Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2006/10/11 - Agenda Packet
• • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CUCAMONGA OCTOBER 11, 2006 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Roll Call Chairman Stewart_ Vice Chairman Fletcher Macias _ McPhail _ Munoz II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 29, 2006 Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting September 27, 2006 Regular Meeting IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voce their opinion of the related pro/ect Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the Commission by stating your name and address All such opinions shall be l~m~ted to 5 minutes per individual for each pro/ect Please sign in after speaking A ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PHASE III MEDIANS AND STREET WIDENING FROM GROVE AVENUE TO VINEYARD AVENUE -The City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing to widen Foothill Boulevard to 6 lanes and install a raised median, between 1 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OCTOBER 11, 2006 jZnNCHo Cuc,vtoNCn Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue The proposed action also includes replacement of the existing steel railroad bridge with concrete through girder pedestrian badge In addition to the street widening the public elements of the Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan (VIP) will be implemented with the project as well Decorative sidewalk, decorative street lights, an entry arch, decorative treatments to existing and new traffic signal poles, as well as decorative pavement treatments per the VIP will be installed as a part of this project The protect area includes Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue The proposed protect will increase the number of lanes along Foothill Boulevard which will improve the traffic service level of the mator diwded street Construction duration is expected to last two years and will be initiated in 2007 Funding for this protect is being provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga The purpose and need of this protect is to improve the arculation and level of service of traffic on Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Small areas of parkway will be acquired from 22 individual parties to accommodate the street widening but the acquisition is not expected to affect any private structures Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for consideration CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 B CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OFA PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION TO DENY MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00647 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS - A request to co-locate a wireless commurncation facility on an existing monopole wireless facility at 9272 Hyssop Drive - APN 0229-283-12 C DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00772 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to the definition of Accessory Structure in Section 17 02 140, amendment to 17 08 060 A Accessory Structures and Additions, and amendment to 17 08 060 C Protections into Yards This action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines This item will be forwarded to the City Councl for final action D DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00690 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to Section 17 OS 030E 2 b Location of Animals This action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action u 2of4 • • _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OCTOBER 11, 2006 RANCxo CUCAMONGA V. PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time and place for the general public to address the commission Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11 00 p m ad/ournment time if items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of the Commission I, Lois J Schrader, 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 October 5, 2006, at least 72 hours pnor to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964 2 at 10500 Civic Center Dnve, Rancho Cucamonga ~'"~~ rr! If you need speaal assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750 Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience 3 of 4 _ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OCTOBER 11, 2006 jZnNCxo CUCAMONGA The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table State your name for the record and speak into the microphone After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual if you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments " There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing The deadline for submitting these items is 6 00 p m Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7 00 a m to 6 00 p m ,except for legal City holidays APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $1,747 for maps and $1,842 for all other decisions of the Commission (Fees are established and governed by the City Council) Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is m session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at http•/Iwww ci rancho-cucamonga.ca.us • • 4 of 4 • Vicinity Map Planning Commission October 11, 2006 a t S P H E R E O F I N F L U E N C E W ti W V 1 ,1~ 8TH •2 ~ Q - ' BASE LINE CHURCH / MILLER FOOTHILL ARROW 4TH ~ Meeting Location " City Hall 10500 Civic Center Dnve • • THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA III HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA RArrcao cUCAMONGA OCTOBER 11, 2006 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Roll Cail Chairman Stewart _ Vice Chairman Fletcher _ Macias _ McPhail _ Munoz II. ANNOUNCEMENTS III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 27, 2006 IV. COMMISSION BUSINESS V. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS A CONSIDERATION OF HISTORIC AND CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE DRC2006-00801 - Crosslight Family Ministries of Alta Loma - A review of historic and cultural significance of the barn structure in the Very Low Density Residential district located at 9720 Wilson Avenue - APN 1074-181-01 VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS This rs the time and place for the general public to address the commrssron Items to be discussed here are those that do not already appear on this agenda HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ~,~Ha October 11, 2006 C`x:'~oNC,, Page 2 VII. ADJOURNMENT 1, Lois J Schrader, P/amm~g Commrssron Secretary of the Gty of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 5, 2006, at least 72 hours pnor to the meeting perGovernment Code Section 54964 2 at 10500 Civic Center Dnve, Rancho Cucamonga ~.' Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while t e meeting is m session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas and minutes can be found at http•/Iwww ci.rancho-cucamonga ca us INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the wews of your entve group To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table State your name for the record and speak into the microphone After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments " There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing The deadline for submitting these items is 6 00 p m Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting The Planning Commission Secretary receives all such items AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 These documents are available for public • • • • HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AGENDA ~,~HO October 11, 2006 CucnMOVCe Page 3 inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7 00 a m to 6 00 p m ,except for legal City holidays APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Councl within 10 calendar days Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $1,747 for maps and $1,842 for all other decisions of the Commission (Fees are established and governed by the Clty Council) If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750 Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired r Vicinity Map Historic Preservation Commission October 11, 2006 Q ~ Meeting Location " City Hall 10500 Civic Center Drive • T H E C I T Y O F K A N C h O C U C A M O N C A Staff Report DATE October 11, 2006 TO Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission FROM James R Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY Mayuko Naka~ima, Planning Aide SUBJECT CONSIDERATION OF DEMOLITION PERMIT DRC2006-00801 - CROSSLIGHT FAMILY MINISTRIES OF ALTA LOMA - A review of historic and cultural significance in response to the proposed demolition of the barn structure in the Very Low Density Residential district (under 2 dwelling units per acre) located at 9720 Wilson Avenue - APN 1074-181-01 • BACKGROUND A Abstract The applicant, the Crosslight Family Ministries of Alta Loma, is in the process of requesting a demolition permit of the existing shed/barn structure located on their property at 9720 Wilson Avenue The church would like to expand their existing facility for future use Therefore, staff performed a cultural resource study of the structure to identify any historical or cultural significance B Site Characteristics The site is an "L-shaped" parcel located on the northeast corner of Archibald Avenue and Wilson Avenue It is approximately 5 18 acres, and zoned Very Low Residential (under 2 dwelling units per acre) The site is surrounded by existing single-family development to the east, west, and north, which is also zoned Very Low Residential The structure of focus is located near the center of the site, north of the existing church On the west side of the shed/barn structure are remnants of rock retaining walls that were once stone reservoirs, approximately 157 feet in length ANALYSIS A General The sub/ect structure is a one-story linear shed/barn bulding The actual construction date of the structure is still unknown, but is approximated to have been bwlt around 1954, according to the San Bernardino County Assessor's Office (additionally, next door is Mr William Milliken's property (originally the Krysto Ranch), which was issued a building permit in 1965 for a shed structure as well It is unknown whether this is the same • shed) This previous citrus storage and maintenance shed has a symmetrical fapade with a gabled roof that is medium-pitched The walls and roof are made out of metal sheets ITEM A HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00801 - CROSSLIGHT FAMILY MINISTRIES OF ALTA LOMA October 11, 2006 Page 2 • and there are decorative wood panels on the top front border The right side of the south elevation has no foundation, and a large opening like a traditional garage The left side of the south elevation has a foundation and a solid wall with two doors, in which paint and other maintenance products are currently stored The structure seems to be in fair condition with no alterations According to a telephone interview on August 14, 2006, with Laurence V Howard, Pastor of the First Assembly of God in the City of Upland (original pastor at this location), there were vineyards in the area north of where the church stands today The shed/garage was used to store the collected estrus products However, as the citrus industry died down, the shed/garage became storage for tractors and for maintenance of these vehicles He also noted that a concrete structure stood where the church currently sits The San Bernardino County Assessor information reports the effective year bwlt to be 1954 Presumably the concrete structure Mr Howard was talking about was the structure that was built in 1954 along with the wooden shed The property of the church was owned by several different "Assemblies of God," until March 13, 2006, when the Crosslight Family Ministries of Alta Loma became the owners Staff has tried to contact Mr William Mtlliken numerous times to clear some inconsistencies in the findings Staff attempted to reach him on three separate days this year on August 10th, 14th, and 15th with no success, followed by a fetter that was sent on August 23rd He has not contacted staff yet • Staff did extensroe research on the structure and prepared the Department of Parks and Recreation form The following books and materials were used in researching the subtect site "History of Alta Loma" by Martha Gaines Stoebe, "One Eye Closed the Other Red" by Clifford James Walker, City of Rancho Cucamonga building permits, San Bernardino County Assessor, Ontario Library Model Colonies Room, and the personal interview with Mr Howard After exhausting the available resources, staff concludes that the structure should not be deemed a historic resource for the following reasons first, the structure on the property does not characterize distinctive qualities nor does it perpetuate historic, architectural, or engineering significance, second, it is not associated with persons significant in local, state, regional, or national history, and, third, does not contribute to the economic, cultural, and aesthetic standing of the City If the Commission concurs with staffs findings, then a determination of "Determined Insignificant" wdl be listed on the Designated and Potential Historical Site List and then demolition will be allowed when new development occurs The new development will have to comply with all current Development Code standards, including setback and parking requirements ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Planning Department staff has determined that the protect is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Gwdelines The protect qualifies under Section 15301(1)(4) as a Class 4 exemption of the State CEQA Guidelines (Demolition and removal of individual small structures) because the shed is defined as a small structure and there is no substantial • evidence that the protect may have a significant effect on the environment A-Z HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00801 - CROSSLIGHT FAMILY MINISTRIES OF ALTA LOMA October 11, 2006 • Page 3 PROPOSED DEMOLITION If the structure was deemed to be a Historic Landmark, demolition would require that a Landmark Alteration Permit be granted by the Histonc Preservation Committee if one of the following conditions is met, m accordance with Title 2 24 120 of Ordinance 70 The alteration will not be detrimental to a structure or feature of significant aesthetic, cultural, architectural, or engineering interest or value of a historic nature The alteration is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property The applicant has demonstrated denial of the application that will result in immediate or substantial hardship RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission determine that the structure does not meet the City's criteria for a local Landmark Designation and approve the demolition of the structure located at 9720 Wilson Avenue Staff wtll update the Designated and Potential Historical Site List based on the Commission's decision Respectfully submitted • (~ James R Troyer, AICP Plannmg Director JRT MN\ma Attachments Exhibit A -California Department of Parks and Recreation Primary Record Form with Photographs, Sketch Map, and Site Location Map Exhibit B -Memo Regarding Failed Attempts to Contact Mr William Milliken dated September 5, 2006 Exhibit C -Letter to Mr William Milliken dated August 22, 2006 Exhibit D -Excerpt from "History of Alta Loma" by Martha Gaines Stoebe 1 /~ - 3 State of California-The Resources Agency Pnmary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial • • PSb Description of Photo (View, date, accession #) View looking north at the facade, August 14, 2006 •P6 Date Constructed/Age and Sources aHistoric ^Prehistoric ^Both 1954/ 52 years old/ County of San Bernardino Office of the Assessors `P7. Owner and Address. Crosshght Family Ministries Alta Loma, 17951 Cowan Irvine, CA 92614 'P8. Recorded by (Name, affiliation, and address) Angela Landaverde ii Mayuko Nakalima/ Planning Aides/ City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Ciwc Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 u NRHP Status Coda Other Listings Review Code Reviewer 'Resource Name or # 9720 Wilsnn Date P1 Other Identifier `P2. Location ^ Not for Publication ®Unrestncted and (P2b and Plc or P2d Attach a Location Map as necessary ) •b USGS 7 5' Quad Date. T c Address 9720 Wilson Avenue d UTM Zone 10 , mE/ mN (G P S ) e Other Locational Data parcel # 1074-181-01-0000 'a County San Bernardino R Y. of ~/.ofSec ,MD BM City Alta Loma Zip 91737 Elevation •P3a Description (Describe resource and its major elements Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) A one-story linear structure stands on the property zoned residential, lot size is 5 18 acres The structure of focus is the brown shed/detached garage structure constructed of wood lust north of the church located on Wilson Street The church itself was bwlt in 1984 and is not at this time considered historically significant The structure has a symmetrical facade Walls and roof are made out of metal sheets Roof is gabled and medium-pitched There are decorative wood panels on the top front border The right side of the south elevation has no foundation, no front wall, and is wide open, this is the garage side The left side of the south elevation has a foundation and a front wall with 2 doors One of the doors has cupboards, where it carries paint and other maintenance products, this ~s the shed side It seems to be in fair condition with no alterations It is located right behind the church, in the middle of a field with yellow brush and trees On its west side are remnants of rock retaining walls that were stone reservoirs, approximating 157 feet in length `P3b. Resource Attributes HP4 Anallary building •P4. Resources Present ®Building ^Structure ^Oblect ^Site ^District ^Element of District OOther (Isolates, etc ) `P9. Date Recorded: August 14, 2006 •P10 Survey Type (Describe) Intensive survey 'P11. Report Citation. (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none ") The Cily of Rancho Cucamonga proceeded in conducting a historical survey to determine the historical significance of the shed/garage structure Reason for survey initiated after the the church requested a demolition permit for the structure Two planning aides from the City of Rancho Cucamonga performed the survey 'Attachments: ^NONE ®Location Map 8 Sketch Map aContinuation Sheet 8 Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Recc ^District Record ^Linear Feature Record ^Milling Station Record ^Rock Art Record I~ graph Record ^ Other (List) ~ _' 1 `/ R 1l ) ~'1 'Regwred information State of California-The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Paae 2 of 5 `NRHP Status Code `Resource Name or # 9720 Wilson Avenue • B1 Historic Name Krysto ranch B2 Common Name shed/detached garage B3 Original Use citrus storage, maintenance shed B4 Present Use storage •65 Architectural Style. `B6 Constructron History (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) • B P #84-5981/Contractor PAC Consulting & Design/ Multi-purpose bwlding 151 floor only $350,000 (8/15/84) • Assumed construction date for the shed/outhouse is 1954, however, next door is Mr Milliken's property, which showed that in 1965, B P #14458 permitted a shed to be constructed It is unknown whether this is the same shed `B7. Moved? ®NO ^Yes ^Unknown Date Original Location `68 Related Features. The shed/detached garage structure is behind the church The church was constructed in 1984 To the west is the Milliken/Krysto ranch property, where three units share one parcel 69a Architect unknown b, Builder unknown •610 Significance Citrus Industry Theme estrus storage Area Alta Loma (Rancho Cucamonga since 1977) Period of Significance. 1954 Property Type Ancillary bwlding (shed/detached garage) Applicable Criteria. N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope Also address mtegnty ) According to the book History of Alta Loma, the early settlers named the Krystos bought the land and built a ranch Roman and Bogdan Krysto "expanded it to include the 40 acres sounth of Wilson on the east side of Archibald On this land they planted grapes and citrus, and it was Mark who was responsible for bringing water down from a canyon to the north for irrigation, there were two reservoirs on the property where water could be stored" (45) It is likely that these reservoirs are the remaining lwc rock walls west of the shed/garage According to History of Alta Loma and One Eve Closed the Other Red. Mr Baumgetecker, an agent for the Padre winery run by the Vai brothers, purchased the Krysto ranch He was half owner of Western Grape Product• Bonded Winery #1 and owner of the Western Medical Wine Co winery m Rancho Cucamonga 611 Adddwnal Resource Attributes HP4 Ancillary building `B12 References • City of Rancho Cucamonga, Bwiding & Safety Department bwlding permits • The History of Alta Loma California 1880-1980 by Martha Gaines Stoebe et al, 1981 • Howard, L V ,Pastor of the First Assembly of God/Upland CA, telephone interview, August 14, 2006 • One Eve Closed the Other Red by Clifford James Walker, 1999 • San Bernardino County, Office of the Assessors 813 Remarks •814 Evaluator. ~ Angela Landaverde & Mayuko Nakapma ~' Planning Aides i City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive , Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 'Date of Evaluation August 14, 2006 (This space reserved for official comments ) ( ~ i ?~ n ,I~ ~~~ (continued on page 3) DPR 5238 (1/95) 1~ .~ •Regwred information (Sketch Map with north arrow required ) • State of California-The Resources Agency Pnmary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial ' Pape 3 of 5 'Resource Name or #. 9720 Wilson Avenue KBGOfO80 Dy: Angela LantlaVertle & 'Date• August 15, 2006 ®Conlinuahon ^ Around 1930, Mr Baumgetecker mysteriously disappeared, perhaps the cause being connected with grapes and Prohibition (109) The Vai brothers took over the Krysto ranch after the disappearance of Mr Baumgetecker They were authorized to purchase the Bonded winery #1, after having been the lowest of the bidders According to son Herbert Baumgetecker in One Eve Closed the Other Red, other "less-shady" wineries should have been eligible for the purchase (514) In 1945, William "Bill" Milliken purchased a subdivision of the original Krysto ranch property History of Alta Loma states • that "most of the Krysto ranch has been sold for subdwision, but the original houses are still there", which Mr Milliken still lives in today (135) According to fhe San Bernardino County Assessor's, the first owners of the church since incorporation was the First Assembly of God/Upland CA, owned by the pastor L V Howard, who claimed to have bought it in 1983 The assessor's information states that the property was purchased in 1982 According to Mr Howard, there were vineyards in the area north of where the church stands today The shed/garage was used to store the ciWS products collected However, as the citrus industry died down, the shed/garage was used as a storage for tractors and for maintenance of these vehicles He also noted that a concrete structure stood where the church currently sits Just as in the History of Alta Loma book, he also revealed that the reservoirs were used for storing water The San Bernardino County Assessor information reports the effective year bwlt to be 1954 Presumably the concrete structure Mr Howard was talking about was the structure that was built in 1954 along with the wooden shed Mr Howard stated that as he was researching the area before he purchased the land, he concluded that there was no historical significance of the shed/garage structure The property of the church was owned by several different "Assemblies of God", until March 13, 2006, whereas the Crosslight Family Ministries Alta Loma became the owners urrc a~a ryaal •Requved mforma6on hate of California-The Resources Agency Pnmary# )EPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Tnnomial paste 4 of 5 `Resource Name or # (nssianed by recorder) 9720 Wilson Avenue `Recorded by Mayuko Naka)ima/Angela Landaverde, Planning Aide 'Date. August 14, 2006 aContinuation ^ Update' Figure 1 View looking Northwest at the western portion Figure 2 Figure 3 View looking South at north side (rear of building). Figure 4 View looking South at eastern section `. ~ Figure 5 Remnants of historic reservoir view looking southwest. Figure 6: View looking northwest (reservoir remnants) State of California-The Resources Agency Pnmary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Tnnomlal Page 5 of 5 'Resource Name or #• 9720 Wllson Avenue • 'Map Name• Assessor's Map Book 1074 page 18 San Bemardlno County • 'Scale 1" =100' 'Date of Map 5/03/1988 ^;µ~*,,,,,,,;~ S I/2. S.WI/4. S W.I/4. Sec. 23. T.I N.. R.7 W . S.B.M R.o<l,eLu<.NCnyeCltr 1074- 18 nr nr uxrcmcs ec¢~ Tae Rete Mee 15001 ~``"~ 117J i w RIM U.n , ~xn I uv-.+ ~~i ____ _ __ .'l ql 111 q fa. y ips 3 A ! / ~ _.~ s~ ~ ll u 1 ~ a/~\ e / r ~yy~l • ~ b. ~~._q ~ ~~ r / ~~ % • ~N ~ r} ~ B Cl ! ~ ~i5 IS Nil R b /` / / R ~ ~ I s n M ~ ~/ s// r ~ v 'm s ~~s la =1 / . s e / `ro ' ee' ~ s ~ < - MIL3N -MFN.E- ~~' l,, I S~ • Mr r'AO Pl. ire<I uo IOJO n 8 V6/~648 ~r a.mne ss Mueeor's Ibo Pin 541 I/1. Sec. 73 Boe4 1074 Pepe la TIN . R 7 V Sen Bernaedioo Counir DPR 523J (1/95) 'Regwred 4nformatlon Memorandum DATE: September 5, 2006 TO: Larry Henderson, Candyce Burnett FROM: Mayuko Naka~ima SUBJECT: Contacting Mr William (Bill) Milliken Angela Landaverde and I have made numerous attempts to contact Mr Milliken on 5647 Archibald Ave for our historical survey project concerning the shed/garage structure on 9720 Wilson Avenue. We attempted on Thursday, August 10th around 9 a m and on Monday, August 14`h around the same time. We went ahead and asked his next-door neighbor who identified herself as Tracy, the whereabouts of Mr. Milliken and the best time to reach him She informed us that he is usually home dunng the afternoons On Tuesday, August 15`h, I attempted again to contact him by • knocking on his door around 1 15 p m Again, he was not in After these unsuccessful attempts, we sent him a letter on August 23~d (see attached), to see if he was interested in providing us with useful information, if we could survey his property, and also to see if he world like to participate in the oral history project We have not heard from Mr Milliken yet Thank you, Mayuko Naka~ima Planning Aide • X/~l13 /T' ~ ,~ - q THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Mayor WILLIAM J ALEXANDER Mayor Pro Tem DIANE WILLIAMS Counce[membnr REY. GU-fIE L DENNIS MIC SAM SPAGNOL City Manager JACx LAM, AICP RANCHO CUGA~to9~ ~ 22, Zoos William Milliken 5647 Archibald Avenue Alta Loma, CA 91737 SUBJECT HISTORICAL SURVEY Dear Mr Milliken The Crosslight Family Ministnes of Alta Loma, located at 9720 Wilson Avenue, are in the process of requesting the demolition of the shedlbam structure, located on the church property adjacent to your lot In response, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is researching the hrstonc nature of the structure to determine its significance and rs prepanng a histoncal survey Staff, at this time, is unable to determine the original use of the structure and is requesting your assistance to help clarify some inconsistencies in the findings Additionally, we would like to survey your property, previously know as the Krysto Ranch, to determine d there is any historical significance Furthermore, we would like to know if you were interested in participating in our oral history project Our oral history protect consists of interviews with people who have been a great asset to the Rancho Cucamonga area, such as the Milliken family We would like the chance to conduct a short interview with you at your convenience. Please contact Mayuko Naka~ima or Angela Landaverde at (909) 477-2750, Monday through Thursday between the hours of 7 00 a m to 6.00 p m Thank you again for your cooperation Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTMENT Candyce rnett Associate Planner CB MN/rlc ExH~e~r- ~ ~ - t~ • • 10500 Civic Cenmr Dr • PO Box 807 • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739-0807 • Tel 909-477-3700 • Fax 909-477-3849 • www a rancho-cutamonga ca us Ei* cared for its service people There have been so many changes to the vicinity recently that no[ many newcomers realize [hat the Honor Roll eztsts After [he war, many new families came to the Alta Loma area In 1945, [he Harold Ander- sons bought the Gus Ledtg ranch on Hellman Avenue across from the McLennans, Mrs Ledtg had died and Gus moved [o Upland The Wadsworths bought the old Aratza ranch on 19th street lust west of the school, the Marrs bought the old G P Ledtg ranch from the Becks, [he Shtvelys bought the Cntchlow ranch on 19th Street lust west of the S[oebes, the T C Bosharts, Hutlons, and lames H Pauhns bought ranches on Hermosa, and [he Vat Brothers took over [he old Krys[o ranch on north Archibald after [he disappearance of Mr Baumge[ecker Most of [he Krvsto ranch has now been sold for subdivision, but the ongmal houses are snit there, [odav Btll Milliken, of Cucamonga, lives with his faintly m the big house ed Krysto built for hts parents so long ago t 4,yr" Francis Wilson, the [orest i tl ranger m the 40's and 50's, hued with his family on their ranch i l l\~~ A N~~ ~ 1~ 1 i . a >t ~ ~ ! ~ E ~ ~ ~ ®6 south of 19th Street near Jasper, k ~.,~~(!.~i~r~.ld.~. », ~~e Btll Yopp and George Smith, whose wives were sisters, moved January 15, 1951, when the third panel was dedtcated From left Io nght, to netghbonng ranches on west Ray Derfer, ~, Bill Biliesbech, Mr Thom, Art Allen, Herb Hall, squatung 19th Street, the Harold Whites in the center George Smith, Rey Wirth, Bill Buttery, then Gordon bought the Munsey Blair house Billings, Mr Vopp, Lew Gilbert, ~ on Beryl, [he Blatrs moving to Red Htll The Art Stoefens bought the old Barkow ranch on Hellman Avenue, and also a vineyard at the north end of Hellman from Mtke Carrara Art and Alberta Stoefen and Mel and Lou Smnh had been fnends m Los Angeles, and when ilia Stoefens moved to then ranch, [he Smiths came out so Mel could help Arl remodel the old kitchen, Mel had always been able to make most anything with his hands While there, the Smiths liked Alta Loma so much [hat they bought live acres on the south side of 19th Street west of Ameth_vsl from Mike Carrara, partly planted to grapes Mel bwlt his big manufacturing she d[oward the back of [he lot [irst, and the famdy hued m it for nearly a year uhtle Mel, with the help of Art Stoefen and other fnends, built the house m front Lou SmLLh was always acuve m community af[avs, especially in -135- A-n April 20, 1942, when the first two panels on the Honor Roll were dedicated Lell to right in the picture Rex Hamilton m back of woman and two boys, Paul Cherbak, Ray Lawyer,erepresenlatwe of each of the three services in the center; Ihen Herb Hall, Gordon Billings, Mary and John Cherymisin, Mr and Mrs Bariin Phillips, °?~. Haven between Highland Avenue and Base Line, this ranch included a house and tanks to make wine surrounded by vineyard, and it was located lust east o[ the Italian Vineyard Company vineyard which started at Haven and was always said to be par[ of the largest vineyard m [he world When Prohibition was declared on January ]6, 1920, all the wmenes were closed down by law, and the small winery on the L Bar S Ranch never operated again although the wine tanks remained there for years During [he many years o[ Prohibition, some wmenes would accept grapes to be shipped East to anyone who knew how to make his own wine, they could get $18 and up to $140 a ton for grapes if [hey were lucky, but the vmeyardts[s with the wine grapes had a shaky rime during those years During the twenties, "Doc" Pyle was caretaker of [he L Bar S Ranch and hued there with his family, Margaret and Herbert Pyle had a long walk to school each day Alta Loma's biggest mystery had to do with wmenes and Prohibition Mr Baumgetecker had purchased the Krysto ranch on north Archibald a_b_o_ut 1925 and was living [here, he was an agent Lor the Padre Wmerv run Baumgetecker disappeared and was never ear rom again, n was thought that he was [ e victim o ou n av. connec e with grapes and Prohtbttton When the Prohtbttton Amendment was repea a on December 5, 1933, the ranchers with wine grapes could stop worrying and he sure of a market for [heir grapes with a winery There were some orchards of deciduous fruit trees m the early days too, mostly apricots and peaches These orchards did not need to be irrigated, they did very well with lust the winter rams, so were no[ as expensive to operate as a citrus ranch The growers would pick the fruit themselves or with the help of [heir children, and often they hired high school-age boys to help pick too The fruit was then cut, pitted, and spread out on trays to dry, m the nett several days, tt was turned, sulphured, and finally prepared for market The drying yards on the McKee, Palmer, and Cherbak ranches were well known to the young people of Alta Loma because this gave them a chance [o get a lob for a few weeks m the summer and make a little money, there were several drying -] 09- - _ ,,,.,- j.. i Y~4ium31' N ' r oe se wd , a. w,wi', i'~,~~~L~,~ ~~ L~ PN.18fi~4;'r w:tN` d i f~ ~S'N° s %L,~. tt ~ ( ~ j ~[ ~ / . BrOCa\43F' 1%yk l.e.~.~S~3'jl ., ~1'.I~ASl1 '11A89 -.tea a,. .at'S~:,Ti"°3µ. 'ft LYi (-~ - 12 • u Paul Helmer working on one of his model ships The annex to the old schoolhouse that was moved down to Monte Vista Street and wes Paul and Sophia Helmer's home for years THE EARLY SETTLERS 1883 - 1914 The number mdtcates the location of the famt(p rmich 1 Retd 15 McKee 29 Hawker 43 Hatch 2 Huber ]6 Cherbak 30 Schmutz 44 Phelps 3 Aratza ]7 Peter Smtth 31 John S[oebe 45 ] E Davts 4 Demens 18 Sam Johnson 32 Hedges 46 Horst 5 Belden 19 Dettweiler 33 Toews 47 Belcher 6 G P Ledtg 20 McLellan 34 Goerhtz 48 Bndge 7 L M Led~g, II 21 Beckley 35 James 49 Dz~e 8 Adolph Ledig 22 Powelson 36 Wagner 50 Schowalter 9 Henry Ledtg 23 Bennett 37 Kelly 51 Lewts Ranch 10 A H Ledig 24 McMurdo 38 Welch 52 C A Stoebe 11 Thorpe 25 Gray Ranch 39 Htvely 53 Anderson 12 Salisbury 26 Rupp 40 Mowrer 54 Cherymtstn 13 Albert 27 Dahlem 41 Joseph 55 Palmer 4 Krysto 28 Alen 42 Prang _72. • A --3 KRYSTO Dr Theodore Kryshtofovich was a Russion of noble birth, a fnend of Czar Nicholas II, the Czar's minister of agnculture, and he was also a doctor of medicine. He and his wife had seven children, and the family had been living in southern Russia near the Turkish border, where t~ government was expenmenting with growing tea The father traveled a great deal as minister agriculture so he didn't have much time to practice medicine, but he did keep up with the political situation and he became more and more womed about his country In 1894 he decided to take his family out of Russia because, as he wrote later, he "did not want to feed the furnace of revolution with my children." (see Appendix D) The family went first to the Hawaiian Islands where they had a friend, but after about a year they decided that Hawaii was not for them Capt. Demens was also a friend and of course he recommended Ioamosa, so they came to Ioamosa in 1896, bought land on the east side of north Archibald, changed the name to Krysto and the Krystos were well known in Ioamosa and Alta Loma for years. The family lived at first in the The Krystos on their tennis court with a group of tnenas, mcwoing Arthur and Helen Bridge, with baby Arthur, at the left and Barbara small house on the property, which Badge in the front center. The Krystos always wore homemade; ate d hey got settled thelchildren d d white clothes for tennis. Dr. Krysto is in back with the mustache most of the work as their mother s Mrs. Krysto m front behind Barbara Badge. ' not well. Dr Krysto received certificate to practice medics e in California on October 6, 1896, and he was always glad to help anyone who needed him However, he was not at home much because he continued traveling as secretary of agnculture for the Czar He imvorted the first tractor into Russia from St Louis, and he wassaartedlym R191Za Hire family hadtioto mortgage the ranch in Alta Loma in order to raise the money to get him out through Finland Dr. Krysto always kept the telegram he received from his friend Czar Nicholas R lust before he abdicated, apologizing for not having had time to warn him of what was happening The Krysto children all helped with the work, and of course they went to school where it didn't take them long to learn English There were two Krysto girls, Galena and The Krysto family in and around their car, with several cner~aRa Chnstina Galena, the oldest child, there too. Mrs Cherbak is sitting in the center of the back seat; was the first to marry, she and her Mrs Krysto m the hat with feathers on it. husband, George Balcom, lived near- by on one of the Ledig ranches unttl they moved away. Chnstina was the scholar of the faintly, sh s on the school honor roll many times and later she wrote stones and articles which were publtsl~ the Atlantic Monthly and Harpers magazines. f~-~y -44- • • u The Krysto boys ran the ranch, planting grapes mostly at first After their sisters left home, the younger boys did the housework as well as ranch work. Ted, the oldest boy, learned to be a skillful carpenter and he built a fine, large house for the family. There was a dirt tennis court on the property, and the boys could sometimes be seen m the afternoons playing tenors m their white, homemade linen clothes When Dr. Krysto was home, the family often entertained friends from Los Angeles who enjoyed coming to the ranch for a day in the country. Ted and Tracy both left home as young men Ted marred Grace Garrard of Cucamonga and they lived at first in Pomona where Ted worked in a planing mill. Ted soon had success with his carpenter work, and in 1913 he and Grace went to Big Bear where he built a cabin for them on the south shore. They Grace Garrard, lived there most of the time during the years of World War I, although they spent later Grace Krysto some of the worst winter months in the big family house in Alta Loma. When their daughter Mary Kathryn was born, Ted built a small house on the Krysto ranch for them to live in, they could not take Mary Kathryn into the big house because Ted's mother had tuberculosis At that time, too, Ted built a large, modern house on the north shore at Big Bear for their summer home and he continued with his carpenter work. Ted and Grace going for a buggy ride Mark and the twins, Roman and Bogdan, really ran the ranch, and it wasn't long before they expanded it to include the 40 acres south of Wilson on the east side of Archibald. This land they planted to grapes and citrus, and rt was Mark who was responsible for bnnging water down from a canyon to the north Ted Kryato for irngation, there were two reservoirs on the property where water could be stored The mother died in the early twenties, after that, all the remaining Krystos left the area except Ted, who built a charming home for his family on the corner of Amethyst and Lavine in the town of Alta Loma Both the Krysto houses that Ted built are standing today. Ted and Grace moved into their new home in 1927, and their daughter Mary Kathryn grew up as a part of the life of the town, she was especially fond of Edna Patterson, "Auntie Pat," who lived nearby. Ted was a master craftsman who could build anything with style and accuracy, he built houses as well as furniture, or whatever was needed He presented many of his fnends with handsome rocking chairs which he had made His work was in much demand in the entire area, including Big Bear where the family continued to spend summers and holidays Ted was a great fisherman, and he and Grace both loved the out-of-doors, they often took friends with them to Big Bear so they could enjoy it too. Grace was a real friend to every one in Alta Loma and the whole vicinity, she was always interested, kind, and helpful The Krysto Christmas parties are remembered by many old-timers, Ted enjoyed doing hand work, and he would make small wooden cars, trains, The house Ted Krysto built for his family in angels, and other toys and figurines to put on or under the the town of Alta Loma. He and Grace and Christmas tree. Friends and especially families with Mary Kathryn moved into this house m 1927. children would be invited in for refreshments and to see 4 ,, 1" i} ~" a l} u P, ,, ~~jrJ -45- DATE October 11, 2006 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM William J O'Neil, City Engineer BY Maria E Perez, Associate Engineer SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PHASE III MEDIANS AND STREET W IDENING FROM GROVE AVENUE TO VINEYARD AVENUE -The City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing to widen Foothill Boulevard to 6lanes and