follows:
"Recreational Vehicle storage" shall not be permitted
in the Medium-High or High land use category unless
within a designated RV storage lot, and shall be
restricted by CC & R's subject to ~be revie~ and
~ L approval of the City Attorney. Recreational vehicle storage lots may be permitted within the boundaries of
the Victoria Planned Commnity subject to the granting
of a Conditional use Permit by the rlannin~
Commission. Prior to approving a CUP for a RV storage
lot, the P1 arming Commission shall make the f ol lowing
finding.: 17
REBiDENT'~L DEV-Z.,Op.~ZNT ST.~_NDARDS (continued)
3. Lcv-~di'~ DenSity Residential ('%M" Land Use Plan designaticn):
Land designated as Low-.u~diu~m Density Residential is innended for
residential deve!o?ment that has a range 6f four to eight dwellings per
adjusted gross acre. The following regulazions are applicable to theae
areas:
a. Uses Permitted: detached or attached residential dwellings not
exceeding eight d~.e!lings per adjusted ~rosa acre, including, but not
limited to:
(1) Single family attached dwellings.
(2) Single family attached dwellings, including, but not limited to,
duplexes and triplexes.
(_~) Cluster Housing.
(/') "Zero ! '~e/_~hq~es. -
b. Accessory Uses Per=itted: any of the f611owing uses and structures.
( ) Garages and carports, in compliance with the site deve!o~ment
standards provided herein.
(2) Fences, walls, and trellises.
(3) S~'~-~ing pools with a minim'__.-- 5 foot high fence enclosing pool.
(4) Accessory uses and structures necessary or custc=arily
incidentia! to a principal use ' as permitted by the Rancho
Cucazonga Zoning Ordinance.
c. Site Deve!Dp=ent Standards:
<i) Single Fazily C~nter Plot .~e!!ingS-
(a) Building site area: 5,000 sqi ft. minim'---'~, 5,500 sq. ft.
average.
(b) Building site width: 50 feet minim~_. It is intended that
site widths will vary according to lot size.
(c) Building site coverage: varies according to lot size, see
typical lot plans, pp. 21~ - 223.
(d)Building setbacP-s: varies ' according to lot size. see
?'pica! lot plans and table.
~ ~ Building height: 35 fee~ maximu-~--
B. CO._~2~/NiT'f '.VXCIL/TIES.. "'
The Co=m~n~t-F Facilities sac=ion of =he Viczcria ~=~!:7 Pl~
is established :o pr~ide for co~uni~ SUDDOr~ u~es and those
p %%ed'uses by ~h Si=e'P!a ~ ~ Price lproc ur
1. Uses Pe~iz=ed - ~e fot!~ing uses sh~l be pe~izred
wi%hin Residenti~ and Co~erci~ Land Use areas in
Victoria:
a. ~all F~y ~y ~re in =he h~e. pr~idinE cars for
s~ (6) or less persons.
b. Public Park and Pla7Ero~d.
c. ~ner~ ~en Space uses.
} d. Accesso~ s=~c=ures and uses necessa~ or cusz~ari!y
inciden=~ =o =he a~ove as pr~ided for in ~he hncho
CucaonSa ~e!o~en= Code.
, ,.
/ 2. ~nditio~ll7 ~i:ted Uses ~e foll~inE uses sh~l be
{ petitted withh Residen:i~ or C~erci~ Land Use areas in
Violotis subject to =he ~udi=io~l Use Pe~i% process: :
~ a. ~urch.
/
t b. ~ub, lodge. fra%eni~ and sorori~. r
~ d. Public facili~.
/
~ e. Large F~y ~y ~re in zhe h~e. pr~iding care for
$ 7-12 persons.
~ f. ~d ~re cenzers.
/ Fire and police station.
7 h. ~=door recreation.
~. i. Schools, pri~ate and parochi~.
This section contains specific criteria for the roads within
i~ ri . _. r . d on --
h nt re n r d the location of the various
'kinds of roads. The Standard Road Cross-Sections follow and
they contain information such as the width of the righz-of-
"wayl uavement width, n~ber of travel lanes, and the
!ocaticn of walks, bicic!e lanes and medians. Each road has
been examined individually and the design cf the cress-
saczion reflects not only ~he need for efficient autcmcbilt
circulation, buZ also the gca!s cf the p!~n with r=s3e~t
_. _ .
land use ~nd urban design. All road seczions are schematic
zhe roads are buiiz.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-03B, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE
LAND USE MAP FROM UTILITY CORRIDOR TO LOW RESIDENTIAL, AND
LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL FOR 35.65 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON
THE EAST 81DE OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND
AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDING8 IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 227-091-41,227-393-01 AND 02, AND 227-351-65.
A. Recitals.
1. Southern California Edison has filed an application for General Plan Amendment
No. 96-03B as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On March 25, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 25, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a.. The application applies to approximately 35.65 acres of land, approximately 330 feet
wide and 4,706 feet long, located between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road and is presently
undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Utility Corridor.
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated future freeway and will
be under construction soon. The property to the west is designated Village Commercial, Medium
Residential, and Low-Medium Residential and is undeveloped. The property to the east is
designated Low Residential, Low-Medium Residential, and Medium Residential, and is developed
with single family homes and a mini-storage and RV vehicle storage facility. The property to the
south is designated Community Facility, High Residential, Utility Corridor (to be changed under
General Plan Amendment 97-01) and is partially undeveloped and partially developed with a winen/.
c. 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
with related development.
d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element.
e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the amendment and is being
recommended to the City Council for certification with the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations concurrently with this appfication.~:2 _~ ¢=~((b
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 96-03B - SCE
March 25, 1998
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing I~nd uses in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment with the mitigation identified in the EIR would not
have significantly greater impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties than would be
expected under the existing land use designation~ and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will not
result in any internal inconsistencies with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set fgrth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 96-03B, amending the
land use element of the General Plan including the map frbm Utility Corridor to Low Residential and
Low-Medium Residential as shown in Exhibit "A."
5. 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:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF IL-LNCHO CUCAMONGA
GPA 96-03B & VCPA 96-01
Hiqhland
VC li L
L
Area~ L
' S.B.C.F.C. 'ry St
LM
Area 2
t' LM ' L
LM
__ abandoned
LM
5 Area 3
: VC
B ',~e LiRe Hd
M
RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC & QUASI-PUBLIC
L Low Densi~, (2*4 DU/AC) E Elementan.'
L~.| Low Medium Densily (4-8 DU/AC) JRH Junior High School
MH High Density (24-30 DU/AC) p park~
SBCFC San Bernardlno County Flood Conlrol
COM.',IERCIA L UC Utility Corridor
CC Community Commercial N
NC Neighborhood Commercial
OP Office Park
RRC Regional Related Office/Commercial 0
VC Village Commercial
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01, REQUESTING TO
CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FROM UTILITY
CORRIDOR/OPEN SPACE TO LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
(2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 35.65 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD BETWEEN
HIGHLAND AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND REQUESTING TO
MODIFY THE ULTIMATE WIDTH OF THE PARKWAY AT THE EAST SIDE
OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD FROM 7 TO 25 FEET, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-41,227-393-01 AND 02,
AND 227-351-65.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Victoria Community Plan
Amendment No. 96-01, 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 the March 25, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 25, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 35.65 acres of land, approximately 330 feet
wide and 4,706 feet long, located between Highland Avenue and Base Line Road and is presently
undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Utility Corridor.
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated future freeway and will
be under construction soon. The property to the west is designated Village Commercial, Medium
Residential,' and Low-Medium Residential and is undeveloped. The property to the east is
designated Low Residential, Low-Medium Residential, and Medium Residential, and is developed
with single family homes and a mini-storage and RV vehicle storage facility. The property to the
south is designated Community Facility, High Residential, Utility Corridor (to be changed under
General Plan Amendment 97-01) and is partially undeveloped and partially developed with a winery.
c. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
propedies. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the amendment and is being
recommended to the City Council for certification with the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations concurrently with this application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VCPA 96-01 - SCE
March 25, 1998 I
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-'
referenced public hearing and upon the specific finding½ of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That 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 with related development; and
b. That this amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
and
c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
d. That the subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development
Code; and
e. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and, conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 96-01.
amending the land use map from Utility Corridor to Low Residential and Low-Medium Residential
as shown in Exhibit "A," and amending the ultimate width of the parkway on the east side of Day
Creek Boulevard from 7 to 25 feet, as shown in Exhibits ,"B" and "C."
5. 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 Buffer, Secretary
I, Brad Bulljr, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the Cit9 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:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAjMONGA
GPA 96-03B & VCPA 96-01
I
,Hiqhland Ave
L
VC
L
Area1 L
' S.B.C.F.C.
;
Area
LM
'l
LM
R[SIDliNTIAL PUBLIC & QUASI-PUBLIC
CC Com,munity Commercial N
OP Office Park V% E
RRC Regional Related Office/Commercial 0 1~ ~ F~
Exhibit A
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD CITYOI:I(ANCIIOCUCAMONGA
(;I'A 96-03B & VCPA 96-01
GPA 97-01 & VCPA 97-01
[" ""'1
'~""""'~ .....~"""""' :"-"' ~'"" ',M ~ a.,~,,,,,'
. ,z. ~ ~
1 ) The developer, at the time of filing a tentalive map or development, is
required Io pay for a consultanl Io be hired by the City to design lhe
special Day Creek Boulevard parkway, the landscape edge treatment,
Ihe residenlial and community entries design, the sound wall, the plant
palette, etc., for Planning Commission review and approval prior to
approval of a tentalive map or development.
Exhibit
~";~'?""~ ~""~"~'~ '~;'='~ ~'~"~ ~ - nThc dcvclopcr at the timc of filing a tcntativ.
/ ~ ~.1 (,:.~ ~ ~ ~]1 :.o ......... % "consultanttobchircdbythcCitytodcsign
p~...~.~>__c~. ~. 2 ~ gJ S ~a ~ ...:>~ ~ aI , ~ , , c~t, thcr "1 tial
~ .......................................................~J ...................................L,,2 ............................~ ......................[ ~ g~ ~...,~:~.~,~.22,2~ ~,,.:~,.]...; approval o[ a tcntativc map or dcvclopmcnt.
/ ~ ~ ~ ....................................
PLANT PALETTE PLAN
........ ~ ...........................~,,,
...................... ¢ ......................,.,,,..,,...
....
4
Exhibit C
ii
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA: CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01, REQUESTING TO AMEND THE
LAND USE MAP FROM UTILITY CORRIDOR TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL.
MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL, AND REGIONAL RELATED
OFFICE/COMMERCIAL FOR 48.5 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD BETWEEN BASE LINE ROAD
AND THE 1-15 FREEWAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 229-021-56 AND 227-201-33.
A. Recitals.
1. Southern California Edison has filed an application for General Plan Amendment
No. 97-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On March 25, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 25, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 48.5 acres of land, approximately 330 feet
wide and 6,050 feet long, located between Base Line Road and the 1-15 Freeway, and is presently
undeveloped. Said property is currently designated as Utility Corridor.
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Utility Corridor (to be
changed to Low-Medium Residential) and Medium Residential and is partially undeveloped and
partially developed with a mini-storage and RV vehicle storage facility. The proper~y to the east is
designated Medium Residential, Medium-High Residential, and Regional Related Office/Commercial
and is undeveloped. The properties to the south and west are designated Regional Related
Office/commercial and are undeveloped.
c. 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
with related development.
d. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element.
e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the amendment and is being
recommended to the City Council for certification with the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations concurrently with this application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 97-01 - SCE
March 25, 1998
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific finding~ of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment with the mitigation identified in the EIR would not
have significantly greater impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties than would be
expected under the existing land use designation; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will not
result in any internal inconsistencies with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment No. 97-01, amending the
land use element of the General Plan including the map from Utility Corridor to Medium Residential,
Medium-High Residential, and Regional Related Office/Commercial, as shown in Exhibit "A."
5. 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 Buffer, 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:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RA.N. TCHO CUCA~'IONGA
GPA 97-01 & VCPA 97-01
I
LJ' Ba. se Line
: :' ' ' Ar~i '1'
· ,: . .
....... ':" ' ' "
Area 2 ':.' p
-...... <
'
Area 4 ..
RRC
t
.-....,
RR
RR'. '
hill Blvd .'. .~ L Lo~, Densit: (:-4 DU/ACl
'
p par~
Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01. REQUESTING TO
CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FROM UTILITY CORRIDOR TO
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL, AND REGIONAL
RELATED OFFICE/COMMERCIAL FOR 48.5 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF DAY CREEK BOULEVARD BETWEEN BASE LINE
ROAD AND 1-15 FREEWAY, AND REQUESTING TO MODIFY THE
ULTIMATE WIDTH OF THE PARKWAY AT THE EAST SIDE OF DAY
CREEK BOULEVARD FROM 7 TO 25 FEET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-021-56 AND 227-201-33.
A. Recitals.
1. Southern California Edison has filed an application for Victoria Community Plan
Amendment No. 97-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On March 25, 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 focLh in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Ba~ed upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 25.1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 48.5 acres of land, approximately 330 feet
wide and 6,050 feet long, located between Base Line Road and 1-15 Freeway, and is presently '
undeveloped. Said properly is currently designated as Utility Corridor.