install a raised median, between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue The proposed action also includes • replacement of the existing steel railroad bridge with concrete through girder pedestrian bridge In addition to the street widening the public elements of the Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan (VIP) will be implemented with the project as well Decorative sidewalk, decorative street lights, an entry arch, decorative treatments to existing and new traffic signal poles, as well as decorative pavement treatments per the VIP will be installed as a part of this project The project area includes Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue The proposed project will increase the number of lanes along Foothill Boulevard which will improve the traffic service level of the mayor divided street Construction duration is expected to last two years and will be initiated in 2007 Funding forthis project is being provided bythe City of Rancho Cucamonga The purpose and need of this project is to improve the circulation and level of service of traffic on Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Small areas of parkway will be acquired from 22 indiwdual parties to accommodate the streetwidening but the acquisition is not expected to affect any private structures Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for consideration PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION A Surrounding Land Use and Zoning North -Commercial, residential and golf course South -Commercial and Residential B General Plan Designations Protect Site -Street Right-of-way • North -Mixed Use South -Mixed Use/Medium Residential C Site Characteristics The subject site is located on Foothill Boulevard, from Grove Avenue (the west City limit) to Vineyard Avenue Either side of the street is fronted by a combination of existing local commercial businesses and residential units There are also existing residential units lust beyond the Item A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PHASE III MEDIANS AND STREET WIDENING FROM GROVE AVENUE TO VINEYARD AVENUE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • September 13, 2006 Page 2 commercial parcels The Red Hdl Country Club Golf Course sits in view of the protect as well The protect site is identified in the General Plan as a mator divided arterial street with a landscaped raised median Currently, Foothill Boulevard has four traffic lanes with atwo-way left turn lane The site topography currently slopes gently and drains from north to south The terrain, either side of the existing railroad badge, north of the protect sight, exhibits a steepertopography as it drops from the Red Hill area ANALYSIS General The City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing to widen Foothill Boulevard to 6 lanes and install a raised median, between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue The proposed action also includes replacement of the existing steel railroad bridge with a concrete through girder pedestrian bridge Red Hiil Country Club Drive will be realigned to intersect Foothill Boulevard at a "T"intersection with a new traffic signal In addition to the street widening, the public elements of the Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan (VIP) will be implemented with the protect as well Decorative sidewalk, decorative street lights, an entry arch, decorative treatments to existing and new traffic signal poles, as well as decorative pavement treatments per the VIP wdl be installed as a part of this protect The protect area includes Foothill Boulevard, between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue The proposed protect will increase the number of lanes along Foothill Boulevard which will improve the traffic service level of the mator divided street Construction duration is expected to last two years and will be initiated in 2007 Funding for this protect is being provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga The purpose and need of this protect is to improve the circulation and level of service of traffic on • Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Small areas of parkway will be acquired to accommodate the street widening but the acquisition is not expected to affect any private structures The Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 12, 2001 and recommended to City Counal for approval On February 6, 2002, the City Council approved the Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan (VIP) This protect will implement several decorative elements of the VIP, including decorative street lights, decorative treatment/painted traffic signal poles, entry arch, decorative bridge treatment, decorative intersection pavementtreatment and decorative parkways along developed portions of the protect frontage In the absence of the Foothill Boulevard Task Force, staff presented proposals for the entry arch to the Public Works Subcommittee on February 16, 2005 The arch selected conforms to the concept suggested in the Visual Improvement Plan for Foothill Boulevard The arch is under design and will be constructed concurrently with the street The subtect protectwas originally advertised and noticed forthe September 13, 2006 meeting, beyond the recommendations of the City Attorney, as a public works protect in conformance with the General and applicable Specific Plans During the time of notice and advertisement, staff had received several inquiries from residents relative to the Red Hill Realignment portion of the protect In light of recent development proposals in the area and the subsequent discussion of circulation issues, staff requested a continuance to allow for the opportunity to expand notification of the protect Staff has noticed all of the Red Hill area and 600' south of the protect limits Environmental Assessment The City's design consultant has completed an Initial Study and supporting • studies (copy sent under separate cover) of the protect and the surrounding properties and found that there could be adverse environmental impacts, that with required mitigation measures, wdl be reduced to a less than significant impact ~a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT • ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PHASE III MEDIANS AND STREET WIDENING FROM GROVE AVENUE TO VINEYARD AVENUE - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA September 13, 2006 Page 3 Subsequent to the completion of the supporting studies, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Draft Historical Resources Clearance Report at their meeting of November 14, 2001 As discussed in the attached minutes, the most significant finding of the review is that the steel girder rail bridge is not the original bridge Two intact original bridges exist in the City along the Southern Pacific Rail right-of- way It was recommended that the bridge be identified as a Historic Point of Interest rather than a Landmark The identification as a Historic Point of Interest wdl allow for the replacement of the bridge with the pedestrian bridge If the Planning Commission concurs, then issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be in order RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the project is in conformance with the General Plan and approve the Environmental Assessment of the Foothill Boulevard Phase III Medians and Street Widening, from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue through the issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts Respectfully submitted, William J O Neyl~~,~ City Engineer WJO MP Attachments Exhibit A - Vicinity Map Exhibit B -Preliminary Plans Exhibit C -Initial Study Exhibit D -Historic Preservation Commission Minutes -November 14, 2001 Exhibit E -Letters of Response Exhibit F -Mitigation Monitoring Plan Exhibit G -September 13, 2006, Staff Report Requesting Continuance Draft Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and Finding the Project in Conformance with the General Plan • X13 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FOOTHII.L BLVD. PHASE IH MEDIANS FROM GROVE AVE. TO VINEYARD AVE. VICINITY MAP ~h~ 6i f ~I ~.-~ ,~°~~, ~k,'y. .1,~+IM1. NTS qq 99 ~, ~< ~d$ieiv6veec °:? R° e J 3 _ oa6HH6a9~~.z eeeea F~F6 ~ p eeB aeveee? ~~ g~€e S ~ ~~ Rv Rcnn RRRR q4= d ~ 3 4v4 Hpapae ?_. ~! p - . . vaiv. 01 ti 96889p0 HBi ~~~a e88H8 Yg Y gCHH {j eevvvvva.e u 4 W p ~' 1 !!!S! v~0H~~1 a ".lR~R!$t7$a°=H ~ o ~~ p@H!!i!! E6E6~ ~ ~8i......eQ ~ __° a Ydp~~~~~~~~~~~~@~~ aaa9SS96.~=~ ~ ~aaaeHHeaHHaaap ~ o ~ s ~ ~~'~(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~ ~ d b ~ ~ ~ yy>> ~_ t _.y~..~ uadetlC!!eevq:gp~dgaqdqGqaip.aq.iadeetlcdeeClcgeH6e= p W ~d Z O/ ^6 W ~za zo "~ a U~~ ~3= UW~ O ~H~ Z UoW ~aa ~ j> ~~~ wm~ O ., o ~, ~~ O U~ -, 0 __ W W Oz C 3~ s ~6~ g ~a ~~ ~ ~ a~ ~c~Eop Ca e¢ ~" ~E B ~&e ~ a~:e S? ~B ~~ g~ ~c~ ~ ~~~ Qg ~ ~ ~~ E 1 @ $~ ~ ~~~~ ~ p ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ Sy~y ~ E § p ~ ~~ € S 8"q YP eap 4 as $ ~~& ~`~ J ~~ ~~ a ~~ ~~q~~~ g5 gp s'CS ~ F~a~~ S ,a.7q g¢j[dy53999 E56 Q z ~6 ~~~ ~~ &A~d~~ yg X8 ~ ~ ~ €4~ p 666 ~ ~~ ~p YFYYn A ~6 F 33 yy33 p$$ gyi cc tly 3~R ~~~d FS ~~ ~ SLR y1~i~G v - a n k9 b ~ 9 e g~ ~ ~ 2) W a, pp ff k ~[ bp'( ~ 6 tl } ~ kq tl Y ~yS 3S ~ ~ @@e ~ ~ tl a ~y1;~~~~~`g~~ ~~ ~~ 9H ~ € ~ ~~ ~s ' ~ ~~ i n iFE ~ a ~E@" d~~~9 d b gg ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ € ~ ~¢, ~ ~~ ~~ ~8 $ ~q 1 s ~~p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ pp€gs F AEG y ~ a .. e ~ y 4 a v S ~ ~ '~ r I ~ II I' t ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ tl {°~a ~S ~I r ~ i1~ i '~' ul~~l 111',u„ i u I II~~11 i "I °II ~~I~ Illi 1114 ~ I"I w$ 1 I ~ ~R ' v ~ 5 z o 8 ~ d atl ~ ~ r 4 ~ '~; 11 ~ 1 ~III~ '1 1111 'IWIIUIIi i'i d 111 [~~ iIW 1 'mi li4 1. 1 ' ~~ ~~ p 411 v' 1 4, ~ ~- 1~~"1'~'~°1 ~B~ ~ ~ ' ~-~"a ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ L~~ v~ ` ~~~ ~~ '1 " ~~i n. 1 v g ~ ~ 8a )C S ~ ~'1~~ ' ' 1 1 a 0 1 T ~ ~' „ rnio ~ ' '~ 'Ii 1 4 io1 1n II~ ' 'li 'u ' "a ' I ' ' p SF ~ ~ U ~ ~ a~~g p ~ B ~- ~1~ I 1ii1 i ,' i i , i i °",'1 ii 1 I ' II 1 , 1 , ,, i k < i~e 333 [ ~l~ ~ 9~pE~ i4 , ,1111 I I ~ a~~ ~~ P I ~ LL ~ . 1 1 ' i O ~~ N~ N~ ~ 4 I 11i 11 I 1 11 I °' I $ ]a~ ~ s ~ °a p ~ g R A q q ~ A p N Y ~ p A p A S : kA ~ ~ 1 1 1111 p " i~ .N. ~ ~ t \ ~~ 2 A c `- ti ~ e . ° 0 . a ~ s o ~ ~ ~ ~ k c ~ ~ i ; : g ; ~ ~ ~ i~ I I ~n ln , I l ~I i I ' I ' ' r 11 ~ y 1 1 I 1 1~ ~ ~ s p : , 1 ~ ~ ~ l 1 . 1 11 ° I a II n ~~ tl - 1"~ , ~ ' ~~~1 11.1 ,~ II i ~~~ ~ d 9 • R 6 d ~ ~ E ~ : ~ '' 1 9 ` ~ p ' ~ 'N '"~~IIIH ~ VIµ i~ ' ;' ;~i ... ~ 3 c -• - 1~ ~ ~ . 11° " I ~~ L ~ I n,~ ~ ! ~Cu l d~11~ o ~ ~ a ' k • s s v k s k k ~ k q q A k h - i ~ ' 1 1 ,~ ~ I I ' 1lq uuui .. qu i.J"`i i^l~ ~ i°. ~kt ~ 9 ~ B 8 t ^ ~A ~ k _ ~ ~ a e ~ ? pp 6 k t t ~ _ 9 k gg k qq k ~ ~ ~ ~E ' l ~ '~ 1 Nu I ~ ~, 1~~ , ~ „i ; ' '° IM1 I ~ ,11~ 1 ~ "I 11 ~~ ~ 1 i - 1 I I 11 I ' 1111 l a, 1'1 1 Ii ~ ~d11 .~, °°°^p ~'~ ' I I am ' ~ ~I "' r, ~ ~ I I Ewa - _ i III Q~ ' I ~~~ I ' ~ I l - Op a rfr~ ' I I II w' r . cl 71 i . ~ ~[ ~ 111 I " l . Y '~ '~ ~ ~ I ~ 1 i~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i L~ ~~Y "'iJ . 11 1 ...J i ~~ l i•1 ~ i .. II .L. .. ~ i ~~ 1~i W III ' .O 1 I nil 1Y ~ ~ ' 1 iTm rSPM h~i '~~i ' 1 I ~ M1~~W.n l i l 6 ess ' ~ 4 . 1 11 mV11ui 1 uA U n I l~ i .vv+iac ~ c ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 l II IIII X i III K~ 1 4 I'i 'I e ~ ~_ au raw[ N 1 I 11 III 11 i 1 I IIII 11 I l - _ 7y ; 1 ' 1 Qx~ v>a A i 1tl OO M%. I l l W.w~1 - 1 1 ~ i l I 11 _ )e Q ~. ® eom wab. -~ ® ' ' f ` ' ' ~$}qe ~ W6 ~1 1 ~ ill i V II 1 ' i 'I ~ o 11 [ i 1 I I ~ ~ ~ IN nl~ e - v~ 1 1 1u1u 1 1 1i I I .~~ ' 111 i '~1m ~a n ~ 11~ "'1 1 M 11 I 1 ~i1~ r"~N ili ~ '~ l _ ~~- 5 ~ ' ~ '~ ~~ 1 ~ i1 e~40 111 I i1~ i ~' 1i~1 u i ~ 1 11 ail i ii~ 1 11 ~ i ><R...~~ e• _ sz ~ } 1 y~y ~'M 1 i~i1 1~~]~~ ~ ~ [ ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ ~ e 1 u I 4 wl 1111 0~ 1 I ~ 1 ~. ~ RiL`Y 'iT'I I' _ y Z 1 h 1 ~m ii1 I 1 1n iI~h y i 01i LI' 1 lui ~ _ 1 1 1' l t~i 1 " 11'i 11 h i i ['i1 ~ LLl rt'ww~ 7 W y i l 1 II 1 ~ ~ i ~ n l I Gnrrli 0li inn ~ 1 q '~i ~~ - k j , 1 ~f' ,~ ~1 1 i l 11 u , e Q W l O ~ '1 I In n i1~1 1 ~ i~l ' I11 ~ ' 1 i ~ ' 1 . I I d rl ~ L } ~ ztt ~ '~ E t~5 i 1 ' 1 11111 1 n 1 11 111 1 , 1 ? ~ r e. I 1 1 1 f ~ ~ w 1 1 1 1 A 4 i ~ ~ 1 1 I l ~ y ~ ~ '. G` F° IN ' ~' ' 11 1' ' ~ 1 1 ' 1 1"11 1 i ~ 1 11 I ~ 'I ii11 III 1 ' 1 \ v ~n 44 ~ ~ ~ E ~~ ~\ 4 ~ ~~ i I ~ i ' ~ ~ i i i1~i °'' ' ~ 1 1 ~ iN Y , ~ ~' 0®~~ ~ 4 ' N ' 1, '1 ~ ~ 11 , 111' , "11 ' 1 1 ~1 z ' i 1.1 ~ -,',1 1 t ~ ~ ! ~ '~11~~ ~I ~„~1~1 ~!6 ~. ~~ 11~f'~I~ ~ „ ~rl^ ~ 'e ~1f ~,1~N1;~ r1~1~"'~ ,.N4~~ «; ~'~d~ p~'~ ~ ~~~~1i ,~111 ~~ ° i g~~~ ~''~~''~N`IiY ,,w~.~~ ~11-r1'i 1i'411`I ,1 I"t ~ ~ ~ ~~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~€~ ~ ~ iwl ° 111 .. ~,1~ 1,1~11~II ~~~~~ I~I WM111 luu u' ~rI P nlt~ "'II ' N'111~11 1'1°,~ l'l~' 1 1 „~1.;"~',~ 1 ~ mr° ~ ! °.- ~ ~i ~ ~ n e ~_ ~ 1 ~ y i1 ~1 1 i i ~ I n ~ 11 ~ l ll N ~ e~~ ~ ~'~1 gg dY ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ p ~ ~5§ ~ I I l ' il'" .N 1 I I~ 11 i e ,In~111111~ 1 1 1 1 m1 1 "I o 1 l 11 1~V, 1 ill rl ~ 55 P g 7~~~p € ~°sE 3 ~ ~a ~~~ g3 ry d~ E I 1 1 .. 1.1 11 1 11 1 „ 11 1 1 i1 8 cF { R p F~ '[p ~ ~. 4' ~~~ g C ~ a ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ¢ c~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ y g p gg g ~ ~ [Y I~ l 1111'i 11 1 g zz gg ¢ ~4 9 ~ 9 v5 ~q v Y ~4 ~ @ ~ @@ ~ ~ ® ` . ~ 1 '1 l l 11 ~ 11 1 1i~ i 11 1 ~ py~ a yg g g g y p ~ee ~ §~ ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ 4 / p 1 11 i 1 li~ l i iMl i~ 1 ~ C ~B@ SF &&PF§ @ m : ii r; ~ ~ ~ OHO ° ~ „~~1 l~l'g1 e'1~1i ', 1'N ;'1 11 1 1 ~ 11~„ ' ffi 0 0 0 0 000 00~~~00®® ~! U • W ~~ ~ ~ a € C ~ 3 0 p 8 + v 9 } ~ ~ M 6 52 u~ ° F ; G s ~ 3 Y q Q ~i g c'` s:~o @ nn ai~g 3~y ~ }F} @@i ~ <~ 8 ~ ~ ~ d [ 2 Y e g ~ ¢ $ ~ ~ o N y ~ e gggg Y j E l ~ ~ p~ ~ v ~ ff g gg ggg Q ~ ~ ~ p p q n ;Y~ ~ g ~ = = a ~ ~ q ~ P R2 $ S~~~aO ~~g~~ R g i 4 4. `' ~ F ~ ~&~ € c § a 6 p ; s ~ k R O a h b ? s :,k :F { ~ ~ ~ p ~ gg ~ ~ ~ ~ yt~ § g gy fj § a [ 9 ~ ~y q A§ ~5 ~ . . ~ g A ~ p d a G c [ g @ e e 8 g e g ~~ e g ~ g g ~ g@F B q ~ ~ a _ P ~ ggO php $$- 4 C e pcp b~ kl ~ B C 6 p L 000 00000000©® _ . . _. ~LL ~o °5 ¢U Mln ~ @ 5 ~ ~~~ a®oi ~~ ~p ~ I'. 'IV 16'~I~;''Q ,6 ~,' I ~s ~} sp ~ @ ~ ~°5 ~ ~ ~, , ~ ~ ' ~ ~ __ ~ F o 8 2 I ~ f^ ~~ e .n iu ~ u i nip i~~~ ~ii o E ' ' ' ` ey`4~ ~ r ; " I. ~~~ '~~'"~~d ~~~ ~; ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ "~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tl~ 6 ~ ~ ~ g ~I m F ~APY~ .'~ ' fl ~~ iii'il ul ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~Ii i i Ih ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~'~~ I ' ~~i 5 gp g a ~ Y i~~Q@@~ q c FLL °~$F ~ C i i g¢ ! y^ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 Q~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ y C t 99 P d ~ ~ ', 4 t ~ n n @ a ~ b~~€~~~~~ ~ p y €a t I~ t Q I ' 1 @ 4 v e E g~E ~ ~l:~:~a~a@"GRd~p ~59 8 ... li ~ ~5p~€~~[ ~ ~ ~ ~ Iii ~ii~'i ' u' I I I ~ II ~ {y{y 33 .{ F F ~` ~`. R P 'J `J S :~ ~~ ~~9~ 44 . E Q ~ ~~~ ~ F ~ ~p N ~ "~ ii ~~I i n 4 III I ~ iaui 4 ! ! g g q g p g g g yd d t ~ g ¢ J d~ :t C ~ t $ etl ~ tltl Y ~ ~ ~ i ~ g ~ ± ~ F ~ e " B u n~ ~ li s ~ p~ ~ ~ o Vi I~~w~~ui ~ ~ m' ~~m' .% W~i I L:.~~ A "~' ,uiu j ~ x iwi !nyb~Iyq ~ ` I ~~' _ _ ~5A9g A pi _ _ _ _ ~ p/p p(p( c5¢ yg@ - rqB 6 yp q p(p '_f111k1'P6¢, fj ~3N trFN pf ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 1e'i'i' p IY~ w'{~ i i i' d ~ li T ~"iii '~Jlj~l*,il~ -, T ' ''"JLI'LL,,~'''T J ~ PP i iA I n, ' iti,i~ p p tl p 9 d tl tl tl [ Y ~'p i S~B LF_4CR°49l YYAN4bk3d i t I~I I~ Ti i i~ i M~ i ~ f ~iiti f ,l . i i ~ ' ' ~~Q^~~^~'~~0~~~®®® y ~ II H I. i iii~ .L.'" ~~~ ~~ ni i III~II .Ili i • •l ~ i n ~ i ni w*u~~~~~*~ I If it iii .f ~i ~ ~ ~ 1 ° .a I I 1„I ~ n.~ 4 f I lri ~~~ 1 1 _ ~ ~~ r a,a_>d ~ I CI f ' u ll ~' ~ ~~ ~ ~ i i~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ I ~ it°' ' C i' w: Il~rla ~ p, ~ ,.. j M ~~I I.' i" ~ ' N 'a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~~ ~e ~ 1 , ~~ , '' " ~ ' ~ l~ p ,,, y ~ «r ~Q . an~~ p ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~"1 a ~ ~ Ih~^i f.l tll + , .. r. >.»d.a - _ , r N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.,, ' ~ ' ' ~ . • i ix ' ' ~I ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i il ~ , fwa®vxa..a o 11 m...,t ~ N ' ~i ~'i i II ~ ' ~ _ 1 ~ i ~z 1 i~ ~ '~ ~ ' ~ ' X 1 ~ ~ mL. a ~ " ~ i . I' m iu r lull ~ ` ~' .. il~ ~ ' 'I n y V Iii ill l ~ m ~ °°°M N I ~ _ i i i ~ i ' ~ ~~' la k ~+r~,.~, µ~~,I ' `~ ~ '~ '~~~ u ~~ '~~ I' ~~ ~ ~ - ' ni n~~ k ° ~ ~ ~~T ~~aa: t ~ ~~ p ma.. .t ~ ~ ~ . p ' ' n u l ' ~ ~ n m p I ~ i ~ wm.v. ~ ~~ u~„ " ~ ~~ '~ ~ ~''''I N i '7 i L ' ' ~m .a { ~ ll il ~ ~ i ' ' . ~ i u ' ~ ~ y~,l o i l l i ° 'I' i ill i i ii ' i i m I~ ~ ~! ~Ti ~ I - _ i I i ~I ii ~ wov s m~+ W i ~~ ~~ ~ N. '~'~ m • ' ~ mca.n ~uii~ a i 'ui ~ ' i ' " i~r l~iT ~ ~'nii 'I ~ a ~ ~ ' ' I ~ ~ i i i i . ii' ~' ~ i J~ ~ ~ i ' r ~i ,~ i i~I ~~J~ ~ ~ I ~ ~II sa ~ y Ptl i ii~ , ' h"ii I f n csu~ r~u M{N"' '~I~ ~i ~' ~i'lil^ "~6'" ~a.m"'° ~ m. 2 ' IFYW41 Il li i .Iilllll lull4 L i N t m ~ ' n ~ ~ i 'i ~ i Ii i ' wm I ."~i'i l ~ f i I ,~~ , n i ~ ' l ' '~y ~i'~Y~f't g ~ g '~ F n ~ ~~ pQ y Rya R ail tl @ ~ LOW 4Y33N11e ~' ~ mux~~TV N It e! ? I ii i v ~ ~ P P f c 1 ~ a s '~ ~- ~ "~ • • ~o ~-/D I I ~ ~ d B~ ~ II 1 ~ dc„ ~ 0 0 I I ~ ~~ ~ a z g e @'1~ O S[ 1 q ~¢ ~ V I ¢ ~ ~ ~ o~go ~9z I II I u gg ~ sp ~ V ~$g ~ ~ ~ a Z ~ ~ = a e ~ ~ j o `i>C ff ~ ~: & c 5 ~ x ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ 6 e . I I I ~ ~ ~ ~j ~ U ~ ~ 1 1111 1 I I ~~ ~~~ ~ g ! ~ 1 " I II ' 11 C ~ i ~~~ f€Egl~~ 1 1 ~ II I I ii i III I I l I I I I I 11 ' ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t it nt .I VIII lil n Ilnl ~ qq pp&~ ;-YDS i•:4 a. 6 E (AA ~2¢Qa RR xLtl A•a 6 ? X~ ~ I 1 I I I i n I III ~ III I I ~ o 2 6F ~ H I 'I i I;II~ x I I 1 I 11 4 a 2 ~$~ ~ ~RRBQBYl9~ii,A~tld~ ~ ~ ~ ~ @ ~ I 1 ~1~1 i n I I 111111 YII llnloll ll~ II II 1111 I I ~11 MI IIIInni 1 1 ~ ~,II~I i I ~ ge tly~ @tl ~ : $ Hd ~ kg.elkeke;rleH§k .°.°,~ ~~ I 11111 a n i III 1 1 ~~1 III ' IIII 4 . b 8 d VYRWhea~~?ASA 1 • p I 11 I II{Gry. 1 ~I1 I ~1111~ l e l' 111~ 1 1 411~ I 11 1 gg yg yg s y ~A B ~ 6 ~ ~ 9 @~g9.h.++yp~sabLea- 8~~ ~ ~ tl @E a xEk^!§6 BA B`~ 8 ~ " " " 1 1 1+ ry1 11 _ l ;~ . °. IIMr"1"r1„°I' ; ' I 1 1 0000000~~00® i uin h 11 u111n 1j 11~~ l1 n1 III~rrhr I~ 1 Ip~ 1 u ~1 1 mlrv ~1 " Ilil~i olio nfllin ~ Im m IInIw III mdle 4 ~~~@y~~ ^ y~ l ~a 111 ~I ~11~~11 111~ ' '113 ~ nr 1 4 L 1 1111 C 1 ~uul n I 1 j 0 ~ 1 1 1 I L L ~ a q ~ II 1 1 ~ 1 1.„11 "'I hu 1 II lulu IIi Ilu 1 1 g @ @ - a 2 : @ ! m 1 1 1 ~yeL . C~ I I II Ipl l l I ~ I ulll 1 11 1 I1 l ~ 1 l ~~ L ~~" l tl tl \ a u 1 nl ~1" i 1 u ll ~ I -md " 111~~ ' 1 ~I x'111 11 '111~IIF Hh1 n ' 1 1 u11 I i1 X11 llil 1 ! 0 0 0 >~ 11 7"~ 1 1 111 111 '~ " ll ld~m it l~ ll~ ~~l 1, ~'~ II~V ~ ' 1 1 oa .o..mo 11 Il n i l~~h 1~6~i I " .. ,~ ",I l ~ ll~pl p, 111 I IH 1 11,1 +, .> f 1 Intl I 111 I n1 11 u111111111i1n 1n1 111 IIII II. 111 •° i 111. 11n1'pnnn II 1 I 11 Iii li m ~~ ~ 5 1 1 1 I'1 IIII 1 I I IIIII II IIII ~I II ' ~ y ~ a A S 1 1 11 1 I I 1 111 a ~ H $ ~ 111 11 x ~ 11 , 111 1' 6 1 g g ~ ~ ~ ~ d 1 1. . 1 1 Fe .,1. a E »~ 1 1 y1 ~ 1. 0®iI I n II ;' l I I _ II I I I I I 1 II I ,. m. e 0 ~ S ®y I I y I mpW l 1 1 1 ,.~~ 11 ~ I 111 ' II h I 1 II 1 I ~_ 1~ ,~ 41~~o ~ I 1 11 I I III ~ I 11 II I I 111 ~ II 1 1 ~ n I m, ,1 a avrtu Ewa M n 1 ~~' ~~I ~° CIO n°:~"~ _ n 11 l 1 i 11 ml 1 '11 mm~o 1111 n I 11 11 ~ ' ` g II 11n1 m ~ Il i'1 111 I 1 11 1 4 III ;M S ~ I 1 Cp cu.y ~ i~ C] I _ ~ , ~ II , 11 ~ '1111 1 n 1 ab '1l 11 ,'i' 1 I IN IN ;' 11 ` [[ ~ 1 v ` ,M ~3 €~~ ~~ 11 11n I~I Illy 41 r 1~~ l l 1 ~I 111 11° 1 1 11 Ip ~1 1 1 ~ 11111 y Id 111 1;1 1 1111 IIII ~ 111 1,1 111111 1 4 ~~ 111111111ui 1111 I y 11 1111 1"1111111 " I p ~W111 11 11n n 1L 1 1 I ~~ ~ A ~~.~,a~~G~tl ~ o ®~ ~ . , ~ ° ~ d 1 ~ Il X1:1 I,1 1 1 1 m1 I I l 1 y I ' ~ , I~ ~) ~s ~ ~ Ii y ~n ~~i~ II~g i~~wy 4i H° ; o~i~~l N~l~~a 'P; nh ~~~ ~ 111 l l I , I 1 I I 1~-ll ' ~ ~~S 1 ~ ~ I • o a O N I:1 ~ " I ~q s 'd f z °+ du by ~ l I ~~y ° ~¢ v ~ < ~ ~ ° F g 1 I I II ~°g~ sE F, ~5 II p p I ~I ~ ~ ~ k ~ ~~ys pp ! !f ~ ~n l ®® ~ ~ p ~ p md 7 ~ ~ l I p a { LL o~ c t ~ 9 ~ pp i @ g f Y A ~ g ~ ~ I I. i I u ~ l Ii i t . o f t N 6 IIIII~ ill 'n'on"~IIIIIII ."I i i ~u ~ I I i I I nl~nl , ' d i N O©O- ~ , v ~ g S€ 6gi~ 9 li lllil i IIII lull i II ~~ ~~~~ I~ 4~ ' n l~ I ~Y ~ A ~~ ~ ~ g p O 3 B h C F R qq R f ~ : 7 k A . . . x . . . x i _ p q_ I nI IIII I VIII ~ I i I rI10 1 I a _ . i II ~i I I I III II IIII ~ I a 'I ~' ~al li Im • i t ~~ ~~ ((I I d 9 @ 5 9 3 9 4 k 5 ' ~ - : x ? q rt h S o a gg A i q q S ~ I ~ ~ iuu il ll '!4 4 ii Fe~ ~ l 1 1I ~ l iii~ l lul ln l~ I ~ Aui ~,uu I ^ I iill I ml ll ul . ~ ~ II I ~~I I i ' /[' ~ U I i p a . - 1 a b P ^ P A • 9 A e ~ E s ~' L - A F R - S x S ~' .. e + .. .. III ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~~ I ,~ I~ ~ - el ~ ; @ @ ~ E c : E e ~ 6 ~ ~ @ ~ x . s . E . II ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ,~ ~ . ~ ~ e _ 1 ~1 11~ I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ! u .. > I ~ u 11 I' IOYIIII II l lm lil ll I I I I MME I n I rii~ i Ki. N •~~i ~~ II ~• i I I e I ~' ~ l l h l I l n ' ' ~ ~ _ s4 gul l al ~ l ... Ill uyll iiib R I'~r-~i'*~"'N FI ~I~iI ~ i a~ ~ y ~s ~ q ~ p f~ ll l~ It 111 ~~ ~ii.'~ l i `~~ r r y '~ ~ 11i1'lina N ~ ~ l~ iM~~ uv ` ~ ~ l i ~ { { ~ ~ €~ " i i IIII n I i l II ~~ I R lllTl9 "~ Y f I''~ ill li , " ~ I ~ ~ " ~ Y'~' ' i ~ ' ~ ~I h 1 l I _~ _ i ' ~ ^ 1 5 0 ~ ~ ~ ~e= ~ ~~. I I I I I I i I n~ II III ~ I I 4{{~~{1{~1 d ,,'mlrl rl l N ~`/ m ° ' ~~ ~~ ~ I I ~ Y ° ~1° "N ~ l l ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~©® ~ N ~lil4~~~ ln niNi ~ E' i ~~ . ~ rl u i ~ ~ I~1 i~ll l~ Illlu ~~Il t l ,l~ I ~ ~ ~ I I~11 l i N II I l ~ . M ~F II II r, I @ l ~ ' t Q nili uln I, In a I I i I ~ I ~ ~ ~ yh `x 9 } , y l ' ~ I illy' t l II iiAi l E ~ ~ i Il I n liu i L L ~ " II I 7v n li I ' I _ __ p ~ gg g v 4 S @ II I ~ I ~ IIII I g ~ & b p B h £ t c§ J pp d ~ ~~~ ~ ~I P I II 1 l II I "~ i+e bbb L Q Q> I I h l II I 1 _ f I 9 I 5g ~~ A ~~ c ~ ~ E l 1 II ~ e~ ~,- ~ g "c` _ 1 I I g nm QI p Yk ~ 3 N~ ~ ~ l I ~ C L 1. 51. KK m ' ~ - F 0 tl ~ ~ ~ff ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~s ~ ~~ as I ~ .~ 00000 _ I I I I N I ~- up ` ~ er iy a [ey nw.a IIII n l3NMIp i E y 6 ~ ~ of Y I M33H~ ~ b"J~ ~~~~~ A ~ I _ gg pb g 1 I I l i I i ti0[TiF g ~g¢ A - ~ I I I I II I I ~ ~ I I t I Ci a ~ ~ F S p ~ s t I I I I 'i I I d ~yg€ I i li u~ lip ~ ~ ~ I I NCI I , I IIII _ i ~ ~ ~_ 9€ ~ ~ ~'l I ~~I ~ I ~ II ~ ~ ____ ~ ~ ~~ ' p S ~~d ~~~ + ~ i' `~i it l II il~M1 I . I '" ov I i it a i i i~ n I I i « - .Im ~ _ 5 @ to ee Etl ~ ~Nli ~~I~I ~dll n ~~ I IIII' 1 14 ~IT 1 111E unll ii ~I ~ 119 iiu ~ ~ i n 14 ~', I ' ' I 1 ~d -~ 6.~: u'.~ ~ ~ Il ~ I fl I ~I E I _ o ~ ~ 1111 ~ l l r ii e ~ l~il ^ q ' II llill lr i~ ' i Llu ; „~I~I ,I I II I I xu l II,I l w i i ' ~ ~ 1 ~ I , , I ~ ~ ~ ' l ,' ~ I ~ r i u: l~l~~~ yy I ~ ~ g~g ~ I «li~ E [ g ~ ~ Ilu l II y ' I A , • fir, ;u r I 1 ; p, ' ` e g 9 ni i ~ i lillll 1~ irn Ini u~ i . I I~~''~f Fill i~r 4i lyyi li 1i 11 ~i u I l r ~ i~ ~ I ~ i H ~ ~ ^ ~~ nl~ '~' ._ , • l0 ~ W V143 $ wyvn ~ _ i Mf~ F ; R 9 3 ~~~ 111 oi I~ ~ iul~y ~~ b ~ Ep.i I N, ' pp V ~' I-0 6 ~~ ~ ~ ~ l m y33H9 3 p ~ 9 ~~ ~ 5 ® N ~ (~ ' ~~Ii~~~ ~ ~~ y ~ ~ ~~~p~i tl~~l r ~ ~~d, k~~ ~ .IIrM a ~ ~~ 9 ~ N~ ~ I14~ ~ "~ I ~ a l III 1M l f'i V ' I ' " a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ® A ~ I pxl 'Yy ~~~"~~ ' Ild~ NI ~ Y ~t~ N.u' ~-7 ~ ~~~~ '~;. ~14 ~ ~,r~ f~"" ~,4 ~ '-a ~ ®~ ~ ~ i~~¢ l ,~ nm,rn l hl ~~* 71 ~ n i,n Mirl C 1 I rl „~ ' vm+ll • • • ~~''~~ • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue • RANCHO I RED HILL CUCAMONGA COUNTRY CLUB j i BEGIN i PRDJECT i ~ i `"w ~ ~O ~ F~THILL SEND J ~ y HFRNARDWO RD PRO E i C SN n J c! ~ e" ~ n i > w ~ Q, Sp w o~ a a ~6R a n ~ ~ Q F~ ~ ~~ w ~ y =~ Z m 9ti Z~ <, , ARflOW MWY Initial Study City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California 08-SBD-66-6 6 (4 1)/9 0 (5 6) November 2004 ~~3 General Information About This Document • This document was prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Whaf's ~n fh~s document This document is an Initial Study (IS), which examines the potential environmental impacts of alternatives for the proposed protect located in San Bernardino County, California The document describes why the protect is being proposed, alternative methods for constructing the protect, the existing environment that could be affected by the protect, and potential impacts from each of the alternatives What should you dog • Please read this IS • We welcome your comments If you have any concerns regarding the proposed protect, please send your written comments to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by the deadline Submit comments via regular mail to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn Walter Stickney, Associate Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga • Engineering and Public Works 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730-0807 Submit comments via email to Walter Stickney, Associate Engineer (wstickne@a rancho-Cucamonga ca us) • Submit comments by the deadline To be completed. What happens affer this After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, the City of Rancho Cucamonga may (1) give environmental approval to the proposed protect, (2) undertake additional environmental studies, or (3) abandon the protect If the project were given environmental approval and funding were appropriated, the City of Rancho Cucamonga could design and construct all or part of the protect • ~~ OS-SBD-66-6 6 (4 1)/8 2 (5 6) INITIAL STUDY Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue City of Rancho Cucamonga, California - Date of Approval William J O'Neil City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga • fT r~ Mitigated Negative Declaratio^ Pursuant to Division 13, Public Resources Code Project Descrcption The Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga proposes to widen Foot}ull Boulevard (State Route 66) between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue m the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardmo County, Cahfomia The primary features of the proposed protect would include • Adding a lane in each direction along Foothill Boulevard • Removing and/or relocating the East Upland Underpass Bridge • Constructing a new trail bridge along the railroad alignment • Adding a raised median with median noses to facilitate fuming movements at intersections • Adding shoulders throughout the protect reach • Adding sidewalks where tight-of--way allows • Realigning Red Hill Country Club Drive by replacing the acute-angle intersecrion with a ngh[- ansle intersection Mrhgahon and measures to rtumrriize harm for potentially sigmficant impacts include aesthetics, au quality, biological resources, community resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous matenais, hydrology/water quality, noise (duruig constmchon), population and housing, public services, transportation/ traffic, and utility and service systems Determination l J The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared an Imha] Study, and determines from this study that the proposed protect would not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons 1 The proposed protect would not significantly affect topography, seismic exposure, or wetlands 2 The proposed protect would not vgmficantly affect flooding, and erosion control measures would • reduce impacts to water quality to less than significant 3 The proposed protect would not result m significant unpacts to natural vegetation or sensitive, endangered, or threatened plant species 4 The proposed protect would no[ sigmficantly affect sensitive, endangered or threatened wildlife species Surveys for raptor species, bunowmg owls, and horned lizards shall be conducted prior to construction and, if identified, mitigation would be implemented to reduce any impacts to less than significant 5 The proposed protect would no[ sigmficantly affect solid wastes or the consumption of energy and natural resources Some identified potential hazardous matenais sites could be impacted by the proposed protect, but mitigation would reduce these impacts to less than sigmficant 6 The proposed protect would no[ stetuficantly affect schools, or public facilities, recreation, pazkland, open space, land use, or neishborhoods Identified cultural resources would be impacted, but imtigahon shall be itriplemented to reduce these impacts to less than sigmficant 7 The proposed protect would promote improved local haffic circulation 8 The proposed protect could affect an quality and noise during construction, but mitigation would be implemented to reduce these iitipacts to less than sigmficant 9 The proposed protect would requue the acquisition of private property, but adequate compensation would be provided for those acquisitions ]0 The proposed protect would resuh m impacts to aesthetics, but rmhgation would reduce these impacts to less than sigmficant No sigmficant adverse permanent, temporary, or cumulative effects would remain following imhgahon for the prefened altetnative William) O'Neil Date City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cahforma • ~~ (O Summary • Summary The Crty of Rancho Cucamonga proposes to widen Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue m the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, Cahforma The pnmary features of the proposed project would include • Adding a lane in each direction along Foothill Boulevard • Removing and/or relocating the East Upland Underpass Bndge • Constructing a new trail bndge along the railroad alrgmnent • Adding a razsed median wrth median noses to facilitate fuming movements at intersections • Adding shoulders throughout the project reach • Adding sidewalks where nght-of--way allows • Realigning Red Hrll Country Club Dnve by replacing the acute-angle intersection with a nght-angle intersection Wtth construction of the proposed protect, the future lane geometry would change at • the two key intersections On Foothill Boulevard at Grove Avenue, an exclusive nght-turn lane would be added on the westbound approach At Vineyard Avenue, on the eastbound approach three through lanes and a dedicated nght fain lane wrll be added, the westerly approach would be re-stnped to cornc~de wrth the easterly side of the mtersechon An "Activity Center" concept is proposed for mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga intersections, consisting m part of enhanced crosswalk paving across connecting streets, a umfonn landscaping theme, and bus bays at mayor mtersect~ons No other known mayor actions are being proposed by govenunenta] agencies m the general vicinity of the proposed project Only the No Build Alternative is being consrdered m companson with the proposed Build Alternative The No Butld Alternative consrsts of no physical improvements or modrficahons to Foothill Boulevard beyond standard maintenance Based on current and forecasted trends m traffic growth, if no improvements are made, traffic congestion will increase along this and other sections of Foothill Boulevard, thus worsening the operating efficiency and safety along the roadway This traffic congestion will cause a decrease m the Levels of Service at the two pnmary Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue ~-~ n Summary intersections (Foothill Boulevard/Grove Avenue and Foothill Boulevard/Vmeyard • Avenue) along this segment of Foothill Boulevard, which may, m tum, increase the number of accidents and reduce response tunes of emergency and law enforcement vehicles The Build Altemative is anticipated to have less than sigmficant impacts after mitigation for hydrology/water quality, hazardous waste/matenals, air quality, noise, vegetation, wildlife, floodplains, relocations/displacements/acquisitions (potentially), utilities/emergency services, traffic/transportation, visuaUaesthetics, cultural resources, and geology and soils No elements of the Build Altemative are considered controversial and there are no unresolved issues with other agencies See Table S 1 for a summary of mayor potential impacts from the Build and No Build Alternatives, and Table S 2 for the mitigation measures that shall be implemented for the Build Altemative to reduce any potential impacts to a level that is less than significant No mitigation is being proposed under the No Build Altemative Table S 1 Summary of Mayor Potential Impacts From Alternatives Potential Impact No Build Alternative Build Alternative Aesthetic No Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Agncultural Resources No Impact Less Than Significant Impact Air quality Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Biological Resources No Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Community Resources No Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Cultural resources No Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Geology and soils No Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Hazards and Hazardous No Impact Less Than Signifcant Impact Materials with Mitigation (see Table S 2) H drolo y gy and water quality No Impact Less Than Signifcant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Foothill8oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue r~ I• J • /9~-- g Summary r1 U u • Table S.1 Summary of Major Potential Impacts From Alternatives (continued) Potential Impact No Bwid Alternative Build Alternative Consistency with the Rancho Cucamonga General No Impact No Impact Land use Plan and Planning Consistency with the San Bernardino No Impact No Impact County General Plan Mineral Resources No Impact No Impact Noise No Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Population and Housing No Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table 52) Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Recreation No Impact Less Than Significant Impact TransportationfTraff~c Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Utd~ty and Service Systems No Impact Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation (see Table S 2) Footh~ll8oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue w ~~ Summary Table S.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Potential Impact Build Alternative To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed in a manner which minimizes the impacts of the new construction on adjacent scenic resources Minimizing impacts shall be accomplished by incorporating design features that Maintain the greatest possible physical distance between the historic buildings, structures, and objects, and the road right-of- way (ROW) Do not require the reconfguration of external or internal features of the historic properties, including entrances, windows and related free-standing structures • Avoid the loss of related landscape elements where possible Where trees of the eucalyptus windrow are taken for the alignment Aesthetic and new ROW, new Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1 1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 19 O8, where feasible, unless it is determined by the City Engineer that the proposed project would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined in the City's Municipal Code Section 19 08 040 Development of the new pedestrian overcrossing and future rail bridge shall incorporate architectural treatments as identifed and outlined in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Foothill Boulevard -Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan in order to enhance these elements within the context of the newly designed Foothill Boulevard At a minimum the overcrossing included with the proposed project shall be designed so that architectural treatments as outlined in the Specifc Plan and Improvement Plan can be added to the bridge either when the bridge is constructed or at a later date Construction related dust abatement measures shall conform with Av Quality the Erosion Control Pian that shall be prepared for the proposed ' s Rules project In addition, all regwrements outlined in SCAOMD 401, 402, 403, and 403 1 shall be met (SCAOMD, June 16, 2000) Prior to clearing, surveys shall be conducted for raptor nests that may be located in eucalyptus trees that are to be cleared by construction of the project If active nests are identified, buffer zones shall be set up around the nests until nesting season is complete Surveys for burrowing owls and horned lizards shall be conducted prior to construction All new lighting should be directional lighting that points away from natwe habitat, if feasible, and toward the roadway Biological Resources Dunng construction, night-hghtmg shall be shielded from environmentally sensitive areas to the extent possible, and dust- control measures, as defined in the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepared for the proposed project, shall be implemented Where trees of the eucalyptus windrow are taken for the alignment and new ROW, new Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1 1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 19 O8, where feasible, unless it is determined by the City Engineer that the proposed project would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined in the City's Municipal Code Section 19 OS 040 Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue iv • • CI ~~ Summary • CJ Table S.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Potential Impact Build Alternative Property acquisition or relocations shall be carried pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acgwsition Community Resources Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 See construction related mitigation measures under air quality, hydrology and water quality, noise, and transportation/traffic sections of this table To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed in a manner which minimizes the impacts of the new construction on adjacent historic properties Minimizing impacts shall be accomplished by incorporating design features that • Maintain the greatest possible physical distance between the historic buildings, structures, and obfects, and the road ROW Do not require the reconfiguration of external or internal features of the historic properties, including entrances, windows and related free-standing structures • Avoid the loss of related landscape elements where possible Where trees of the eucalyptus windrow are taken for the alignment and new ROW, new Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1 1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 19 O8, where feasible, unless it is determined by the City Engineer that the proposed project would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree Cultural Resources replacement exceptions as defned in the City's Municipal Code Section 19 08 040 Should archaeological resources be encountered during construction, work shall be suspended in the area of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find Should archaeological resources be encountered during construction, work shall be suspended in the area of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the signifcance of the find Should paleontological resources be encountered during construction, work shall be suspended until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find If hu,nan remains are unearthed during construction no further disturbance of the site shall be permitted as outlined in State Health and Safety Code Section 7050 5 until the County Coroner has been able to make a determination regarding the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097 98 The contractor shall develop and implement BMPs to control soil Geology and Soils erosion and sedimentation during and immediately following construction of the project as ident~ed m the Erosion Control Plan that shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue v ~~1 Summary Table S.2 Summary of Mltlgatron Measures Potential Impact Burld Aiternatrve Dispose of all hazardous chemicals used during construction in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements Prior to conducting further site-speafic contaminant source scoping and work efforts, the following additional information shall be developed • Final determination of which sites, if any, would be fully or partially acgwred • Determination of specific constrvdion activities planned on or near potential contaminant sources, inGuding any utility work • Development of site-speafic hydrogeologic information, including geology and groundwater depth and direction • More m-depth review of agency records and interviews with regulators and property owners/occupants of poten4al contaminant sources identified as a potential impact to the protect, rf feasible Mitigation measures that shall be applied once the previously identifed information has been developed are identified below • A CERCLA "due d0igence" Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted for each acgwsition property where the potential for hazardous materials/waste issues exists based on the results of the previously described Hazards and Hazardous tasks The ESA shall be prepared per ASTM Standard Practice Materials for Environmental Site Assessments (E-1527-00) in order to fully evaluate potential environmental liabilities assoaated with property acgwsitions Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the need for further Phase II site investigations can be determined • Systematic groundwater sampling shall be conducted within areas where groundwater could be encountered during construction Such sampling can be performed in conjunction with other Phase II efforts assoaated with the proposed project, if necessary Procedures developed during the ESA and supplemental environmental documentation, if necessary, shall be implemented by the contractor during construction These may include the implementation of asste-speafic health and safety plan, site-speafic contaminant management plans, removal of storage tanks, and a general construction contingency plan Additional mitigation measures to be carried out are • Evaluate all structures that would be demolished as part of construction for the presence of asbestos-containing matenal and lead-based paint poor to demolition Remediation, in accordance with the recommendations of these evaluations, shall be implemented Demolition of structures containing asbestos shall conform with SCAQMD's Rule 1403 Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue U J u ~~~ Summary Table S.2 Summary of Mltlgatlon Measures • • • Potential Impact Build Alternative • Test and properly dispose of or remediate traffic stripe and pavement marking matenal if it contains more than 0 5 percent lead by dry weight Testing and removal regwrements for yellow striping shall follow Construction Program Procedure Bulletin 99-2 (CPB 99-2) Hazards and Hazardous • If excavation reveals unknown potentially hazardous wastes or Materials (continued) underground tanks, work shall be stopped immediately or redvected until the area in question is investigated and mitigation proposed If at any time in the design and construction phases prescnbed mitigation is not carried out, additional environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA must be completed to disclose unmitigated impacts Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented dunng and immediately following construction in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP) that shall be developed by the contractor that includes provisions for the implementation of the BMPs and erosion-control measures The following BMPs shall be included m the NPDES Plan for the proposed protect, along with any others identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) • Limit construction and all protect actwities to awell-defined alignment • Avoid water resources • Refuel egwpment at least 30 meters (100 feet) from washes • Prohibit runoff from construction actwities to enter washes Hydrology and Water Quality • Use measures such as straw bales and silt fenang to control erosion • Cap all pipes overnight that are less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) in diameter • Prohibit pets on the construction site • Keep the site clean and remove trash daily All reasonable measures to capture and detain unwanted discharge shall be addressed to acceptable standards, as identified in the SWPPP Erosion-control measures shall be implemented as identifed in the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepared by the contractor and approved by the City Engineer prior to construction Drainage improvements along the protect route shall be designed so that they do not impede or redirect 100-year flood flows, and do not raise the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted 100-year base flood elevation by 0 3 meter (1 foot) or more Foothrll8oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue vu ,~- a3 Summary Table S.2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Potential Impact Build Alternative Construction noise levels and hours of construction activity shall only be permitted as specified in Section 17 02 120 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code In addition, all equpment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust As directed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Noise the contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, if deemed necessary by the City, which may include, but would not be limited to, changing the locatwn of stationary construction egwpment, shutting off idling egwpment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adtacent residents in advance of construction work, or installing acoustic barners around stationary construction noise sources Property acgwsition or relocations shall be carried pursuant to the Population and Housing Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acgwsition Polices Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 A construction staging plan shall be developed following final design Public Services and implemented to minimize temporary detours and closures To mdigate construction-related traffic impacts, a construction TransportationRraffic staging plan shall be developed by the City after final design and poor to the start of construction The contractor shall develop and implement BMPs to control stormwater quality during and immediately following construction of the protect See Hydrology and Water Quality section of this table for specfic mitigation measures Utility and Service Systems See BMPs included in the hydrology and water quality, section of this table All hazardous chemicals used during construction shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue vw • • u ~-- a U Table of Contents Tabie of Contents r1 LJ Summary t Table of Contents - tx List of Figures xn List of Tables - xm List of Abbrevtated Terms xtv Chaptef 1 Purpose and Need 1 1 1 Project Purpose 1 12 ProlectNeed 3 1 2 1 Traffic Congestion 3 1 3 Project Background 6 Chapter 2 Pro3ectAlternatives - 8 2 1 Alternative Development Process 8 2 2 Project Alternatives 8 2 2 1 No Build Alternative 8 2 2 2 Alternatve 1 Build Alternative . 9 2 2 3 Transportarion Systems Management 12 2 3 Altemattves Considered and Withdrawn 12 Chapter 3 Affected Environment 13 3 1 Aesthetics 13 3 2 Agncultural Resources 14 3 3 Atr Quality 14 • 3 4 Biological Resources 3 5 Community Resources IS 19 3 6 Cultural Resources 20 3 7 Geology and Soils 21 3 8 Hazards and Hazardous Matenals 21 3 9 Hydrology and Water Quality 27 3 10 Land Use and Planning 30 3 11 Mineral Resources 30 312 Noise 30 3 13 Population and Housing 34 3 14 Public Services 36 3 15 Recreation 37 316 Transportatton/Traffic 37 3 17 Urihty and Service Systems 38 - Chapter 4 CaLfornta Envu•onmental QuaLty Act Evaluation 39 4 1 Determining Significance Under CEQA 39 4 2 CEQA Environmental Checklist 40 4 3 Discussion of CEQA Checklist Responses 51 4 3 1 Aesthetics 51 4 3 2 Ad culture Resources ~3 4 3 3 Atr Quality 53 4 3 4 Biological Resources 5~ 4 3 5 Community Resources 57 4 3 6 Cultural Resources 61 4 3 7 Geology And Soils 62 • 4 3 8 Hazards And Hazardous Matenals 64 Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue tx J~-aS Table of Contents 4 3 9 Hydrology And Water Quality -- 68 4 3 10 Land Use And Planning 71 4 3 11 Mineral Resources 72 4 3 12 Noise - 72 4 3 13 Population And Housing 74 4 3 14 Public Services 75 4 3 15 Recreation - 76 4 3 16 Transportation/Traffic 76 4 3 17 Utility And Sernce Systems 78 4 3 18 Mandatory Fmdmgs Of Significance 79 4 4 Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts Under CEQA 80 4 4 I Aesthetics 80 4 4 2 Atr Quality 81 4 4 3 Biological Resources 81 4 4 4 Community Resources 82 4 4 5 Cultural Resources 82 4 4 6 Geology and Sotls 83 4 4 7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 83 4 4 8 Hydrology and Water Quality 84 4 4 9 Noise 8~ 4 4 10 Population and Housing 85 4 4 11 Public Services 8~ 4 4 12 Transportation/I-raffic 86 4 4 13 Utility and Service Systems 86 4 5 Monitoring Program for CEQA Mitigation 86 4 6 Fmdmgs and Statements of Ovemdmg Considerations 86 Chapter 5 Summary of Public Involvement Process/Tribal Coordination - 87 5 1 Notice of Initiation of Studies 87 5 2 Tribal and Historic Coordination 87 5 3 Public Comments 88 Chapter 6 List of Preparers 89 Chapter 7 References 91 Appendices Appendix A Mitigation and Monitoring Commitments • • • Foothi// Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avyetn-ue and Vineyard Avenue X N Table of Contents List of Technical Studies that are Bound Separately • (See Volume II -Technical Studies) Arr Quality Analysis • Air Quality Analysis Memorandum • PMIO Hot Spot Qualitative Analysis Biological Survey and Junsdictional Delmeation Report Floodplarn Evaluation Report Summary H~stoncal Resources Clearance Report • Histonc Resource Evaluation Report • Histonc Architectural Survey Report • Archaeological Survey Report Initial Srte Assessment Traffic Impact Analysis Traffic Noise Abatement Study r 1 I• J • Footh~Il Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue xi ~~^-~1 List of Rgures List of Figures Figure 1-1 Project Locarion Map Figure 1-2 Level of Service Figure 2-1 Proposed Project Layout Figure 2-2 Proposed Right-of--Way Map Figure 3-1 Census Tract Block Groups Map 2 10 11 35 L_J • • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue xu ~''01 List of Ta61es • u -~J List of Tables Table S 1 Summary of Malor Potentral Impacts From Alternatives Table S 2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Table 1 1 Traffic Level of Service Descnption Table 1 2 Morning Peak-Hour Levels of Service Table 1 3 Afternoon Peak-Hour Levels of Service Table 3 1 State and Federal Ambrent Air Quality Standards Table 3 2 Au Quality Summary for Study Area Momtonng Stations Table 3 3 Largest Employers m the City of Rancho Cucamonga Table 3 4 Hazardous Waste Srtes Table 3 5 Srte Reconnarssance of Vista-Identified Sites Table 3 6 Site Reconnarssance of Addrtional Potential Hazazdous Waste Srtes Table 3 7 Existing Noise Levels Table 3 8 Housing Data Table 3 9 Population Data Table 3 10 Ethnicity Table 4 1 Anticipated Parcels to be Impacted by the Proposed Protect Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue ~"~~ n iv 4 6 6 16 17 20 23 23 24 32 34 36 36 ~8 xw List of Abbreviated Terms List of Abbreviated Terms C~ A/E Approach (vnthin one dBA) or exceed ACM asbestos-containing matenal ADT average daily traffic ASTM Amencan Society for Testing and Matenals BMPs Best Management Practices BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene Caltrans Cahfomia Department of Transportation CARB California Au Resources Board CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CCWD Cucamonga County Water Distnct CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System CFR Code of Federal Regulations CESQG Conditionally exempt small quantity generator CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CO carbon monoxide CORRACTS Corechve Action Srtes DEHS Department of Environmental Health Sernces dB Decibel dBA Decibels measured on the "A-scale" e g • for example EA Environmental Assessment EUUB East Upland Underpass Bndge FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map ft fooUfeet HzS hydrogen sulftde HMD County of San Bernardino, County Fire Department, Hazardous Matenals Division (formerly DEHS) Hz Hertz -frequency measured in cycles per second I L Insertion loss i e that is IS Initial Study ISA Initial Site Assessment kHz 1 000 hertz km kilometer(s) KP kilometer post Leq Equivalent sound level LBP Lead-based paint Leq(h) One-hour equivalent sound level LOS levels of service LQG Large-quantity generator • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue xrv ~ 30 List of Abbreviated Terms LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank m meter(s) • MFR multi-family residence mg/kg milligrams per kilogram mi mile(s) MTBE methyl ternary butyl ether Mw moment magnitude NAC Noise Abatement Cntena NOZ nitrogen dioxide NPDES National Pollutton Discharge Ehmmahon System NPL National Pnonty List NRHP National Register of Bistonc Places 03 ozone Pb lead PES Prehmmary Environment Study PM post mile PM~o particulate matter PS&E Plans, Specifications, and Estimates PSR Project Study Report ROW nght-of-way RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAR Santa Ana Region SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthonzation Act SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management Distnct SCL State CERCLA or Superfund SFR single-family residence SOz sulfates SPL State Pnonty List _ SQG Small-quantity Generator SR State Route SWLF Solid waste landfill SWT'PP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TNAP Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol TPH-G total petroleum hydrocarbons TRIS Toxic Release Information System USACE U S Army Corps of Engineers USGS United States Geological Survey UST Underground Storage Tank vpd vehicles per day • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Befween Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue /~'~c~7~ xv Chapter 1 Purpose and Need • Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 1.1 Project Purpose The proposed project is located along Foothill Boulevazd (State Route 66) between Grove and Vmeyazd Avenues m the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cahfoinia (see Figure 1-1) Rancho Cucamonga is located in the southwestern portion of San Bernazdino County, approximately 60 kilometers (37 miles) east of the City of Los Angeles, Cahfornra The western edge of the project, Grove Avenue, is the mumcipal boundary line with the Crty of Upland, Cahfomia m this area As identified m the Protect Study Report dated July 1993, the pnmary purpose of the proposed protect is to maintain an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) and margin of traffic safety on Foothill Boulevard as traffic volumes increase (see Section 1 2 1 for a definition of LOS) ' Exrstmg Foothill Boulevazd generally has a roadway width of 19 5 meters (64 feet) or greater Due to the short span of the East Upland Underpass Bndge (EUUB), located~ust west of Baker Avenue, the roadway width is reduced to 13 4 meters (44 feet) at this location, which is less than the Cahfomia Department of Transportatron's (Caltrans') standard Tlus • results in four lanes, each only 3 4 meters (11 feet) wide Opposing traffic is separated only by a double yellow line This "choke point" limits capacity, creates congestion, and reduces sight lines from either side of the bndge along the roadway alignment, thus presenting a potential safety hazard The pnmary features of the proposed protect would include • Adding a lane m each direction along Foothill Boulevard • Removing and/or relocating the EUUB • Constructing a new trail bndge along the railroad alignment • Changing the pavement to Open Graded Asphalt Concrete (OGAC) or Asphalt Rubber Asphalt Concrete Fncuon Courses (ARACFC) • Adding a raised median with median noses[ to facilitate turning movements at intersections • Adding shoulders throughout the protect reach • Adding sidewalks where tight-of--way allows fronting developed pazcels • Realigning Red Hill Country Club Dnve by replacing the acute-angle intersection with a tight-angle intersection • ~ Median noses are rounded sections that are installed at the end of median islands to redirect traffic along either side of the median and to reduce the unpact on vehicles that iiin into the median Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue ~'~°Z Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 1` x `1 ~ 1 d' _ z 15P SIree1 a ~ m C Q +an ueel m a' ReEMMI Covnlry Gu0 a ~ Dm 1 Foothill v rd B l _ ou e a ea:l uRlaoe 9 a une rRass a `` enao. `- _ - V t~ ~. d' l a se"" ~ ~ rcw Rohe _ N p N C_ S~Sllttl ~ aW~ &Ii WeN III • • Figure 1-1: Project Location Map City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue Scale - - - Pro)ect Alignment ~ 0 1 Mlle 1 0 1 141ortmter • Foothill Boulevard (Stafe Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue ~' ~ Chapter 1 Purpose and Need With construction of the proposed project, the future lane geometry would change at the two • key intersections On Foothll Boulevard at Grove Avenue, an exclusive nght-tum lane would be added on the westbound approach At Vineyard Avenue, on the eastbound approach three through lanes and a dedicated nght tum lane will be added, and the westerly approach will be re-stnped to coincide with the easterly side of the intersection An "Activity Center" concept is proposed for major Crty of Rancho Cucamonga intersections, consisting m part of enhanced crosswalk paving across connecting streets, a uniform landscaping theme, and bus bays at major intersections 1.2 Project Need Foothill Boulevazd is an existing state highway/mayor artenal that runs eastlwest, connecting the Crty of Pasadena with the Crty of San Bernardino The existing lghway within the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga consists of two 3 6-meter (12-foot) lanes m each direction, wrth a stnped center median for left turns Foothill Boulevard does not currently provide for sidewalks, shoulders, or raised medians, which limits use by pedestnans and bicyclists The existing short span of the E1NB limits the existing roadway to a width of 13 4 meters (44 feet), with four nonstandard 3 4-meter (11-foot) lanes at the underpass The narrow roadway • width, which is a result of the closeness of the abutments at the underpass, limits capacrty, creates congestion, and results m a sight distance problem The need for the proposed project is based on an assessment of transportation demand, current and predicted future congestion along Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue (as measured by LOS), and the degree to which accidents are caused by poor traffic conditions that occur along this roadway According to Traffic Accident Surveillance and Analysis System (TASAS) data obtained for the roadway segment from October 1, 1997 thorough September 30, ?000, the current accident levels along Foothill Boulevard are lower than expected when compared to the state average accident rate However, it is anticipated that as traffic congestion increases, accident rates along the roadway segment will also increase 1.2.1 Traffic Congestion The ability of a highway to accommodate traffic is typically measured in terms of LOS, based on the rario of traffic volume to the design capacrty of the facility Roadway capacity is generally measured as the number of vehicles that can reasonably pass over a green section of roadway m a green penod of trine The Highway Capacity Manual, prepared by the Transportation Research Board, identifies travel speed, freedom to maneuver, and proximity Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue ~~ Chapter 1 Purpose and Need to other vehuc]es as important factors m determining the LOS on a roadway Daily traffic volumes are used to estimate the extent to which peak-hour traffic volumes equal or exceed • the maximum desirable capacity of a roadway Traffic flow is classified by LOS, ranging from LOS A to LOS F LOS A is defined as free-flow traffic, with no delays, and LOS F is defined as forced-flow, with substantial delays Table 1 1 presents the LOS characteristics for intersections, while Figure 1-2 provides a graphical depiction of LOS for roadway segments Generally, when the roadway or intersection LOS is LOS E or higher, the theoretical capacity of the roadway or intersection is considered to be exceeded Table 1.1 Traffic Level of Service Description LOS Delay (seconds) Traffic Flow/Delay Characteristics Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase A 0 1-10 0 Most vehicles do not stop at all Short cycles may also contribute to low delay Generally occurs vnth good progression and/or short cycle lengths More vehicles stop B 10 1-ZO 0 than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay Higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths Individual C 20 1-35 0 cycle failures may begin to appear in this level Number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection wdhout stopping Influence of congestion becomes noticeable Longer delays must result from some combination of unfavorable progression, cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (v/c) D 35 1-55 0 ratios Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines Individual cycle failures are a frequent occurrence Considered the limit of acceptable delay High delay values generally indicate poor E 55 1-80 0 progression, long cycle lengths, and high vlc ratios Individual cycle failures are a frequent occurrence Considered unacceptable to most drivers Often ocwrs with over-saturation (when F >80 1 arrival Flow rates exceed the capaaty of the mtersec6on) May also occur at high v/c - ratios below 1 00, with many individual cycle failures Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing cause of such delay levels As identified m the Traffic Impact Analysrs that was prepared for the proposed project, dated June 2002 (see Volume II, Technical Studies), the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue operates at an acceptable LOS during the moming peak hour (LOS C) and during the afternoon peak hour (LOS D) The intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue cun•ently operates at an unacceptable LOS during the morning peak hour (LOS E) and during the afternoon peak hour (LOS F) (see Tables 1 2 and 1 3) • Without the proposed unprovements, it is protected that by 2025 the moming peak hour at the Foothill Boulevard/Grove Avenue mtersecrion will operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D) and the afternoon peak will operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS F) Without the proposed improvements, rt is anticipated that by 2025, both the moming and afternoon • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 4 /g" ~~, Chapter 1 Purpose and Need • • ,--`c _ [}t __~ _ ~ __ ~Y ~ ~ i 11 ` i, 1 ffi m ~i Fg~ ~ t p LOS A R a LOS D ~ a, ~ W `- } - ~ ~ - am ..J _ Y ~ - .P~ a~ ~ ...I " wm _ ~;, ,~~ j 9 P' 1 I y { ± LOS B LOS E . -~5v'r-..._. .., ~ ` "°~ ~ ~ l R 1' ~ r P 4 ^~ t y~ LOS C LOS F Sawn T2~ts~artdtion RPSea ABaaztl (TREI) MpMreY L909~Y Manual Speoal R9pM1M1 2C9 1889 Figure 7-z Level of Service n Foothill Boulevard (State Roufe 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue K}--~~o Chapter 1 Purpose and Need peak hours will operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS F) at the intersection of Foothill Boulevazd with Vmeyazd Avenue (see Tables 1 2 and 1.3) • Table 1 2 Morning Peak-Hour Levels of Service Existing 2025 Future Without Project Location LOS Average Delay (seconds) LOS Average Delay (seconds) Foothill Boulevard/Grove Avenue C 26 8 D 35 7 Foothill BoulevardNineyard Avenue E 61 7 F 85 3 Table 1.3 Afternoon Peak-Hour Levels of Service Existing 2025 Future Without Pro/ect Location Average Delay Average Delay LOS (seconds) LOS (seconds) Foothill Boulevard/Grove Avenue D 41 2 F 90 2 Foothill BoulevardNineyard Avenue F 93 2 F 94 6 Based on the information presented above relating to LOS, the proposed protect is needed to • - relieve existing and anticipated future traffic congestion 1.3 Project Background The EUUB, which is located dust west of Baker Avenue and was formerly owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad, is a steel through girder structure that was built m 1929 A Project Report for the underpass was prepared and approved in 1991 The Project Report recommended replacing the underpass and wrdenmg Foothill Boulevazd to six traffic lanes, with a 4 3-meter (14-foot) median Replacing or wrdenmg the underpass was nominated by the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga m 1982-83 for consideration as part of the Cahfonua Public Utility Commission's statewide pnonty list of grade crossings or separations that are most urgently m need of replacement This bndge replacement, however, was considered a low pnonty due to relatively high construction costs and low tram volumes The railroad later ceased operations on this line and the track was removed The nght-of--way was acquired by the San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) for use as a trail and as a possible future commuter rail line SANBAG has indicated an interest m constructing a new pedestnan overcrossing Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 6 /g-'z3r1 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need next to the existing railroad overcrossing, which would be removed as part of this protect • The new pedestrian overcrossing, winch is planned to be constructed as part of thrs prof ect, would span Foothll Boulevard, which is to be widened to six lanes as part of the proposed pro) ect In 1985, SANBAG prepared a study titled, High-Flow Arterial Study of Foothill Boulevard - Fzfth Street Phase II of this study was prepazed m 1989 and recommended that six through lanes, along with dual left fain lanes at major intersections, be provided to accommodate protected future traffic demands along Foothill Boulevard The wrdemng of Foothzll Boulevard is the first phase of a multi-phase program of improvements on State Route 66 In 1987, the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the Foothzll Boulevard Specific PZan, which addressed proposed adI acent land uses and transportation issues, including the need for increasing traffic capacity along Foothill Boulevazd The traffic element of the Spec f c Plan recommended the widening of Foothill Boulevazd to 6 lanes, with a 4 3-meter (14-foot) median A subsequent Project Study Report for widening Foothill Boulevard from Grove Avenue to Lion Street was approved m 1993 It also recommended wrdemng Foothill Boulevard to 3 traf&c lanes m each direction plus a 4 3-meter (14-foot) medran The Crty of Rancho Cucamonga recently requested a waiver to Gurdehne 2(a) of SANBAG's Baldwin Park Branch Continuity Policy and General Guidelines Gurdehne 2(a), as ongnally written, states, "All bridge abutments and support column footing shall be _ designed as part of the roadway widening protect " It is anticipated that rail system construction would not occur until at least 2010 In early 2001, The Calrfomia Department of Transportation's (Caltrans') Division of Structures stated that unless the bridge would be constructed within the next two to three years, it was not recommended to design the rail bridge or abutments at this time This is because construction standards and requirements are constantly changing and as such, a bridge designed by today's standards would most likely have to be redesigned later if construction was delayed sigmficantly In lieu of a waiver, SANBAG amended Gurdehne 2(a) to state, "A preliminary design shall be performed to assure that a future railroad bridge can be constructed as part of the road- wrdemng prod ect " The proposed protect is being funded through a Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Tax Allocation Bond • Foofhdl Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue /438 Chapter2 ProlectAltema6ves • Chapter 2 Project Alternatives 2.1 Alternative Development Process Three bndge altemahves were uutially analyzed as part of the proposed protect Detailed descnptions of the rejected altemahves can be found m Section 2 3 After reviewing the altemahves, the City of Rancho Cucamonga decrded that the second and third alternatives would requrre much more effort, money, and design exceptions compared to the first altemahve Alternative 2 could not accommodate the widening of the roadway, nor would rt leave room to construct the shoulder and most of the median Altematrve 3 would not only have the sane problems as Alternative 2, but would also require that the bndge be constructed without the existing skew, forcing the cross bracing to be completely rebtult 2.2 Project Alternatives Final selection of an altemahve will not be made until after the full evaluation of environmental impacts, full consrderation of public comments, and approval of the final environmental document One Build and one No Build Alternative have been identified for • study, and are bnefly descnbed below 2.2.1 No Build Alternative -, The No Burld Altemahve consists of no physical improvements or modifications to Foothill Boulevard beyond standard maintenance Based on current and forecasted trends m traffic growth, if no rmprovements are made, traffic congestion will increase along this and other sections of Foothrll Boulevard, thus worsening the safety and operating efficiency of the roadway Although Foothrll Boulevard was operating at LOS B m 1990, rt rs expected to detenorate to LOS F by the year 2015 according to the 1993 Protect Study Report According to the June 2001 Traffic Impact Analysis, the Foothrll Boulevard/Grove Avenue and Foothill Boulevard/Vmeyard Avenue intersections are also expected to operate at LOS F dunng the morning and afternoon peak hours m 2025, except for Foothill Boulevard/Grove Avenue dunng the morning peak hour, which is expected to operate at LOS D Thrs traffic congestion will likely cause a worsening m the LOS of this artenal, which may m turn increase the number of accidents and reduce response trines of emergency and law enforcement vehicles u Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue a/n~d Vineyard Avenue ~-~'I Chapter 2 Pro/ect A/temat~ves 2.2.2 Alternative 1: Build Alternative Under Alternative 1, Foothill Boulevard would be widened to three travel lanes m each • direction, for a total of six through lanes A 4 3-meter (14-foot) raised median with 0 6-meter (2-foot) median noses to facilitate turning movements at the intersections would be provided The Cucamonga Channel overcrossing would be widened, however, the channel itself would not be altered, so the flow capacity would not be affected The existing EUUB would be removed and disposed of, or relocated for other uses outside of the prod ect A new pedestnan overcrossing would be constructed along the south side of the raikoad alignment, leaving space for a future rail bndge on the centerline of the existing rail comdor Additional components of the proposed project include • Realigning Red Hill Country Club Dnve by replacing the acute-angle intersection at Foothill Boulevard with a nght-angle intersection • Changing pavement to Open Graded Asphalt Concrete (OGAC) or Asphalt Rubber Asphalt Concrete Fnction Courses (.ARACFC) • Realigning the entrance into the Sycamore Restaurant which is located at the San Bemardmo Road intersection The southerly improvements will remain unaltered • Adding shoulders throughout and sidewalks m developed areas where nght-of--way is available • • Adding raised, landscaped medians • Incorporating a gateway monument • Adding a traffic signal at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Red Hill Country -- Club Dnve • Installing Ophcom devices at all traffic signals along the traffic route • Installing electncal power conduits and outlets for the hghring of trees planted within the new median • Installing a fiber optic conduit along the length of the protect With construction of the proposed protect, the future lane geometry would change at the two key intersections On Foothill Boulevazd at Grove Avenue, an exclusive nght-turn lane would be added on the westbound approach At Vineyard Avenue, on the eastbound approach three through lanes and a dedicated nght tum lane will be added, the westerly approach will be re-stnped to coincide with the easterly side of the intersection An "Activity Center" concept is proposed for major City of Rancho Cucamonga intersections, consisting m part of enhanced crosswalk paving across connecring streets, a uniform landscaping theme, and bus bays at mayor intersections The proposed project layout is presented m Figure 2-1 and the proposed project nght-of--way is shown m Figure 2-2 • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue ~}-UO a t Flgure 2-1: Proposed Pro)ect Layout Cily of Rancho Cucamonga, Caidorma Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Foothill Boulevard (State Rome 6G) Between Gmve Avenue and Nneyard Avenue f0 A.~ LEGEND Ftgure 2-2. Proposed Rtght-of-Way Map scale m ANEdffii9 "'~1°`"^ Crty of Rancho Cucamonga, Cahfomia ' ~' e~°e1p°°''~q Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Foolhdl Boulevard (Slate Route 6GJ Between Gmve Avenue and Vineyard Avenue • • • Chapter2 Pro~ectAltematives The estunated pro)ect cost for Altemarive 1 would be $15 5 mrlhon, including $9 7 mrlhon • for construcrion, $4 2 mrlhon for right-of-way acgmsrtion, and $1.6 mrlhon for engineering and construcrion management 2.2.3 Transportation Systems Management Transportarion Systems Management alternatrves were not analyzed for this prod ect, as such actrons would not fit the project purpose and need, partrculazly wrth respect to the EWB 2.3 Alternatives Considered and Withdrawn Addrhonal alternatives regarding the EUUB were consrdered and rejected, as rdenhfied below Alternatrve 2: Remove the existing bridge and re-use it as one span of a two-span pedestrian overcrossing along the south side, leavrng space for a future rail bridge on the centerline of the existing corridor. This altematrve involved lifting the span of the exrstmg bridge, demohslung the exrstmg abutments, and wrdenmg underneath wrth crew abutments and a center prer Thrs altematrve was rejected because the exrstmg bridge would not be able to completely span one-half of the proposed roadway wrdenrng, there would not be room to construct the shoulder or most of the medran, and a desrgn exceptron would be • requrred Alternative 3: Remove the exrstmg bridge and re-use it as a one-span perpendicular crossing over all six lanes and median of Foothill Boulevard. Thrs altematrve requrred major changes to the exrstrng steel structure of the bridge Addrtronal embankment and retaining walls would be requrred along the south srde of Foothrll Boulevard to connect the exrstrng embankment with the new south abutment Thrs altematrve was rejected because rt had the potentral to cause problems wrth the safety of the budge structure, requmng complete rebu4dmg of the cross bracing Furthermore, the budge would not be long enough to completely span the proposed wrdened roadway, there would not be room to construct the shoulders, and a desrgn exception would be requrred • Footh~/l Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avnenue/a2nd Vineyard Avenue 12 /~`~'-~ Chapter3 Affected Environment • Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3.1 Aesthetics As part of State Route 66, which is a histonc roadway m some porttons of the country, the proposed project alignment contains numerous vrsual resources that were part of the ongmal State Route constructton Several of these resources aze designated as local landmarks and are considered a vrsual lrrik to the City's past Some of these resources tdenttfied within the study alignment include the following • East Upland Underpass Bndge (EUUB) • Eucalyptus Windrow • Klusman House • Kramer Brothers Nursery • Magtc Lamp Tnn • Oso Bear Statue • Red C1uefMotel • Sycamore Inn • Thomas Vineyards • Although the EUUB was not eligible for the NRHP as determined by Caltrans' statewide bndge inventory conducted from 1984 to 1986, and m 2001 the Crty ofRancho Cucamonga determined the bndge was not eligible for designation as a local landmazk, the EUUB represents a dominant vrsual element within the context of Foothill Boulevard Addtttona] resources wtthm the protect altgnment include an area of elevated topography adjacent to the project's northern boundary that is identified as a vrsual landfotm resource for the Ctty Of the above-mentioned resources, six properties aze either ehgtble for listing on the National Register of Htstonc Places (NRHP) or are ehgtble for listing as City of Rancho Cucamonga Landmazks as identified m the Htstonc Resources Clearance Report (HRCR) that was prepared for the proposed project (Chambers Group, December 2001) These properttes are listed be]ow • Klusman House - eligible for the NRHP and Crty list of lustoncal resources • Kramer Brothers Nursery - ehgib]e for local listing as Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Crty Landmark • Magic Lamp Inn - eligible for local listing as Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Crty Landmark • Red Chief Motel - eligible for local listing as Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Crty Landmark (structure has been removed subsequent to the preparation of the HRCR) V • Sycamore Inn -eligible for local listing as City of Rancho Cucamonga City Landmark • • Oso Bear Statue -eligible for local listing as City of Rancho Cucamonga City Landmark Foothtll8oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue ~annd~V~in'`eyard Avenue 13 !J `'r~-! Chapter 3 Affecfed Environment In addition, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan identifies the eucalyptus windrow adjacent to Foothill Boulevard as being a visual link to the City's past because these trees were planted as • part of the onginal State Route 66 construction Overhead lighting already exists along the entire project route, including along the south side of Foothill Boulevazd west of EIJUB where existing residenrial uses are located 3.2 Agricultural Resources No Pnme or Unique farmlands, or Farmlands of Statewide Importance have been identified m the project vicinity (Cahfoima Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Momtonng Program, 2000) A small pazcel of land located at the northeast comer of Vineyard Boulevard and Grove Avenue contains Nicholson Fatms, a small fruit grower A portion of the site is used for growing strawbemes 3.3 Air Quality Cahfonua is divided geographically into air basins for the purpose of managing the arr resowces of the State on a regional basis An air basin generally has similaz meteorological and geographic conditions throughout The State is currently divided into 15 air basins The study • area is located m the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is part of the South Coast Air Quality Management Distnct (SCAQMD) (Cahfomia Air Resources Board 2001) Qualitative analyses of respirable particulate matter (PM~o) and carbon monoxide (CO) were prepared for the proposed project by Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc (June 6, 2002a and b) (See Volume lI, Technical Studies) Under the requirements of the Clean Atr Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), and the Transportation Egwty Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), proposed transportation projects must be denved from along-range transportation plan (LRP) or reb onal transportation plan (RTP) that conforms with the state air quality plans as outlined m the State Implementation Plan (SIP) The SIP is the document that sets forth the state's strategies for achieving air quality standards Projects must also be included m a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that conforms with the SIP, and localized impacts from proposed projects must conform to state air quality plans m nonattainment and maintenance areas The proposed project is included in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG's) Reb onal Transportation Plan (RTP) (adopted Apnl 2001) and 2000/2001-2005/2006 • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 14 ~"~s Chapter3 AffectedEnwronment Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) The RTIP received federal approval on • September 25, 2001 The proposed protect is listed in SCAG's conforming RTIP as three sepazate protects Foothill Boulevard, Grove Avenue to Southern Pacific Railroad, widen from four lanes to six lanes, rehabrhtation and signals (Protect Number SBD031337) Foothill Boulevard at Southern Pacific Railroad, widen underpass from four lanes to six lanes (replace old structure) (Protect Number SBD031338) Foothill Boulevard, Southem Pacrfic Railroad to Lion Street, widen from four lanes to six lanes (Protect Number SBD031339) (The section from Vineyard Avenue to Lion Street is not included m the proposed protect as rt was previously constructed as part of a separate protect, EA number 472801, with construction having been completed m m1d-2001 The consultant for the protect was ASL Consulting Engineers ) Based on data available from the Cahfomia Air Resources Boazd (GARB), SCAB 1s part of a federal non-attarment zone for ozone (03), CO and PMro The SCAB is a federal attarment area for nitrogen dioxide (NOz), sulfates (SOz), and lead (Pb). Based on data avallable from GARB, the protect area is located m a state non-attainment zone for both 03 and PMto, ties m a state attainment zone for CO and SOz, and is