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Utility Corridor (to be
changed to Low-Medium Residential) and Medium Residential and is partially undeveloped and
partially developed with a mini-storage and RV vehicle storage facility. The property to the east is
designated Medium Residential, Medium-High Residential, and Regional Related Office/Commercial
is undeveloped. The properties to the south and west are designated Regional Related
Office/commercial and are undeveloped.
c. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the amendment and is being
recommended to the City Council for certification with the adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations concurrently with this application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VCPA 97-01 - SCE
March 25, 1998 ~
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence preseOted to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes aS follows:
a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing ,land uses in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment with th'e mitigation identified in the EIR would not
have significantly greater impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties than would be
expected under the existing land use designation; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will not
result in any internal inconsistencies with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set ;forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 97-01,
amending the land use map from Utility Corridor to Medium Residential Medium-High Residential and
Regional Related Office/Commercial, and as shown in Exhibit "A," and amending the ultimate width
of the parkway at the east side of Day Creek Boulevard from 7 to 25 feet, as shown in Exhibits "B"
and "C."
5. 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:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF tL~NCHO CUCAMONGA
GPA 97-01 & VCPA 97-01
Base Line Rdl
-~:., .:: :- :. -.; ~", '-
Area 2
· '-, 'LM
-.
Area 3
Area 4 .. -. ·
·R. RC '
~J P,.R
~ · ,.!: ).~ .-
~' . RR ;:':': RESIDENTIAL
C~
' LM Low Medium Densit> (4-8 DU/AC)
~ ~. ~IH High Density {:4-30 DU/AC)
NC Neighborhood Commercial
~..' OP Office Park
E P ParU
S
Exhibit A
DAY CREEK BOULEVARD CTrYc,.'~^NCI~OCuC^Mc}NC}^
(H'A 96-(J31:1 & VCI'A 96-01
GPA 97-01 & VCPA 97-O1
The developer, at the time of filing a lenlalive map or development, is
required to pay for a consullant 1o be hired by the Cily ~o design the
special Day Creek Boulevard parkway, Ihe landscape edge treatment.
lhe rosidenlial and communily enlries design, the ~ound wall, ~he plant
palelie, etc., for Planning Commission review and approval prior to
approval of a tentative map or development.
Exhibit B
,~[t ~ the special Day Creek Boulevard parkway,
:. ,. and community entries design, the sonnd
' ~ the plant palette, etc., for Planning
~0 o ,oo~o o Commission review and approval prior to
· ~ o __ .approval of a tentative map or development.
s ~ ~ g [ .................................$fl~- ...................
Y ' '11 ~d~ ~
LEGEND i W~,~ Loop
Exhibit C
II
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ,i~~
STAFF RI ,PORT
DATE: March 25, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Thomas Grahn, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15783 - G&D
CONSTRUCTION - A residential subdivision and design review of 27 single family
homes on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units
per acre) located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street -
APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Associated with this request is Tree Removal Permit
98-06.
VARIANCE 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION - A request to modify the following
development standards: 1) reduce the minimum area requirement for the use of
Optional Development Standards, 2) reduce the rear yard setback along the north
and west project boundary, 3) reduce the building-to-curb setback, 4) reduce the
building-to-building separation, 5) reduce the average and minimum landscape
setback along Carnelian Street, 6) reduce the parking streetscape setback, and 7)
increase the wall height along the north and west project boundary for a residential
subdivision and design review of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in the
Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre) located on the west side
of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street o APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Related Files:
Tract 14263 and Tentative Tract 15783.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Proiect Density: 8.05 dwelling units per acre.
B Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North Single family residential, Cucamonga County Water District water tank; Medium
Residential District (4-8 dwelling units per acre)
South - Vacant; Flood Control District
East Single family residential; Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
West Cucamonga Creek Channel; Flood Control District
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Medium Residential
North Medium Residential
South - Flood Control
East Low Residential
West Flood Control
ITEMS F & G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15783 & VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 2
D. Site Characteristics: The project site is currently Vacant, although there were previously
several single family residences on the northern portion of the project. All of the structures
were previously demolished. The project site is 'relatively fiat, sloping approximately 6
percent from north to south.
TENTATIVE TRACT ANALYSIS:
A. Backqround: On October 11, 1989, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract
14263, for the development of 32 condominium units on the project site. There were two
additional applications associatedwith that project (General Plan Amendment 89-02A and
Development District Amendment 87-12) that modified the previous land use designation and
land use district on the southern portion of the site from Flood Control to Medium Residential.
B. General: The applicant is proposing a one lot Tentative Tract Map and the development of
27 two-story single family homes. There are three floor plans, with two elevations each,
ranging in size from 1,535 to 1,683 square feet (see Exhibit "G"). Architectural styles are
contemporary in nature; do not follow a specific style (i.e., craftsman, ranch, bungalow, etc.);
and utilize a variety of materials including stucco finish, brick accents, out Iookers, wood and
stucco corbels, wood window and door surrounds, wood potshelves, and exposed rafter tails.
The applicant submitted a proposed construction Phasing Plan (see Exhibit "D"). The
Phasing Plan includes proposes three separate construction phases broken down between
the following: 5 units in Phase 1 (which includes the model units), the recreation area and 10
units in Phase 2, and the remaining 12 units in Phase 3. Staff supports the proposed phasing
of project construction, but would suggest, as proposed conditions reflect, the construction
of all off-site improvements and on-site recreational amenities with the development of the
first phase.
C. Desiqn Re~,iew Committee: The project was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on
four separate occasions (see Exhibit 'T'). On November 19, 1996, the Committee (Macias,
McNiel, Fong) reviewed the project and recommended that the applicant work with staff to
revise the project to address the following design issues and return to the Committee for
review:
1. The project Site Plan and architecture should be revised to reflect a project of superior
quality and design consistent with the Optional Development Standards.
2. The Site Plan appears too tight and should be reduced in density to open up space
around units and provide for more useable common open space.
3. Provide an additional floor plan with different massing, proportion, and scale. This will
reduce the monotony of the::street scape when viewing the project from Carnelian
Street.
4. Revise the design of the common open space areas to provide areas suitable for
recreation.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15783 & VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 3
The project was revised and on May 6, 1997, the Committee (Bethel, Coleman) reviewed the
project and recommended that the applicant work with staff to revise the project to address
the following design issues and return to the Committee for review:
1. The Committee supported the revised Site Plan and the current grouping of on-site
amenities.
2. The Committee did not support the proposed architectural style nor the proposed
colors. The following comments were presented:
a. The architectural style appears dated and the proposed colors appear cartoon
like. The Committee was not opposed to a craftsman architectural style, but does
not support the proposed architecture.
b. The street scheme is dominated by garage doors, massive dark roofs, and a
heavy wood feel to the front elevation.
c. The massive dark roof elements need to be lightened up with a different roof tile
color.
d. The applicant should explore the use of alternative roof massing to provide
additional variety. The Committee felt that there was too much of a box design
tO the elevations and suggested a gable roof facing the street to soften the street
scheme.
e. The use of roll-up garage doors may be considered. If utilized, they should
provide variation in the garage door pattern.
f. 'The Committee expressed concern with the minimal back yards provided for most
units.
g. Provide more landscaping to soften the project design. Landscaping should meet
City standards.
h. Explore lighter accent colors.
3. Revise the internal driveway to delete the extra paving beyond the 50-foot radius of the
extreme northwest corner of the project site. The affected driveways, sidewalks, etc.,
should be extended accordingly,
4. Adequate on-site lighting should be provided and designed in a manner to minimize
vandalism.
5. Relocate the proposed trail connection to Cucamonga Creek from between units 9 and
10 to the recreation area.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15783 & VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 4
The project was revised and on May 20, 1997, the Committee (Bethel, Macias, Coleman)
concluded that the project may proceed to the Planning Commission for their consideration,
but did not recommend approval due to concerns Over the proposed architectural design.
The following comments were identified:
1. The Committee did not support the proposed ~architectural style and therefore did not
recommend approval ofthe project to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Macias
favored the project's ardhitectural style, as it utilized a design style other than Spanish
or Mediterranean. Commissioner Bethel did not favor the project architecture for the
reasons noted in the May 6, 1997, Design Review Committee Action.
2. The Committee supported the revised Site Plan design and the current grouping of on-
site amenities, the revised trail access location, and proposed lighting.
3. The Committee did not support the proposed 10-foot rear yard setback along the west
property line and identified that they could support shifting the project to the east by
5 feet, further reducing the landscape setback along Carnelian Street, to provide an
increase in the usable rear yard area. Lots 6 through 13 would be affected by the site
plan adjustment.
4. The Committee reviewed the revised color scheme and supported the proposed color
modification.
The project was revised and on September 2, 1997, the Committee (Bethel, Coleman) stated
that they appreciated the effort the applicant went through to revise the elevations and
concluded that the applicant may proceed to the Planning Commission for their consideration
subject to the following:
1. belete the proposed elevation 1B.
D. Technical Review and Gradinq Committee: The Technical Review and Grading Committees
reviewed the project and recommended approval subject to the conditions contained in the
attached Resolution.
E. Riqht-Of-WaV Improvements: The existing trapezoidal channel on the west side of Carnelian
Street will eventually be replaced with a storm drain, which the City is currently designing,
though it now remains necessary for storm drain purposes. Proposed conditions of approval
required the installation of street improvements north of the project entry, opposite Vivero
Street, with a reconfiguration of the inlet facilities to accommodate the drive approach and
traffic signal, and the payment of an, in-lieu fee for future frontage improvements south of the
project entry.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In completing the Initial Study, staff determined that there
would not be a significant adverse impact upon the environment as a result of this project.
Issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended (see Exhibit "J").
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
'IT 15783 & VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 5
A. Geologic Problems: The design of the project site and construction of the proposed grading
and structures shall follow the recommendations of the soils engineer and shall comply with
the current building standards and codes at the time of construction. The recommendations
of the Final Soils Engineering Investigation Report shall be incorporated into the project
design with pertinent information noted on the final Grading Plan which shall be reviewed and
approved by the Building Official, prior to issuance of grading permits.
B. Transportation/Circulation: A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared to evaluate roadway
conditions. The report determined that intersection improvements are warranted based on
existing conditions and not as a result of the proposed project. To minimize the potential for
traffic conflicts, the project was designed to align its driveway with Vivero Street to the east,
and will be conditioned to install a traffic signal at the Carnelian Street and Vivero Street
intersection. To further reduce the potential for impact, the Carnelian Street frontage
improvements, including the traffic signal, will be installed prior to any on-site construction.
C. Biological Resources (Tree Removal Permit 98-06): The project proposes the removal of
most of the 43 trees located within project boundaries (see Exhibit "C"). The vast majority
of the trees proposed for removal are Eucalyptus sideroxlyn rosea (Red Ironbark) which were
planted as part of the Carnelian Street beautification project, and are in conflict with street
right-of-way improvements along Carnelian Street and internal circulation improvements. The
trees proposed for removal include: 34 Eucalyptus, 2 Mexican Fan Palm, 2 Lemon, 3 Maple,
1 Ash, and 1 Walnut (The lemon and walnut trees are exempt from the Tree Preservation
Ordinance). Extensive arborist studies were performed to determine the health and condition
of the existing trees, and their suitability for preservation in-place or through transplanting.
Because of their location within project boundaries, no trees are proposed to be preserved
in-place. As mitigation, the 2 Palm trees shall be preserved through relocation within the
project boundaries and the other removed trees shall be replaced with the largest nursery
grown stock available, as determined by the City Planner.
D. Noise: An Acoustical Analysis was prepared to determine the noise exposure and necessary
mitigation measures for development of the project site. The report implies that project noise
impacts are a result of traffic on Carnelian Street, and not on-site improvements. The study
concludes that the construction of a 6-foot high sound wall on the property line adjacent to
Carnelian Street will lower exterior noise levels so that the first floor of units facing Carnelian,
and other exterior areas, will be exposed to a noise level of 65 dBA CNEL, which complies
with City standards.
A Final Acoustical Analysis shall be prepared to determine the noise source and level. The
design of the project shall follow the recommendations and mitigation measures of the
acoustical engineer, and shall comply with the current building standards and codes at the
time of construction. The final noise study shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner, prior to issuance of grading permits. Based upon the conclusions of the final
acoustical analysis, building construction methods, and the location of the recreation area,
the final report may eliminate the need for a 6-foot high sound wall.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15783 & VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 6
FINDINGS: Before approving the application, the Planning Commission shall make certain findings
that the following circumstances do apply:
A. That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan.
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.
C. That the purposed use is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
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.
VARIANCE ANALYSIS:
A.. General: The purpose of a Variance is to provide flexibility from the strict application of
development standards when special circumstances pertaining to the property such as size,
shape, topography, location, or unusual characteristics would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same district.
B. Variance Request: A request to modify the following development standards was submitted:
1. Reduce the minimum area requirement for the use of Optional Development Standards.
The use of Optional Development Standards is required when developing single family
homes in the Medium Residential District. The proposed project site is only 3.35 acres
in area which does not meet the 5-acre minimum area requirement of the Development
Code (Table 17.08.040-C). In considering the use of the Optional Development
Standards the Development Code states that "[the optional development] standards are
intended to provide high standards for the development of projects of superior quafity
and compatibility." The Commission should consider whether the project features a
superior architectura des gn, site planning, its relationship of private and common open
space areas, and in its relationship to adjacent.uses.
2. Reduce the building-to-curb setback.
Th~ Development Code requires a 15-foot building-to-curb separation (Table 17.08.040-
E). The project proposes to reduce the building-to-curb separation to a minimum of 5
feet where two units are adjacent to the guest parking spaces (see Units 20 & 21).
3. Reduce the rear yard setback along the north and west project boundary.
The Development Code requires a 20-foot dwelling unit setback at an interior site
boundary (Table 17.08.040-C). The dwelling unit setback was reduced to 15 feet along
the west and north project boundaries (see rear setback at units 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13,
and 14). ~ ~- j~ ~
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15783 & VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 7
4. Reduce the building-to-building separation.
The Development Code requires a 30-foot building-to-building separation for front-to-
front conditions (Table 17.08.040-E(1 )(a)). The project proposes to reduce the building-
to-building separation to a minimum of 15 feet (see separation between Units 13 & 14).
The Development Code requires a 15-foot building-to-building separation for side-to-
side, front-to-side, side-to-rear, and rear-to-rear conditions (Table 17.08.040-E(2)). The
project proposes to reduce the building-to-building separation to a minimum of 5 feet
(see separation between Units 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 4 and 5, 6 and 7, 9 and 10, 12 and 13,
14 and 15, 17 and 18, 20 and 21, and 26 and 27).
5, Reduce the parking streetscape setback.
Carnelian Street is identified as a Secondary Boulevard by Figure 111-3 of the General
Plan, and as such, requires a 15-foot streetscape parking setback. Along the east
project boundary, the project proposes to reduce the location of guest parking spaces
to a minimum of 13 feet behind the ultimate right-of-way for Carnelian Street.
6. Reduce the average and minimum landscape setback along Carnelian Street.
Carnelian Street is identified as a Secondary Boulevard by Figure 111-3 of the General
Plan, and as such, requires an 18-foot average, 15-foot minimum, landscape and wall
setback. Along the Carnelian Street frontage, the landscape and wall setback was
reduced to a minimum of 12 feet for that portion 100 feet north of the project driveway,
and to a minimum of 12 feet for the guest parking and drive aisle turn-around south of
the project driveway. This setback reduction results in the internal drive aisle being
located 5¼ feet behind the curb-adjacent sidewalk north of the project entryway and the
turn-around flush with a retaining wall which is adjacent to the future Carnelian Street
sidewalk.
7. Increase the wall height along the north and west project boundary.
Wall heights are limited to a maximum height of 6 feet. For combination retaining and
garden walls, maximum height is measured from the midpoint of the retaining wall to
the top of the garden wall. The perimeter fencing along the north and west project
boundary includes a 6-foot high retaining wall with a 6 foot high masonry wall on top.
Based upon existing policy for measuring wall height, the proposed perimeter fence is
9 feet high, although the overall height from finish grade to the top of the wall is a
maximum of 12 feet.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In considering any request for a Variance, there are a series of findings
under State Law that must be substantiated by facts in order to approve the request. Generally,
these findings center around the uniqueness or special circumstances of a particular property or
the use of the designation. Staff believes that there are special or unique circumstances with the
development of this site that are different from other sites under similar zoning designations.
Therefore, the following facts are provided to support the required findings:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15783 & VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 8
A. The project site is of an unusual triangular shape and narrows significantly at its southern
end. Project design constraints resulting from the; alignment of the project entryway with
Vivero Street further impact building placement and the configuration of on-site amenities.
B. The project deceleration lane and future realignment of Carnelian Street will shift the street
ultimate rights-of-way westerly further impacting building placement and the configuration of
on-site amenities. The location of these rights-of-way improvements resulted in a reduction
in the parking streetscape setback and the minimum and average landscape dimensions.
Further, these rights-of-way improvements will result in improved public safety.
C. A reduction of the interior boundary setback along the north and west project boundary will
not impact adjacent properties nor will it constitute a grant of special privilege. Residential
properties to the west of the project site are separated by the Cucamonga Creek Channel,
properties to the east are separated by Carnelian Street, and the property to the northwest
contains an existing water tank operated by the Cucamonga County Water District. A
reduction in these standards will allow the development of a unique product in a multi-family
residential designation, utilizing an awkward and difficult to develop parcel.
D. A reduction of the interior building,to-building and building-to-curb setbacks will not impact
adjacent properties nor will it constitute a grant of special privilege. Residential properties to
the west of the project site are separated by the Cucamonga Creek Channel, properties to
the east are separated by Carnelian Street, and the property to the northwest contains an
existing water tank operated by the Cucamonga County Water District. A reduction in these
standards will allow the development of a unique product in a multi-family residential
designation, utilizing an awkward and difficult to develop parcel.
E. Allowing an increase in the perimeter wall height along the west and north project boundaries
will not constitute a grant of special privilege. The wall height was increased during the
project review process due to on-site improvements directed at raising building pads above
potential flood levels and to eliminate significant cross, 10t drainage conditions. The wall along
the north property line will not be visible to properties from the north as existing topography
slopes from north to south. The wall along the west property line will be constructed adjacent
to an existing storm drain channel and will be situated over 200 feet from residences on the
west side of the channel.
FINDINGS: As previously mentioned, the Planning Commission must make all of the following
findings in order to approve a Variance request:
A. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the
Development Code.
B. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15783 & VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25. 1998
Page 9
C. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
D.That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties or improvements in the vicinity.
E. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
CORRESPONDENCE: These items were advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
an expanded 1,000 foot radius of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract
15783 and Variance 96-02 through adoption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with
Conditions and the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
City Planner
BB:TG:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Map
Exhibit "B" Detailed Site Plan
Exhibit "C" Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "D" Phasing Plan
Exhibit "E" Grading Plan
Exhibit "F' Landscape Plan
Exhibit "G" Elevations/Floor Plans
Exhibit "H" Street Scene ,
Exhibit "1" Design Review Committee Comments
Exhibit "j" Initial Study Part II
Tentative Tract Resolution of Approval with Conditions
· Design Review Resolution of Approval with Conditions
Variance Resolution of Approval with Conditions
CITY OF R~"~:~AMONGA Title: bc,~'~b~, ~, ~elfi~ ~
PLAN~IIN"~EDI~IS~ION Exhibit: I~: A" Date:
~ ~j .....
i l
Project:
~ Title:
cm, o~ ~~.o~
PLAN~8;~OI~ON Exhibit:
, . CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN '\'
': .....~ " TENTATI'2E TRACT" ~b. t5783' '\ \ ' i
Project'
CITY OF R~8~AMONGA Title: [
PLAN~6~DWI~ON Exhibit:
' 2ND FLOOR
"'i ~ :* "~"
'FRONT IB
~--
FRONT 1A~
~ ~-_,,-:,; Project: 1~-/?~if~v
CITY OF R~[']~_C~;~AMONGA Title: 5~a,'c-7 ~¢ V
PLA~I~YI~ON Exhibit: ~t(Q ,"
~ ~C~ Date:
'.,~ .............. ~'I 2ND FLOOR
~,~'~,L~, Project:
CITY OF R~'I,~[""~(::E~""8"'~AMONGA Title: ~v~Jj
PLA~I~I~ON Exhibit: Date:
f--...--,~
~,-',,~ Project:
CITY OF R~F~,~'6%AMONGA Title: ~'~X/~'~ov~
PLA~I~j~I~ON Exhibit: "(~" 'Date:
/
' '.' 2ND FLOOR
~ :,/':...:...j..'...,.,' ~~--:....~,,.~,:
' .: .~ ~- ..~ ; .
a~2s~:~,/,,, :PLAN 3
-~,.
L~:,~%,,\ Project:
CITY OF R~,NC~I~,~{,1CAMONGA Title: P-,/~tD~h~e Y ~;[od~' F~d/1 Q
PLA~,~hI~'~j~IS~ON Exhibit;
~ZGH,T 3A
/----~,.
~ '7~:'%~,~; TP :t~e: c '
CITY OF
PLAr'~tq~,'OI'2IS~ON Exhibiti
' -;;,,;,,t;'~ - -'~
Lo~.~i,~,,~...,,' ..-.,-,,,,,....,,, ....,.,- .~,,,.,,..,.. =,,,,,,,., .;,,,-.=,
:Z .,~ ENLARGED SITE PLAN at UNIT ENTRIES
8: - · 76' .~, r,.,':, ~-~;;,¢: ~.
DESIGN P,.EVIEW COMMt~NTS
6:00 p.m. Tom Grahn . November 19, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVEi TRACT NO. 15783 G & D
CONSTRUCTION - A residential subdivision of 29 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in the
Medium Residential District (g-I4 dwelling twits per acres), located on the west tide of Carnelian Street
at Vivero Street - APN: 20%022-54 and 64.
Design'Parameters:
To the north of the project site are single family homes and a CCWD water tank, to the east are single
family homes, and to the west and south is the: Cucamonga Creek Channel. The project site is roughly
triangulax in shape f:ronting onto the west side of Carnelian Street. There are a number of trees located
throughout the project site and a row of Eucalyptus trees adjacent to Carnelian Street, the vast majority
of which are proposed for removal with development of the project. There are no known cultural
resources located on the project site.
Design Constaints:
The small site area and triangular shape present unique design challenges. Also, additional dedication
is need to realign Carnelian Street to address traffic safety, concerns. As a result there are multiple
variances needed.
Related Proiects:
In October 1989, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 14263 which proposed the
development of thirty-two con'dominium units on the project site. In January 1993, the Planning
Commission approved a design review modification to the project site to revise the site plan and building
elevations for thirty-two town homes. Both previous approvals utilized duplexes for the project design.
Staff Commen~s:
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. Development Standards - The project is required to utilize the Optional Development Standards
to develop single family detached homes in the Medithm DiStrict; however, the Development Code
identifies a mLrdmum project area of 5 acres for use of these standards. Therefore, the applicant
has submitted a Variance to address Ikis inadequacy.
The Development Code states that "[the optional development] standards are intended to provide
high standar, ds for the development of proJ'ects of superior quality and compatibility." The
Committee should consider whether the project features a superior architectural design, site
pIarming, and its relationship of i~rivate and corrum. on open space areas, and in its relationship to
adjacent uses.
2. Architectural Style - The project proposes the development of twenty-nine units utilizing one
floor plan with five elevations. These elevations utilize a variety of materials, window treatments,
garage door treatments, etc. The Committee should consider whether the massing and proportion
are too repetitive and do not provide 'enough variety when viewed from the adjacent street
frontage. To break'up the repetitive nature of the project architectural sLyle an additional floor plan
could be provided lhat utili~s distinctly different m~ ing, prooortion, and scale.
DRC AGENDA
15783 - O & D CONSTRUCTION
19,1996
Page 2
3. Recreational Arechilies - The project complies with the required amenitie~ for projects of 30 units
or less.
Secondary Issues: Once all of'the major issues have been addressed, and time permittin, g, the Committee
will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide decorative paving at the project entry behind the public right-of-way.
2. Provide herruing vdthin the landscaped area adjacent to Carnelian Street. The betruing should be
undulating, approximately 3 feet in height, and non-tmiform in appearance. Berming must be
designed taking in. to consideration the requirements of the drainage improvements to Carnelian
trees. Since no fence is proposed, a careful combination of landscaping and berming should be
used to a) define the private on-site space to discourage unwanted entries, b) soften the appearance
of nine garages from Carnelian Street, and c) discom"age children from tarruing out onto Carnelian
Street.
3. The project should be designed v, ith a trai[ cormection to the future regional trail located along the
Cucamonga Creek CharmeI. A lockable gate should be provided. It is not clear whether a trail
connection is proposed between Units 9 and I0.
Revise the internal driveway to delete the extra paving beyond the 50-foot radius in the ex~eme
nor&east and northwest comers of the project site. The affected driv.eways, sidewal:G, etc., should :' '
be extended accordingly. - -
5. Delete the connections from Lot 1 and 8 to the pool/spa area. The location and size of these are~
could become a security and maintenance problem.
6. Adequate on-site lighting shall be provided to ensure a safe enviromment while at the same time
not causing areas of intense li'ght or glare. The only lights identified are wall-mounted fixtures
adjacent to unit garage doors. Lighting needs to be expanded to identi~ lighting driveways and
recreation areas. Fixtures and poles shall be designed and placed in a manner consistent and
compatible with the overall site and building ch~,'acter.
7. Provide decorative metal fence, with anted access,. to secure the open space and tot lot area north
of Unit 27.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the project be redesigned and returned for review by the Design Review
CommitTee.
DesiZn Review Committee Comments:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong '
affPlarmer: Tom Grahn
DRC AGENDA
TT 15783 - G & D CONSTRUCTION
November 19, 1996
Page 3
The Committee recorn.rnended that the.appliCant work with slaff to revise the project to address the
following design issues and return to the Design Review Cormmirtee for review.
1. The project Site Plan and architecture should be revised to reflect a project of superior quali~' and
design consistent with the Optional Development Standards.