listed as not classified for hydrogen sulfide (HzS) Table 3 1 identifies both the federal and state standards regarding ambient air quality The Upland air momtonng station 1s the closest momtonng station to the protect site This • station, which rs maintained by SCAQMD, 1s located at San Bemazdmo Road and Grove Avenue m the Crty of Upland The station 1s approximately 0 8 km (0 5 mile) south of the protect area Annual summanes of pollutant concentrations at the Upland momtonng station for 1998, 1999, and 2000 are presented m Table 3 2 Based on a qualitative analysis of PMIO m the area, no violations of the pollutant have been recorded >n the past 3 years (Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc ,June 6, 2002a) Sensitive receptors m the form of resrdenhal structures are located along the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of the EUUB 3.4 Biological Resources A biological survey andtunsdictional delineation were performed for this protect m July 2001 (Chambers Group) (See Volume II, Technical Studies) This survey involved 1 a field survey to identify the vegetation and habitat types within the protect study area; 2 observations of wildlife, suitable habitats, or the potential for wildlife m the protect study area, and 3 a survey of the potential for wetlands m the protect study area • Foothrll8oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue amend eVineyard Avenue 15 /~ Chapter 3 Affected Environment Table 3.1 State and Federal Ambient Atr Quality Standards Averaging Cahforma Standards Federal Standards Pollutant Time Concentration' Method` Primary" Secondary" Method' Ozone 1 Hour 0 009 ppm 7gp /m') Ult a let Photomet 0 12 ppm (235 /m' Same as prima EthyleneChemi- (O') r vio ry 0 08 ppm ry luminescence 8 Hour - 157 /m Standard Annual 30 pg/m' Respirable Geometric Mean Size Selective Inlet Same as Inertial Separabon Partculate Matter 24 Hour 50 p9/m Sampler CARB Method 150 p /m Pnmary and Grawmehc (PM~a) Annual P (8!22/85) 50 pg/m') Standard Analysis Arithmetic Mean Carbon Monoxide 8 Hour 9 0 PPma (10 m !m) Non-dispersive Infrared 9 PPm ~ (10 mglm) N Non-disperswe Infrared Photomet (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm Photometry (NDIR) 35 ppm ' one ry (NDIR) (23 mglm') } (40 mg/m Nitrogen Diowde Annual Anthmehc Mean _ Gas Phase Chemi- 0 053 ppm (100 /m') Same as Pnma Gas Phase Chemo- (NOx) 1 Hour 0 25 ppm luminescence - ry Standard luminescence (470 pglm') 30-da average 1 5 pg/m AIHL M th d 54 12/74 - - High Volume Lead Calendar e o ( ) s Same as Sampler and Atomic (Pb) Quarter - Atomic Absorption 15pg/m prima Absorption Annual 0 030 ppm Anthmehc Mean _ (80 pg/m') _ 24 Hour 0 04 ppm ' 0 14 ppm ' _ Sulfur Diowde 705 /m 365 Im hne P (SO:) 3 Hour - Fluorescence - 0 5 ppm ' ararosoam (1300 g/m ) 1 Hour 0 25 ppm ' _ _ (655 /m ) In sufficient amount fo produce exbnchon V~sibitity 8 Hours coefficient of 0 23/kdometer due to partcles Reducing (10 am-6 pm when re/alive humidity <70% Measurement Particulates PST) method in accordance with CARB Method V (8/18/89) No Turbidimetric Barium Federal Sulfates 24-Hour 25 pg/m' Sullfate-AIHL Method Standards 61 (2/76) Hydrogen Sulfide 3 Hours 0 03 ppm ' Cadmwm hydroxide (42 pg/m ) Stractan ' State standards for O,, CO, SOz (1-and 24-hour), NOz, PMio, & visibility-reducing particles riot to be exceeded AA others not fo be equaled or exceeded State AAQS listed in Table of Standards, Section 70200, Ttle 17, CCR Section 70200 S lists vinyl chloride (chloroethene) under °4AOS for Hazardous Substances " In 1978, CARE adopted vinyl chloride standard of 0 010 ppm (26 pg/m') (24-hour average), measured by gas chromatography Standard notes that vinyl chloride is "known human and animal carcinogen" 8 that "low-level" efects are undefined, but are potentially serous Level rs not a threshold level and does not necessarily protect against harm Level specified rs lowest level at which violation can be n:0ably detected by method specified Ambrenf concentmbons =/> standard constitute endangerment to publc health In 1990, CARB identified vinyl chloride as Toxic Air Contaminant 8 determined there was not sufficient available scienbfic evidence to support identification of threshold exposure level This allows implementation ofhealth-protective control measures at levels < 0 010-ppm ambient concentration specified in 7978 standard and those based on annual avereges or annual arithmetic mean) not to be exceeded mot than i National standards (other than 0 PM o i 3, , once a year 03 standard attained when 4`" highest 8-hour concentration rn a year, avereged over 3 years, _/< standard For PMio, 24-hour standard attamedwhen 98% of daily concentrafrons, averaged over 3 years, _/< standard Contact EPA for further clantication 8 current federal policies ' Concentration expressed first m units m which rt was promulgated Equivalent umts given m parentheses based upon a reference temperature of 25° C 8 a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1, 013 2 millibar) Most measurements corrected to 25° C 8 760 mm, ppm in this table refers to ppm volume, or mrcromoles of pollutant per mole of gas ' Any equvalenf procedure that can be shown to the sabsfachon of CARB to groe equvalent results at or near the level of air qualdy standard maybe used ' Levels necessary, wdh adequate margin of safety to protect public health ` Levels necessary to protect public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of pollutant z Reference method as described by EPA An "equivalent method" of measurement maybe used but must have a "consistent relationship fo the reference method" and must be approved by EPA Ppm =parts per million, pg/mz = microgramslsquare meter, mg/m' =milligrams/square meter, mm =millimeter, ° C =degrees Celsius • • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 16 ~n Chapter3 Affected Environment • Table 3.2 Alr Quality Summary for Study Area Monitoring Stations Air Standard/ Upland Pollutant Exceedance 1998 1999 2000 Ozone Max 8-hour Concentration (ppm)' 0 171 0 116 0 149 8-Hour # Days>Federal 8-hour Std of >9 0 ppm 39 16 18 (Os) # Days>California 8-hour Std of >9 0 N/A N/A N/A ppm Max 1-hour Concentration (ppm)' 0 213 0 153 0 184 Ozone # Days>Federai 1-hour Std of >0 12 ppm 30 4 10 1-Hour (Os) # Days>California 1-hour Std Of >0 09 60 29 43 ppm Max 1-hour Concentration (ppm) 0 137 0 132 0 131 Nitrogen Annual Arithmetic Mean (ppm) Dioxide % AAM Exceeded (Federal) N/A N/A N/A (NOZ) # Days>California 1-hour Std of >0 25 0 0 0 ppm Source California Av Resources Board ' Year Coverage indicates how extensive monitoring was during the time of year when high pollutant concentrations were expected N/A Pollutant not available ppm Parts per million • No adopted Habitat Conservation, Natural Community Conservation, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plans have been identified for the proposed project area Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters No wetlands or chazactenstics of wetlands were observed within the project study area for the project Beaz Gulch and Cucamonga Creek, within the proposed construction limits, are both non-chazactenshc ofwetlands-required criteria, including plant types, soil chazactenshcs, and hydrologic characteristics Water courses along the proposed protect route include Cucamonga Creek Channel, located dust west of Vmeyazd Avenue and a Bear Gulch located~ust west of the EUUB There are two ~unsdichonal drainages that cross the project area, which are associated with Bear Gulch and Cucamonga Creek Cucamonga Creek Channel consists of a concrete lined channel that is void of vegetation Bear Gulch contains some vegetation, but is not considered lunsdicrional at the project alignment under the U S Army Corps of Engineers (CJSACE) or California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) guidelines The ~unsdictional portions of Bear Gulch are located • upstream and downstream of the culvert that passes under Foothill Boulevard Foofh~ll Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 17 ~S Chapter3 Affected Environment Plants Several habitats were observed dunng the botanical survey Non-native grasslands were • observed north of Foothill Boulevazd m two areas A eucalyptus windrow, which provides suitable habitat for raptor species, tines the north and south sides of Foothill Boulevard m the center segment of the alignment Ruderal areas were observed within a few pazcels, while the remaining pro)ect area consisted of developed land that contains no naturally-occumng vegetarion Sensitive plant species, mcludmg federal- and state-listed threatened or endangered plant species, have been observed to occur m the general vicinity of the project study area, and aze listed m the botanical survey in the biological report m Volume II None of these species, however, were observed dunng the botanical surveys, and none have a high probability of occumng m the pro)ect study azea Vegetation m the protect azea has been heavily disturbed over rime due to the construction of Foothill Boulevard and the commercial and residential uses along the north and south sides of the roadway Sensitive plant species, mcludmg federal- and state-listed threatened or endangered plant species, have been observed to occur m the general vicinity of the project study area, and are fisted m the botanical survey (See Volume II) None of these species, however, were observed dunng the • botanical surveys, and none have a high probability of occumng in the project study area The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan indicates that the windrows in the City, to include the eucalyptus windrow located along the north side of Foothill Boulevard to the east of EWB, are a visual link to the City's agncultural past and should be replaced, to minimize the fire hazard associated with these trees, or preserved In addition, the General Plan, under the Plant and Animal Resources Policies section, indicates that "the cutting of mature native trees shall be prohibited" (p N-16) Wildlife Several wildlife species were observed dunng the field study, mcludmg butterflies, reptiles, birds, and mammals Three sensitive bird species were noted m the vicinity of the project study area, mcludmg the Cooper's hawk, red-shouldered hawk, and loggerhead shirike The eucalyptus windrow, ]ocated along the north side of Footfall Boulevard, was observed to provide swtable nestrng habitat for raptor species Furthermore, there is a potential for burrowing owls to be located m new ROW acquisirions. Although raptors and burrowing owls aze not federal- or state-fisted sensitive species, the taking, possession, or destruction of these birds or then nests is Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 18 ~-~-~9 Chapfer3 AffectedEnvrronment protected under the Migratory Bzrd Treaty Act Suitable habitats for San Diego homed hzazd • were also observed Several wIIdhfe species are known to occur in the azea that are federal- or state-fisted threatened or endangered species, but none were observed or aze anticipated to occur m the project study area (for a complete fist of these species, refer to Volume II) The proposed protect route is highly developed and it is assumed that this existing development negates any wrldhfe movement that could be present along the proposed protect route No wildlife or migratory comdors were identified m the project area Several wrldhfe species are known to occur m the azea that are federal- or state-fisted threatened or endangered species, but none were observed or are anticipated to occur m the project footpnnt (for a complete list of these species, refer to Volume 17) No wildlife or migratory comdors were identified m the project area 3.5 Community Resources Housing immediately adjacent to the proposed project alignment is located pnmanly south of Foothill Boulevard, and pnmanly east of the EUCJB Two residential areas are located east of • Baker Avenue and consist of a townhome complex and a mobile home park Within the southwest quadrant of Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue several residential communities consisting of a townhome complex and single-family residences are situated southeast of the raikoad nght-of--way A single-family residence is located on the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue Additional single-family housing is located to the north of the protect alignment along Red Hill Country Club Dnve, with additional smgie-family housing being located approximately 230 meters (750 feet) north of the proposed project alignment This housing is elevated above, and overlooks, the project site Residential housing along Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue appears to be m good repair Within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, four of the top eight largest employers are education- related The lazgest employer m the City rs Chaffey Commumty College, followed by Sears Roebuck & Company, Alta Loma Elementary, and Corestaff A fisting of the largest employers in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is presented m Table 3 3 None of the employers listed are located along the proposed protect alignment • Foothill8oulevard (State Route 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 79 19-13"D Chapter 3 Affected Environment Table 3.3 Largest Employers in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Company/Employer Number of Employees Chaffe Commune Colle e 1,300 Sears Roebuck & Co 1,101 Alta Loma Elementa 775 Corestaff (former) United Tem Services 775 RPM Merit 570 Sav U More 540 Central School District 530 Etiwanda Elementa 475 Recot 470 Gibson Greetin s 415 Thomas Staffn 377 AG Em to ers 363 Robert Manufacturin 340 Tamco 330 Proficient Food Com an 330 Mission Foods 320 GTE 300 Vocational Improvement Pro ram 290 Cucamon a Elementa 290 Safetran Systems 260 Source City of Rancho Cucamonga, Chamber of Commerce, 2002 C~ Businesses along the comdor are a mrx of regionally onented and local urban uses serving both • motonsts and the local community A malonty of these businesses represent stnp commercral developments, which typically provide services to local residents In general, these mdrvidually owned parcels are small fragmented lots chazactenshc of step commercial developments A number of commercial propertres are vacant, however, the mtersechons of Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue at Foothill Boulevard support well-developed commercial azeas An Albertsons' grocery store was recently completed at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and a small strawberry farm is situated on the northeast comer of Foothrll Boulevard and Grove Avenue The predominant commercial uses along Foothill Boulevard aze automotive-related businesses, with several restaurants also being located, prunanly to the west of the EUUB Employment within the project comdor consists pnmanly ofservice-onented positions 3.6 Cultural Resources AHzstorzc Resources Clearance Report (HI2CR) was prepazed by Chambers Group for the proposed project (December 2001) (See Volume II, Technical Studies) • Foothrll Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue~an-d Vineyard Avenue 20 -.~ ~ I Chapter3 AffecfedEnvironment The proposed protect alignment is part of State Route 66, which is considered histonc m some • areas of the country, though not along the portion of the roadway that is included as part of the proposed protect The Klusman House was found to be eligible for listing on the NRHP (Chambers Group, December 2001) Furthermore, five other properties (the Kramer Brothers Nursery, Magic Lamp Inn, Red Cluef Motel [removed since the preparation of the HRCR), Sycamore Inn, and Oso Bear Statue) were found to be eligible for local listing as City of Rancho Cucamonga Ctty Landmarks In addition, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan identifies the eucalyptus windrow adtacent to Foothill Boulevard as being a visual link to the City's past, because these trees were planted as part of the onginal State Route 66 construction A field survey of the proposed new nght-of--way was performed, which yielded no evidence of archaeological sites No prehistonc cultural matenal was seen near the recorded ]ocatron of CA- SBR-897 (recorded m 1975 as a surface scatter of eight fragmented ground stone artifacts neaz the south base of Red Hrll) 3.7 Geology and Soils The protect site is located in the highly seismic Southern Cahfonua region and as such, earthquakes represent a significant hazard within the protect area The pnmary faults that unpact • the protect area are the Cucamonga and Red Hill Although the precise location of the Red Hill fault is not known, it is estimated that this fault passes under Footfall Boulevard lust east of Vineyard Avenue and toms westward to the south of Vineyard Avenue traveling lust to the south of the protect alignment The Cucamonga and Red Hill faults have a probable moment magnitude (Mw)2 of 6 0 to 7 0 Other fault zones in the area that could impact the protect area include the Stoddard Canyon, San Antonio, and San Gabnel to the north, the San Jacinto fault zone to the north and east, which includes the Coyote Spnngs, Hot Spnngs, and Buck Ridge faults, the San Jose to the west, and the Chino, Whither, and Elsinore faults to the south The protect alignment is located m a city adopted "Special Studies Zone" for seismic hazards 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials A Preliminary Iruhai Site Assessment (ZSA) was prepared, dated June 2002, for the proposed protect site, to identify potentral contaminant sources adtacent to and within the protect area that may affect proposed improvements (See Volume II, Technical Studies) The ISA process a The moment tnagmmde scale is a way of rating the setsrtuc moment of an earthquake with a sirrtple, loganthrmc numenca] scale sunilar to the ongmal Richter magnitude scale (Southern California Earthquake Data Center, 2001) Moment magnitude (MW) is duectly based on the amount of energy released dunng an earthquake and is the most complete measure of earthquake size (Bausch and Brumbaugh, 1997) Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Befween Grove Avenue,annd Vineyard Avenue 21 /~ -~~ Chapter3 Affected Environment involved an environmental database search to identify regulated saes, an lustoncal review to determine past operational and land use of the site(s) and adjacent areas, and an Imhal site • inspection to detennme evidence of potential contamination For purposes of this assessment, potential contaminant sources are defined as facilities that treat, store, or dispose ofhazazdous waste, use hazardous substances, store petroleum products on-site, or otherwise may present a source of contamination to the prof ect Construction of the project maybe affected by potential contaminant sources that aze located within the project area, as well as potential contaminant migration to the project area from off-srte sources A defmitrve assessment regazdmg the actual presence or absence of contamination was not addressed In the ISA for the proposed prod ect The intent of the assessment was to identify reported and obvious potential hazazdous conditions that would need to be addressed or considered before proceeding with project construction Additional sources may be present and undiscovered at this early stage of analysis If the unprovements proposed for this project aze recommended for unplementation, follow-up hazardous matenals analysis shall be necessary pnor to construction to identify Impacts from the known and unlaiown sources, and to prescnbe specific mitigation to address these impacts The proposed project is located along Foothill Boulevazd (State Route 66) between Grove and Vineyard Avenues m the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California Footfall Boulevard Is an existing state highway/major artenal that runs east/west, connecting the Clty of Pasadena with the City of San Bemazdino The existing highway within the City of Rancho Cucamonga • consists of two 3 4-meter (11-foot) lanes in each direction, with a stnped center median for le8 turns The results of the federal and state database search, which was conducted in February 2001 using a Vrsta Environmental Solutrons Inc database, identified four potential hazardous waste sites Table 3 4 Identifies the site name, site address, Vista identification number, and the type of database where the site is referenced In March 2003, a Fidelity National Information Solutions, formerly Vista Envrronmental Solutions, Inc ,database dated February 2002 was reviewed, and no additional sites were identified A site reconnaissance was performed on February 16, 2001 to locate sites Identified dunng the database search, to locate potential contaminant sources on the Identified sites (i e ,underground storage tanks or hazardous waste placards), to note general site conditions, and to Identify unlisted sites m the project The sites examined dunng the site reconnaissance are listed m Table 3 5 • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 22 Chapter 3 Affected Environment • Table 3 4 Hazardous Waste Sttes Site Name Site Address Vista ID Database(s)' Number Kramer Bros Nurseries, Inc 8112 Foothill Boulevard 1228670 UST Rancho Cucamonga Red Hill Car Wash 8285 San Bernardino Road 349169 SQG Rancho Cucamonga Rod's Foodmart/Texaco 8186 Foothill Boulevard 1216110 UST, LUST Rancho Cucamonga Foothill Lawnmower 8133 Foothill Boulevard 6672762 UST Rancho Cucamonga Source Vista Information Solutions, Inc ,November 2000 and Fidelity National Information Solutions, February 2003 ' See list of abbreviated terms (pages xvi and xwi) Table 3.5 Site Reconnaissance of Vista-Identified Sttes • • Vista ID Srte Name Srte Address Listing' Srte Condrtrons This site, formerly known as Nicholson Strawberry Farm, is located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard Kramer Bros 8112 Foothill and Grove Avenue Two large trailers 1228670 Nurseries Inc Boulevard UST were seen behind the public strawberry , Rancho Cucamonga display area One trailer had a propane tank beneath it, which is believed to be used to power cooling equipment in the trader This site, adjacent to Foothill 8285 San Bernardino Boulevard, is a car wash The car 349169 Red Hill Car Road SQG wash has a sign posted advertising a Wash Rancho Cucamonga tire cleaner and also a "Blue Coat" clear coating process No drums or containers were visible This site, adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, is now a Union 76 gas Rod's 8166 Foothill UST, station In addition to well 1216110 Foodmart/ Boulevard LUST casings/heads and gasoline pumps, Texaco Rancho Cucamonga miscellaneous containers and 210-liter (55-gallon) drums were visible at the rear of the gas station 8133 Foothill This site is a lawnmower shop A few 6672762 Foothill Boulevard UST containers, 210-liter (55-gallon) drums, Lawnmower Rancho Cucamonga and tires were seen from the alley (back side of the shop) Source Vista Information Solutions, Inc ,November 2000 and Fidelity National Information Solutions, February 2003 ' See list of abbreviated terms (pages xvi and xvu) Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 23 ~r~ Chapter 3 Affected Environment Based on a visual assessment of the project azea during the site reconnaissance, anumber of additional potential hazardous waste sites were identified Additional sites of potenrial concern • were also noted from a Project Study Report for the proposed protect dated July 1993 These additional sites are identified m Table 3 6 San Bernardino County Fire Department, Hazardous Matenals Division (1-IlVID) records were accessed on March 19, 2001, to determine if any records were available for these additional sites The field observations are summanzed m Table 3 3, and a summary of the site-specific file review rs included m this section Table 3.6 Site Reconnaissance of Additional Potential Hazardous Waste Sites Site Name Site Address Notes - This site, located lust east of the protect boundary, 8919 Foothill Boulevard was formerly a vacant lot It is now occupied by a obit Gas Station and ' Rancho Cucamonga gas station and a Church's Chicken fast-food hurch s Chicken restaurant The gas station has well casing/heads and um s, and a ro ane tank was visible This abandoned bwiding, set back from Foothill Boulevard, formerly housed a graphics business D&M Graphics 8724 Foothill Boulevard The only item seen at the rear of the abandoned Rancho Cucamonga graphics operation was anear-empty can of tar used for roofing Just west of This site, set back from Foothill Boulevard, has been Pit West of D&M 8724 Foothill Boulevard graded recently No trash was visible in the cleanly Graphics Rancho Cucamonga raded area This is a site on Foothill Boulevard Some No 1 Again Chinese 8270 Foothill Boulevard miscellaneous chemicals were seen next to the Restaurant Rancho Cucamonga dumpster located at the rear of the site, along with an unsealed 210-liter (55- allon) drum This site, located on Foothill Boulevard, has a Rancho Import 8230 Foothill Boulevard number of miscellaneous containers and a propane Specialists Rancho Cucamonga tank was visible This abandoned detention basin is very messy and West of railroad, on north appears unsafe It is covered with graffiti and spray Abandoned Detention side of Foothill Boulevard paint cans are strewn everywhere The detention Basin Rancho Cucamonga basin is approximately 7 6 meters (25 feet) north o Foothill Boulevard This former auto/stereo outfitter is a site, which is Auto/Stereo Outfitter 8291 Foothill Boulevard now closed There were no visible signs of Rancho Cucamonga hazardous waste on-site This site on Foothill Boulevard has a number of miscellaneous items inside the garage bay, including Auto Specialists 8393 Foothill Boulevard a propane tank and 210-liter (55-gallon) drums The Rancho Cucamonga site is about 4 6 meters (15 feet) south of Foothill Boulevard Foothill Boulevard and At this site, some construction-related containers Albertson's Market Vineyard Avenue were visible, but they are expected to be removed Rancho Cucamon a after construction EI Tarasco Mexican Meat 8161 Foothill Boulevard At this site, a 210-liter (55-gallon) drum was seen at Market Rancho Cucamonga the rear of this at market, from the adjoining alley • • Foofhtl/ Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 24 ~~ Chapter3 AffectedEnwronment On March 19, 2001, a records review was conducted through HMD for the sties presented in • Tables 3 4 and 3 6 There was no information available from HMD for the Red Htll Caz Wash or for the sites identified in Table 3 6 with the exception of Rancho Import Specialists, Auto/Stereo Outfitter, and Auto/Specialists Information on the other sites is provided below The RWQCB was contacted on March 29, 2001 to determine if they had any hazardous matenals/waste files for the sites identified m Tables 3 5 and 3 6 On Mazch 30, 2001, RWQCB indicated that they do not have any hazardous matenals/waste records for the identified locations HMD records for the Rod's FoodmartJTexaco (now a Umon 76 gas station) site indicate that groundwater flow in the protect area is towards the southeast A recent groundwater and soil sampling report for this site states that there are two groundwater bamers in this area, the Indian I3i11 Groundwater Bamer and the Red Hill Groundwater Bamer (RM Environmental, 1998) Kramer Bros. Nurseries, Inc (now Nicholson Strawberry Farm), 8112 Foothill Boulevard Two USTs were removed on November 3, 1992, and the site was inactivated on November 17, 1992 There is no mention of leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTS) and no letters mdicatrng that hazardous waste releases are associated with this file Rod's FoodmartlTexaco, 8166 Foothill Boulevard • According to the records search, HMD (then known as the Department of Environmental Health Services [DEHS]) issued a letter, dated September 16, 1993, stating that several underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from the site The USTs consisted of one 23,000-liter (6,000-gallon) UST and four 15,000-liter (4,000-gallon) USTs On September 2, 1994, DEHS determined that a Work Plan was needed On October ~, 1994, the county approved a Work Plan for limited subsurface investigation On November 9, 1994, Geological Audit Services of Los Angeles prepared a report recommending additional investigation of this site This recommendation was based on testing conducted by Centrum Analytical on soil samples of the tank excavation, which were found to contain excessive contamination On October 8, 1995, DEHS required a Work Plan Addendum As of October 8, 2000, HMD required testing for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH-G), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX), methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), and the full suite of orgaincs with oxygenates, ethanol, and methanol The depth to the Upper Aquifer for this site, based on vanous RM Environmental Groundwater and Sampling Reports, vanes between 7 6 meters (2~ feet) and 12 2 meters (40 feet), below the top of the neaz-ground well casing One of the quarterly reports issued for this site indicates that • there are two groundwater bamers within 91 4 meters (300 feet) of this site, the Indian Hil] Groundwater Bamer and the Red Hill Groundwater Bamer (RM Environmental, 1998) Foothill Boulevard (State Roufe 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 25 ~~ Chapter 3 Affected Environment A letter mdreating that no further action is regmred at this srte was not found m the HMD files, so it is assumed that this site is still active Quarterly Groundwater Momtormg and Sampling • Reports aze currently being prepared by RM Envrronmental of Calunesa, Cahfonva Foothill Lawnmower, 8133 Foothill Boulevard This property is listed under the name of Albert Vrzcamo According to a Hazazdous Waste Generator Inspection Report dated Apnl 5, 1990, vanous 210-liter (55-gallon) drums were noted on thrs property On December 18, 1990, two underground storage tanks were removed from this property On January 17, 1991, Toxeuard Systems, Inc of Los Angeles prepared a Closure Report for the removal of two underground storage tanks at this location The report summanzed, m part, that depth to groundwater is approxunately 168 meters (550 feet), that the sods were tested for petroleum hydrocarbons, and that none were found to be present On August 27, 1998, HMD issued a letter stating that an underground storage tank present within the building must be removed On January 6, 2000, a Notice of Violation was issued by HMD stating unlawful abandonment of USTs The presence of waste oil was noted, and violation items included (1) unlawful • abandonment of underground storage tanks, (2) unlawful closure of underground storage tanks, and (3) failure to upgrade underground storage tanks to prevent releases On March 16, 2000, Del Mar Analytical of Colton did on-site testing A cover letter from George Bryan Construction Inc of Alta Loma, dated Apn125, 2000, confirmed that, based on these tests, all rtems tested at acceptable levels On May 23, 2000, HMD issued a letter stating that no further investigation is warranted Additional potential hazardous waste sites, as identified m Table 3 6, were included m the record search at HMD on March 19, 2001 No records were found for the Mobil Gas Station and Church's Chicken site, the D&M Graphics site, the No 1 Agazn Chinese Restaurant site, the Albertson's Mazket srte, the EI Tarasco Mexican Meat Market site, the pit west of the former D&M Graphres, and the abandoned detention basin Records were obtained for three of the additional sites through HMD, as listed below • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove AvenueNand~VinNeyard Avenue 26 /~' ~ '/ Chapter3 Af/ectedEnvironment Rancho Import Specialists, 8230 Foothill Boulevard • Rancho Import Specrahsts rs classrfied as asmall-quantity generator On December 2, 1994, DEHS issued a Notice of Violation for failure of the company to obtain a proper perrrut, for a mrssmg label from a waste oil container, for lack of weekly storage area mspectron, and for farure of the company to obtain a permit and prepaze the requrred business plan On August 17, 1995, DENS released a Certificate of Compliance for Rancho Import Specrahsts Auto/Stereo Outfitter, 8291 Foothill Boulevard • At the former auto/stereo outfitter, three underground storage tanks were removed on May 3Q 1990 On July 13, 1990, DEHS released a letter stating that further mvesrigarion was not warranted T'hrs DEHS recommendation was based on a BC Labs report that mdreated that contamination was below the level consrdered to be problemaric Auto Specialtsts, 8393 Foothill Boulevard The Auto Specrahsts site was formerly known as Dean's Beaz Gulch. Thrs site rs classrfied as a small quantrty generator and specral (recycling) handler On October 29, 1986, a Hazardous Waste Generator Inspectron Report was prepazed, caring the presence of waste oils and drums at this facrhty. On October 9, 1987, the site was cleared by the county and rt was noted that "there are no vrolarions at this rime " There was no DEHS documentation on thrs site 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality The project srte rs located m Rea on 8, the Santa Ana Regton (SAR), one of nine Regronal Water Quality Control Boazd (RWQCB) ~unsdretronal areas (Cahfomra Regronal Water Quality Control Board, 2001) Region 8 covers approxrmately 7,252 square krlometers (km) (2,800 square mrles) More specifically, the proposed project rs located within the Upper Santa Ana Watershed, Santa Ana River Hydrologic Unrt, Chino Hydrologic Subazea Boundazy Split RWQCB Regron 8 rs responsible for watershed management and water resources protection m the Colorado Rrver Basin The RWQCB regulates surface water and groundwater quality through the adoptron of water quality plans and standards and the issuance of wastewater permits The mamstem of the Santa Ana Rrver rs drvrded into six reaches Each reach rs generally a hydrologic and water quality unrt. Reach 3 includes the nver from Mrssron Bndge to Prado Dam. The Santa Ana Rtver, which flows from northeast to southwest rs located approximately 18 km (11 miles) east of the project The most senous water-related problem m the Santa Ana River Basin at this trine rs water • supply This regron now uses approxrmately twrce as much water as rs avarlable from local sources As a result, the quantrty of water rmported into this regron each year now equals or Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue~~I//a,,,nd Vineyard Avenue 27 YJ.J~~ Chapter 3 Affected Environment exceeds the amount of ground and surface water utilized (Cahfomia Regional Water Quality Control Board 2001) • Wrthm the City of Rancho Cucamonga, groundwater is the pnmary source of dnnking water According to the Cucamonga County Water Distnct (CCWD) the city has two groundwater basins, the Cucamonga Basin and the Chino Basin (Cucamonga County Water Distnct 2001) that currently provide the city's water supplies The CCWD's service azea includes the Ctty of Rancho Cucamonga, portions of the Cities of Upland, Ontano and Fontana, and some unincorporated azeas of San Bemazdmo County CCWD serves a population of approximately 140,000 customers within a L2 square kilometer (47 square mile) area, which includes approximately 40,000 water connections and 30,000 sewer connections The water furnished to CCWD customers comes from a blend of local groundwater from the Cucamonga and Chino Basins, surface water from local canyons and tunnels along the San Bemazdmo Mountains, and imported water from the State Water Protect On the average CCWD receives 48 percent of its water from groundwater, 16 percent from surface water and 36 percent from unported water (Cucamonga County Water Distnct 2001) Surface water is water that comes from lakes, streams, nvers, or any other natural collection of water CCWD surface water consists of local canyon and tunnel water from the San Bernazdino • Mountains CCWD has four main canyon sources, which include the Cucamonga Canyon, Deer Canyon, Day Canyon, and East Etiwanda Canyon CCWD tunnel sources include Thayer Tunnel, A Tunnel, Bee Tunnel, and Smith Tunnel After surface water is treated, the finished water is stored m CCWD reservoirs for distnbuhon to customers (Cucamonga County Water Distnct 2001) CCWD also purchases water from northern California via the State Water Protect This water is treated at the Royer Nesbit and Lloyd W Michael Water Treatment Facilities The treated water flows into storage reservoirs and then into the distnbuhon system (Cucamonga County Water Distnct 2001) Floodplains A floodp]am analysis was prepared for the proposed protect m July 2001 by Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc (See Volume II, Technical Studies) Flood hazards m Rancho Cucamonga aze especially substantial Storms at the begiruung of 1980 caused SO ~ million m property damage Records maintained by the County of San Bernazdino show that "great" floods have lut the county several times dunng this century, in 1916, 1938, and • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and~Vgineyard Avenue 28 ~_ G~ Chapter3 Affected Envvonment 1969 Although the U S Department of the Intenor, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U S Army • Corps of Engineers and the San Bemazdmo County Flood Distnct have constructed extensive flood control projects, the potential of floods m the County's west end remains a senous threat The Cucamonga, Demens, Hillside, and Deer Creeks will provide protection for the middle and western portion of the City The project site is located m this area However, the eastern half of the City is still subject to flood water emerging from the Day Creek, Etiwanda and San Sevame drainage basins According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, Cahforma, Panel ~ of 10 (Commumty-Panel Number 060671 OOOSA, Effective Date September 5, 1984), portions of the City are located within the FEMA-designated 100-year flood plain As a member of the federal flood insurance program, Rancho Cucamonga has already adopted standazds for flood protection that relate to minimum building elevation, floodproofing, and anchonng Seismically-induced inundation of any one of several retention basins, levees, or other flood control works could occur dunng a seismic event Failure of these structures, particularly the Day Creek reception levee, the east levee of the Day Creek spreading grounds, or Alta Loma Basins 1 or 2, could result m substantial property damage downstream In order to address these • and other potential flood hazards, the City has developed policies to gwde construction within its 100-year flood plain zones (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 1989) The Cucamonga Creek Channel is designated as being located within a FEMA 100-year floodplam on the current FIRM for the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Currently, the 100-year flood discharge along Cucamonga Creek Channel is contained within the channel The existing culvert at Bear Gulch crossing is also located within a FEMA designated 100-yeaz floodplam The existing culvert at the Bear Gulch crossing, which is located west of the EUUB and is currently located within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designated 100- year floodplam, would be extended to the north to accommodate the widened roadway An area of FEMA designated shallow 100-year flooding (0 3-meter [1-foot] depth) exists along the western boundary of the project area, and extends down Foothill Boulevard approxunately 76 meters (250 feet) from the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue Two additional FEMA designated approximate 100-year floodplazns are reflected on the current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of Rancho Cucamonga One of these is located dust west of the EUUB to the north of Foothill Boulevard and the other is located to the east of • Baker Avenue along the north side of Foothill Boulevard Foothill Boulevarcl (State Route 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 29 ~-'r'O Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3.10 Land Use and Planning The protect study area is almost completely developed and is compnsed of a vanety of urban • land uses Along the prof ect route there are currently a number of commercial properties that are vacant, however, at the intersections of Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue at Foothill Boulevard there are several areas of stnp commercial activity The predominant commercial uses along Foothtll Boulevard are automotive related businesses Residential land uses are located within the southeast quadrant of the study area and consist of a mobile home park and an apartment complex The area northeast of Foothill Boulevard consists pnmanly of vacant parcels with an abandoned retention basin and a eucalyptus windrow located ad)acent to the alignment Land uses surrounding the proposed project alignment range from low to medium- high density housing, mdustnal, commercial, and office uses Although not visible from the prof ect alignment, the Red Hill Country Club is located north of Foothill Boulevazd and east of Grove Avenue The current Land Use Plan contained m the General Plan for the City of Rancho Cucamonga identifies the proposed land uses along the protect comdor as Office, Commercial, Low Density Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Medmm Density Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre), and Medmm-High Density Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) The pro)ect comdor was the focus of a specific plan study (City of Rancho Cucamonga, 1987), which concluded that development within the comdor should encourage lot consolidation promoting commercial center development m place of stnp commercial uses Land use designations for this area focus on establishing the comdor as an economically viable commercial area The two main land use categones include Regionally Related Commercial (RC) and Specialty Commercial (SC) Office and residential uses are also identified within the specific plan area The proposed pro)ect alignment is included m Subarea 1, "Bear Gulch" and Subarea 2, "Vmeyazd" of the specific plan, which prowde for a substantial amount of commercial opportunities along Foothill Boulevard 3.11 Mineral Resources The project study area is not recognized as an area supporting important mineral resources 3.12 Noise The following information is based on a noise report prepared by Parsons Bruickerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc (Traffic Noise Abatement Report, January ?004) (See Volume II, Technical Studies) • Foothtll Boulevard (Stafe Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 30 /'~"~` I Chapter3 AffectedEnvrronment The report was prepared to comply with CEQA, Tltle 24, Part 2, of the Cahfornra Code of • Regulations, and the City ofRancho Cucamonga noise standards The report includes exrshng and predreted future traffic-related noise levels and rdenhficahon of exrstmg norse sensrhve receptors Foothill Boulevard rs an existing state highway/mayor artenal that runs eastlwest, connecting the Crty of Pasadena with the City of San Bemardmo The exrshng hrghway wrthm the City of Rancho Cucamonga consists of two 3 6-meter (12-foot) lanes m each drrechon, with a stnped center medran for lefr turns The noise envu-onment m the project area rs dominated by traffic traveling on Foothrll Boulevard Other sources of traffic noise include surface traffic on the secondary roadways Short-term norse measurements were taken at eight locations and exrstmg noise levels modeled at srx locations (see Norse Modeling Srtes sectron) The results of the norse measurements and exrshng worst-hour norse modeling rs presented m Table 3 7 A graphic presentation of the location of norse measurements and detarled results of the noise measurements, traffic counts, and speed measurements are presented m Volume II, Technrcal Studres Noise Measurement Sites • Srte A- Rrsmghrll Court -Lot 159 This measurement was conducted fora 24-hour penod Thrs site represents the backyards of the five new homes burlt on Rrsmglill Court adjacent to Foothrll Boulevard The meter was placed approxrmately 20 meters (65 feet) from the exrstrng westbound edge of traveled way The srte rs 1 5 meters (5 feet) below the exrshng roadway Srte 1 Casa Volante Mobrle Home Estates - Unrt 34 Thrs srte rs the nearest to Foothrll Boulevard on the eastern srde of the property Thrs site has an exrshng 1 5-meter (5-foot) wall that would be taken and replaced as part of the project The measurement was conducted rn an outdoor srttrng area to the northwest of the mobrle home, 13 7 meters (45 feet) from the exrshng wall and 32 0 meters (105 feet) from exrstrng eastbound edge of traveled way Thrs srte rs at the same grade as the roadway Srte 2 Casa Volante Mobrle Home Estates - Unrt 44 Thrs site rs the nearest to Foothrll Boulevard on the western srde of the property The srte has an exrshng 1 8-meter (6-foot) wall that would be taken and replaced as part of the prod ect The measurement was conducted at the front of the mobrle home facing Foothill Boulevard, 15 2 meters (50 feet) from the exrshng wall and 28 0 meters (92 feet) from exrstrng eastbound edge of traveled way Thrs site rs at the same grade as the roadway Foothrll Boulevard (State Route 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 31 /' .mod Chapter 3 Affected Envrronmenf Stte 3 8548 Calle Carabe Noise measurements were conducted at the top ]evel of a two-story twnhome north of the project The top level is the pnmary access to this property, where the • dnveway and outdoor deck azeas aze located This site was selected because rt has hne of sight to the roadway with no mtervemng terrain The measurement site rs 144 8 meters (475 feet) from extsttng westbound edge of traveled way and 18 3 meters to 21 3 meters (60 to 70 feet) above roadway Table 3 7 Existing Noise Levels Extenor Measured Modeled Receiver Type of Number of CNEL Noise Noise Worst Hour Modeled Number Address Land Use Units Standard Level, Noise CNEL Represented (dBA) Leq(h), dBA Level, Leq(h), dBA A R59ng Hill Court-Lot SFR 5 65 64' 66 63(64)Z 1 Unit 34 -Casa Volante SFR 4 65 563 64 58 Mobile Home Estates Casa Volante Mobile 1A Home Estates- SFR 3 65 N/M 64 59 eastern side of entrance 2 Unit 44 -Casa Volante SFR 3 65 573 64 59 Mobile Home Estates Casa Volante Mobile 2A Home Estates -west SFR 3 65 N/M 63 59 side of entrance 3 8548 Calle Carabe SFR 6 65 563 58 56 4 8230 La Salle Ave , SFR 4 65 583 61 60 Vintage Townhomes 4A Vintage Townhomes SFR 4 65 N/M 62 59 4B Vintage Townhomes SFR 6 65 NIM 63 61 5 8218 Baker Ave SFR 1 65 683 73 71 5A 8205 Foothill Boulevard SFR 2 65 N/M 66 63 6 8080 Camino Predera SFR 3 65 543 58 54 7 8270 Foothill Blvd Restaurant None 68 623 68 64 7A Single-family residence SFR 3 65 N/M 62 58 SFR =single-family residence, MFR = mulh-family residence, N/M = No measurementr rnnducted ' =Highest Nase Level measured rn 29-hour penod ' _ (64J Measured CNEL ' = ShoK-term measured /eveJ See Table A-1 for bme and date of measurement Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 32 r ~--b3 Chapter3 AffectedEnvuonment Site 4 8230 La Salle Avenue m Vintage Townhomes This site is the lower level of a two-story • townhome located south of protect alignment at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue Thts site has an existing 1 8-meter (6-foot) wall on top of a 1 5-meter (~-foot) embankment Measurement was conducted m the patio azea of this home The measurement site rs 9 1 meters (30 feet) from wall and 18 3m (60 feet) from exrsring eastbound edge of traveled way and rs 1 5 meters (5 feet) below the elevation of the roadway Site 5 8218 Baker Avenue This rs asingle-faintly residence located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Baker Avenue The measurement was conducted rn front yard of property, 9 1 meters (30 feet) from the existing eastbound edge of traveled way of Foothrll Boulevard and 6 1 meters (20 feet) form existing southbound edge of traveled way of Baker Avenue Site 6 8080 Camino Predera This site rs asingle-family residence overlooking Foothill Boulevard The noise measurement was conducted m the front yard of property, 170 7 meters (560 feet) from the existing westbound edge of traveled way and 21 3 to 30 5 meters (70 to 100 feet) above the roadway Site 7 Ei Penco Ranchero, 8270 Foothill Boulevard This site represents the outdoor eating • area of the restaurant and the front yard of an abandoned motel The measurement site was conducted 42 7 meters (140 feet) from the existing westbound edge of traveled way The site rs at the same grade as the freeway Noise Modeling Sites Srte lA Casa Volante Mobile Home Estates This modeling site is at the mobile home closest to Foothill Boulevard on the east side of the entrance to the property Srte 2A Casa Volante Mobile Home Estates This modeling site rs at the mobtle home closest to Foothill Boulevard on the west side of the entrance to the property Sites 4A and 4B Vintage Townhomes These sites aze townhomes on either side of 8230 LaSalle Avenue Srte SA 8205, 8509, 8213, and 8217 Foothrll Boulevard attached townhomes to the west of 8218 Baker Avenue (Srte 5) Srte 7A Single-family residence (8219 Red Hrll County Club Dnve) C~ Foothi118oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Aven~ue_ Jan~d rVineyard Avenue 33 1~~7 Chapter3 Affected Environment 3.13 Population and Housing A companson between housing and income charactenstics m Cahfomia, San Bemazdmo County, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as well as wrthm the project area, is shown m Table 3 8 The protect area is located within U S census tract 8 12, block group 3, for the area to the north of Footkull Boulevard, and withun U S census tract 21, block group 2, for the area to the south of Foothill Boulevard The location of the identified block groups are shown m Figure 3 1 Table 3 8 Housing Data Location Number of Households Percent Vacant Median Household Income Persons per Household Median Home Value California 11,512,020 6% $47,493 294 $198,900 San Bernardino County 528,839 12% $42,066 3 23 $124,900 City of Rancho Cucamonga 41,067 3% $60,931 3 12 $176,400 Protect Area' 12,976 3% $42,757 2 78 $126,790 ' Protect Area includes Census Tract 8 12, Block Group 3, and Census Tract 21, Block Group 2 Source 2000 U S Bureau of the Census, 2003 As shown m Figure 3 1, census tract 21, block group 2 covers an area that is much more extensive than the immediate protect alignment Census tract 8 12, block group 3 also covers a larger area, but to a lesser degree than census tract 21, block group 2 In reviewing the data presented m Table 3 8 with observations made dunng field reconnaissance, rtwould appear that the data for census tract 21, block group 2, south of Foothill Blvd , is not entirely representative of the housing that is located along the proposed project alignment For the analyses presented m flits document, the project area analysts is based on a combination of the two identified census tract block groups, though the data presented for the project area is likely skewed by the data for census tract 21, block group 2, since this data covers a much larger area, most of which is located away from the project alignment Table 3 8 indicates that the project area has a higher median household income when compared to San Bemardmo County, but is lower than that shown for the State of Cahfomia and the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga The number of persons per household is lower than the other entities reviewed The project area also has a vacancy rate that is on par with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and that is considerably lower than the rates shown for the State of Cahforrua and San Bemardmo County The project azea also reveals a slightly higher median home value than San Bemardmo County, but a lower median home value than the State of Cahfomia as a whole and the City of Rancho Cucamonga As shown m Table 3 9, the project area has a slightly lower median age than those identified for the State of Cahforrua, San Bemazdmo County, and the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga The prof ect Foothtll Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 34 • • • /~ ~`` Chapter3 Affected Environment area has a lower percentage of persons that are 6~ and older in companson to the State of • Cahforma and San Bemardmo County, and a slightly higher percentage than that reflected for the City of Rancho Cucamonga Furthermore, the project area has the lowest percentage of persons with a work disability, along with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, of those areas analyzed, though al] areas reflect a similaz percentage • ~v ~~ 16th Street ~ `~ J I Vineyard (j f ~ Avenue ~ I Gensuz Tract 9.12 filock Group9 ~ ` ' \\ Ty \ \\\ _ } ~ ~ ~~ F I I I u12 Var Grove Avenue ~ ~ ~~ i~ ,y u ~ w k i r Av nue rchibald Avenue Cenzus Tract 2l Block Group 2 I `--~ u ii Street ~ ~ I C I - -- - --- - - I ~_ I LLJ C_ Scale 200° o zo°° ao°o Faai 600 0 600 '1200 Molars Figure 3-1: Census Tract Block Groups Map City of Rancho Cucamonga, Caltfornta Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue - - ~ Protect Alignment Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 35 A..-{oiO Chapter3 Affected Environment Table 3.9 Population Data Location Total population Median Age percent of population 65 and Older percent With a Work Disability California 33,871,648 32 11% 8% San Bernardino County 1,709,434 32 9% 8% City of Rancho Cucamonga 128,161 32 6% 7% Prolect Area' 12,976 27 8% 7% 'Prolect Area includes Census Tract 8 12, Block Group 3, and Census Tract 21, Block Group 2 Source 2000 U S Bureau of the Census, 2003 As shown m Table 3 10, the population that inhabtts the project azea has a percentage of white residents which rs comparable to, but slightly lower than, the State of California and San Bernardino County, and lower than for the City of Rancho Cucamonga The percentages for each minority group m the project area, as shown m Table 3 10, are generally equal to the percentages reflected for the County, and are generally higher than those identified for the State and Crty, with the only prominent exception being the percentage of individuals identified as Asian m the State, which is higher than the percentage tdentrfied for the project area Table 3 10 Ethnlclty American Native Two or ' Indian, and Hawauan and Location White Black Hispanic Asian Other More Alaska Other Paafic Races Native Islander California 59% 7% 32% 1% 10% 0% 17% 5°/ San Bernardino 59% 9% 39% 1% 4% 0% 21% 5% County City of Rancho 66% 8% 28% 1% 5% 0% 13% 7% Cucamonga ProlectAreaz 55% 10% 40% 1% 4% 0% 23% 7% ' Persons of Hispanic heritage can be of any race, therefore, total race percentage may be greater than 10D% z Prolect Area includes Census Tract 8 12, Block Group 3, and Census Tract 21, Block Group 2 Source 2000 U S Bureau of the Census, 2003 3.14 Public Services Foothill Boulevard is used as a mayor access route for emergency servtces m the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Fire prevenrion, emergency medical, disaster preparedness, and fire protection services are managed and provided by the Rancho Cucamonga Frre Department Law enforcement services, including admuustrahon, patrol, traffic safety, and investigation, are provided under contract by the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department • U • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenupe and Vineyard Avenue 36 /'i'~O~ Chapter3 Affected Environment 3.15 Recreation • No pazks are located along the protect alignment The closest park is Upland Memorial Pazk, which Includes recreation areas, approximately 366 meters (1200 feet) west of Grove Avenue No other recreational areas or wildlife and/or waterfowl refuges are located neaz the protect 3.16 Transportation/Traffic The following information is based on the Traffic Impact Analysts prepared by Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc (June 2002) (See Volume II, Technical Studies) Foot]uli Boulevard is an existing state highway/major arterial that rims easUwest, connecting the City of Pasadena with the Ctty of San Bemardmo The existing highway within the City of Rancho Cucamonga consists of two 3 4-meter (11-foot) lanes m each direction, with a stripped center median for left toms Foothill Boulevard does not currently provide for sidewalks, shoulders, or raised medians, which limits use by pedestrians and bicyclists The narrow roadway width, which is a result of the closeness of the abutments at the under pass, limits capacity, creates congestion, and results m a sight distance problem The abrhty of a highway to accommodate traffic is typically measured to terms of level of • service (LOS) Based on the ratio of traffic volume to the design capacity of the facility, LOS is expressed as a range from LOS A (free traffic flow with low volumes and high speeds) to LOS F (traffic volumes exceed design capacity and result m forced flow operations at low speeds) A Project Study Report (PSR) was prepared m 1993 for Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Lion Street, which is located lust east of Vineyard Avenue As identified m the 1993 PSR, Foothill Boulevard, under the Draft Route Concept Report for Route 66, is required to maintain LOSE (i e , a LOS between and including A through E must be maintained) m the design year 2010 tf the State Route 30 freeway is built State Route 30 is currently being constructed so the maintenance of LOS E by 2010 is required along Foothull Boulevard Existing peak-hour level of service for the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Grove Avenue is LOS C m the mommg peak and LOS D m the aftemoon peak The existing peak-hour level of service for the intersection of Foothill Boulevazd and Vineyard Avenue is LOS E m the mommg peak hour and LOS F m the aftemoon peak hour, wlch exceeds the LOS E that is requrred along this roadway In the 1993 PSR a traffic analysis was prepared which indicated that along Foothill Boulevard the Average Darly Traffic (.SDT) would increase from 26,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 4,000 vpd m 2015 Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 37 A - 68' Chapter3 AffecfedEnv~ronment 3.17 Utility and Service Systems • Gas, water, and sewer utrhty fines aze located under Foothill Boulevard Overhead phone and electrical fines are located only near the project termrm along Foothill Boulevard Electricity m the project area is provided by Southern Cahfonia Edison, while natural gas is provided by the Southern Cahforiva Gas Company • • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 38 J4-= 6`~ Chapter 5 Calrfomra Environmental Qualify Act Evaluation • Chapter 4 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation 4.1 Determining Significance Under CEQA The Cahfomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides public agencies with general authonty to adapt cntena for detennimng whether a given impact is "significant "Such cntena are descnbed as "threshold of significance " A threshold of significance is defined as "an identifiable quantitative, qualitative, or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with wtuch means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be less than significant" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064 7) The following descnbe steps for determining significance under CEQA 1) A bnef explanation is provided for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced mfonnahon sources show that the unpact simply does not apply to protects tike the one • involved (e g ,the protect falls outside a fault rupture zone) A "No Impact" answer is explained where it is based on protect-specific factors as well as general standards (e g ,the protect would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis) 2) All answers take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as duect, and construction as well as operational impacts 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether that impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropnate when there is sufficient evidence that a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change may occur m any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the protect that cannot be rriitigated below a level of significance If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entrees, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required 4) A "Mitigated Negative Declaration" (Negative Declaration Less Than Significant . with Mitigation Incorporated) applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures, pnor Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 39 ~--"~<~ Chapter 4 CaGfomra Enwronmenta/ oua6fy Act Evaluatron to declaration of project approval, has reduced an effect from "Potentially Srgnrficant Impact" to 2 "Less Than Signrficant Impact with Mrtrgation " The lead agency must descnbe • the mrtigatron measures and bnefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than srgnrficant level 4.2 CEQA Environmental Checklist The following checklist identifies physical, brologrcal, socral, and economrc factors that mrght be affected by the proposed protect The CEQA unpact levels include potentially srgnrficant impact, less than srgnrficant impact wrth mrtrgatron, less than srgnrficant rmpact, and no impact Please refer to the following for detailed drscussfons regarding impacts CEQA • Guidance Title 14, Chapter 3, Cahfomra Code of Regulations, Sectfons 15000 et seq (htto //www ceres ca eov/togrc/env ]aw/cega/emdehnes/1 • Statutes Drvrsron 13, Cahfornra Public Resource Code, Sections 21000-21178 1 (htto //www ceres ca Qov/topre/env law/cega/stat~ CEQA requires that envrronmental documents determine significant or potentially slgmficant rmpacts Lr many cases, background studres performed m connection with the protect • indicate no impacts A "no rmpact" reflects this determination Any needed discussion rs included m the section following the checklist LJ Foofhrll Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 40 ~7~ Less than Potentially signficant Less than significant impact with significant No impact mdi ahon impact impact • AESTHETICS -Would the protect a) Have a substantra] adverse effect on a scenic vtstav ~ ~ ~X b) Substannally damage steno resources, including, but not hrruted to, trees, rock outcroppings, and ~ ^X histonc building wuhm a state scenic highwayv c) Substannally degrade [he existing visual character ^ ^ ~ ^ or quality of the site and its sunoundmgs~ d) Create a new source of substantial lrght or glare which would adversely affect day or mghtnme views ~ ^ ^X ^ m the areav AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -In determining whether mipacts to agncultura] resources aze significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Cahfonua Agncultural Land Evaluation and Stte Assessment Modei (1997) prepazed by the Cahfomia Dept of Conservation as an optional model to use m assessing impacts on agnculture and farmland Would thepro~ect • a) Convert Pnme Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ~ ~ ~ ^X Mapping and Monitonng Program of the Cahfomia Resources Agency, to non-agncultural uses b) Conflict with existing zoning for agncultural use, ^ ^ ^ or a Williamson Act contracts c) Involve other changes m the existing environment which, due to then location or nature, could result m ~ ^ ~ ^ conversion of Farmland, to non-agncultural usev AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance cntena established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control distnct may be relied upon to make [he following detemunatrons Would the protect a) Conflict with or obstruct miplementatron of the ^ ^ ^ applicable air quality plan • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 41 ~---t a Less than Potentially significant Less than significant impact vnth significant No impact mdiaahon impact im act b) Violate any au quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or protected au quality ~ X^ wolation~ c) Result m a cumulatively considerable net mcrease of any criteria pollutant for which the protect region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ^ ^ ~ ^ ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)v d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ^ ~ ^ concentrahon~ e) Create oblechonable odors affecting a substantial ^ ^ ~ ^ number of people BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -Would the protect a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either duectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status ^ ~ ^ ^ species m local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Cahfomia Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Servicev b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any ripanan habitat or other sensitive natural community identified m local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Cahfomia Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Serncev c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, venial pool, coastal, etc) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or rnigratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife comdors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biologua] resources, such as a tree ^ ^X ~ ^ preservation policy or ordinancev • • • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 42 ~- 73 Less than Potentially sgmficant Less than significant impact with s~gmticant No impact mih a6on impact impact • f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habrtat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Pl th d l l t h l b ^ ^ ^ an, or o er approve oca , regiona , or sta e a itat conservation plane COMMUNITY RESOURCES -Would the project a) Cause dismption of orderly planned developments ~ ~ ~ ^X b) Be mconsistent with a Coastal Zone Management Plans ^ ^ ^ c) Affect Itfe-styles, or neighborhood character or b l s ^ ^ ~ ^ sta r tty d) Physically divide an established commumtys ^ ^ ^ ^X e) Affect rmnonty, low-income, elderly, disabled, d d h s ^ ^ ~ ^ transit- epen ent, or ot er specific mterest group f) Affect employment, industry, or commerce, or h d ] f b f s ^ ^ ~ ^ • require t e isp acement o usinesses or arm g) Affect property values or the local tax bases ^ ^ X^ ^ h) Affect any community facilities (mcludmg medical, educational, scientific, or religious inshturions, ~ ~ ~ ^X ceremonial sues or sacred shnnes)s i) Result m alterations to waterborne, rail, or air ff s ^ ^ ^ tra ic 1) Support large commercial or residential d l ts ^ ^ ~ ^ eve opmen k) Affect wild or scenic nvers or natural landtnarkss ^ ~ ~ ^X 1) Result m substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e g ,noise, dust, temporary ~ ^X drainage, traffic detours, and temporary access, etc )~ CULTURAL RESOURCES - Woiild the protect a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a lustoncal resource as defined m ~ X~ • §15064 Ss Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 43 f3-74 Less than Potentially significant Less than significant impact with signficant No impact mdi ahon impact impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change m the s>remficance of an archaeologrcal resource pursuant to ^ ^ ^ ^X §15064 5~ c) Duectly or mdrrectly destroy a unique paleontologrcal resource or site or unique eeologic feature d) Disturb any human remains, including those ~ d d f f l ^ ^ ^ cemetenes interre outsr e o orma GEOLOGY AND SOILS -Would the protect a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, mcludmg the nsk of loss, mlury, or ^ death involving i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologrst for the area ^ ^ ~ ^ or based on other substantial evidence of a known faulty Refer to Drvrsron of Mmes and Geology Specral Publication 42 u) Strong sersrtuc ground shakmgv ^ ^ X^ ^ ur) Seisrruc-related ground failure, mcludmg v ^ ^ ~ ^ liquefacnon rv) Landshdesv b) Result m substantial sort erosron or the loss of ^ ~ ^ ^ topsoih c) Be located on a geologrc unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the protect, and potentially result m on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating ^ ^ ^X ^ substantial nsks to life or property e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water drsposa] ^ ^ ^ systems where sewers are not avarlable for the disposal of waste watery • • • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 44 ~'~~ Less than Potentially significant Less than significant impact wdh significant No impact mitigation impact imoact HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Wouldthe prolect a) Create a sigmficant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or ^ ^ ~ ^ disposal of hazardous matenalsv b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ^ ^ ^ accident conditions involving the release of hazardous matenals into the envuonment~ c) Etmt hazardous ermssions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous matenal, substances, or waste ^ ^ ^ within one-quarter trine of an existing or proposed school d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous matenals sites compiled pursuant to Govenunent Code Section 65962 5 and, as a result, ^ X^ ^ would a create a significant hazard to the public or the envuonmenfl e) For a prolect located wntlvn an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, • would the prolect result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the prolect areav f) For a prolect within the viemity of a pnvate airstnp, would the prolect result m a safety hazard for people ^ ^ ^ residing or working m the prolect area g) Impair implementarion of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ^ emergency evacuation plan h) Expose people or structures to a srgmficant nsk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intenmxed with wildlands~ HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the prolect a) V iolate any water quality standards or waste ^ ^ ~ ^ discharge requirements • Foothill Boulevard (State Roufe 66) Between Grove„Avenu/e and Vineyard Avenue 46 /7 1b Less than Potentially sigmfcant Less than signficant impact with significant No impact _ mitigation impact impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficn m aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e g ,the ~ ~ ~X production rate ofpre-existing neazby wells would drop to a level wroth would not support existing land uses or planned uses for winch penmts have been granted)v c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the ^ ~ ^ ^ course of a stream or nver, in a manner which would result m substantial erosion or srltahon on- or off-stte~ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a sneam or nver, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff m a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-srte~ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwa[er ^ ~ ^ ^ drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted mnoff'~ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quahryv ^ ^ X^ ^ g) Place housing wittun a 100-year flood hazard azea as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or ^ ^ Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation mapv h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ^ ^ ~ ^ which would impede or reduect flood flowsv i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, m~ury or death involving flooding, including ^ ^ ^ flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or damv 1) Inundation by seiche, tsunarm, or mudflowv ^ ^ ^ ^X LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulanon of an agency unth~unsdichon over the project (mcludmg, but not lirnited to [he general plan, ~ ~ ~ ~X specific plan, local coastal program, or zonuig ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avmdmg or mitigating an envnonmenta] effects Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 46 • • /~/ ! 7 Less than Potentially sigmfcartt Less than signficant impact wdh significant No impact mitigation ~moad impact • • r~ ~J b) Conflict with any apphcable habitat conservation ^ ^ ^ plan or natural community conservation plane MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the protect a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the ^ ^ ^ ^X residents of the state b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- rmportant rruneral resource recovery stte delineated on ^ ^ ^ a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan NOISE -Would the protect a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standazds established m the local general ^ ^ ^ ^ plan or Horse ordinance, or apphcable standazds of other agenciesv b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ^ ^ ~ ^ groundbome vibration or groundborne Horse levelsv c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient Horse levels in [he protect vicinity above levels existing ^ ^ ^ without the prolect~ d) A substantial temporary or penodic increase m ambient Horse levels in the project viamty above ^ ^ ~ ^ levels existing without the prolecty e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two rrules of a public artport or public use airport, ~ ~ ^ ^X would the protect expose people residing or working in the protect area to excessive noise levels f) For a protect within the vicinity of a pnvate ausinp, would the protect expose people residing or working ~ ~ ~ ^X m the project area to excessive noise levelsv POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would the protect a) Induce substantial population growth m an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes ^ ^ ~ ^ and businesses) or mduectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastmcture)v Foothill Boulevard (State Roufe 66) Between Grov/e^Avenupe and Vineyard Avenue /cr 7 0 47 Less than Potenhaliy significant Less than significant impact with significant No impact mite anon impaG impact b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housmg, . necessrtanng the constmction of replacement housmg ^ ^ ^ ^X elsewherev c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ^ ^ ^ ^ necessitating the construction of replacement housmg elsewherev PUBLIC SERVICES - a) Would the protect result m substantial adverse physical irrtpacts associated with the provisron of new or physually altered govenmiental fac4ines, need for new or phystcally altered governmental facrhnes, the construction of which could cause stgmficant envuonmenta] impacts, m order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response tunes or other performance oblechves for any of the public services Fue protecnonv Police protecnonv Schoolsv Parksv ~ ~ ~ ~ • Other public facihtiesv RECREATION - a) Would the project mcrease the use of exrsnng neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational ^ ^ ~ ^ facilities such [hat substantial physrcal detenoration of the facilrty would occur or be acceleratedv b) Does the protect include recreational facilmes or require the construction or expansion of recreational ^ ^ ^ facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the envuonmenty TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC -Would the prof ect a) Cause an mcrease m traffic which hrs substantial m relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i a ,result in a substantial mcrease m ^ ^ ~ ^ either the number of vehicle tnps, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at • m[ersecnons)v Foothd/ Boulevard (State Route 66) Between GroveNAv~~e77nuQe and Vineyard Avenue 48 N`!