2. The Site Plan appears too tight and should be reduced in density to open up space around units and
provide for more useable common open space.
3. Provide an additional floor plan with different massing, proportion, and scale. This will reduce
the monotony of.the streetscape when viewing the project from Carnelian Street.
4. Revise the design of the common open space areas to provide areas suitable for recreation.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:10 p.m. Tom Grahn May 6, '1997
· ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15783 G & D
CONSTRUCTION - A residential subdivision of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land in
the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian
Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64.
Background: This project was reviewed at the November 19, 1996, Design Review Committee
'meeting (see attached minutes). At that meeting the Committee recommended the following design
modifications:
1. The Site Plan and architecture should be revised to reflect a project of superior quality and
design consistent with the Optional Development Standards.
2. The Site Plan appears too tight and should be reduced in density to open up space around
units and provide for more useable common open space·
3. Provide an additional floor plan with different masslag, proportion, and scale. This will
reduce the monotony of the streetscape when viewing the project from Carnelian Street.
4. Revise the design of. the common open space areas to provide areas suitable for recreation·
Design Parameters: The project site is roughly triangular in shape fronting onto the west side of
Carnelian Street. To the noah of the project site are single family homes and a Cucamonga County
Water District xvater tank, to the east are single family homes, and to the west and south is the
Cucamonga Creek Channel. There are a number of trees located throughout the project site and a
ro;v of Eucalyptus trees adjacent to Carnelian Street, the vast majority of which are proposed for
removal with development of the project. There are no known cultural resources.
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. Development Standards - The project proposes the development of single family homes
in the Medium Residential District and because of the product type (i.e., single family
homes) is required to utilize the Optional Development Standards. Optional Development
Standards are "intended to provide high standards for the development of projects of
superior quality and compatibility." The Committee must determine if the project Site
Plan and architecture reflect a design of superior quality and compatibility.
2. Project Density - The Site Plan was revised to reduce the number of proposed units from
29 to 27. Based upon the net project acreage of 3.35 acres of land, there are 8.05 units
proposed per acre. This reduction in density opened up the project and increased the area
of private open space around each unit.
3. Architecture - The original project design included one floor plan with two elevations that
provided five elevation alternatives through variation in the placement of garage doors,
front entry doors, second story windows, and roofmassing. The project architecture was
revised to provide one additional elevation with two alternatives that provide different roof
massing and window placement.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15783 - G & D CONSTRUCTION
May 6, 1997
Page 2
4. Recreational Arechilies - The previous Design :Review submittal complied with the
required number of recreational amenities for projects with 30 units or less by providing
a swimming pool, barbeque facility, and large open lawn area at one area of the project
site. The Com.mittee should determine if the recreational amenities provided meet the
intent of the code requirements.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Provide berming within the Iandscaped area adjacent to Carnelian Street. The berming
should be undulating, approximately 3 feet in height, and non-uniform in appearance.
Berming must be designed to take into consideration the requirements of the drainage
improvements to the trees adjacent to Carnelian Street. Since no fencing is proposed, a
careful combination of landscaping and berming should be used adjacent to Carnelian
Street to: a) define private on-site space to discourage unwanted entries; b) soften the
appearance of nine front-on garages, and c) discourage children from running into the
street.
2. Revise the intemai.driveway to delete the extra paving beyond the 50-foot radius in the
extreme north~vest corner of the project site. The affected driveways, sidewalks, etc.,
should be extended accordingly.
3. Adequate on-site lighting shall be provided to ensure a safe environment while at the same
time not causing areas of intense light or glare. No lighting is currently shown; however,
the previous submittal only identified wall mounted fixtures adjacent to garage doors.
Project lighting needs to identify lighted driveways and recreation areas. Fixtures and
poles should be designed and placed in a manner consistent and compatible with the
overall site and building character.
Policy Issues: The foliowing items are a matter of Plarming Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. The project has proposed a trail connection to the future regional trail located along the
Cucamonga Creek Charmel. This access is located! between Lots 9 and 10. A lockable
gate should be provided. The final design of the trail connection is subject to the
recommendation by the Trails Committee.
Staff Recommendation: Staffrecorm'nends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning
Commission for their consideration.
Attachment: DRC Action Comments Dated November 19, 1997
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Tom Grakn
The Committee recommended that the applicant work with staff to revise the project by addressing
the foliowing design issues and return to the Design Review Committee for review.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15783 - G & D CONSTRUCTION
May 6, 1997
Page 3
· 1. The Committee supported the revised Site Plan design and the current grouping of on-site
amenities.
2. The Committee did not support the proposed architectural style nor the proposed colors. The
following comments were presented and should be addressed in any revised submittal:
a. The architectural style appears dated and the proposed colors appear cartoon like. The
Committee is not opposed to a craftsman architectural style, but did not support the
proposed architecture.
b. The street scheme is dominated by garage doors, massive dark roofs, and a heavy wood
feel to the front elevation.
c. The massive dark roof elements need to be lightened up with a different roof tile color.
d. The applicant should explore the use of alternative roof massing to provide additional
variety. The Committee felt there was too much of a box design to the elevations and
suggested a gable roof facing the street to soften the street scheme.
e. The use of roll-up'garage doors may be considered. If utilized, they should provide
variation in the garage door pattern.
f. The Committee expressed concem with the minimal back yards provided for most units.
g. Provide more landscaping to soften the project design. Landscaping should meet City
standards.
h. Explore lighter accent colors.
3. Revise the internal driveway to delete the extra paving beyond the 50-foot radius of the
extreme northwest comer of the project site. The affected driveways, sidewalks, etc., should
be extended accordingly.
4. Adequate on-site lighting should be provided and designed in a manner to minimize
vandalism.
5. Relocate the proposed trail connection to Cucamonga Creek from between units nine and ten
to the recreation area.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:20 p.m. Torn Grahn May 20, I997
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15783 - G & D CONSTRUCTION - A
residential subdivision of 27 single f~,mily homes on 3.35 acres ofland in the Medium Residential District
(8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side bf carnelian Street at vivero Street -
APN: 207-022-54 and 64.
'This project was reviewed at the May 6 1997 Desic, n Review meetino At that meeting the Committee
recommended that the applicant work with staff to revise the project by addressing the following design
issues and return to the Design Review Committee for review.
l. The Committee supported the revised Site Plan design and the current grouping of on-site arechilies.
2. The Committee did not support the proposed architectural style nor the proposed colors. The
foilowing comments were presented and should be addressed in any revised submittal:
a. The architectural style appears dated and the proposed colors appear cartoon like. The
Committee is not opposed to a craftsman architectural style, but did not support the proposed
architecture.
b. The street scheme is dominated by garage doors, massive dark roofs, and a heavy wood feel to
the front elevation. ' '
c. The massive dark roof elements need to be lightened up with a different roof tile color.
d. The applicant should explore the use of alternative roof massing to provide additional variety.
The Committee felt there was too much of a box design to the elevations and suggested a gable
roof facing the street to soften the street scheme.
e. The use of roll-up garage doors may be considered. If utilized, they should provide variation
in the garage door pattern.
f. The Committee expressed concern with the minimal back yards provided for most units.
c, Provide more landscaping to soften the project desion. Landscaping should meet City standards.
h. Explore lighter accent colors.
3. Revise the internal driveway to delete the extra paving beyond the 50-foot radius of the extreme
northwest corner of the project site. The affected driveways, sidewalks, etc., should be extended
accordinoly
4. Adequate on-site lighting should be provided and designed in a manner to minimize vandalism.
5. Relocate the proposed trail connection to Cucamonga Creek from between units nine and ten to the
recreation area.
Commission for their consideration.
DRC COMMENTS
TT 15783 - G & D CONSTRUCTION
May 20, 1997
Page 2
Attachment: DRC Comments dated May 6, 1997, and DRC Action Comments dated November 19, 1996.
Design Revie~v Committee Action:
M~mbers Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macins, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Tom Grahn
The Design Review Committee concluded that the project may proceed to the Planning Commission for their
consideration, but did not recommend approval due to concerns over the proposed architectural design. The
following comments were identified:
1. The Committee did not support the proposed architectural style and therefore did not recommend
approval of the project to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Macias favored the project's
architectural style, as it utilized a design st)de other than Spanish or Mediterranean. Commissioner
Bethel did not favor the project architecture for the reasons noted in the May 6, 1997, Design Review
Committee Action.
2. The Committee supported the revised Site Plan design and the current grouping of on-site amenities,
the revised trail location, and the proposed lighting.
3. The Committee did not support the proposed 10-foot rear yard setbacks along the west property line
and identified that they could support shifting the project to the east by 5 feet, further reducing the
~ landscape setback along Carnelian Street, to provide an increase in the usable rear yard area. Lots 6
through 13 would be effected by site plan adjustment.
4. The Committee reviewed the revised color scheme and supported the proposed color modification.
· DESIGN RSVtE\V COMMENTS . · ' '
8:30 p.m. Tom Grahn September 2, 1997-
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15783 ' '~ ' G&D
CONSTRUCTION- A residential subdivision of 29 single farnil,,' homes on 3.35 acres offend in the
Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acrE) located on the west side of Carnelian Street
at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64.
This project was previously reviewed by the Design Review Committee on May 6 and May 20, I997,
and November 19, 1996. At the last meeting the Committee did2not support the prOposed a~'chitectural
style or the proposed colors, however, it was determined that the aDDIicant could proceed to the Planning
Commission for consideration. The follo;ving comments ;','ere prds'ented by the Committee on May 20.
1997. '
1. The architectural st?'le appears dated and the proposed colors appear cartoon like. The comminee
'.;'as not opposed to a craftsman architectural s~'le, but d d not support the proposed architecture.
2. The street scheme is dominated bv gin-age doors, massive dark roofs, and a heavy wood feel to the
front elevation. ' '
3. The massive dark roof elements need to be lightened up with different roof tile color.
'4. The applicant should expldre the use ofahemative roof messing to provide additional variew. The
Corr'wnittee felt there ;;'as too much of a box design to the elevations and suggested a gable roof
facing the street to soften the street scheme.
5. The use of roll-up garage doors may be considered. if utilized, the>' should provide variation in
the garage door patten.
6. Explore lighter accent colors, ~-
The applicant did not ;;'ant to proceed to the Planning Commission. without a favorable recorrmnendation
from the Design Review Committee, and therefore, submitted for additional review. The following
architectural mod(fications ;;'ere nrovided to th'e front elevations, These modifications should be the
basis of Comminee discussion to dete,,-nine whether or not the elevations are accentable or will require
fu~her modification. ' ·
I. Variation in the roof pitch to decrease the box like design.
2. Variation in the roof line through additiona ~,able roofs
.3. Reduction in the heavy wood fie[ of the elevation.
'4. Providing a brick veneer as an accent material on nil elevations. This material ;;'ill ;;Tan around
the side elevation to a logical termination point. '
5. The modification of awkward, box like unfunctional dormers into a functional element.
6. Revised color and roof tile samples wilt be available for Committee consideration.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Co.,xuminee fo~vard the project to the P!ar,~ning Commission for their consideration.
DRC CO..'v~MENTS :: . · '
15783 - GaD CONSTRUCTION -"
itembet 2, i997 . .
An~.ckrnent: DRC Action Comments dated May 20 and Ma.v 6, 1997 and November 19, 1996.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Tom Orahn
The Committee appreciated the effort the applicant went th~-ough to revse the elevations and concluded
that the applicant may proceed to the Harming Commission for their consideration subject to the
iollowina
!. Delete the proposed elevation IB.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLUST FORM
I IITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
1. Project File:
Tentative Tract 15783
Variance 96-02
2. Related Files:
Tentative Tract 14263
3. Description of Project:
A residential development and design review of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of
land.
4. Project Sponsor's' Name and Address:
G& D Construction
2234 East Colorado Boulevard
Pasadena, CA 91107
5. General Plan Designation:
Medium Residential
6. Zoning:
Medium Residential
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
To the north are existing single family homes and a Cucamonga County Water District
water tank, to the east are single family homes, and to the west and south is the
Cucamonga Creek Channel.
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:
Thomas Grahn, AICP
(909) 477-2750
10. Other agencies whose approval is required:
None
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 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.
(v') Land Use and Planning (v') Transportation/Circulation ( ) Public Services
( ) Population and Housing (V') Biological Resources ( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(v') Geological Problems ( ) Energy and Mineral Resources (V') Aesthetics
(v') Water ( ) Hazards ( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Air Quality (v') Noise ( ) Recreation
(V') 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.
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 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 mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
, AICP
Associate Planner
February 26, 1998
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL 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 zoning?
( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
Comments:
a) The project is currently located within the Medium Residential land use designation
of the General Plan and the Medium Residential District, Previous approvals by the
City Council (GPA 89-02A and DDA 87-12) modified the previous land use
designation and district from Flood Control to Medium Residential.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING.; Would the propOsak
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) (V)
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)? ( ) ( )
c) Displace existing housing; especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) (~)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 Page 4
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( ) ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) (t/) ( )
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( )
f) Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (t/) ( ) ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( ) ( )
i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) ( )
Comments:
c) Figure V-4 of the General Plan identifies that the site is within an area subject to
ground failures, such as liquefaction, and as such has the potential to expose
people and property to geotechnical hazards. Based upon this condition, a Soils
Engineering Investigation Report was prepared for the project site (Richard Mills
Associates, Inc., Soils Engineering Investigation, October 10, 1988). The report
evaluates soil conditions at the subject site, to assess their potential impact on the
proposed development, and to provide recommendations to mitigate any potentially
adverse soil conditions. The report concludes that liquefaction is not a
potential hazard at the subject site due to the depth of the water table and the
grain size of the soils (RMA, page 7, 3.07 Liquefaction).
f) The design of the project site and construction of the proposed grading and
structures shall follow the recommendations of the soils engineer and shall comply
with the current building standards and codes at the time of construction. The
recommendations of the Final Soils Engineering Investigation Report shall be
incorporated into the project design with pertinent information noted on the
final Grading Plan which shall be reviewed and approved by the Building
' Official prior to issuance of grading permits.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 Page 5
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rote and amount of surface water r~noff? ( ) ( ) (f)
b) Exposure of people or properly to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) (~) ( )
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ) (~)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) (V)
0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of aa aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (V)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) (V)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) (~)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater othe~ise available for public, water
supplies? ( ) ( ) (V)
Comments:
a) Adoption of the proposed project will increase the amount of paved surface area
which could result in a decrease in absorption rates and an increase in the amount
of surface water runoff. All runoff will be conveyed to existing and proposed
drainage facilities which were designed to handle the subject water flows.
b) The installation of frontage street improvements, including flood protection
measures to be determined by the final drainage study, will alter the cross section
of flood waters in Carnelian Street. The developer will be required to mitigate
any increase in the depth of flow through the installation of adequate catch
basins to offset any changes in the capacity of the existing drainage facility
south of the project ent~.
Additionally, Carnelian Street is in a Flood Zone A. The developer will be
required to install flood protection measures, to the satisfaction of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, allowing the designation to be removed
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 Page 6
8. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal.'
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( ) ( ) ( )
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) ( ) ( )
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) (V) ( ) ( )
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) ( )
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) (~')
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) (t/)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative trans Dortation (e.g., bus turnouts
bicycle racks)? ( )
g) Rail or air traffic ~mpacts? ( )
Comments:
a) , The project will not generate substantial additional vehicular movement. The
proposal is consistent with the General Plan for which the street widths were
evaluated at a build-out condition. The project will be required to install street
frontage improvements in their ultimate configuration, per City Ordinance,
and to pay associated Transportation Development Fees.
b) A Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared for the project site (O'Rourke Engineering,
Traffic Impact Analysis, August, 1989). The traffic report evaluated roadway
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 , Page 7
conditions and determined that intersection improvements are warranted based on
existing conditions and not as a result of the proposed project. To minimize the
potential for traffic conflicts. the project was designed to a!ign their driveway with
Vivero Street to the east, and will be conditioned to install a traffic signal at the
Carnelian Street and Vivero Street intersection. To further reduce the potential
for impact, the Carnelian Street frontage improvements, including the traffic
signal, will be installed prior to any onesite construction.
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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)? ) ( )
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g..
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc..)? ) (v') ( )
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and
vernal pool)? ( ) ( ) (v')
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) ( )
Comments:
a) The project site does not contain Natural Resources as identified on Figure IV-3 of
the General Plan. Additionally, the site does not contain any Costal Sage Scrub,
Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage, or Delhi Sands habitat.
c) The project proposes the removal of most of the 43 trees located within project
boundaries. The vast majority of the trees proposed for removal are Eucalyptus
sideroxlyn rosea (Red Ironbark) which were planted as part of the Carnelian
beautification project, and are in conflict with street right-of-way improvements along
Carnelian Street and internal circulation improvements. Extensive arborist studies
were performed to determine the health and condition of the existing trees, and their
suitability for preservation in place or through transplanting. Because of their
location within project boU'ndaries, no trees are oroposed to be preserved in-place.
As mitigation, the 2 Palm trees shall be preserved through relocation within
the project boundaries and the other removed trees shall be replaced with the
largest nursery grown stock available, as determined by the City Planner.
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 Page 8
Potentially
8. ENERGY AND MINE~L RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conseNation
plans? ( (
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( ( (V)
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? ( ( (V)
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)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
b) Possible inte~erence with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard? ( ) ( ) ( )
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with fiammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( ) ( ) ( )
10. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ) (V)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) (V) ) ( )
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 Page 9
Comments:
b) An Acoustical Analysis was prepared (Davy & Associates, Acoustical Analysis,
August, 1988) to determine the noise exposure and necessary mitigation measures
for development of the project site. The report implies that project noise impacts
are a result of traffic on Carnelian Street, and not on-site improvements. The study
concludes that the construction of a 6-foot high sound wall on the property
line adjacent to Carnelian Street will lower exterior noise levels so that the
first floor of units facing Carnelian, and other exterior areas, will be exposed
to a noise level of 65 dBA CNEL, which, complies with City standards.
A Final Acoustical Analysis shall be prepared to determine the noise source
and level. The design of the project shall follow the recommendations and
mitigation measures of the acoustical engineer, and shall comply with the
current building standards and codes at the time of construction. The final
noise study shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to
issuance of grading permits. Based upon the conclusions of the final
acoustical analysis, building construction methods, and the location of the
recreation area, the final report may eliminate the need for a 6-foot high sound
wall.
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 fo~owing areas:
a) Fire protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
b) Police protection? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
c) Schools? ( ) ( ) ( ) (f.)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) ( ) ( ) (V')
e) Other governmental services? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the fo~owing utilities.'
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communication systems? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 Page 10
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Storm water drainage? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? ( ) ( ) (~/)
c) Create light or glare? ( ) ( ) (v')
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposah
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) ( ) ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) ( ) ( )
c) Affect historical or cultural resources? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( ) ( ) ( )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
· the potential impact area? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 Page 11
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Affect existing recreational oppo~unities? ' ( ) ( ) ( ) (V)
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 impodant examples of the major
periods of California histo~ or prehisto~? ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
b) Sho~ term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve sho~-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A sho~-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.) ( ) ( ) ( ) (~)
c) Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Gumulatively 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.) ( ) ( ) (~) ( )
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( ) ( ) ( ) (y)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
Tentative Tract 15783 Page 12
Comments:
c) The proposed project will pay development impact fees established by the City, the
rates of which have been designed to mitigate the potential impacts to fire
protection services, police protection services, parks and other recreational facilities,
and other governmental services to a level of non-significance. To the extent the
project may impact upon utility resources provided by private utility companies,
potential impacts upon such resources will be mitigated by the payment of rates and
charges to these companies. The project will pay transportation development
impact fees to mitigate traffic impacts.
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):
(v') General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981)
Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
(v') Other: Initial Study prepared for Tract 14263, dated October 2, 1989.
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I ~en~y that I am the applicant for the project described in this ~nitial Study. I ackm:wledge that I
have read tbrs Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed rnitigaf~on measures to avo~l the
effects or m.tlgate the effects to a point where ctearly no signifioant environmental effects would
OCCUr.
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.: TT 15783 Public Review Period Closes: March 25, 1998
Project Name: Project Applicant: G & D Construction
Project Location (also see attached map): Located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street
- APN: 207-022-54 and 64.
Project Description: A residential subdMsion and design review of 27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of
land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre). Associated with this request is Tree
Removal Permit 98-06. Related Files: Tract 14263 and Variance 96-02.
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 Negative 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 project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If 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 25, 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 15783, AND RELATED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 98-06, A
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND DESIGN REVIEW OF 27 SINGLE
FAMILY HOMES ON 3.35 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF CARNELIAN STREET AT VIVERO STREET IN THE MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-022-54 AND 64.
A. Recitals.
1. G&D Construction has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
No. 15783, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of March 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prere~]uisites 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,
Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 25, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the west side of Carnelian Street at
Vivero Street with a street frontage of 634 feet and a lot depth of 346 feet at the north end and 115
feet at the south end; and
b. The property to the north of the project site contains single family homes and a
Cucamonga County Water District water tank, the property to the south is vacant, to the east is
Carnelian Street, and to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Channel; and
c. The application contemplates a residential subdivision and design review of 27
single family homes on 3.35 acres of land within the Medium Residential District; and
d. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; and
e. The design of the proposed project. together with the conditions of approval, meet
all applicable provisions of the Development Code; and
f. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on
the environment.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15783 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the Tentative Tract is consistent With the General Plan, Development Code,
and any applicable specific plans; and
b. The vacation of a portion of the easement for highway and drainage purposes along
the west side of Carnelian Street is in conformance with the General Plan; and
c. The design or improvements of the Tentative Tract is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans; and
d. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
f. The Tentative Tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
g. The design of the Tentative Tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by
the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration
based ~pon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated 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 Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Ranning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Mitigated 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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and ~he 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 to each and every condition set forth below
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15783 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 3
Planninq Division
1) The applicant shall provide for a future trail connection to the
Cucamonga Creek Channel. This shall include a pedestrian connection
leading from the project recreation area to the west property line;
however, the access point shall be gated and locked until such time as
an agreement is made between the City, the Corps of Engineers, and
the San Bemardino County Flood Control District which will allow for an
extension of the regional trail system adjacent to this site. The
connection shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Planner and
City Engineer. prior to issuance of building permits.
2) Landscaping along the west side of Carnelian Street shall conform to
the Carnelian Street Beautification Concept.
3) The maximum grade break between the common drive aisle cross fall
and ramps into individual garages shall not exceed 14 percent.
4) Useable rear yards shall be provided adjacent to the flood control
channel, at least 15 feet wide at no more than 5 percent grade, with a
barrier ~vall and/or fence subject to approval by the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District.
5) Provide a concrete "V" ditch on the north side of the retaining wall along
the north project boundary. Obtain permission to install the swale from
the adjacent property owner, prior to grading permit issuance or Final
Map approval, which ever occurs first. If said permission is not
obtained, the swale shall be provided on-site and the on-site grading
adjusted accordingly. Minimum rear yard requirements shall not be
cornpromised.
6) Useable rear yards shall be provided adjacent to the north propeny line,
at least 15 feet wide at no more than 5 percent grade. The maximum
height for a single retaining wall shall not exceed 4 feet.
7) Construction phasing of the project may be conducted as shown on
Exhibit "D" of the staff report, except that the recreation area, all
Carnelian Street improvements, grading, and project retaining walls
shall be installed with Phase I.
Enqineerinq Division
I) An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecommunication and electrical, except for
66kV electrical) on the opposite side of Carnelian Street, shall be paid
to the City, prior to approval of the Final Map. The fee shall be one-half
the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage.
2) The existing overhead utility service lines crossing Carnelian Street
shall be undergrounded or eliminated.
3) Widen the west side of Carnelian Street to 32 feet, measured from the
centerline, from the north tract boundary to the project entry and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT15783- G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25,1998
Page 4
construct a concrete right turn lane f~r the driveway, per Standard
Drawing No. 119. The curb to centerline dimension through the right
turn lane shall be 41 feet. install inlet facilities with sufficient capacity
to offset any decrease in capacity of the existing trapezoidal channel
caused by encroachment of the drive: approach, with an adequate
landing on the south side for signal pol~s and an access ramp.
4) A contribution in-lieu of construction for street improvements on the
west side of Carnelian Street south of the project entry to the existing
curb and gutter terminus shall be paid to the City, prior to the issuance
of building permits or Final Map approval, whichever occurs first.
5) Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Carnelian Street and Vivero
Street. The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement
of costs in excess of, the Transpo~ation Development Fee in
conformance with City policy. If the developer fails to submit for said
reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements
being accepted by the City, all dghts of the developer to reimbursement
shall be terminated.
6) The pu'blic street improvements on Carnelian Street shall be
constructed, and the traffic signal at the intersection of Vivero and
Carnelian Streets operational, prior to the issuance of building permits.
7) To contain flooding within the Carnelian Street right-of-way, all site
access points shall have high points above the Q100 water surface
elevation. This would include both the project driveway and any
emergency access proposed north of said drive approach.
8) Perimeter fencing shall be installed between the tract and the
trapezoidal channel, located on private property.
9) Vacate those portions Of the street and drainage easements a sufficient
distance west of the existing trapezoidal channel to allow construction
of the project entrance and drive aisle to the south, to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer and the San Bernardino County Flood Control
District.
10) Where sidewalks come within 1 foot of a perimeter retaining wall, the
space between the wall and sidewalk shall be filled with concrete.
Mitiqation Measures
1 ) The design of the project site and construction of the proposed grading
and structures shall foilow the recommendations of the soils engineer
and shall comply with the current building standards and codes at the
time of construction. The recommendations of the Final Soils
Engineering Investigation Report shall be incorporated into the project
design with pertinent information noted on the final Grading Plan, which
shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official, prior to
issuance of grading permits.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
'l'l' 15783 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25 1998
Page 5
2) Tree Removal Permit 98-06 is approved as follows:
a) The 2 Mexican Fan Palm trees shall be preserved through
relocation within project boundaries. The final location of the
trees shall be shown on the detailed Landscape Plan.
b) The remaining trees located within project boundaries shall be
removed and replaced with the largest nursery grown stock
available, as determined by the City Planner. The location of the
replacement trees shall be shown on the detailed Landscape
Plan.
c) The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations
regarding transplanting measures.
d) Those trees to be transplanted within project boundaries shall be
protected in accordance with Municipal Code Section 19.08.010.