-1 Less than ~, Potentially significant Less than ~'i significant impact with significant No ', imoacl mdigahon impact im act ~~ b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level • of service standard established by the county d ^ ^ ~ ^ roads congestion management aeency for designate orlughways~ c) Result m a change m au trafric patterns, including either an mcrease in traffic levels or a change m ^ ^ ^ location that results m substantial safety nsks~ d) Substantially mcrease hazards due to a design feature (e g ,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incomplete uses (e g ,farm equipment) e) Result m madequate emergency accessv ^ ^X ^ f) Result m madequate parking capacrtyv ~ ~ X^ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting altemahve transportation (e g ,bus ^ ^ ~ ^ turnouts, bicycle racks) UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -Would the project • a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ^ ^ ^ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board b) Require or result m the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of f h h ld ^ ^ ~ ^ existing facilities, [he construction o w ic cou cause significant environmental effects c) Requtre or result m the constmchon of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing ld f li th t f h h ^ ~ ^ ^ w cou cause aci ties, e construc ion o ic significant environmental effects d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the protect from existing entitlements and resources, or ^ ^ ^ are new or expanded entitlements neededv e) Result in determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand m addition to the provider's existing comttvtments~ t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needsv Foothill Boulevard (Sfate Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 49 p-g0 Less than Potentially significant Less than significant impact wdh significant No im act mro anon impact im act g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ^ ^ ~ ^ • regulations related to solid wastev MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE - a) Does the prolect have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a £sh or vnldlife species, or cause a fish or .vildlife population to drop below self-sustauung ^ ~ ^ ^ levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or armna] community, reduce the number or restnct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or ehmmate important examples of [he major penods of California history or prehistoryv b) Does the prolect have mipacts that are mdividually Imuted, but cumulatively considerablev ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the ^ ^ ~ ^ mcrementa] effects of a prolect are considerable when viewed m connection with the effects of past prof ects, the effects of other cunent projects, and the effects of probable future projects)v c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human ~ ~ X^ bemgs, either duectly or mduectlyv • `J Foothi118oulevard (Sfate Roufe 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 50 /,7-0' Chapter 4 Califom~a Environmental Qualdy Act Evaluation • 4.3 Discussion of CEQA Checklist Responses 4 3.1 Aesthetics al Have a substantial adverse effect on a scemc vistas Less than significant impact Changes to the existing vertical alignment of Foothill Boulevard would be very munmal and should not affect any scemc vistas that currently exist along the project comdor Impacts are anricipated to be less than significant bl Substantially damaee scemc resources, mcludmQ, but not hmrted to, trees, rock outcronpmes, and histonc building wrthm a state scemc hishwav~ Less than significant unpact wrth mitigation The acgmsrtion of new nght-of--way (ROW) may indirectly rmpact the Klusman House (eligible for listing on the National Register of I3istonc Places [NRI-1P]) and five other properties (eligible for local hstrng as Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Crty Landmazks) (Chambers Group, December 2001) as a result of ROW acquisition (See Volume II, Technical Studies, for the Hutoncal Resources Clearance Report) In addition, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan identifies the eucalyptus windrow adjacent to Foothill Boulevard as being a visual link to the City's past, • because these trees were planted as part of the onginal State Route 66 construction These trees may also be impacted as part of the roadway widening In addition, as part of the roadway widening, the EU[IB undercrossmg would be removed and a new pedestnan overcrossmg would be constructed adjacent to the old ElJLTB ROW The ELTUB ROW would be mamtazned for potential use as a future commuter rail line Although the EUTJB was not eligible for the NRHP as determined by Caltrans' statewide bndge inventory conducted from 1984 to 1986, and m 2001 the City of Rancho Cucamonga determined the bndge was not eligible for designation as a local _ landmark, the ETJUB represents a dominant visual element within the context of Foothill Boulevard Removal of the EWB overpass and widening of Foothill Boulevard at this location would result m a significant change to the visual environment These changes would result m increased visibility that may potentially enhance existing views Construction of a new pedestnan overcrossing and potential future commuter rail-line bndge would also represent a dominant visual feature along the newly modified Foothill Boulevazd alignment Mitisation To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed m a manner which minimizes the impacts of the new construcrion on adjacent scemc resources Minimizing impacts shall be accomplished by incorporating design features that • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 51 ~~a Chapter 4 CaOfornia Enwronmenta/ Quality Acf EvaluaLon • Maintain the greatest possible physical distance between the historic buildings, structures, and objects, and the road ROW • • Do not require the reconfiguration of external or mtemal features of the lustonc properties, including entrances, windows and related free-standing structures • Avoid the loss ofrelated landscape elements where possible In addition, where trees of the eucalyptus windrow are taken for the alignment and new ROW, new Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1 1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 19 08, where feasible, unless rt is determined by the City Engineer that the proposed project would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined m the City's Municipal Code Section 19 08 040 Development of the new pedestrian overcrossing and future rail bridge shall incorporate architectural treatments as identified and outlined m the Foothrll Boulevard Specific Plan and Foothill Boulevard -Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan m order to enhance these elements within the context of the newly designed Foothill Boulevard At a minimum the overcrossing included with the proposed project shall be designed so that architectural treatments as outlined m the Specific Plan and Improvement Plan can be added to the bridge either when the bridge is constructed or at a later date These mitigation measures are anticipated to lessen potentially significant impacts to scemc resources to less than significant levels • cl Substantially degrade the exishnH visual character or quality of the site and rts surroundmes~ Less than significant impact Due to the tustonc and potentially historic resources located along the project route, any alteration to these properties could be considered a degradation of the visual character or quality of the site Refer to b) above for mitigation which is anticipated to lessen potentially sigmficant impacts to the visual character to less than significant levels Mitisation Refer to 4 3 I (b) for mitigation measures d) Create a new source of substantial ht;ht or Blare which would adversely affect day or mehthme views m the areas Less than significant impact The installation of artificial lighting m the median of Foothill Boulevard could increase the amount of light along the roadway However, overhead lighting already exists along the entire project route, including along the south side of Foothill Boulevazd west of EL7UB where existing - residential uses are located Therefore, the impact of the new light sources on existing residential uses and day or mghttune views would be considered less than substantial • Foothill8oulevard (Sfate Route 66) Between Grove Avenu/enan-dQV~neyard Avenue 52 /`~ Q..J Chapter4 Cap/ornia Environmental Qua6tyAct Evaluation 4.3.2 Agriculture Resources a) Convert Pnme Farmland Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the mans prepazed pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitonna Protiram of the Cahfomia Resources Atiency to non-atincultural used No impact Based on information that is available from the Cahfomia Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, there are no prune and/or unique farmlands located m the study area (California Department of Conservation, 2000) b) Conflict with existing zonmQ for aencultural use or a Williamson Act contracts No impact The preferred alternative would not conflict with the existing agncultural use located northeast along the western terminus of the proposed alignment improvements The land is not under a Williamson Act contract c) Involve other chanties m the exishnti environment which due to their location or nature could result m conversion of Farmland to non-aerrcultural uses Less than significant impact A small parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Vineyard Boulevard and Grove Avenue contains Nicholson Farms, a small fruit grower A portion of this site is used for growing • strawbemes, but the area that is currently used for strawberry production would not be impacted by the proposed project, and its effect would therefore be considered a less than significant impact 4.3.3 Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct imp]ementation of the applicable air quahty plane No impact The proposed project would improve traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion m the project azea, resulting in air quality benefits Therefore, the proposed protect is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementatron of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) au quahty management plan b) Violate any air quahty standard or contnbute substantially to an exisrinQ orprolected air quality violations Less than significant with mitigation Construction of the proposed prod ect should result m improved traffic circulation and thus lower au emissions Some exceedence of air quahty standards may occur dunng constmcUon of the project but these would be temporary in Erosion Control Plan that is prepared for the proposed Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vin/deyard Avenue 53 ~~7 Chapter 4 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation protect and requirements as adopted by the South Coast Au Quality Management Distnct (SCAQMD) Mrtieahon Construction related dust abatement measures shall conform with the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepared for the proposed protect In addition, all requrrements outlined m SCAQMD's Rules 401, 402, 403, and 403 1 shall be met (SCAQMD, June 16, 2000) c) Result m a cumulatively considerable net increase of anv cntena pollutant for which the protect region is non-attainment under an anphcable federal or state ambient air quahty standard (mcludm~ releasme emrssions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone orecursorsl~ Less than significant impact Based on data avarlable from U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Cahfomia Air Resources Board (GARB), SCAB, where the proposed protect rs located, is a federal non- attaznment zone for ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (PMto). Based on a qualitative analysrs of PMto in the azea, no vrolations of the pollutant have been recorded m the past 3 years, unplymg that no typical protects would cause a PMto hot spot to occur (Pazsons Brmckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc ,June 6, 2002a) (See Volume II, Technical Studres, for the Atr Ouakty Analysis - PMto Hot Spot Oual:tatzve Analysis) In a qualitative analysis for CO, levels anticipated with the proposed protect were not found to have srgmficant effects (Parsons • Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc ,June 6, 2002b) (See Volume II, Technical Studtes, for the Air Ouahty Analysis - Azr Ouakry Analysts Memorandum) SCAB is a federal attainment area for nitrogen dioxide (NOZ), sulfates (SOZ), and lead (Pb) Based on data available from the GARB, the protect azea rs located m a state non-attarnment zone for both 03 and PMto, lies m a state attainment zone for CO and SOZ, and is fisted as not classrfied for hydrogen sulfide (HZS) Construction of the proposed protect is anticipated to improve traffic circulation, thus potentially mmprovmg air quahty m the protect area d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Less than significant impact Sensitive receptors m the form of residential structures are located along the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of the EIIUB It is not anticipated that these receptors would be exposed to substantially higher pollutant concentrations with the proposed protect, as the protect would meet all air quahty standards for CO and PMio (Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc ,June 6, 2002a and b) A less than significant impact is anticipated • Foofhiil Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenuenan~d Vineyard Avenue 54 ~ O~ Chapter 4 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation Create obiectionable odors affecting a substantial number ofpeonle~ Less than sieiiificant • impact .. Dunng project construction, matenals and equipment used to construct the roadway system may result m obJectionable odors The unpacts would occur over a short penod of time and are not anticipated to be significant The cunent protect alignment Games a large volume of traffic that can produce objectionable odors By alleviating traffic congestion with the implementation of the proposed project, odors should not increase, and may decrease, following protect completion 4 3.4 Biological Resources a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either duectly or throueh habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate sensitive or special status species m local or reeional plans policies, or reeulations, or by the Califonua Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Services Less than significant unpact with mitigation Vegetation in the project area has been heavily disturbed over time due to the construction of Foothill Boulevard and the commercial and residential uses along the north and south sides of the roadway No candidate, sensitive, or special status species have been identified m the area (Cahfonua Depaitinent of Fish and Game [CDFG], 2001) No sensitive or special status species • of concern, or their habitat, were discovered along the protect route (Chambers Group, July 2001) (See Volume II, Technical Studies, for the Biological Survey and Jurisdictional Dekneakon Report) The eucalyptus windrow, located along the north side of Foothill Boulevard, was observed to provide suitable nesting habitat for raptor species Furthermore, there is a potential for burrowing owls to be located m new ROW acquisitions Although raptors and burrowing owls are not federal- or state-fisted sensitive species, the taking, possession, or destruction of these birds or their nests is protected under the Migratory Bard Treaty Act Mitigation is recommended to reduce potentially significant impacts to raptors and bunowmg owls Mitieation Prior to cleanng, surveys shall be conducted for raptor nests located m eucalyptus trees that are to be cleared by construction of the protect If active nests are identified, buffer zones shall be set up around the nests until nesting season is complete Surveys for burrowing owls and homed lizards shall be conducted prior to construction All new lighting should be directional lighting that points away from native habitat, if feasible, and toward the roadway • Foothill Boulevard (Stafe Roufe 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 55 ~-~b Chapter4 Cadfornia Environmental QuadtyAcf Evaluation • Dunng construction, night-lighting shall be shielded from environmentally sensitive areas to the extent possible, and dust-control measures, as defined in the Erosion Control Plan that • shall be prepared for the proposed prolect, shall be implemented These mitigation measures are anticipated to reduce potentially significant impacts to raptors, burrowing owls, and homed lizards to less than significant levels bl Have a substantial adverse effect on anv npanan habitat or other sensitive natural community identified m local or regional plans policies ret?iilations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Serviced Less than significant impact Water courses along the proposed project route include Cucamonga Creek Channel, locatedlust west of Vineyard Avenue and a Bear Gulch located lust west of the EUUB Cucamonga Creek Channel consists of a concrete fined channel that is void of vegetation Bear Gulch contains some vegetation, but is not consideredlunsdictional at the prolect alignment under the U S Army Corps of Enb neers (USAGE) or CDFG guidelines r) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (mcludm~ but not limited to, marsh. venial pool. coastah etc) throueh duect removal, filhne, hydroloeical mterruution, or other means No impact There are no wetlands m the project study area • dl Interfere substantially with the movement of anv native resident or migatory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or miQratorv wlldhfe comdors or impede the use of native wlldhfe nursery srtes~ No impact The proposed prof ect route is highly developed and it is assumed that this existing development negates any wlldhfe movement that could be present along the proposed project route It is not anticipated at this preliminary stage that existing wlldhfe comdors would be substantially impacted by the proposed project e) Conflict with anv local policies or ordinances protectine biological resources, such as a tree preservation pohcv or ordmance~ Less than significant impact with mitigation Along the north side of Foothill Boulevard to the east of EUUB there is a eucalyptus windrow The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan indicates that the windrows in the City are a visual link to the City's agncultural past and should be replaced, to minimize the fire hazard associated with these trees, or preserved In addition, the General Plan, under the Plant and Animal Resources Policies section, indicates that "the cutting of mature native trees shall be prohibited" (p 1V-16) The proposed protect could impact the existing windrow, depending on the final project design Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue~an_d_(V)i~n-7eyard Avenue 56 ~ O / Chapter 4 Ca6fornza Environmental Qualdy Act Evaluation If the eucalyptus windrow is affected, mitigation measures incorporated for item a) above shall • be adopted to ensure that the policies identified m the General Plan aze not violated Mrtr2ation Where trees of the eucalyptus windrow aze taken for the alignment and new ROW, new Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1 1 ratio per Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Munzczpal Code 19 08, where feasible, unless rt is determined by the City Engineer that the proposed project would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined in the City's Munzczpal Code Section 19 08 040 f? Conflict with the provisions of an adwted Habrtat Conservation Plan Natural Commumty Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation nlanv No unpact No adopted Habrtat Conservation, Natural Commumty Conservation, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plans have been identified for the proposed prod ect area 4.3.5 Community Resources a) Cause disruption of orderly planned developments No rmpact No planned development is located or proposed along the proposed ROW for the project Thus, • the proposed project would not disrupt any existing or proposed planned development of the area b) Be inconsistent with a Coastal Zone Manaeement Plank No rmpact The project area is not within a coastal zone c) Affect life-styles, or neighborhood character or stability Less than significant impact The project would involve improving an existing roadway, and would therefore not affect life- styles, neighborhood character, or stabrhty d) Physically divide an established commumty~ No impact The project would involve improving an existing roadway, and would therefore not drvrde an established community e) Affect mmonty ]ow-income elderly disabled transit-dependent or other specific interest eroup~ Less than significant impact • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 57 ~--g8~ Chapter 4 CaGfom~a Enwronmenta/ Quality Act Evaluation The build altemahve would provide a trail budge, and sidewalks where ROW allows, and would also include bus turnouts Thus, the proposed prof ect would benefit pedestnans and transrt- • • dependent people m the area As descnbed m Section 3 16 1, the proposed project would not adversely affect ]ow-income or mmonty residents As shown m Table 3 9, the protect area (see Section 3 16 1 for a descnphon of the protect area for the analyses performed related to population and housing) has a slightly lower median age than those identified for the State of California, San Bernardino County, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga The protect area has a lower percentage of persons that are 65 and older in companson to the State of Cahfomra and San Bemardmo County, and a slightly higher percentage than that reflected For the Clty of Rancho Cucamonga Furthermore, the prod ect area has the lowest percentage of persons with a work disability, along with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, of those areas analyzed, though all aeeas reflect a srmrlaz percentage Based on the mfonnahon contained m Table 5 1, the proposed protect would not drsproportionately rmpact elderly or disabled indwiduals, nor rs it anhcrpated that rt would adversely impact these groups f) Affect emnlovment industry, or commerce, or require the displacement of businesses or farmsy Less than significant impact • The proposed protect would mvo]ve w~demng of an existing roadway and rmprovement of pedestrian facrlihes Property would have to be acquired along the north and south sides of the protect route to accommodate the widened roadway (see Figure 2 2) At thrs time rt is not anhclpated that any business would be acquired m full as part of the protect The list of properties that would likely be impacted by the proposed w~demng rs presented m Table 4 1 Some impacts to businesses could occur through detours or closures during construction, however, these impacts would only be temporazy It is anhclpated that the roadway widening, once completed, would improve the mobility and circulation of vehicles on Foothill Boulevard, making rt easier for customers to travel to and from the business along the protect alignment, thus potentially improving the viability of the these businesses Table 4 1 Anticipated Parcels to be Impacted by the Proposed Project Assessors Parcel Number Address/Entity/Owner 207-111-01 8111 Foothill Boulevard 207-111-02 8133 Foothill Boulevard 207-113-11 8161 Foothill Boulevard 207-113-12 8177 Foothill Boulevard 207-113-14 8197 Foothill Boulevard Table continued on next page • Foothill8oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 58 Chapter 4 Cahfomia Environmental Quality Act Evaluation • U • Table 4.2 Anticipated Parcels to be Impacted by the Proposed Project (continued) Assessors Parcel Number Address/Entit /Owner 207-113-15 8205 Foothill Boulevard 207-113-16 8213 Foothill Boulevard 207-113-17 8221 Foothill Boulevard 207-113-18 8229 Foothill Boulevard 207-113-23 8269 Foothill Boulevard 207-113-24 8291 Foothill Boulevard 207-113-25 8241 Foothill Boulevard 207-112-03 8190 Foothill Boulevard 207-112-04 8204 Foothill Boulevard 207-112-OS 8214 Foothill Boulevard 207-112-06 8222 Foothill Boulevard 207-112-09 8252 Foothill Boulevard 207-112-10 8262 Foothill Boulevard 207-112-13 8219 Red Hill Count Club Drive 207-112-14 8211 Red Hill Count Club Drive 207-112-20 8166 Foothill Boulevard 207-112-21 8230 Foothill Boulevard 207-011-33 8238 Red Hill Count Club Dnve 207-011-35 8212 Red Hill Count Club Drive 207-011-36 8224 Red Hill Count Club Drive 207-011-43 8188 Red Hill Count Ciub Drive 207-011-44 8148 Red Hill Count Club Drive 207-011-45 8202 Red Hill Count Club Drive 207-101-13 8462 Foothill Boulevard 207-101-17 8270 Foothill Boulevard 207-101-24 8318 Foothill Boulevard 207-101-25 8304 Foothill Boulevard 207-101-31 8410 Foothill Boulevard 207-101-32 8724 Foothill Boulevard 207-101-33 8690 Foothill Boulevard 207-101-39 Railroad Ali nment -North Side of Foothill Boulevard 207-571-22 8205 Forrest Grove Lane 207-571-74 8218 Baker Avenue 207-571-75 8411 Foothill Boulevard 207-571-86 Railroad Ali nment -South Side of Foothill Boulevard 207-201-35 Casa Volante Mobile Home Estates 207-211-13 8841 Foothill Boulevard 207-211-14 8805 Foothill Boulevard 207-211-18 Van Daele's Cucamon a Rid e Housin Develo ment 207-211-21 Van Daele's Cucamon a Rid e Housin Develo ment 207-211-34 Van Daele's Cucamon a Rid e Housin Develo ment 207-211-38 Cucamon a Creek Partners, LP (undevelo ed 207-211-39 Cucamon a Creek Flood Control Channel Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue a/nnd V~~neyard Avenue 59 /~ ~0 Chapter 4 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation Mitigation Property acgmsition or relocations shall be provided pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law • 91-646), revised 1987 ~) Affect property values or the local tax basev Less than significant impact It is not anticipated that the proposed project would adversely affect property values or the local tax base Furthermore, the project may have beneficial impacts on local property values and/or the local tax base, as it could result m increased commerce with rts improvements to traffic flow h) Affect anv community facilities (includm2 medical, educational, scientific, or reh~lous institutions, ceremonial saes or sacred shnnes)~ No impact The proposed protect would not affect any community facilities ~) Result m alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffics No impact The preferred alternative would not result m altering waterborne, rail, or air traffic i) Support lame commercial or residential developments Less than significant impact It is not anticipated that the proposed protect would significantly improve transportation such • that large commercial or residential development would be supported k) Affect wild or scenic avers or natural landmarks No impact No wild or scenic avers or natural landmarks have been identified m the protect area (LJmted States Geology Survey USGS, December 199?) 1) Result m substantial impacts associated with construction activities (e ~ ,noise, dust, temoorarv dramaee, traffic detours and temporary access, etc )~ Less than significant impact with mitigation The protect would result m temporary noise, dust, drainage, traffic, and access impacts dunng construction. These impacts, however, are not anticipated to be substantial or significant, due to their temporary nature and rrntigation provided Mrtieation. See Section 4 4 for construction related air quality, hydrology and water quality, traffic, and noise mitigation measures • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 60 ~~ I Chapter 4 Cahforn~a Environmental Quality Act Evaluation 4.3.6 Cultural Resources . a) Cause a substantial adverse change m the s~gntficance of a histoncal resource as defined m & 15064 5~ Less than significant impact with mitigation The proposed project alignment is part of State Route 66, which is considered histonc in some parts of the country The acgmsrtion of new ROW may indirectly impact the Klusman House (eligible for listing on the National Register of Histonc Places [NRHP]) (Chambers Group, December ?001) (See Volume II, Technical Studies, for the Htstoncal Resources Clem•ance Report [HRCR]) Furthermore, five other properties (the Kramer Brothers Nursery, Magic Lamp Inn, Red Chief Motel [removed since the HRCR was prepared], Sycamore Inn, and Oso Bear Statue) were found to be ehgrble for local listing as City of Rancho Cucamonga Crty Landmarks, which may be indirectly impacted by the loss of setting and encroachment of new ROW All six of these impacts are potentially significant unless mitrgated Mitigation To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed m a manner which mmmmizes the impacts of the new construction on adjacent lustonc properties Mmmuzmg impacts shall be accomplished by incorporating design features that- • Maintain the greatest possible physical distance between the histonc buildings, structures, and objects, and the road ROW • Do not require the reconfiguration of external or mtemal features of the histonc properties, including entrances, windows and related free-standing structures • Avoid the loss of related landscape elements where possible • Where trees of the eucalyptus windrow are taken for the alignment and new ROW, new Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1 1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 19 08, where feasible, unless rt is determined by the City Engineer that the proposed project would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined m the City's Municipal Code Section 19 08 040 These mitigation measures aze anticipated to lessen potentially significant impacts to histonc resources to less than significant levels bl Cause a substantial adverse change m the significance of an archaeological resource nursuant to $15064 5~ No impact A field survey of the proposed new ROW was performed, which }Welded no evidence of azchaeological sites No prehistonc cultural matenal was seen neaz the recorded locatron of CA- SBR-897 (recorded m 1975 as a surface scatter of eight fragmented ground stone artifacts near the south base of Red Hill) No impacts are anticipated to occur Nevertheless, should resources • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 61 ~-~a Chapter 4 CaGforn~a Environmental Quality Act Evaluation be encountered dunng construction, work shall be suspended until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find • Mttteatton Should archaeological resources be encountered dunng construction, work shall be suspended to the area of the discovery until a qualified archaeologst can assess the significance of the find c) Directly or mdtrectly destrov a unique paleontoloetcal resource or site or umoue eeoloeic featured No impact No paleontological resources were found dunng a site survey Furthermore, no unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature have been identified along the proposed project route No impacts are anticipated to occur Mrtteahon Should paleontological resources be encountered dunng construction, work shall be suspended until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find d) Disturb anv human remains, mcludtne those mtened outside of formal cemetenes~ No impact No likely locations for human remains have been tdenttfied along the prof ect site • Mttteatton If human remains are unearthed dunng construction no further disturbance of the site shall be permitted as outlined in State Health and Safety Code Section 7050 5 until the County Coroner has been able to make a determination regarding the ongm and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097 98 4.3.7 Geology And Soils a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects mcludme the nsk of loss mlurv, or death mvolvme t) Rupture of a known earthouake fault as delineated on the most recent Aloutst-Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zonme Man issued by the State Geolootst for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known faulty Less than significant mmpact The bndge constructed as part of this project could expose people to adverse effects dunng a rupture of a known earthquake fault However, the proposed protect, including the bndge, would be constructed to current seismic design standards, therefore, potential fault rupture hazards are considered to be less than significant • FoothUl Boulevarcl (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 62 I~-93 Chapter 4 California Environmental OuaOty Act Eva/uaGon ul Stron2 seismic eround shaking? Less than significant impact • Strong seismic ground shaking is very likely to occur m the project area However, rt is not anticipated that construction of the proposed prod ect would increase the exposure of people or structures to adverse effects since the proposed project would widen an already existing roadway, so the land uses along the protect route would remain essentially the same following construction of the proposed protect However, if the proposed protect attracts new businesses, residents, or traffic, the number of persons or structures exposed to strong seismic ground shaking cou]d be increased The proposed protect would be constructed to current seismic design standards and, therefore, potential ground shaking hazards are considered to be less than significant ui) Seismic-related eround failure, mcludme liquefactions Less than significant impact As identified in the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan the Red Hill fault could ex}ubit ground cracking dunng a seisrriic event, and liquefaction could occur However, the proposed protect would be constructed to current seismic design standards and, therefore, potential ground shaking hazards aze considered to be less than significant ivl Landshdes~ Less than significant unpact • Along the north side of the protect area some slopes exist that would likely have a moderate potential for landslides since they exhibit a slope of 30 percent or less Therefore, rt is not anticipated that the project area would be significantly impacted by landslides Final design of the project would be m conformance with City and County standazds for slope stability b) Result m substantial soil erosion or the loss of tonsoily Less than significant impact with mitigation The proposed project route is located on Greenfield sandy loam and Soboda gravelly loamy sand Greenfield sandy loam (9 to 15 percent slopes), which is ]ocated generally from the EUUB to Vineyard Avenue, pnmanly occupies alluvial fans and is chazactenzed by rapid runoff with an erosion hazard that is moderate m general, but high in areas where vegetation is lacking Soboda gravelly loamy sand (0 to 9 percent slopes), which is located generally from the EtJLTB to Grove Avenue, pnmanly occupies long, broad alluvial fans and is charactenzed by slow runoff with an erosion hazard that is low Based on the above mfonnation soil erosion may occur m the protect area, particulazly to the east of EWB Therefore, applicable mitigation to minimize soil erosion, including the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), would be incorporated into the • proposed protect Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 63 ~y Chapter4 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation Mm~ation The contractor shall develop and implement BMPs to control soil erosion and sedimentation dunng and immediately following construction of the protect as identified m the • Erosion Control Plan that shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to construction See Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation m Section 4 4 for specific mitigation measures c) Be located on a eeolo2ic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the_protect, and potentiallyresult m on- or off-site landslide, lateral snreadms, subsidence, liquefaction or collanse~ Less than significant impact The proposed project is located m an active fault zone and maybe impacted by liquefaction dunng a seismic event The proposed protect would not increase geologic hazards within the area Any new fill soils would be m conformance with City and County codes for soil stability Impacts would be less than significant dl Be located on expansive soil, as defined m Table 18-1-B of the Umfonn Buildme Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or nroperty Less than significant unpact The widened roadway would be subject to the same soil conditions that currently exist along the Foothill Boulevard alignment between Grove and Vineyard Avenues Any new fill soils would be graded and compacted m conformance with City and County codes for soil stability and would meet Umversal Building Code standards Impacts would be less than significant • el Have soils incapable of adequately supportm~ the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal svstems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste watery No impact Sewer service is available along the protect route so the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems is not an issue m the protect area 4.3.8 Hazards And Hazardous Materials a) Create a sieiiificant hazard to the public or the environment tliroueh the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous matenals~ Less than significant impact Hazardous chemicals would be used dunng construction of the proposed protect, but these would be transported, used, and disposed of m accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements Impacts would be less than significant Mitieation Dispose of all hazardous chemicals used dunng construction m accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements . Foothill Boulevard (State Roufe 66) Between Grove Avenue annd Vineyard Avenue 64 n~ Chapter 4 Calrfomra Environmental Qualify Act Evaluation b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable • upset and accident conditions involving the release ofhazardous matenals into the envtronmenty No impact Currently Foothill Boulevard is a heavily traveled regional roadway The proposed protect would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment, and should not increase the potential for the release of hazardous matenals through upset or accidents over that which currently exists c) Emrt hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous matenal substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed schooh No impact There are a number of schools located within 0 8 kilometers (0 5 mile) of the protect alignment but none have been identified within 0 4 kilometers (0 25 mile) As stated above, any hazardous matenals that are utilized in the proposed protect would be transported, used, and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements Mitigation Dispose of all hazardous chemicals used dunng construction m accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements d) Be located on a stte which is included on a list of hazardous matenals sites commled pursuant • to Government Code Section 66962 ~ and, as a result, would rt create a significant hazard to the public or the environments Less than significant impact with mitigation An Initial Srte Assessment was prepared for the proposed prof ect which evaluated potential sites associated with htstones ofhazardous matenals (Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc , June 2002) (See Volume II, Technical Studies) Seven sites were identified as being potential hazardous waste sites that may be potentially affected by construction (see Section 3 2) The presence of asbestos-containing matenal (ACM), lead-based paint, and radon gas were not considered as part of this assessment The presence of LBP was not considered as part of this assessment The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 40 CFR 26, requires the generator of construction demolition waste to charactenze the wastes to determine if they are "hazardous wastes" with special disposal requirements Lead is recognized by RCRA as having potential toxicity charactenstics identifying it as a hazardous waste Due to the use of lead m paint, there is a potential for constmction demolition wastes to exceed maximum concentrations of lead and be identified as hazardous waste LBP is identified by the EPA as paint that contains more than 0 5 percent lead • by dry weight Implementation of improvements would likely require the removal and disposal Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 65 ~~ Chapfer4 California Environmental Qua6tyACt Evaluation of yellow traffic stnpe and years of pavement marking matenals (paint, thermoplastic, permanent tape, and temporary tape more than three years old) Yellow paints more than three years old • exceed hazardous waste cntena under Title 22, California Code of Regulations and require disposal to a Class I disposal site Traffic stnpe and pavement marking matenal would need to be properly disposed of or remediated if rt exceeds the 0 5 percent threshold previously identified Testing and removal requnements for yellow stnpmg shall follow Construction Program Procedure Bulletin 99-2 (CPB 99-2) Testing for lead-based paint m any structures that are removed as part of the proposed project shall be conducted as part of a future site investigation Miheation Pnor to conducting further site-specific contaminant source scoping and work efforts, the following additional information shall be developed • Final detemm~ation of which sites, if any, would be fully or partially acquired • Detemunation of specific construction activities planned on or near potential contaminant sources, including any utility work • Development of site-specrfic hydrogeologic information, including geology and groundwater depth and direction • More m-depth review of agency records and mternews with regulators and property owners/occupants of potential contaminant sources identified as a potential impact to the protect, if feasible Mitigation measures that shall be applied once the above information has been developed are . identified below A CERCLA "due diligence" Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted for each acquisition property where the potential for hazardous matenals/waste issues exists based on the results of the previously descnbed tasks The ESA shall be prepared per ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E-1527-00) in order to fully evaluate potential environmental liabilities associated with property acquisitions Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the need for further Phase II site investigations can be determined Systematic groundwater sampling shall be conducted within areas where groundwater could be encountered dunng construction Such sampling can be performed m conjunction with other Phase II efforts associated with the proposed project, rf necessary Procedures developed dunng the ESA and supplemental environmental documentation, if necessary, shall be implemented by the contractor dunng construction These may include the implementation of asste-specific health and safety plan, site-specific contaminant management plans, removal of storage tanks, and a general construction contingency plan Additional mitieahon measures to be Gamed out are C~ Foofhdl Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 66 ~' Chapter 4 California Environmental Quality Acf Evaluation • Evaluate all structures that would be demolished as part of construction for the presence of ACM and LBP pnor to demolition Remediation, m accordance with the recommendations • of these evaluations, shall be implemented Demolition of structures contaimng asbestos shall conform with SCAQMD's Rule 1403 • Test and properly dispose of or remediate traffic stnpe and pavement marking matenal if it contains more than 0 5 percent lead by dry weight Testing and removal requirements for yellow stnpmg shall follow Construction Program Procedure Bulletin 99-2 (CPB 99-2) • If excavation reveals unknown potentially hazardous wastes or underground tanks, work shall be stopped imrriediately or redirected until the area m question is investigated and mitigation proposed All hazardous chemicals used dunng construction shall be disposed of m accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements These measures would reduce potentially significant unpacts associated with hazardous matenals to less than significant levels If, at any time m the design and construction phases, prescnbed mitigation is not Gamed out, additional environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA must be completed to disclose unmitigated impacts e) For a protect located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the protect result m a • safety hazard for people residmQ or working m the protect areal No impact The closest airport to the proposed project alignment is Ontano International Airport, which is approximately 4 8 kilometers (3 0 miles) south of Foothill Boulevard For a protect within the vicinity of a pnvate airstnp, would the protect result m a safety hazard for people residing or workme m the protect areal No impact Cable Airport, which is pnvately owned, is located approximately 4 8 kilometers (3 0 miles) west of Grove Avenue along the north side of Foothill Boulevard This airport would not result m a safety hazard for people residing or working m the project area ~) Impair implementation of orphysically interfere with an adopted emergency response p]an or emergency evacuation plant Less than significant impact with mitigation Implementation of the proposed protect would have along-term beneficial effect on police, fire, and emergency services due to improved traffic flow During construction, temporary detours or closures may be needed, however, these would be mimmized through the development of traffic management and control plan. • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 67 ~--RB Chapfer4 CaAfomia EnvironmenfalOualityAct EvaluaLon The No Burld Alternative could negatively affect emergency services as traffic operations degrade, making it more difficult for police, fire, and emergency services to move through the • prof ect comdor Thrs could result m increased response times for such emergency services when using the roadway Mitigation As part of the build alternative, a traffic construction staging plan shall be developed and Implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to emergency response tunes See mrtigatron for Transportation/Traffic mSection 4 4 h) Expose people or structures to a significant nsk of loss, imury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wlldlands~ No impact There are no wildlands located in the project area 4 3.9 Hydrology And Water Quality a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge recLuirements~ Less than sigmficant impact The proposed prod ect may have a slight effect on surface water quality as a result of vehicle- deposrted surface contaminants (petroleum products, rubber, etc) being washed off roadway • surfaces dunng storm events The limited area of effect and the improvement m vehicle travel associated with the proposed improvements, however, would result m a minimal amount of increased contaminant deposition A less than significant impact Is anticipated b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit m agmfer volume or a lowenng of the local groundwater table level (e g ,the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted ~ Less than siginficant impact Due to the increase m impervious areas, groundwater recharge may be unpacted by the prof ect This impact would be minimal m terms of overall groundwater recharge and thus would be considered a less than significant Impact c) Substanrially alter the existing drainage nattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or nver. m a manner which would result m substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-situ Less than significant impact with mitigation • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 68 ~~ Chapter 4 California Envrronmenta/ Quality Act Evaluation Temporary construction and grading operations associated with the proposed project could result • m soil erosion being discharged into surface waters To mitigate this potentially sigmficant impact, an NPDES Plan would be regwred, as descnbed under mitigation Mrtieation Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during and inmiediately following construction m accordance with the National Pollutant Dischazge Elunmahon System (NPDES) Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that shall be prepared by the contractor that includes provisions for the implementation of the BMPs and erosion-control measures The following BMPs shall be included m the NPDES Plan for the proposed prol ect, along with any others identified by the RWQCB • Limit construction and all protect activities to awell-defined alignment • Avoid water resources • Refuel equipment at least 30 meters (100 feet) from washes • Prohibit runoff from construction actrvrties to enter washes • Use measures such as straw bales and silt fencing to control erosion • Cap all pipes overnight that are less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) m diameter • Prohibit pets on the construction site • Keep the site clean and remove trash daily All reasonable measures to capture and detain unwanted discharge shall be addressed to • acceptable standards, as identified m the SWPPP Erosion-control measures shall be implemented as identified m the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepared by the contractor and approved by the City Engineer pnor to construction As long as the project activity does not extend the culvert into the Iunsdichonal portion of Beaz Gulch, as shown m the Biological Survey and Junsdictional Delineation Report included in Volume II, Technical Studies, and as long as Foothill Boulevard is widened above Cucamonga Creek without placing fill m Cucamonga Creek, a California Department of Fish and Game Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement and U S Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit would not be requued If water is diverted or if water is obstructed from the downstream reach of Bear Gulch or Cucamonga Creek dunng any part of the construction process, then a Section 1601 Streambed Alternation Agreement and 404 permit would be required, along with a Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality Certification These mitigation measures are anticipated to reduce potentially significant impacts to drainage, erosion, and siltation, to less than sigmficant levels Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 69 ~~~~ Chapter 4 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation d) Substantially alter the existme dramaee pattern of the site or area, mcludme through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substanhally increase the rate or amount of • surface runoff m a manner which would result m floodme on- or off-stte~ Less than stguficant Impact The proposed protect would require that the bridge located at Cucamonga Creek Channel, located lust west of Vineyard Avenue be widened, and that the culvert at Beaz Gulch, located west of the EUUB, be extended to accommodate the roadway widemng Cucamonga Creek Channel is a concrete lined channel Modifications to these culverts would not reduce the capacity of these structures or substantially alter any existing drainage patterns In a floodplam study prepared for this protect, rtwas detemm~ed that the project would not cause any slgmficant Impacts to the Cucamonga Creek floodplam (Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc ,June 2002) (See Volume II, Techmcal Studies, for the Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary) Surface runoff would likely increase due to the additional Impervious surfaces that aze created by the proposed protect, but it is not anticipated that thts would not result m on- or off-site flooding Impacts are anticipated to be ]ess than significant e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the cap acrty of exishne or planned stonnwater dramaQe svstems or provide substantial addltlonal sources of polluted runoffs Less than significant Impact with nntigahon Polluted runoff currently occurs along Foothill Boulevard and Its associated cross streets • Although this protect would increase the amount of impervious surfaces along the protect route, the increase m polluted runoff Is not anticipated to be substantial Drainage features associated with the protect would be designed so that the capacrty of the stormwater drainage systems would not be exceeded Furthermore, implementation of an NPDES Plan and mitigation measures referenced m c) of this section would reduce unforeseen potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels Miheatton Implement a SWPPP and the mitigation measures identified m Section 4 3 9 (c) fl Otherwise substantially degrade water guahty~ Less than significant unpact The proposed project is not anticipated to substanhally degrade water quality Furthermore, unplementation of an NPDES Plan and mitigation measures referenced m c) of this section would reduce unforeseen potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels Mitigation Implement a SWPPP and the mitigation measures identified m Section 4 3 9 (c) • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 70 ~-IDS Chapter4 Ca/~fomia Environmental QualityAcf Evaluation g) Place housrne within a 100-vear flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard dehneatron maps No unpact • According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRIvI) for the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardmo County, Cahfomra, Panel 5 of 10 (Community-Panel Number 060671 OOOSA, Effecttve Date September 5, 1984), portrons of the study area are located wrtlun the FEMA designated 100-year floodplam However, the proposed protect would not substantrally impact flooding or place any addrtronal homes within a FEMA adopted 100-year floodplam h) Place within a 100-vear flood hazard area structures whrch would impede or redrrect flood flows Less than srgmficant rmpact Any rmprovements along the protect route would be designed so that they would not unpede or redrrect 100-year flood flows Mrheatron Drainage rmprovements along the project route shall be desrgned so that they do not unpede or redrrect 100-year flood flows, and do not rarse the exrstrng FEMA adopted 100-year base flood elevatron by 0 3 meter (1 foot) or more r) Expose people or structures to a stenrficant nsk of loss, mturv or death mvolvrne floodm>?, • mcludmQ floodme as a result of the failure of a levee or damp No unpact The proposed protect would not expose people or structures to a srgmficant nsk of loss, mlury, or death involving flooding over that nsk which currently exrsts tl Inundation by serche, tsunamr. or mudflow~ No rmpact The proposed protect rs located a consrderable drstance from the Pacrfic Ocean and would not be rmpacted by serches, tsunamrs, or mudflows 4.3.10 Land Use And Pianntng a) Conflrct with anv applicable land use plan, pohcy, or reeulahon of an agency wrth tunsdrehon over the protect (rncludm~, but not limited to the eeneral plan, specrfic plan, local coastal proeram. or zomne ordmancel adopted for the puroose of avordme or mrtreahne an envnonmental effects No rmpact The project, as proposed, would be consrstent wrtth the Crty's General Plan (1989), Foothzll Boulevard Speczfic Plan (1987), Paczfic Electric Inland Empire Trail Master Plan (November • 2000), and the Rancho Cucamonga zoning ordinance Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Befween Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 71 ~-~ oa Chapter4 Caldomia Environmental Quality Act Evaluation b) Conflict with anv apphcable habitat conservation plan or natural commumty conservation ]P anv No impact • No adopted habitat conservation plan or natural commumty conservation plans have been identified for the proposed protect area 4.3.11 Mineral Resources a~ Result m the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the statev No impact The project study area is not recognized as an area supporting important mineral resources Thrs project is not anticipated to have an impact on such resources b, Result m the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan. specific plan or other land use plany No unpact The proposed prod ect would not result m the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, as none are located m the protect area 4.3.12 Noise • a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels m excess of standards established m the local general plan or noise ordinance, or apphcable standards of other a~enciesy Less than sigmficant impact with mitigation Noise levels could be increased by the proposed project dunng construction Existing and predicted future traffic-related noise levels and identification of existing noise sensrtrve receptors was analyzed in a noise abatement report prepared for this project (Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade 8 Douglas, Inc ,January 2004) (See Volume II, Technical Studies, for the Traffic Notse Abatement Study) The report concluded that no traffic noise impacts would result from the proposed project, beyond those that may exist dunng constmction activities At Site 5 (8218 Baker Avenue) rt is predicted that noise levels would exceed the City's extenor noise standard of 65 CNEL, however, the future noise levels would be decreased compared to existing noise levels due to the use of OGAC pavement as part of the protect design Therefore, no mitigation is requued bl Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levelsy Less than significant unpact • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 72 ~co3 Chapter4 California Environmental Qua6tyAct Evaluation The proposed protect could result m a substantial temporary increase m generating excessive • groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels All construction activities would comply with Section 17 02 120 of the Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Since the protect would be constructed along a comdor that currently tames a large volume of traffic and would comply with the requirements outlined m Section 17 02 120 of the City's Mumczpal Code, the increase m noise level is not anticipated to be excessive, and thus impacts would be less than sigmficant and temporary Mrti2ahon Construction noise levels and hours of construction activity shall only be permitted as specified m Section 17 02 120 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Mumczpal Code In addition, all equpment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the onginal equpment and no equpment shall have an unmuffled exhaust As directed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the contractor shall implement appropnate additional noise mitigation measures, if deemed necessary by the City, which may include, but would not be lunrted to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents m advance of construction work, or installing acoustic bamers around stationary construction noise sources c) A substantial permanent increase m ambient noise levels m the protect vicimty above levels existm~ without the prolect~ No impact • The proposed prod ect would not result m a substantial permanent increase m ambient noise levels m the project vicinity above levels existing without the project d) A substantial temporary or penodic increase m ambient noise levels m the protect vicinity above levels existing without the protects Less than significant impact The proposed project could result m a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels Construction noise levels and hours of construction activity would only be permitted as specified m Section 17 02 120 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Mumczpal Code Miheation See mitigation under 4 3 12 (b) e) For a protect located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted. within two miles of a public airport or public use aimort would the protect expose people residme or workine m the protect area to excessive noise levels No impact The closest airport to the proposed protect alignment is Ontano International Auport, which is approximately 4 8 kilometers (3 0 miles) south of Foothill Boulevard Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 73 ~~~ ~Y Chapter 4 CaOforma Environmental Quality Act Evaluation f) For a protect within the vicinity of a pnvate airstnp, would the protect expose neople residme or working m the protect area to excessive Horse levelsy No impact • Cable Airport, which is pnvately owned, is located approximately 4 8 kilometers (3 0 miles) west of Grove Avenue along the north side of Foothill Boulevazd This airport should not expose people residing or working m the pro)ect area to excessive noise levels 4.3.13 Population And Housing a) Induce substantial population growth m an area either directly (for example. by nrooosine new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for examule. throueh extension of roads or other mfrastructure)~ Less than significant impact The proposed project would help to ease traffic congestion wttlun and around the project area by increasing capacity along Foothill Boulevard Growth could be induced by the proposed increased capacity, but rt is unlikely that rt would be significant due to the already existing development and relative lack of available land for additional development along Foothill Boulevard Some vacant parcels are located along Foothill Boulevard that could be developed, however, most of these parcels are not lazge enough to support large-scale development bl Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessrtatin~ the construction of replacement housing eisewherev No impact • At this time it is not anticipated that any residential structures would be impacted by the proposed project However, there is one residential structure, located at 8219 Red Hill Country Club Dnve, which could be impacted by the proposed project If, dunng final design, it is determined that this residential structure would be impacted, any necessary relocations would be camed out pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 It is not anticipated that any new replacement housing would need to be constructed as part of the proposed project Mitisation Acquisrtions or relocations shall be camed out pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acgmsttion Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 cl Disnlace substantial numbers ofpeople. necessitatme the construction of replacement housing elsewhere No impact At this rime it is not anticipated that any persons residing m the area would be displaced by the proposed protect However, there is one residential structure, located at 8219 Red Hill Country • Foothill Boulevard (Sfate Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 74 ~p~ Chapter 4 CaGfomra Envrronmenfal Quality Act Evaluation Club Dnve, winch could be Impacted by the proposed protect If, dunng final design, it is • determined that this residential structure would be Impacted, any necessary relocations would be carved out pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 It is not anticipated that any new replacement housing would need to be constructed as part of the proposed protect Mitigation Ifrestdential relocations or acquisitions are needed, they shall be carved out pursuant to the Umfom-i Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 4.3.14 Public Services al Would the nroiect result m substantial adverse phvsica] impacts assoctated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, m order to maintain acceptable service ratios. response times or other performance obtectives for any of the oubhc services Flre orotecton. Police protection. Schools. Parks, or Other nubhc facihties~ No impact to fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities Less than significant impact to parks • The proposed protect would not create a need for new or additional public facilities Implementation of the proposed project would have along-term beneficial effect on police, fire, and emergency services Dunng construction, temporary detours or closures may be needed, however, these would be minimized through the development of a traffic management and control plan (see Section 4 4) No pazks or schools aze located along the protect alignment Upland Memonal Park, which Includes recreation areas, lees approximately 365 meters (1200 feet) west of Grove Avenue (the western Ilmtt of the proposed protect) This park Is not expected to be impacted by the protect, nor are the schools located in the project vicinity, other than potentially by temporary construction-related detours or closures, which would be minimized through the development of a traffic management and control plan The No Build Alternatrve could negatively affect emergency sernces as traffic operations degrade, making it more difficult police, fire, and emergency services to move through the project comdor This could result m increased response times for such emergency services when using the roadway Mitigation A construction staging plan shall be developed following final design and Implemented to rrlinunize temporary detours and closures • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 75 ~--~lD ~ Chapter 4 Ca6forma Environmental Qualify Act Evaluation 4.3,15 Recreation a) Would the protect increase the use of existne neiehborhood and reeional narks or other • recreational facilities such that substantial nhvsical detenorahon of the facility would occur or be accelerated Less than sigmficant impact The protect would not result m a significant increase m the use of existing parks m the area, thus detenoration of these pazks would not be accelerated bl Does the nrotect include recreational facilities or require the construction or exnansion of recreational facilities which mieht have an adverse nhysical effect on the environments No impact The protect would not create or affect recreational facilities 4.3.16 Transportation/Traffic al Cause an increase m traffic which his substantial m relation to the existing traffic load and canacrty of the street system (i e , result m a substantral increase m either the number of vehicle tnns, the volume to canacity ratio on roads, or congestion at mtersectionsh No unpact A Protect Study Report (PSR) was prepared m 1993 for Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Lion Street, which is located lust east of Vineyard Avenue In the PSR a traffic • analysis was prepared which indicated that along Foothill Boulevard the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) would increase from 26,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 45,000 vpd m 2015 The proposed protect is meant to unprove traffic flow and relieve traffic congestion The proposed protect would not significantly increase the existing traffic load over that which is expected to occur along the roadway with or without construction of the protect b) Exceed either mdrvidually or cumulatively. a level of service standard established by the county congestion manaeement a2ency for designated roads or highwavs~ Less than significant tmpact The ability of a highway to accommodate traffic is typically measured m terms of level of service (LOS) Based on the ratio of traffic volume to the design capacity of the facility, LOS is expressed as a range from LOS A (free traffic flow with low volumes and high speeds) to LOS F (traffic volumes exceed design capacity and result in forced flow operations at low speeds) As identified m the 1993 PSR, Foothill Boulevazd, under the Draft Route Concept Report for Route 66, is required to maintain LOSE (i e , a LOS between and including A through E must be maintained) m the design year 2010 if the State Route 30 freeway is built State Route 30 is currently being constructed so the mazntenance of LOS E by 2010 is required along Foothill • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 76 ~~~ Chapter4 Calrfornia Environmental QualrfyAcl Evaluation Boulevard Currently, at the intersectron of Foothrl] Boulevard and Vmeyard Avenue dunng the • afternoon peak-hour the LOS rs F, which exceeds the LOS E that rs regwred along this roadway A traffic impact analysis was prepazed for the proposed protect, which protected LOS for the future condrtions (2025) with and without the proposed protect (Parsons Brmckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc ,June 2002) At Foothtll Boulevard and Grove Avenue, morning peak hour LOS would remain at C with the protect as compared to D wrthout the protect, with afternoon LOS remammg at D with the protect, as compared to F without the protect At Foothrll Boulevard and Vmeyard Avenue, morning peak hour LOS would be reduced from E to D with the protect, as compared to LOS F without the protect, with afternoon LOS being reduced from F to D wrth the protect, as compared to remammg LOS F without the protect c) Result m a chance m arr traffic pattems, mcludme either an increase m traffic levels or a chance in locatron that results in substantial safety nsks~ Less than srgmficant unpact The proposed protect would not rmpact arr traffic pattems d) Substantially increase hazards due to a desrsn feature (e Q sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or mcomnlete uses (e e ,farm egmpment)~ Less than srgnrficant impact The proposed protect would rmprove safety of the roadway by eliminating srght drstance • problems that currently exist due to the EWB In addrhon, the intersection of Red Hill Country Club Dnve and San Bernardino Road would be revrsed from its existing configuration to a nght angle intersections to rmprove dnver expectancy at these locations, whrch should also rmprove safety No desrgn features included m the protect are anticrpated to result m substantial safety nsks e) Result m inadequate emergency access Less than srgnrficant unpact with mrtrgatron Implementation of the proposed protect would have along--teen beneficral effect on emergency vehrcle access partrcularly through unproved traffic flow along the roadway Dunng construction, temporary detours or closures maybe needed Mrtreation To mrtigate constmction-related traffic rmpacts, a traffic construction staging plan shall be developed by the Crty after final desrgn and pnor to the start of constmchon fl Result m inadequate parkins canacrty~ Less than srgnrficant rmpact Addrtronal nght-of-way would need to be acgmred along the north and south srdes of the protect alignment to accommodate the roadway wrdenmg Parkrng located rmmedrately adtacent to the • Foothrll Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vmeyard Avenue 77 12--10 ~ Chapter 4 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation roadway could be Impacted at the Sycamore Inn and Red Hill Coffee Shop, however, the number of spaces to be Impacted shall be muumized to the extent possible dunng final engineering • design It is anticipated that 16 of the existing 96 parking spaces at the Sycamore Inn, and 3 of the existing 21 parking spaces at the Red Hill Coffee Shop would be removed by the project The existing number of parking spaces at these businesses Is not m conformance with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (Chapter 17 12 40) Since the parking at these locations are pre-existing, legally non-conforming situations, the parking at these businesses, following completion of the proposed project, would be considered to be legally non-conforming as well Therefore, no mitigation Is recommended g) Conflict with adopted policies plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e g bus turnouts. bicycle racks) Less than significant impact The proposed project would include bus turnouts, and shoulders and sidewalks are being added to the roadway, where nght-of--way allows, to accommodate pedestnans and bicyclists In addition, a trail bndge is being constructed along the existing railway alignment, and sufficient nght-of--way along the alignment is being reserved for the future construction of a bndge to carry fight rail The project would not negatively impact any adopted policies, plans, or programs that deal with alternative modes of transportation 4.3 17 Utility And Service Systems • a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Ouahty Control Boards No impact The proposed protect would nqt produce wastewater h) Reguue or result m the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facihttes or expansion of existino facilities the construction ofwhtch could cause significant environmental effects Less than significant impact The proposed project would not produce wastewater or require significant water for construction or maintenance c) Require or result m the construction of new storm water dramaee facilities or expansion of existme facihttes. the construction ofwhtch could cause sienlficant environmental effects Less than si~ificant rmpact with mitigation As part of the proposed protect new drainage features associated with the roadway would be constructed 'T'hese drainage features would be designed m accordance with City standards • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 78 /3--/09 Chapter 4 California Environmental QuaOty Act Evaluation Through the implementation of mitigation measures idenrified m Section 4 3 9 (item c), these • impacts would be less than significant Mrti~ation The contractor shall develop and implement BMPs to control storm water quality dunng and munediately following construction of the project See Section 4.3 9 mitigation for specific mitigation measures d~ Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the protect from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed No impact The proposed project would not cause the need to expanded entitlements related to water supply el Result m detennmation by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that rt has adeouate capacitv to serve the proiect's protected demand m addition to the provider's existing commitments No unpact The proposed project would not produce wastewater fl Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the protect's solid waste disposal needs Less than significant impact • No unpact to solid waste disposal by the proposed project is anticipated Dunng construction some solid wastes may need to be disposed of, including hazardous wastes, and these would be disposed of in accordance with federal, state and local regulations and would not require additional land fill capacity to be secured by the City of Rancho Cucamonga for disposal gl Comply with federate state and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes Less than significant impact Dunng construction some solid wastes may need to be disposed of, including hazardous wastes, and these would be disposed of m accordance with federal, state and local regulations Mitigation Dispose of all hazardous chemicals used dunng construction m accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements 4.3 18 Mandatory Findings Of Significance a) Does the protect have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to ehmmate a plant or animal community, reduce the • number or restnct the ranee of a rare or endangered plant or animal or ehmmate important Foothi118oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 79 ~'~- /~~ Chapter 4 Ca6fom~a Envvonmental Qualify Acf Evaluation examples of the mator penods of Cahfomta history or prehtstorv~ Less than stgmficant impact with mrttgatton • The protect does not have the potential to stgmficantly degrade the quality of environment With implementation of mthgation, the project would not substantially reduce habttat, population, communities, or numbers ofbtologtcal resources Wrth implementation of mrttgation the project would not elunmate unportant examples of the mayor penods of Cahfonua history or prehfstory Mtti¢ation• See Btologrcal Resources and Cultural Resources entries m Section 4 4 bl Does the protect have impacts that are mdrvtdually lfmrted. but cumulatively constderable~ ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of aprotect aze considerable when viewed m connection with the effects of nast protects, the effects of other cunent Protects. and the effects of probable future protects) Less than significant unpact The protect would not have impacts that are individually limited yet cumulatively considerable, as it would improve traffic and circulation from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue along State Route 66 cl Does the protect have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human bem~s, either directly or mdirectlyy Less than significant impact • The project is not anticipated to have substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly with implementation of mitigation for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazazdous materials, housing and population, hydrology/water quality, noise (construction), public services, transportation/traffic, and utility and service systems 4.4 Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts Under CEQA 4.4.1 Aesthetics To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed m a manner which minimizes the impacts of the new construction on adjacent scenic resources Minimizing impacts shall be accomplished by incorporating design features that Maintain the greatest possible physical distance between the historic buildings, structures, and objects, and the road ROW Do not require the reconfiguration of external or mtemal features of the historic properties, including entrances, windows and related free-standing structures Avord the loss of related landscape elements where possible • Footh~ll8ou/evard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 80 ~--!! i Chapter 4 California Environmental Qua/qty Act Evalua5on Where trees of the eucalyptus windrow are taken for the alignment and new ROW, new • Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1.1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Munzczpal Code 19 08, where feasible, unless it is determined by the City Ena neer that the proposed protect would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined m the City's Munzczpal Code Section 19 08 040 Development of the new pedestnan overcrossrng and future rail bndge shall incorporate architectural treatments as identified and outlined m the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Foothill Boulevard - Histonc Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan m order to enhance these elements within the context of the newly designed Foothill Boulevard At a minimum the overcrossrng included with the proposed project shall be designed so that architectural treatments as outlined m the Specific Plan and Improvement Plan can be added to the bndge either when the bndge is constructed or at a later date 4.4.2 Air Quality Construction related dust abatement measures shall conform with the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepared for the proposed protect In addition, all requirements outlined m SCAQIvID's Rules 401, 402, 403, and 403 1 shall be met (SCAQIvID, June 16, 2000) • 4.4.3 Biological Resources Pnor to cleanng, surveys shall be conducted for raptor nests that maybe located m eucalyptus trees that are to be cleared by construction of the project If active nests are identified, buffer zones shall be set up around the nests until nesting season is complete Surveys for burrowing owls and homed lizards shall be conducted pnor to construction These mrtrgation measures are anticipated to reduce potentially substantial impacts to raptors, burrowing owls, and homed lizards to minimal levels All new hghtmg should be directional hghtmg that points away from native habitat, if feasible, and toward the roadway Dunng construction, mght-hghtmg shall be shielded from environmentally sensitive areas to the extent possible, and dust-control measures, as defined rn the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepazed for the proposed protect, shall be implemented Where trees of the eucalyptus wmdrow are taken for the alignment and new ROW, new Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1 1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Munzczpal Code 19 08, where feasible, unless rt is determined by the City Engineer that the • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 81 ~-ara Chapfer4 CaLforrna Enwronmenfal QualdyAct Evaluation proposed project would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined m the City's Municipal Code Section 19 08 040 • 4.4 4 Community Resources Property acgmsition or relocations for shall be provided pursuant to the Umform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 See construction related mitigation measures under air quality (Section 4 4 2), hydrology and water qualrty (Section 4 4 8), noise (Section 4 4 9), and transportatiori/traffic (Sectzon 4 4 12) 4 4 5 Cultural Resources To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed m a manner which minimizes the impacts of the new constmction on adjacent lustonc properties Mimmizmg impacts shall be accomplished by incorporating design features that • Mamtam the greatest possible physical distance between the histonc buildings, structures, and objects, and the road ROW • Do not require the reconfiguration of external or mtemal features of the histonc propertzes, including entrances, windows and related free-standing structures • • Avoid the loss of related landscape elements where possible Where trees of the eucalyptus windrow are taken for the alignment and new ROW, new Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1.1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Munzcapal Code 19 08, where feasible, unless it is determined by the City Engineer that the proposed project would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined m the City's Municipal Code Section 19 08 040 Should archaeological resources be encountered dunng construction, work shall be suspended m the area of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find Should paleontological resources be encountered dunng construction, work shall be suspended until a qualified paleontologist can assess the sigmficance of the find If human remains are unearthed dunng construction no further disturbance of the site shall be permitted as outlined m State Health and Safety Code Section 700 5 unril the County Coroner has been able to make a detennmation regarding the ono n and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097 98 • Foothill8oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 82 1e--rt3 Chapter 4 California Environmental Quality Act Evaluation 4 4.6 Geology and Soils • The contractor shall develop and implement BMPs to control soil erosion and sedimentation dunng and immediately following construction of the protect Further evaluation of the soils and geologic chazactenstics of the protect area shall be performed as part of final design Measures necessary, if applicable, shall be implemented to meet Umversal Building Code Standards for expansive soils 4.4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Dispose of all hazazdous chemicals used dunng construction shall m accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements Pnor to conducting further site-specific contaminant source scopmg and work efforts, the following additional information shall be developed a Final determination of which sites, if any, would be fully or partially acquired b Determination of specific construction activities planned on or near potential contaminant sources, including any utility work c Development of site-specific hydrogeologic information, including geology and groundwater depth and direction d More m-depth review of agency records and interviews with regulators and property owners/occupants ofpotentia] contaminan[ sources identified as a potential unpact to the • protect, if feasible Mitigation measures that shall be applied once the above information has been developed are identified below a A CERCLA "due diligence" Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted for each acquisition property where the potential for hazardous matenals/waste issues exists based on the results of the previously descnbed tasks (see Mitigation Measure 15) The ESA shall be prepared per ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E-1527-00) m order to fully evaluate potential environmental liabilities associated with property acquisitions Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the need for further Phase II site investigations can be determined b Systematic groundwater sampling shall be conducted within areas where groundwater could be encountered dunng construction Such sampling can be performed m conjunction with other Phase II efforts Procedures developed dunng the ESA and supplemental environmental documentation, rf necessary, shall be implemented by the contractor dunng construction These may include the implementation of asste-specific health and safety plan, site-specific contaminant management plans, removal of storage tanks, and a general construction contingency plan Additional mitieation measures to be Gamed out are • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 83 ~~~y Chapter 4 CaBforma Environmental Quality Act Evaluation Evaluate all structures that would be demolished as part of construction for the presence ofasbestos-containing matenal and lead-based paint pnor to demolition Remediation, m accordance with the recommendations of these evaluations, shall be implemented • Demolition of structwes containing asbestos shall conform with SCAQMD's Rule 1403 Test and properly dispose of or remediate traffic stnpe and pavement marking matenal if it contains more than 0 5 percent lead by dry weight Testing and removal requirements for yellow stnpmg shall follow Construction Program Procedure Bulletin 99-2 (CPB 99- 2) If excavation reveals unknown potentially hazardous wastes or underground tanks, work shall be stopped immediately or redirected until the area m question is investigated and mitigation proposed A construction staging plan shall be developed and implemented to reduce potentially significant impacts to emergency response times If, at any time in the design and construction phases, prescnbed mitigation is not tamed out, additional environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA must be completed to disclose unmitigated impacts 4.4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be unplemented dunng and umediately following construction m accordance with the National Pollutant Dischazge Elimination System (NPDES) • Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that shall be developed by the contractor that includes provisions for the implementation of the BMPs and erosion-control measures The following BMPs should be included m the NPDES Plan for the proposed protect, along with any others identified by the RWQCB a Limiting construction and all protect activities to awell-defined alignment b Avoiding water resources c Refueling equipment at least 30 meters (100 feet) from washes d Prohibiting runoff from construction activities to enter washes e Using measures such as straw bales and silt fencing to control erosion f Cap all pipes overnight that are less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) m diameter g Prohibit pets on the construction site h Keep the site clean and remove trash daily All reasonable measures to capture and detain unwanted discharge shall be addressed to acceptable standards, as identified m the SWPPP Erosion-control measwes shall be implemented as identified m the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepazed by the contractor and approved