3) A Final Acoustical Analysis shall be prepared to determine the noise
source and level. The design of the project shall follow the
recommendations and mitigation measures of the acoustical engineer,
and shall comply with the current building standards and codes at the
time of construction. The final noise study shall be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner, prior to issuance of grading permits.
Based upon the conclusions of the final acoustical analysis, building
construction methods, and the location of the recreation area, the final
repod may eliminate the need for a 6-foot high sound wall. Should the
Final Acoustical Analysis recommend the construction of a sound
retention wall along Carnelian Street. the design of the wall shall be
approved by the Design Review Committee, prior to the issuance of
building permits.
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15783 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 6
I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission ol~ tGe 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 25th day of March 1998, by the. following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: Tentative Tract 15783
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: G&D Construction
LOCATION: West side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
General Requirements Completion Date
1. The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any action brought against the City,
its agents, officers, or employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the
alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents,
officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents,
officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City
may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action
but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15783 is granted subject to the approval of Variance 96-02.
3. 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 shall 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.
4. 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 District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community
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
Project NO. Tr15783
Completion D!te
or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school
distdct has not formed a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recdrdation 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.
5. 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
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the
issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Time Limits
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.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors. landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development
Code regulations.
2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances. and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
f
5C - 3,9B 2
Proiect No. TF15783
Completion Date
7. A detailed on-site .lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and Police Depa~ment (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.
8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with
all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shah be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonn~ walls, herruing, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner. For single
family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults.
10. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the finai map.
11. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
12. 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.
13. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling
unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy
system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision
which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits,
whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation.
structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to
Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
14. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
15. Six-foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter. If a double wall
condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work with the adjoining
property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all contiguous property
owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing wails/fences along the project's
perimeter.
16. 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 Y=-inch lag bolts, to withstand high winds.
Both post and' pipe shall be installed in an 18-inch deep concrete footing. Pipe shah extend at
least 4 feet. 6 inches above grade.
17. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
18. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to
maintain an open feeling and enhance views.
sc - 3/98 3
Project No. TT15783
Completion Date
19. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
20. For residential development, return walls and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
21. For multiple family development, laundry facilities shall be provided as required by the
Development Code.
22. For residential development, recreation area/facility sha!l be provided as required by tl-~e
Development Code.
D. Building Design
I. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for a]] dwelling units and
for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated
to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming~ pools installed at the time of initial
development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details sha[I be included in the building
plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3.Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowner's Association shall be submitted for City
Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
4. 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 properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed;to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate de~ails on building plans)
1. 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.
2.All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards. and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
3. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth
from back of sidewalk.
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 45 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within
the project: 10% - 36-inch box or larger, 10% - 24- inch box;or larger, 80% - 15-gallon.
Project No. TT15783
Completion Date
3. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
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 size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
5. For single family residential development, all 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. 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 shall 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.
7. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
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. 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.
10.All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
11. 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. 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.
SC - 3/98 5
o p e ion Date
2. Mitigation measures are required for the proiect. The applicant is responsible for the cost of
implementing said measures, including monitoring and repqrting. Applicant shall be required to
post cash. letter of credit, or other forms of guarantee acceptable to the City Planner in the
amount of $719.00, prior to the issuance of building permits, guaranteeing satisfacto~
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 certificate of occupancy/, the
applicant shal~ 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.
2. Prior to issua.nce 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 Beautification 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.
J. Grading
1. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance wi~h 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 q0alified engineer licensed by the State of California to __ __/
perform such work.
3. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the __
time of application for grading plan check.
sc- 319e 6
Project No. TT15783
Completion Date
4. The final grading plans shall be completed and appreved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
K. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
44-48 total feet on Carnelian Street.
2. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for
approved openings: Carnelian Street.
3. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quit-claimed or delineated on the
final map.
4.Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the pubtic right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
5. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of
7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn
lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
Street Improvements
1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr, Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Carnelian Street X X (e) X X X (f)
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall
be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for
this item. (e) Curb adjacent sidewalk. (f) construct improvements north of project driveway only.
2. Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
sc- 3,s~ 7
Project No, Tr15783
Compwetion Date
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shaft be paid and a /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and /
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction /
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shaft be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City /
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with /
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall' not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be /
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. /
3, Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in /
accordance with the City's street tree program.
4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with /
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
M. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting __/
Districts shaft be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective /
Beauti~cation Master Plan: Carnelian Street.
Project NO. 'F~15783
Completion Date
Drainage and Flood COntrol
1. The proiect (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood protection
measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer.
2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed
from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports. plans, and
hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shaU be
obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or
improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
4. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its
right-of-way.
O. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocafion of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
P, General Requirements and Approvals
1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT~ (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Q. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute.
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
ProiectNo. TF15783
Completion Date
b. For the purpose .: ~r, al acceptance, an additional fire~ flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted b~, ~:~e 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 operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department 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,
7. Roadways within proiect shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
b. Other: see Ordinance 22, Dead End Streets.
8. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear
of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements.
9. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground
up so as not to impede fire apparatus.
10. Plan check fees in the amount of $145.00 shall be paid:
a. Prior to final plan approval.
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems,
alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
11. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 U BC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standardsi22 and 15.
sc- 3/s~ 10
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 15783, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
AND DESIGN REVIEW OF 27 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON 3.35 ACRES
OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARNELIAN STREET AT
VIVERO STREET 1N THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 207-022-54 AND 64.
A. Recitals.
1. G&D Construction has filed an application for the approval of Development Review for
Tentative Tract 5783, 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 25th 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 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 meeting on March 25, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located'on the west side of Carnelian Street
at Vivero Street with a street frontage of 634 feet and a lot depth of 346 feet at the north end and
115 feet at the south end; and
b. The proper~y to the north of the project site contains single family homes and a
Cucamonga County Water District water tank, the property to the south is vacant, to the east is
Carnelian Street, and to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Channel; and
c. The application contemplates a residential subdivision and design review of
27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land within the Medium Residential District; and
d. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; and
e. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, meet
all applicable provisions of the Development Code; and
f. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on
the environment.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR 'I'1' 15783 G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 2
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 1 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 properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment
for the application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Mitigated 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 Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared
therefore reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated 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 Section 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 Mitigated 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 Mitigated
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 to each and every condition set forth
below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
1 ) All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 15783 shall apply.
2) This approval is for the! development of 27 single family homes on
3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR FOR TT 15783 G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 3
3) A texturized paving treatment or concrete band, similar to the
decorative paving provided at the project entry, shall be provided
along the front of all garages to create a pedestrian path leading to the
recreation area.
4) On the 3-car garage door elevations, landscape islands shall be
provided between all single and double garage doors.
5) Decorative masonry walls shall be provided along the project's
northern, western, and southern perimeters. The design of the wall
shall be coordinated with the design of the project wall along Carnelian
Street. The wall along Carnelian Street shall be either decorative
masonry or wrought iron, depending on the results of the Final
Acoustical Analysis.
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
ATFEST:
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:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN']
DEPARTMEN'[
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: Design Review for Tentative Tract 15783
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT: G&D Construction
LOCATION: West side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THEPLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
A. General Requirements cornpletion Dat
1. The applicant shall agree to defend ai his sole expense any action brought against the City,
its agents, officers, or emp[oyees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in the
alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its agents,
officers, or employees, for any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents,
officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a result of such action. The City
may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of any such action
but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his obligations under this condition.
2. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15783 is granted subject to the approval of Variance 96-02.
3. 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
Districrs property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall 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.
4. 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 District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community
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
Project No. DR for l-r t 5783
Completion Date
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.
5. 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
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the
issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Time Limits
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.
C. Site Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations.
2, Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
3. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
5, All site, grading. landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
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.
SC, 3198 2
8. If no centralized trash receptacles are provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with
all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. 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.
10. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review a~d approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
11. All building numbera and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner
including proper illumination.
12. 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.
13. The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity. dust control measures, and security fencing.
14. 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 wails/fences along the projecrs
perimeter.
15. 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 %-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.
16. Wood fencing shall be treated with stain, paint, or water sealant.
17. Slope fencing along side property lines may be wrought iron or black plastic coated chain link to
maintain an open feeling and enhance views.
18. On corner side yards, provide minimum 5-foot setback between walls/fences and sidewalk.
19. For residential development. return walls :and corner side walls shall be decorative masonry.
20 For residential development, recreation area/facility shall be provided as required by the ____/
Development Code.
Project No. DR for Tl' 15783
Completion Date
Building Design
1. An aiternatjve energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and
for heating any swimming pool or spa, Unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated
to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial
development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building
plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural treatment,
detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subject to City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. 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 properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
E. Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans}
1. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shah be provided
throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open
spaces/plazas/recreational uses.
2. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
3. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth
from back of sidewalk.
F. Landscaping
1 A detaile.d 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 45 trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provided within
the project: 10% - 36-inch box or larger, 10% - 24-inch box or larger, and 80% - 15-gallon.
3. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for erosion
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
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 size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
Sc. 3Y98 4
Project No. DR for TT 15783
Completion Date
clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the develop~er prior to occupancy.
5. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the develpper 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. For multi-family residential and non-residential developmenti property owners are responsible for
the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted area!
within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall 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.
7. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code. This requirement shah be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
8. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shah 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. 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.
10.All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
11. 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. A final acoustical reporrt 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.
2. 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 $719.00, 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 certificate of occupancy), the
applicant sharl 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 particurar mitigation measure has been, implemented.
SC - 3198 5
Project No. DR~OrTF15783
Completion Date
Other Agencies
1. The appiicant shaft 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 subiect 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.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition to
existing unit(s), the applicant shah 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.
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.A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the
time of application for grading plan check.
4, The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits,
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
K. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1.Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
44-48 total feet on Carnelian Street.
2. Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for
approved openings: Carnelian Street.
SC - 3198
Project No. DR fOr TF15783
Completion Date
All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall .be quit-claimed or delineated on the
final map.
4.Ease:'nents for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed ?utside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
5. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right:turn lanes, to provide a minimum of
7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn
lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
L. Street Improvements
1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Street Name
Carnelian Street
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter, (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall
be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked. an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for
this item. (e) Curb adjacent sidewalk. (f) Construct improvements nodh of project driveway
only.
2 Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shah be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing. street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shah be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR, or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Fv 7-q
Project No. DRfOrTF15783
Completion Date
Notes:
(1)Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
e. Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h, Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
3, Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
4. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required,
M. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be flied with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
2. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective
Beauti~cation Master Plan: Carnelian Street.
N. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or portions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore. flood protection
measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City
Engineer.
2. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone A designation removed
from the project area. The developer's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and
hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be
obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or
improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shaft
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
S C - 3198 8
Project No DR~orTT15783
Completion Date
4. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its
fight-of-Way.
O. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
P. General Requirements and Approvals
1. A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Q. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute.
a.A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer 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 operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials. etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department 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. DR fer TT 15783
Completion Date
7. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
a. All roadways per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 22.
b. Other: See Ordinance 22 - Dead End Streets.
8. Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear
of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements.
9. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall be kept trimmed a minimum of 14'6" from ground
up so as not to impede fire apparatus.
10. Plan check fees in the amount of $145.00 shall be paid:
a. Prior to final plan approval.
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems,
alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
11. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
E FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
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.
S. Windows
1. All sliding glass windows shall have secondary locking devices and should not be able to be lifted
from frame or track in any manner.
T. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility..
SC- 3/98 10
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE
NO. 96-02, A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS: 1) REDUCE THE MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENT FOR THE
USE OF OPTIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 2) REDUCE THE REAR
YARD SETBACK ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST PROJECT BOUNDARY,
3) REDUCE THE BUILDING-TO-CURB SETBACK, 4) REDUCE THE
BUILDING-TO-BUILDING SEPARATION, 5) REDUCE THE AVERAGE AND
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACK ALONG CARNELIAN STREET, 6)
REDUCE THE PARKING STREETSCAPE SETBACK, AND 7) INCREASE
THE WALL HEIGHT ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST PROJECT
BOUNDARY FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION AND DESIGN REVIEW
OF 27 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
CARNELIAN STREET AT VIVERO STREET IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-022-54 AND 64.
A. Recitals.
1. G&D Constru~:tion has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 96-02 as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request
is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of March 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 25, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the west side of Carnelian Street at
Vivero Street with a street frontage of 634 feet and a lot depth of 346 feet at the nodh end and 115
feet at the south end; and
b. The property to the north of the project site contains single family homes and a
Cucamonga County Water District water tank, the property to the south is vacant, to the east is
Carnelian Street; and to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Channel; and
c. The application contemplates a residential subdivision and design review of
27 single family homes on 3.35 acres of land within the Medium Residential District; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 2
d. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan; and
e. The design of the proposed project, together with the conditions of approval, meet
all applicable provisions of the Development Code; and '
f. The development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on
the environment.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as fbilows:
a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of the Development Code.
b. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
c. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other propedies in the same district.
d. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
e. That the granting of the Variance ~,ill not be detrimental to the public health, safety.