by the City Engineer pnor to construction • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 84 (~-~-(1~ Chapter 4 Calrfornra Environmental Quality Act Evaluation As long as the protect activity does not extend the culvert into the Iunsdictional portion of Bear • Gulch, as shown m the Biological Survey and Jurisdictional Delineation Report included m Volume II, Techmcal Studies, and as long as FoothIIl Boulevazd rs widened above Cucamonga Creek without placing fill m Cucamonga Creek, a California Department of Frsh and Game Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement and U S Army Corps of Engineers 404 perrmt would not be required If water rs diverted or if water is obstructed from the downstream reach of Bear Gulch or Cucamonga Creek during any part of the construction process, then a Section 1601 Streambed Alternation A~eement and 404 permit would be required, along with a Regional Water Quality Control Board Section 401 Water Quality Certification Drainage improvements along the protect route shall be designed so that they do not unpede or redirect 100-year flood flows, and do not raise the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted 100-year base flood elevation by 0 3 meter (1 foot) or more 4 4 9 Noise Construction noise levels and hours of construction activity shall only be permitted as specified m Section 17 02 120 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code In addition, all equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no egmpment shall have an unmuffled exhaust As directed by the Crty of • Rancho Cucamonga, the contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise mrtigarion measures, if deemed necessary by the Crty, which may include, but would not be limited to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents m advance of construction work, or installing acoustic bamers around stationary construction noise sources 4.4.10 Population and Housing If residential relocations are needed, they shall be Gamed out pursuant to the Umform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 4.4.11 Public Services A traffic construction staging plan shall be developed following final design and implemented to minimize temporary detours and closures Foothrll Boulevard (State Route 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 85 ! Chapter4 CaGforma Environmental QualrfyAct Evaluation 4.4.12 TransportattonlTraffic To mitigate construction-related traffic impacts, a construction staging plan shall be developed • by the City after final design and prior to the start of construction 4.4 13 Utility and Service Systems The contractor shall develop and implement BMPs to control storm water quality dunng and immediately following construction of the protect See Hydrology and Water Quality m Section 4 4 for specific BIvIPs to be implemented All hazardous chemicals used dunng construction shall be disposed of m accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements 4.5 Monitoring Program for CEQA Mitigation The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be responsible for implementing a momtonng program for mitigation required for the protect, as outlined m Appendix B 4.6 Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations The Crty of Rancho Cucamonga has evaluated potential impacts related to the Foothill • Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Protect as documented m this Initial Study and proposes to determine that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the protect would cause any significant adverse impacts On the basis of this evaluation, it is determined that the appropriate environmental document for the proposal is a Negative Declaration Although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect because the mitigation measures have been added to the protect No statements of ovemdmg considerations are required LJ Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vrneynard Avenue 86 ~~fl Chapter 5 Summary of Public Involvement Process/Tnbal Coordination Chapter 5 Summary of Public Involvement Process/Tribal Coordination Public participation was conducted to define environmental and engineenng issues for evaluation dunng the environmental review process and to provide an opportunity for the public to become informed about and comment upon the protect 5.1 Notice of Initiation of Studies A Notice of Imtiahon of Studies (LAOIS) was sent out m Apnl 2001 to several groups, and was posted m the San Bemazdmo County Sun newspaper The nonce included mfoimahon on the proposed protect, mfoimation on funding, anticipated potential environmental impacts, descnption of the environmental document proposed, and a request for public participation m scopmg and the environmental process Types of groups that received the notice included • Elected public officals • State and federal agencies • County and local agencies • Local businesses, groups, associations, and individuals expressing an tnterest m the protect 5.2 Tribal and Historic Coordination Dunng research for the Negative Archaeological Survey Report, found m the Hutonc Resources Clearance Report (see Volume II, Technical Studies), letters requesting sacred lands or cultural mformatron about the proposed protect azea were sent to the Native Amencan Hentage Commission, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Gabnehno/Tongva Tnba] Council, and John Velenzuela The only response was from the Native Amencan Hentage Commission, which requested that other individuals m the protect area be contacted for their expertise m potential archaeological or sacred lands information Dunng research for the Hzstonc Resources Clearance Report, letters requesting histonca] information about the proposed protect area were also sent to the Etiwanda Histoncal Society, the Histoncal Society of Pomona Valley, Histoncal Society of Pomona Valley, and the Upland Histoncal Preservation Society No responses were received V Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 87 ~~ g Chapter 5 Summary of Public Involvement Process/Tnbal Coordination 5.3 Public Comments The Initial Study (IS) will be crrculated for pubhc and agency review and comment Dunng • this penod, a nonce of opportunity for pubhc heanng will be circulated Wntten and oral comments from the pubhc and agency review of the Draft IS will be considered before malang a finding, which, at this rime, is anticipated to be a Mitigated Negative Declaration If necessary, the IS will be revised m consideration of these comments u • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 88 /" " 1 Chapter 6 List o(Preparers Chapter 6 List of Preparers • This IS was prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga The following mdivtduals were involved m prepanng this IS City of Rancho Cucamonga Walter Strckney, Associate Ctvil Engineer Mana E Perez, Assistant Engineer Larry Henderson, Pnnc~pal Planner Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Charles S Gloyd, Project Manager David D Clark, Environmental Manager/ProJect Manager Bnan Calvert, Environmental Project Manager Steven Wolf, Norse and Air Quahty Analysis • Kevrn Keller, Noise Analysis Susan Robbins, Senior Supervrsmg Planner, Quality Assurance Theresa Dickerson, Envrronmental Planner, Quahty Assurance Ana Noguerra, Environmental Planner Derek Ross, Environmental Planner James G Douglas, Traffic Analysis Mrsbah Rashrd, Traffic Analysis Chambers Group, Inc. (Cultural and Biology Technical Reports) Roger D Mason, Cultural Resources Project Manager Donald Mitchell, Pnncrpal Biologist, Quahty Assurance • Chnshne Mukar, Staff Biologrst Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 89 Sao Chapter 6 Lrst of Preparers Stacie Tennant, Staff Biologist San Buenaventura Research Consultants (Historic Architectural • Survey Report) Mitch Stone, Cultural Resources Judith P Tnem, Cultural Resources • • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 90 ~--'~ ~ Chapter 7 References Chapter 7 References • Bausch, Douglas B and David S Brumbaugh Earthquake Hazard Evaluation Mohave County, Arizona Accessed July 30, 1997, <http //vishnu glg nau edu/aeic/mohave html> Northern Arizona University, Arizona Earthquake Center Cahfomia Au Resources Board Area Designation Maps State/Nat:onal Accessed February 13, 2001, <http //www arb ca gov/desig/adm/adm htn> Cahfomia Depai-trrient of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 2000 Cahfomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) December 1, 2001 Cahforrua Department of Transportation Project Study Report On Route 66 Between Grove Avenue and Lzon Street July 1993 Cahfomia Department of Transportation Standard Specifications July 1999 Cahfomia Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Califoz•ma Environmental Ouakty Act (CEOA) Guidelines Amended February 2001 • Cahfomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Home Page Accessed June 11, 2001 http //www swrcb ca gov/iwgcb8/ Cahfomia Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8 Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan 1995 Chambers Group, Inc Biological Swvey and Jurisdictional Delineation for the Foothill Boulev¢rd (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Project zn the Czty of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, Calzfornza July 2001 Chambers Group, Inc Historic Resources Clearance Report for the Foothill Boulevm-d (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue azid Vineyard Avenue Project zn the Czty of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California December 2001 City of Rancho Cucamonga Draft Envzronnserztal Impact Report for the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan July 1987 Prepared for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by Forma-Planning Network City of Rancho Cucamonga Foothill Boulevard Spec f c Plan September 1987 Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Foothill Boulevard Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan 2003 • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 91 ~-~aa Chapter? References Crty of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Adopted February 17, 1981, amended January 4, 1989 • Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Home Page Accessed 2002 and 2003, <http //www cz rancho- cucamonga ca us/> Czty of Rancho Cucamonga Munzcipal Code Accessed June 2002, October 2002, and July 2003, <http //ordhnk com/ codes/ranchocu/> Crty of Rancho Cucamonga Protect Study Report Ken Steele, Caltrans Dzstnct Dzrector 08-SBd-66-4 1/5 6 July 1993 City of Rancho Cucamonga Draft Supplemental Protect Study Report - Bz•zdge Analysis 08-SBd-66-7 4/4 6 September 2001 Crty of Rancho Cucamonga, Chamber of Commerce Community Facts Accessed June 5, 2002, <http //www ranchochamber org/commumty/codex htminemp> Cucamonga County Water Dzstnct Home Page Accessed June 11, 2001 http-//www ccwdwater com/ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map, Czty of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardzno County, Calzfornza Community-Panel Number 060671 OOOSA September 5, 1984 Fidelity National Infonnatton Solutions Environmental Geodata Febntary 2002 • Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc Field Visit Bnan Calvert (October 11, 2000 and February 2, 2001) and Sylvia McBnde (February 2, 2001) Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary July 2001 Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Doug]as, Inc Initial Szte Assessment June 2002 Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc Technical Memorandum RE PMIO Hot Spot Oualitatzve Analyse June 6, 2002a Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc Technical Memorandum RE Azr Quality Analysis June 6, 2002b Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc Traffic Impact Analyse June 2002 Parsons Bnnckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc Traffic Noee Abatement January 2004 San Bernardzno Associated Governments Paczf c Electric Inland Empire Trail Master Plan November 2000 • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 92 ~a3 Chapter 7 References • • • South Coast Air Quality Management Drstnct 1997 Azr Ouakfy Management Plan Accessed February 13, 2001, <http // www agmd gov/agmp/97agmp/> South Coast Azr Quality Management Dzstnct Dzstnct Rules Database Accessed October 18, 2002, < http //www azb ca gov/drdb/drdb htm> South Coast Azr Quality Management Dzstnct Rule 1403, Asbestos Emzsszons From Demolztzon/Renovatzon Acrzvuzes Adopted October 6, 1989 (Amended Apnl 8, 1994) Southern Cahfomza Earthquake Data Center Fau11s zn Calzfornza Los Angeles Regzon Accessed February 14, 2001, <httP //www scecdc scec org/lafault html> Southern Cahfomza Earthquake Data Center Sezsmzczty Accessed Apnl 11, 2000, <httP //www scecdc scec org> Transportation Reseazch Board (TRB) Highway Capacity Manual Special Report 209 1998 United States, Bureau of the Census. 1990 US Census Data, Database C90STF3A Accessed June 5, 2002, <http // homer ssd census gov/cdrom/lookup> United States Department of Agnculture (USDA), Sorl Conservation Service Sozl Survey of San Bernardino County, Southwestern Part, Calzfornza January 1980 United States Geology Survey (USGS) Natronal Wzld and Scenic Rivers System Map December 1992 Vista Environmental Solutions Inc Environmental Geodata February 2000 Foothi118oulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue 93 i~--I ~~ Appendix A Mitigation and Monitoring Commitments The mit~gahon momtonng commitments for the proposed project aze presented m this section (Appendix A) • • Foofhill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue ~' J CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES ' Regular Meeting • November 14, 2001 • Chairman McNiel called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7 00 p m The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Dnve, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chamnan McNiel then led m the pledge of allegiance ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS PRESENT• Rich Maaas, John Mannenno, Laity McNiel, Pam Stewart ABSENT Peter Tolstoy STAFF PRESENT• Brad Buller, City Planner, Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, flirt Coury, Assoaate Planner, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, Douglas Fenn, Assoaate Planner, Rick Fisher, Contrail Planner, Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, Donald Granger, Assistant Planner, Laity Henderson, PnnGpal Planner, Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, Warren Morelion, Assistant Planner, Maria Perez, Assistant Engineer, Gad Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary, Mike Smith, Planning Techniaan, Emily Wimer, Assistant Planner ..:.. ANNOUNCEMENTS • There were no announcements ...:. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motton Moved by Stewart, seconded by Maaas, tamed 3-0-1-1 (Tolstoy absent, Mannenno abstain), to approve the minutes of August 8, 2001 ..... PUBLIC HEARINGS A FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ROUTE 66 VISUAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT-CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -Review the Draft Histoncal Resources Clearance Report for Foothill Boulevard between Grove and Vineyard Avenues and direct Staff to update the City Histonc Site List Lany Henderson, Pnnapal Planner, presented the staff report He said the most significant finding was that the current railway bndge overpass is not the ongmal bndge, but was constructed dunng a widening pro~eil in 1929, at which time the onginal 1913 bndge was removed He observed there ' are two other 1913 budges intact elsewhere m the City, therefore, it is recommended that the bndge on Foothill Boulevard be a Histonc Point of Interest rather than a Landmark, Chairman McNiel asked what the timeline is for the Foothill Boulevard widening protect • ~x~,•~~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~-- Mr Henderson replied it is a two-year project Chairman McNiel asked if there were any enlightening findings in the course of the invesSgation • Mr Henderson responded not as significant as the bodge He said there were several sties that had ' not been identified in the past such as the Red Hdl Coffee Shop and several houses on Red Hill Country Club Dnve that were identified, which do not appear to be individually histonc at this Ume but perhaps could be part of an histonc distnct as the houses get older Chauman McNiel opened the public heanng. Heanng no comments, he closed the heanng. Commissioner Mannenno stated he had not known the onginal Magic Lamp budding was built in 1941. Motion Moved by Mannenno, seconded by Macias, to concur with the report and update the Gty Histonc Site List Motion tamed by the following vote AYES MACIAS, MANNERINO, MCNIEL, STEWART NOES NONE ABSENT. TOLSTOY -tamed ..... PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. • r f ~ k COMMISSION BUSINESS • There was no Commission Business at this time • ~ ~ r ADJOURNMENT The Histonc Preservation Commission ad~oumed at 7 10 p m Respectfully submitted, Bra er Secretary • HPC Mnutes -2- November 14, 2001 ~a~ IInn ~ ~ ~ ~ • a NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION ~!L~ Q J 915 CAPROL MALL, ROOM 366 q UG ~, ~ ~ SACRAMENTO, CA 85814 `oo~ (916 65?-WB'L Fez (916) 657-5390 OF Weh Site viww nehcca pov EfVGINE ~N~ ~ ~Gq ~~NG~ August 4, 2006 1$) Ms Maria E Perez Ciry of Ftanefno Cucamonga P O Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, GH 91729 Re ~Cl-1;:2000C71090, CEOA NeaaUve Cec'-r-tron Foo(hd1 ^otud Pf•ase II1'r"fdemng. iJed+an InstsliaUon. Landscaoina From Grove to ynvard San Bernardino County. California Dear Ms Perez Thank ~ ou for the opportunity to comment on th= atrrn~=-referenced document The C21~fomia Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) requires that any pro)ect that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of Rn historical resource, that includes amheological resources, is a 'signific2nf effect requamg the preparehon of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR per CEOA guidelines § 15064 5(b)(c) In order to compty with this orovision the lead aoency Is required to assess whether the oroiect will have an adverse Imoact on these resources within the area of pro)ed effect (APE), and d so, to mitigate that effect To adequatety assess the pro)ect- related Impacts on historical resources, the Commission recommends the following action J Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Infortnahon Center (CHRIS) The record search will detertnlne • If a part or the entire APE) has been previousty surveyed for cultural resources • If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or ad)acent to the APE • • If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resqurces are loratetl m the APE If a survey Is required to determine whether previousty unrecorded cultural resources are present v If an arofiaeoiogicai inventory survey is regmred, the final stage is the preparation of a professional repon aetduuig the findings and recommenda4ons of the rewrds search and field survey • The final report comtaming sde icrn[s, ~Pe sigmdicance, and m1LgaUon measurer Should 5e stabmiHeri immediately to the planning department All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, soil a~soa,ated tune ~y ab)eCw ayould be ,n a ~epa,~te ;anfidenta( addcndcm, and rat be -sde available for pubic disclosure • The fins! written report sheuld tre sutrm~µed v~rth1~ 3 months eRar vrork, has treen comp'e!etl M the app•ep^a!e regional arohaeological infortna6on Center J Contact the Native American Heritage Commission {NAHC1 for • A Sacred Lands Flle (SLF) search of the pro)ect area and Information on tribal contacts in the pro)ect vicinity who may have additional cultural resource information Please provide this office with the following citation format to assist with the Sacred Lands Flle search request USGS 7 5-minute auadranale citation with name townshio range and section • The NAHC advises the use of NaWe American Monitors to ensure proper identficetion and care given cultural resources that may be discovered The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Native American Contacts on the attached Ilst to get their Input on potential protect Impact, particularty the contacts of the on the list J Lack of surtace ewaence of aroheologlcai resouroes Does not preclude meir subsurrace existence • Lead agencies should include in their mitiga4on plan provisions for the Idenbfiration and evaluation of accidentally rnscovered aroheologlcai resources, pet Cauiorcua Environmental Quauty r+cf tGEuA) gl5uwi 5 (i) In areas of Identified archaeological sensitivity, a cert~ed archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native nmeilCam, Wl~l hmOWiedgE i0 Gbtttli at reSulJrCc6, ailJJiQ mOnitOi 51i gruunGiils[u (tiling aGLVILES • Lead agencies should Include In their mitigafion plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in J Lead agencies~should include provisions for discovery of NaWe American human remains or unmarked cemeteries In IFnlr m,1,aa1,~n ,71_^Q- • CEOA Guidelines, Section 15064 6(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Amenrans identified • by fhic Commiaeinn rf the mifial Sfudv ident~es the nreaenre nr likely prwaence of Native American human remains within the APE CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the r h~6~ ~ ~ wag NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignfied treatment of Nabve American human remains and any assoaated • Breve liens V Health antl Satety Gode §7USU 5, Public kesources Code §SU97 98 and Sec §t5U(i4 5 (tl) of the CEQA Gwdelmes mandate procedures to be followed m the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a iocauon otner roan a aeeicateo cemetery J Lead aaenaes should consider avoidance, as defined in & 15370 of the CE~A Gwdelmes. when significant cu Rural resources are discovered dunno lire course of nroiect nlanuuio I''icoSc fZai fre iv WC,aC~'c of ~~tt:) QS.~iti~.r. ~ < jvu ~~a.c olij yJcuuvi~u Sincerely, D v Sin Cc Sfate Clearinghouse Program n yst Attachment List of Native American Contacts • r, ~--~aq Native American Contact San Bernardino County August 4, 2006 San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Soboba Band of Mlsslon Indians • Deron Marquez, Chairperson Robert J. Salgado, Sr ,Chairperson PO Box 266 Serrano P O. Box 487 Luiseno Patton , CA 92369 San Jacinto , CA 92581 dmarquez@sanmanu luiseno@soboba-nsn (909) 864-8933 EXT (951) 654-2765 -3070 (909) 864-3370 Fax (951) 654-4198 -Fax Morongo Band of Mission Indians San Manuel Band of Mlsslon Indians Britt W. Wilson, Cultural Resource Coordinator Bernadette Brierty, Cultural Resources Coordinator 245 N Murray Street. Suite C Cailuiiia PO Box 266 Serrano Banning , CA 92220 Serrano Patton , CA 92369 brltt_vrls^^r?moronyo org bbner!~j@sanm=nusi- (951) 849-8807 (909) 864-8933 EXT (S51) 755-5200 -2203 (951)922-8146 Fax (909)864-3370 Fax Serrano Band of Indians Goldie Walker 6588 Valerie Drive Serrano • Highland , CA 92346 (909)862-9883 Tms usr is currem only es or me care or tms document Distribution of this Ilst does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility es deflnetl In Section 7(150 6 of the Health and Sarery Coae, Section 5057 b4 or me Fuohc Resources Coee end Secuon 5097 9ft of the F•uohc Resources Coae This Ilst is only applicable for contacting local Netlve Americans with regartl to culture) resources for the proposed SCHg2006071090, CEQA Negative Declaration, ,Draft EIS, Initial Study' Street Widening, Metllan Instelletlon, Landscaping, City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California ~--{~30 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office August 14, 2006 Mr Walter Stlckney, Associate Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering and Public Works 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-0807 (~C~C~~~1~i~~n~ ~1 au~ 1 ~ 2005 I~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION 8a8 West Seventh Street RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120060505 Foothill Boulevard Phase III Tzth Floor Medians and Street Widening from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Los Angeles, California Avenue 9ooT7 3435 Dear Mr Stlckney t(gs0)zg6-x800 Thank you for submitting the Foothill Boulevard Phase III Medians and f(~3)~36i8as Street Widening from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue for review and comment As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant protects, SCAG www stag ca gov reviews the consistency of local plans, protects and programs with regional plans This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning DiNcers Resident nbnne B Burke mz Mgeleacppnrv FpstYCePiesldentGaryDwtl organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations Gwdance San Bernakmo County Second V¢e President RrthaN Oixpn, lake Fprest Immediate Past provided by these reviews Is intended to assist local agenaes and protect "°my°"pg p°""aaneme sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and only Nnor Carrillo ImDetlal Cpunry ry El Centre pOIICIES Ins Angeles County npnne B Burke Lnz Angeles Cnunry • 1r Yanslavzky Ws Mgeles CndDry•Ilm Aldrnger Manhattan Beach•Harry Baldvnn, San Gabriel • Paul Bowlen CeMros We have reviewed the Foothill Boulevard Phase III Medians and Street Todd Campbeq B°Mank • lpny CaNenas Ins Angeles Sun Carroll ^ Habra Heghts Widening from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue, and have determined that ParagmoonlClaMlke°Dispenn Palmdale a"lady the proposed Protect Is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Dunlap, Inglewood Rae GabelW tang Beach• Davin Gafn Downey•Eric Gartetli Ws Angeles Review (IGR) Cntena and Cahforrna Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • Wendy Greuel Ws Angeles frank Gurul€ Cudahy • lanlce Hahn Wa Mgelea • Isadpre Guidelines (Section 15206) Therefore, the proposed Protect does not warrant Hall Compton • Kelih W Hanks Musa • lose Hmxar, Ipa Mgelea •Tpm Lao°nge. Ina Mgelea comments at this time Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed • Paula Lang Pomona • Paul Nowalka Torrance PamoCn^^pr saran M°n¢a uea Podma Wa Protect, we would appreaate the opportunity to review and comment at that time Angeles BernaN Parks Ins Angeles Ian Perry, Los Angeles • Ed Rryes Los Angeles BIII Rpsendahl Los Angeles Grelg Smith, lps Angeles • loin Sykea WalnDl Papl ialbpt A description of the proposed Protect wdl be published in SCAG's July 1-31, 2006 Alhambra • Mike ien South Pasatlena ionu ReyesUrangalnngBeach•MtonioMllaraigosa Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and comment Los Angeles Dennis Washburn, Calabasas lad Weiss Los Mgeles • Herb I Wesson, Iq lps Angeles • Dennis Lne Ins Mgeles Dnnge County Chris N°Ny orange County The protect title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all [hnrtine Barnes la Palma lobo Beauman 8rea•Inu Bone TUZhn•MBrovm Buena Park correspondence with SCAG concerning this Protect Correspondence should be • R¢hartl Chavez Anaheim Debbn Copk, Hpnlinglpn BeaxH•leaheDaigle,Newport Beach sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator If you have any questions, • RlchaM Duon Lake krest Paul Glaab Laguna Niguel•Nanlynn Poe Ins Alamitos please contact me at (213) 236-1851 Thank you Rmnlde County IeR Stone Riverside County Thomas Buckley lake Elsinore Bonnie Fhdmger Moreno Valley Ron Lovenege' SlnCerel Rrversitle Greg Pettis Cathetlral Ciry Ron Roberts Temecula , Y /t t / ~ j ( / / San Bernardino County Gary ovnt San Bernardino County Lawrence Dale Barstow • Paul Eaton Montclair • lee Ann Garna Grand `//~ ?,/', /vl ~f /7 ~' T //I,,~1n ~, I l (/,I' x/I `~ v iernce •nm laaDer ipwn Dl Apple xalley lorry APRIUGRAYSON ~ McCallon, Nghlantl • Debprah Robenspn Rialto •aa^waD^er Dma^° Associate Regional Planner v ~pnry IutlyMlkela VzntunCnpnrv• rta Simi Vdlley•Catl Morehouse San Intergovernmental Review tun•ipnl YOUng PortHUeneme County Tnnsp9rtahon Authority lnu Correa County of Orange Rrvcrside (nunry innspomtion Commission Robin Inwe HemM Venlun Cpunry Tnnsportalion Commiss°n Kedh Mulhouse Moorpark Doc #124743 ® VrlnrM mPetVdM yper 55995 o99a STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 340 WEST a`"STREET SURE 500 LOS ANGELES CA 80013 August 9, 2006 Mazia E Perez City of Rancho Cucamonga P O Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Deaz Ms Perez RANCHO CD` ~ ONGA CITYENGINEE[~NG 'ON ~} Governor :,,~"- Re SCH# 2005071090, Foothill Boulevard R'idemng Phase III Medians and ~Videmng from Grove to Vmeyazd The California Public Uttlrties Commrssron (Commrssron) has Iurisdictron over the safety of highway-rail crossings (crossrngs) m California The California Public Uhlrties Code requires Commrssron approval for the construction or alteration of crossrngs and grants the Commrssron exclusive power on the design, alternation, and closure of crossrngs The Commrssron is m receipt a copy of the Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal from the State Cleanng House The document's protect descnption menncns the protect proposes to "widen and instal] a median on Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue "The City should implement mitigation measures to avoid any possible queuing on the Metrohnk's San Bernardino Line Baker Avenue, Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue crossings due to construction Please advise us on the status of the protect If you have any questions m this matter, please contact me at (213) 576-7078 or at rxm(cilcnuc ca Qov S cer v, Rosa Munoz, Utilities Engineer Rail Crossings Engmeenng Section Consumer Protection & Safety Division ,- - ,. . C Ron Mathieu, Metaohnlr, ,; " i~i.; : „•., ; AUG 1 J 2006 ARNOLD ,. _. _ . ;, ~; . ,~ ~ _ ~, ,r ~ , ~----i 3a • u ~~ Cucamonga Valiey Water District • Robert A DeLoach General Manager Chief Executive Officer August 1, 2006 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division 10500 Civic Center Dnve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 CIlY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUK G 7 2006 J~ECEJVFD -PLANNING RE Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration Location Foothill Boulevard Phase III Medians and Street Widening from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue Applicant City of Rancho Cucamonga Gentlemen • Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced document After reviewing the Notice of Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration, Cucamonga Valiey Water Distract has no comments other than the District's Engineering Staff is coordinating with the City's Engineering Staff regarding the replacement of the 16" water Itne in Foothill Boulevard It would be appreciated if the City notifies CVWD of the anticipated timeline for this project Once again, Cucamonga Valley Water District thanks you for including us on this project's distribution list Sincerely, CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ~~ Q ~~~ Rita A Kurth Water Resource Administrator • 10440 Ashford Street • Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0638 P 0 BOX 638 • (909) 987-2591 • Fax (909) 476-8032 p~! r~~ ~x'~~y fix? - r. - _ ~ ! ~v qi„r w~ ~' ~ uca (p Lela. ,- ,'~a a5rn .,_ n,- J i~I'': t:i'lJl. .;~yi ~I~ni James V. Curatalo, Jr R. Robert Neufeld Jerome M Wlison Randall James Reed Kathy Tiegs President Vice President Dvector Director Drector \~ Department of Toxic Substances Control Maureen F Gorsen, r r ~ "~ Linda S Adams 5796 Corporate A~~1~ \~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D Arnold Schwarzenegger Secretary for Cypress, Cahfornla 30 Governor Envvonmental Protection Aug z ~ zooo August 23, 2006 GTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEEP1Na DNI510N Ms Marla E Perez City of Rancho Cucamonga P O Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND) FOR THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (STATE ROUTE 66) PHASE III MEDIANS (SCH# 2006071090) Dear Ms Perez The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted document for the above-mentioned project As stated in your document "The protect • proposes a street widening, median installation, including beautification features to improve level of service and safety". Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has comments as follows 1) The ND should identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site may have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances. 2) The document states that the ND would identify any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area For all identified sites, the ND should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment A Phase I Assessment may be sufficient to identify these sites Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies • National Pnorities List (NPL) A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U S EPA) • Envirostor (formerly CalSites) A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below) • ~---i 3~' ® Pnnted on Recycled Paper • Ms Maria Peraz August 23, 2006 Page 2 • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U S EPA • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U S EPA • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) /Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC) A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) 3) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If hazardous materials or wastes were stored at the site, an environmental assessment should be conducted to determine if a release has occurred If so, further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of the contamination, and the potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated It may be necessary to determine if an expedited response action is required to reduce existing or potential threats to public health or the environment If no immediate threat exists, the final remedy should be implemented in compliance with state laws, regulations and policies 4) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the appropriate agency, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction • j~--13~ Ms Maria Peraz August 23, 2006 Page 3 5) If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property " Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a "Border Zone Property " 6) The project construction may require soil excavation and soil filling in certain areas Appropriate sampling is required prior to disposal of the excavated soil If the soil is contaminated, properly dispose of it rather than placing it in another location Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to these soils Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, proper sampling should be conducted to make sure that the imported soil is free of contamination • 7) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities A study of the site overseen by the appropriate government agency might have to be conducted to determine if • there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment 8) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Urnfied Program Agency (CUPA) Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA 9) If the site was used for agricultural purposes or if weed abatement may have occurred, onsite sods may contain pesticide and agricultural chemical residue. If the project area was used for poultry, dairy and/or cattle industry operations, the sod may contain related dairy, animal, or hazardous waste If so, activities at the site may have contributed to soil and groundwater contamination Proper investigation and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted at the site pnor to construction of the project 10) If during construction/demolition of the project, soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented If it is determined that contaminated sod and/or groundwater exists, the ND should identify how any required investigation and/or remediation will be conducted, and the appropriate government agency to provide regulatory oversight ~-13~0 • Ms Maria Peraz August 23, 2006 Page 4 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr AI Shami, Project Manager, at (714) 484-5472 or at "ashami @ DTSC ca gov" Sincerely, ~~J ~l~~Lr.~~ Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch -Cypress Office cc Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P O Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 • Mr Guenther W Moskat, Chief Planning and Environmental Analysis Section CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control P O Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 CEQA #1479 • ~~ I ~ ~4~ Amold Schwarzenegger Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and-Planning Unit August 21, 2006 Mana E Perez City of Rancho Cucamonga P O Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 -~ ,~~~~~~ vr~~i~ AUG 2 4 ?pn~ ~ GTy OF RANCHO CUCAr<q!,~N~~ ENGINEERING DI1ttSI0N Subject Foothill Boulevard Phase III Medians and Sheet Wtdenutg from Grove to Vineyard SCH# 2006071090 Deaz Mana E Pere2 oEF~ eF y ~ u0 D P O~ •~f*rE0F G1.R'~0.~ Sean Walsh Dtrector The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declazahon to selected state agencies for review On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has ltsted the state agencies that reviewed your document The revtew period closed on August 18, 2006, and the comments from the responding agency (ies) is (aze) enclosed If this comment package is not in order, please nottfy the State Clearinghouse immediately Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Cleatmghouse number in future conespondence so that we may respond promptly Please note that Section 21104(c) of the Cahforma Public Resources Code states that "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those acnvthes involved in a project which are vnthin an area of expertise of the agency or which aze required to be camed out or approved by the agency Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation " These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final envionmental document Should you need more tnforrnanon or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly This letter acknowledges that you have complied vnth [he State Clearinghouse revtew requiements for drafr envioimmental documents, pursuant to the California Envionmental Quality Act Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questtons regarding the enviontnental revtew process Sincerely, ~/ Terry Ro errs Duector, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc Resources Agency • ~J ~3g 1400 TENTH STREET P 0 BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96812-3044 TEL (916) 446-0613 FAX (916) 523-3018 www opr ca gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Base SCH# 2006071090 Protect Title Foothill Boulevard Phase III Medians and Street W idening from Grove to Vineyard • Lead Agency Rancho Cucamonga, City of Type Neg Negative Declaration Description Street widening, median installation, including beautification features to improve level of service and safety Lead Agency Contact Name Maria E Perez Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga Phone (909)477-2740 x4036 Fax emarl Address P O Box 607 City Rancho Cucamonga State CA Zrp 91729 Project Location County San Bernardino City Rancho Cucamonga Regron Cross SVeets Grove Avenue/Foothill -Vineyard/Foothill Parcel No. Existing street -Book 207 Township 1S Range 7W Section 4,9 Base Proximity to: Highways 66 Airports Ontario • Railways SCRRA Waterways Cucamonga Creek, Deer Creek Schools Land Use Commeraal, residential, mixed use Pro%ect Issues Aesthetic/Visual, Agricultural Land, fur Quality, Archaeologic-Historic, Drainage/Absorption, Forest Land/Fire Hazard, Geologic/Seismic, Minerals; Noise, Population/Housing Balance, Public Services, Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading, Toxtc/Hazardous, Traffic/Circulation, Vegetation, Water Supply, W Ildlife Reviewing Resources Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8, Department of Parks and Agencies Recreation, Native American Heritage Commission, Public Utilities Commission, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of Fish and Game, Region 6, Department of Water Resources, California Highway Patrol, Caltrans, District 8; Air Resources Board, Transportation Protects, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics Date Received 07/20l2D06 Start of Review 07/20/2006 End of Revrew 08/18/2006 • l~-IJ~ Note Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency NATIVE AMERICAN 915 CAPROI MALL, ROOM 364 SACRAMENTO, CA 85814 (916)653-4062 Fex (918) 6573390 Web Site wwW nEhecapov Ms ManaE Perez HERITAGE COMMISSION C~,~ August 4, 2006 Ciry of RancFo Cucamonga ~\ "(VU~J P O Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 °~ .~ RECEIVED AUG 1 4 2006 STATE CLEARING HOUSE Re SCH:.2006071090, CEQA Negative Declartion FootFdl