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1,2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below.
5. 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO,
VAR 96-02 - G&D CONSTRUCTION
March 25, 1998
Page 3
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:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlVIONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 25, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad BulleL City Planner
BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 - 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 comer of
Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue - APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09.
(Continued from March 11, 1998)
MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 91-08 - CAP BROTHERS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - A request to modify the master plan for an industrial
park on 6.8 acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, located at the southeast comer of Arrow Highway and White Oak
Avenue- APN: 209-461-01 and 06 through 09. (Continued from March 11, 1998)
BACKGROUND: At the request of the applicant, the item was continued from the March 11, 1998,
Planning Commission meeting. No new information has been received and the staff report dated
March 11, 1998, is attached for your review. The applicant has requested that two entitlements be
given to the site for flexibility to market the industrial park. If the project is not built according to the
entitlement under the current development application, the applicant wishes to maintain in effect the
entitlement for development of the site under the original master plan approval.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Review 97-29 and the Modification to Development Review 91-08 through the adoption of the
attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions, and issuance of a Negative Declaration.
Respectfu ' submitted,
City Planner
Attachments: Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 11, 1998
DR 97-29 Resolution of Approval with Conditions
Modification to DR 91-08 Resolution of Approval
ITET~S H & I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 11, 1998
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-29 MODIFICATION
TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW91-08) - 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. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North Existing office/light industrial buildings; Industrial Park (Subarea 7)
South - Vacant; Generat 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 Desiqnations:
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 propeay 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
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 will 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 property line.
The overall 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 modificatiSn 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 Highway/White 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. Desiqn 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 potentially 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, and 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
UBU~UO
,,,,,,,,,., ,,,y,,'. ..-~y ~ ~...,,.,,,.,,,,,.,,,,,,..,
'-. ~i:~ ~..!.:s =. "-"~'-- ~ ~.~ :,.'~
IIlllllllllllll~'f];i'~,Jl[llllllillllll'
..,,,,,,, ..]L
......... ~""] IIIIHII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHUIIIIIIIIII ITIIIIHlYlIIIIIIII~IIIlilIII -~ , <[
j,__ , ~ ] il~jlllll II]llllll[Iltl[lllllllllfitl)l[ItlJIlfilllllllllfilllllll~:
: '/ 0
d~
'~'~'~ 'B" "" .':] r ~ ::..,__
. ~.::::~4 ..., .....
::.:' ::: : ::: "', .....
.,
· - GRADING PLAN
__ EAS[ ELEVA'[ION
.......... (;8~EXTERIOR FINISH; L~,~,,,.n, .._d~.._~_J=
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.
Desiota 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 nodh to south at approximately 2 percent.
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 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 entrance 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"
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-fo0t 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 eaSh 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 landscapingi walls, or a combination thereof.
3. Retaining walls should be composed of a decorative block material architecturally compatible
with the building or receive 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
Design 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 proper~y 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"
Initial Study for :
DR 97-29 City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page ?
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is "Potentially Sign f cant 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:
( ) 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
(X) 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 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 requiredL
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, i)' 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 mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Signed:
Cecilia Gallardo, Assistant Planner
February 19, 1997
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-29 Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant t0 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 proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) (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)
Potenbally
Impact Less
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the pmposah
a) Cumulatively exceed official 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? H ~ J 7 ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Initial Study for City of Rancho Cucamonga
DR 97-29 Page 4
Issues and Suppolling Infortnation Sources: SignScant
Potentja/lyUnless Than
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Seiche hazards? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
~ 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? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
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 op this soil type should be permi~ed only after a site specific investigation
has been prepared that indicates that the soil can adequately suppo~ the weight of
the structure." A soils repo~ will be required by the Building and Safety Division
prior to the issuance of building permits. The impact is not considered significant.
4. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patte(ns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Exposure of people or prope~y 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)
~ Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions o( 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
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 cul-de-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 shaft 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
Potentially
Significant
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 traffic congestion? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g.. farm equipment)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts.
bicycle racks)? ( ) ( ) ) (X)
g) Rail 6r air traffic 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.g., 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 W~ldlife 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 dpnse 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. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pest!cides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
b) Possible interference 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. Wiil the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government seNices 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
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
d
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 not considered
significant.
Significant
Impact Less
Potendally Unless Than
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to, the following 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)
Potenbally
S~gnfficant
Impact Less
Potentially Unless Than
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposah
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 properly with development of the vacant
site. A condition of approval requiring an on-site lighting plan, including a
photometric diagram of the entire prope~y, to be required for review and approval
of the Planning Division and the Rancho Cucamonga Sheri~s Depadment, 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.
Potentially
Signscant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
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 potentia~ 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? CCumulatively 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)
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 2fO9f and 2f092 of the Public Resources Code.
Project File No.: Development Review 97~29 Public Review Period Closes: March 25, 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: 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. Staff has prepared a
Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Related File: Development Review
91-08,
FINDING
This is to advise that the City of Rancho Cucamonga, actihg 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 Negative Declaration 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 project as revised may have a
significant effect on the environment.
If 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 25, 1998
Date of Determination Adopted By
aries oseph Associates
February I9, 1998~.B
Cecelia Gallardo, Assistant Planner
City ofRancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: White Oak & Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga
Biological Assessment Report
Dear Ms. Gallardo:
Enclosed for >'our reviaw and file documentation is a copy of the Biological Assessment
report for the subject property. Your review of this material should note that the
proposed development of this size will not likely result in adverse effects to potentially
occurring DSF. This report also indicates that the site does not currently support optional
DSF habitat, and that the site is not located directly adjacent to 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
)'our earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Buquet
Charles Joseph Associates
CJ'B:sl
Enclosure
cc: Rick & Mark Capellino
~ ~°'~ I M P A C T S C I E N C E S .~,~
30343 Canw~x~d Su~t. Sui~e 2 I O · F
T, "~ ,4.goura HH[s. CaliFornia 9~301
~ Teiephone (SIS) S79-I ICe FAX (SIS) 379-I44Q San D/ego
impsci~impacrsciences.com Cb~no HH~s~
Febm~ 17, 1998
Charles Joseph Associates
City Center
10681 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 395
Rancho Cucamonga, CaL~ornia 91730
Attention: ML Charles Buquet
SUBJECT: Results of DeLFd Sands Flower-LovLng F]v Habitat-Based Evalua~on Conducted
on the 4.18-acre White Oak A;'enue site, ei~' of Ra.'-tc~ho Cucannonga, San Bemardino
Counw California
Dear :Mr. Buquet:
This letter report details findings of a recormaissance-Ievel survey to evaluate existing
habitats potentially suitable to suppo~ the DeLhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas
terminatus abdominalis) completed for the approximately 4.1S-acre site, located on the comer
of Arrow Route and White Oak Avenue in ~e Ci~ of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino
County, California. A genera] evaluation for the potential cccun:Ence of several additional
sensitive wildlife species was also conducted durinE the oneday field survey.
Introduction
Lmpact Sciences, Inc. (Lmpact Sciences) understands that a development plan is beIng prepared
on an approximateIy 4.18-acre project site located in the Ci~' oi Rancho Cucarnonga (Figure 1).
The proiect site is currently vacant and is generally bcunded by Arrow Route to the north,
Wkite Oak Avenue to the west, and Tacoma Strut to the south ('Figure 2).
This report is intended to pro;'ide the project applicant with genera] biological information
regardIng potentially suitable habitat to support sensiti've spedes for use In evaluating
potential consequences of endangered species act compliance and permitLing. AdditionaiIy,
results of this study are intended to provide early input into the planning process so that
sensitive biolo~ca] resources potentially occurr~.ng on the site are identified.
CharlesJoseph Associates
February17,1998
Page 4
ProjeCt Parameters
A single building consisting of office, manufactu~g--"a~td warehouse uses, totaling 99,750 square
feet located in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8), of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
(APN: 209461-01, 06, 07, 08, and 09).
General Delki Sands Hower-Loving Hy Background
The Delhi sands flower-loving fly (DSF) was Listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) on September 23, t993. This species is ordv know'n to occur in
association with DeLhi sand deposits crt at least ten ci~jur~ct sites (USFx, VS 1996), chiefly
within a radius of about eight miles in the cities of Colton, RiMto, and Fontana located in
southwestern San Bernaxdino and northwestern Riverside counties. However, recent data
(199/') indicates that DSF occur in low numbers in the Ontario area (Ontario Habitat Recover)'
Uvdt), which includes Rancho Cucanonga. The DSF is restricted to the Colton Dunes which
co;'ers approxZu:nately 40 square miles. More than 95 percent of the formerly kTto;v'n habitat has
been convened to human uses or severely affected by human activities, rendering it apparently
unsuitable/or occupation by the species (Smith t993, USF~,V5 1996 in Kingsley 1996). An
estimate of ordy 155 acres of habitat is documented to contain populations of DSF. Flies of the
g~nus Rhaphiornidas prefer arid habitats and are typically large (up to 1.25-inches in body
length).
Methods
Literature Search
Doo. Lmentafion pertinent to the biological resources in the ;'icinity of the site was reviewed and
anaiyzed. tdormation reviewed included: (I) the Federal Register listing package for the
federaily Listed endangered DSF potentially oc,cuznng on the project site; (2) literature
pertaLrd. ng to habitat requLrements of sensitive species potentially occun'mg on the project site;
(3) the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 1997) idormation regarding
sensitive' species potentially occurfrog on the project site in a computer report format for the
Ontario, San Dimas, and Guasti USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps, and (4) review of
available reports from this and other projects located in the general vicirdty of the project site.
Occupied DSF Habitat Evaluation
A field visit was conducted by knpact Sciences biologists in Janua~' 1998 to note c'Lurrent habitat
characteristics of occupied DSF habitat located in the general area. Habitat characteristics
Chm'les Joseph Associates
February17.1998
Page 5
were noted in an attempt to discern any seasonal differences in biological characteristics which
may relate to habitat suitability for this endangered fly species. Potential habitat for the
DSF is typically defined as areas comprise o~sandy soil (DeLhi series) in open areas
dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California croton (Croton
californica), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora). Annual bur-sage (Ambrosia
acanthicarpa), fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia), vinegar weed (Lessingia glandulifera),
sapphire eriastTum (Eriastrum sapphirinum), and Thurber's eriogonum (Eriogonum thurberi)
are also commonly present at occupied DSF sites.
Reconnaissance-level Field Survey
Scoet Cameron and David Crawford, Impact .q~.jences Senior and Staff Biologists respectively,
conducted a reconnaissance-level field sun.'ey to evaluate potential habitat for DSF an January
9, 1998. Both i"dr. Cameron and Mr. Crawford have obse~'ed DSF in Lhe field, and are familiar
with the biofic charac3~eris~cs of habitat occupied by DSF, as weIl as other sensitive wildlife
species potentially occurring in the area. In addition, NLr. Cameron holds a federal permit
(PRT-808242) to conduct st.trveys for DSF. Weather concHSops dux'ing the su2~.'ey were cool and
ramLug, with aix temperatures at approximately 55 degrees Fahrertheit. The site was
exaxnined m foot by walking a series of transects aczoss the subject property. The primary
objective of the one-day field visit was to evaluate the site's potential to support DSF, and
generalIy evaluate habitat suitabiiity for other potentially occurring sensitive wildlife
species based on existing site conditions. General plant and wildlife species present at the site
were identified to assess the overall habitat value.
Existing Conditions
The site has been historically rough graded (detailed below). In addition, surface evidence of
diskSrig rows is present, as the site is maintaLned for weed abatement on an annual basis. Three
distinctly different elevations are present cn the site due to initial site preparation. Average
elevation at the site is approximately 1140 feet abo~.;e mean sea level, with the highest
graded level at the northern end of the site, "stepping d?wn" approximately four to sLx feet a t
each of the ~vo successi;'e levels. Figuxe 3-3a illustrate existing condkions of the subiect
property.
.I
Charles Joseph Associates
Febmary17,1998
Page 8
Disturbance History and Soils Analysis
A Soils Engineering Repor~ was prepared for ftlis~roject and adjacent parcels by Samson &
Associates (1992). The su~ect parcel is located within a larger site comprised of multiple
parcels. Grading activities 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 uncertffled fill and loose/soft alluvium withi.n the depth of approximately 1.5 to
3.0 feet and around the perimeter of the foot'print of the proposed buildings. Prior to grading
operations, all vegetation and t:rash was cleared and stockpiled for disposal off site. Fill
materials placed on the site were cleaned of organlcs and t~ash, moisture conditioned, spread in
thin lifts, and compacted by heavy construction equipment to a minimum relative compaction of
90 percent. Soils analysis indicates that en site subsurface mateflais (top 12 inches) consist of
fill, characterized by loose, damp sand, fine to medium grained, slight silt 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 spedes. Moderately dense telegraph weed
with elements of arknual bur-sage are present over most of the site. Native mule fat (Baccharis
salicifoIia) is also present in small patches near the southem boundary of the site where c~n-
site cizainage tended to pool in shallow recesses.
Ruderal introduced plant spedes comprise the mostly dense understory. Non-native species
present on site include horehound (Marrubium v'uIgare), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), foxtail
chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), filaree (Erodiurn
cicutariura), mustard (Brasslea or Hirschfeldia spp.), and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus).
Non-native grasses and filaree constitute approximately 70 percent of the vegetative cover
present on the site.
Wildlife'
Bird spedes observed during the reconnaissance-ievel field survey included only the savannah
sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). Mammal spedes of which sign was detected, include
Botta's pocket gopher (Thornomys bottae), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni), and
CalLfornia ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi).
Charles Jos~pla Associates
February 17, 199g
Page9
Surrounding Land Uses
The subject Frope_rb/is located in a mixed L'ldusta"ial/conunercial area of the Ci~ of Rartcho
Cucamang-a. The property is bordered b.v A.,'mw Route and office and light mduSh~a]
development to the north, White O~k Avanue (previously Vincent Avenue). and manufacturing
and wardlouse development to the we~, a vacant lcr~ similar in surface appearance to the
survey sit~ (graded concu_rr~y with the subjec~ parcel), followed by light h-tdustrial
development ~ the east, and Tacoma Street, followed by a disbaxbed vacant lot, cttrren~y
proposed for a warehouse distribution facility (also graded coneutterly w'ith the subject
parcel). Along the southern and western borders of the site (White Oak Avenue and Tacoma
Street), sidewa//cs, curb and gutter, and ornamental trees are present
Discussion
Optdmal DSF habitat is defined by low gn~qing perennial shrubs with frequent patches of
exposed sandy soil, characteristics which are not collectively plysent at the site. However,
resuits of recent s~veys (1997) in the Ontario area sugg~t t~at DSF may ~cur in areas that do
not suppcrrt perennial shrubs (e.g., buckwheat). DSF may occupy habitats that ordy suppor~
telegraph weed (along w~th the other de/Lning characteristics such as opera. friable sotIs).
Converoely, in a study cc~ducted in Colton, Cmlifomia by Kingsley (1996), DSF selected only
those hab/.tat. s that contamed'both California buckwheat ~nd t~leg'zaph weed. Observations
of the 1996 Kingsley study sogge~ 'that bo~ plant species may be necessary for long-term
survival of DSR and hhat arnmgement and densi,ty o~ cover is impormt. Kingsley (1996) also
suggests that biologists would likely find sites where both tff these plant species are present in
patchy arrangements more suitable to support DSF than sites without these plant species or
that suplxxrt very dense vegetation. DSF have very rtaxrow habitat requireu~nts that are
deterrobed by appropriate plant ~t:~cies and uVa~ sand as clef'ruing characteristics (Kingsley
1996).
Invasive non-native vegetation severely degrades or eliminates DSF habitat. Non-native
plants especially notorious in ffds respect include Russian thistle, borehound '(Marrubiura
vulgxlre), mustard, cheese reed (Malva parvifiora), and many species o/introduced gn-sses
(Bromus sp.). These exotic plants may also alter the soft moisture or make the substrat~
physically unsuit~bl~ for the sur~-ival of the DSF and othelr native :mb'~erranean invertebrates
(USFWS 1996a).
Charles Joseph Associates
February 17, 1998
Page l0
Conclusion
'e* ,~,;:
Results of the habitat-based survey indicate that portions of the proposed project site suppor~
surface (vegetative and soil) characteristics similar in certain aspects to potential DSF
habitat. Moderately dense stands of telegraph weed and sandy soils are cilstributed m
portions of the project site. These two habitat comp<ments are typically associated with
potential DSF habitat. However, approximately 75 percent of the site supports non-native
vegetation. As previously discussed, non-native vegetation types, particularly dense
vegetation, are negatively assodated with optimal DSF habitat. Furthermore, the site
contains sandy soils 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 ('USFWS 1996a). No extensive areas that support open, loose sands are
present on site, which are more positively correlated with high quality potential DSF
habitat. Most of the ed-'posed soils present on the project site are assodated with vehicle paths
(e.g., along the top and base of the graded and elevated axeas), and are highly compacted.
The presence of existing adjacent conunerdal/industrial development limits the potential for
current or future DSF occupation of the site due to the apparent absence of a potential habitat
linkage or corridor. Accordingly, the site does not provide a connection between detached areas
of potentially suitable or known occupied DSF habitat. Likewise, the site does not cxrupy a
known strategic location with respect to it's potential incorporation into a prospective regional
wildlife reserve or corridor systexn. Small, previously graded and disked areas encompassed by
paved roadways and corninertial buildings are usually less crudal to preserve for DSF than
areas that suppore higher quality DSF habitats or that connect separate areas of higher
quality potential or occupied DSF habitats.
In addition, it is contrary to expectation that DSF could have persisted cn site (ff historically
present) ~during grading, topsoil removal, placement of fill material, and soft compaction
activities conducted in 1992-93 due to the highly destructive nature (relative to impacts to
habitat) of these activities on potentially occurring DSF. It is also urdikely that DSF (if
historically present) ciisbursed 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 concurrently exposed to grading and soft disturbances during site preparation of the
adjoining warehouse complex (approximately 50 total acres). Prior to site preparation, the
Charles Joseph Associates
February 17. 1998
Page 11
entire complex, inclusive of the subject parcel, was compmed of'a vineyard (Norcal
Engineering, 1991). ~, ~:
Based solely on the above-mentioned assumptions, the proposed development of the 4.18-acre
site will not likely result in adverse effects to potentially occarring DSF. However, because
portions of the site support moderately dense stands of telegraph weed and sandy friable soils,
definitive conclusions relative to this species' presence or absence at the 4.18-acre site cannot be
ascertained absent conducting focused protocol DSF surveys. In addition, it is possible that the
Service may not accept any efforts short of the intensive seasonal DSF surveys idenlified in
their aforementioned interim survey protocol.
Furthermore, due to the site's exposure to grading, soil removal, filling` and compaction,
potentially occurring sensitive small mammal spedes such as L~ Angeles pocket mouse
(Perognathus longimembris brevinasus), a federal species of coru2mn and California species of
special concern; and San BemazcLino .kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), a federally
Listed endangered species and CalLfomia species of spedal concert% are not expected to cct-ur m
site. No diagnostic sign (burrows, fecal pellets, tracks) of the aforementioned small mammals
spedes were recorded on site during the survey. LikewLse, only marginally suitable habitat is
present m site to support the San D~ego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronaturn blainvillii).
These species are not expe~ed to occur on site due to the site's disturbance history and isolation
from native plant communities that Limit the carrent or future ocrm~t,ce of low vagility
vertebrate.wLlcl~e species.
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 di. rectly adjacent to other areas of
high quality potential or known occupied DSF habitat. However, portions of the site do
con~aLn surface elements intercomparable with occupied DSF habitat. These areas support
friable sandy soils and at least cue plant spedes (telegraph weed) that is strictly associated
with other occupied DSF sites. Nevertheless, results of the recormal. ssance-level habitat
evaluation of the site's envh'onmental conditions suggest that the project site does not provide
optimal habitat for DSF due to: (1) the lack of any substantially open, friable, sandy areas; (2)
relatively dense coverage (75%) of/.nvasive, non-native vegetation; (3) lack of native plant
communities; (4) ~ to extensive grad.lug` top soil removal, placement of import fill
material, and soil compaedon activities; (5) moarring exposune to an on-site weed abatement
program (disking); and (6) low habitat link,age value due to surrounding land uses (e.g.,
Charles Joseph Associates
February 17. 1998
Page 12
It has been a pleasure cenduc'dng Ll~s habitat-based evaluation for t~e Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly at the 4.1g-acre project site located in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San
Bemardino County, California. Lf you have any ques5ons regarding the results presented in
this report, please don't hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
UVLPACT SCIENCES, ]2qC.
Senior Biologist Staff Biologist
REFERENCES
California Natural Diversity Data Base ( DB). 1997. Computer Reports for the Ontario,
San Dimas, and Guasti USGS Z5-minute quadrangle maps.
Kingsley, Kenneth j'. 1996. Behavior of the Delhi Sands Hower-Loving Hy CDiptera:
Mydidae), a Little Known Endangered Species. Ann. Entomol. SOc. Am. 89(6): 883-891.
Norcal Engineering. 1991. Soils Investigat/on-Proposed Commercial/Warehouse Development
Located on the Southeast Comer of Arrow Route end Vincent Avenue, in the City of Ranch
Cuca.monga, California. Project Number 3228-91. March 20.
Sampson & Associates. 1992. SoLis Engineering Report of Grading for Proposed
Commercial/Warehouse located on the Southeast Comer of Arrow Route and Vincent
Avenue, City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. August 11.
U.S. Fish end W~dlife Sorvice. 1996. Interim General Survey GuideLines for the DeLhi Sands
Hower-loving Hy. December 30.
U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Technical/Agency Draft Recovery Plan for the Delhi
sands Hower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatuS abdominalis) U.5. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Portland, OR. 44+ pp.
U.5. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. DeLhi sands Hower-loving Hy (Rhaphiornidas
terminatus abdominalis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and WildLife Service, Pordand, OR. 51 pp.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 97-29, 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 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 March11, and continued to March 25, 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,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced meetings on March 11, and March 25, 1998, including written and oral staff reports, this
Commission hereb. y 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 site's three street frontages; and
b. The property to the nodh 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, a request to modify the approved Master
Plan accompanies 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 buildings within the Master Planned industrial Park; and
e. The application contemplates the vacation and re-establishment of on-site
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS
March 25, 1998
Page 2
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 1 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 properties 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 repocLs 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 the
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, further, 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 Section 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 impac! upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Furlher, 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 to 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 property, to the satisfaction
of the City Planner.
/--) ,-/ Q,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 97-29 - CAP BROTHERS
March 25, 1998
Page 3
2) The final design and location of the crash gates along the east property
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 obscufing rolling gates along the 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, herruing, 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 amen/ties 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 cedificate of compliance for a lot line adjustment/merger shall be
processed, to reconfigure the parcels as proposed, prior to the
issuance of building permits.
2) Street trees shall be replaced to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
including areas where driveways will 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 preserve 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) Secudty 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 o CAP BROTHERS
March 25, 1998
Page 4
Environmental Mitk~ation Measures
1) New inundation areas described by separate document shall be
recorded and old areas vacated, prior to the issuance of building
permits. Drainage/flood protection facilities shall be provided for the
project area to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as follows:
a) The n.$n-off (QIO0) 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.
b) Easements shall be delineated and inundation rights dedicated,
prior to the issuance of building permits.
c) No public water shall be tributary directly to the inundation areas.
d) In ~utomobile 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 25TH DAY OF MARCH 1998.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buffer, Secretary
I, Brad Butler, 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:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PROJECT#: Development Review 97-29
SUBJECT: 99,750 square foot industrial manufacturin9 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 shah 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 shaft be selected by the District in accordance with
its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall 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 district
within 90 d~ys 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
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping. sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Project No. DR 97-29
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 th~ issuance of building permits.
3. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading. tree removal, encroachment
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a:custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
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 masonr~ walls, berrning, 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 acceptabie 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 self-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 link 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. AH roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of 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. AI~ 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.
6. 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.
Prolect No. DR 97-29 ~
Completion D!te
7. Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial. and multifamily
resident!al 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 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the
required automobile parking spaces. Warehouse distribution 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. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking
stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21.
4. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
5. All private slopes of 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1
slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and iandscaped 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 vary 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 welJ as contiguous planted areas
within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall 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.
SC _ 9,97
Project No. DR 97-29
Completion Date
8. The final design or 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 shaft be continuously maintained by the developer.
11.All wails shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
12 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 $719.00, 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 certificate 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 appficant 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
T
corn
p etion Date
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial 0r 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.
Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Of~cial, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Grading
t. 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 9rading 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 prans 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 Conaitions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities Distric~ 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 builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan apprbval.
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted by the builde~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 operable prior to deliver,/of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department 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.
Proiect No. DR 97-29
Completion Date
7, An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15,
X 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 Plan.
11. Emergency secondary access shall be provided in accordance with Fire District standards.
12. All trees and shrubs planted in any median shall 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 rapid entry key system. Contact the Fire
Safety Ejivision 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.
SC - 9/97 7
Project No, DR 97-29
Completion D!te
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 sensered 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 vandal-resistant 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.
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.
SC, 9197
RESOLUTION NO. 92-03B
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 91-08, 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 Modification to
Development Review No. 91-08, 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 25th 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 fodh 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 25, 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 site's three street frontages; and
b. The property to the nodh 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 odginally 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
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 1 and 2 above,
this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92-03B
MODIFICATION TO DR 91-08 - CAP BROTHERS
March 25, 1998
Page 2
a. T~at 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.
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 the
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, further, 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 Section 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 Nepative 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 to each and every condition set forlh below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
P, lanninq Division
1 ) All pertinent conditions of approval for Development Review 91-08 shall
apply.
2) This approval is for the modification of the approved master plan for the
southeast corner of Arrow Highway and White Oak Avenue with the
construction of a 99,750 square foot building as approved in
Development Review 97-29, or the development of four smaller
buildings as shown in Development Review 91~08, the original master
p,an ,o,,he ,.dus,,,a, p ,k. '/'J 5'd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 92-03B
MODIFICATION TO DR 91-08 - CAP BROTHERS
March 25, 1998
Page 3
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:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: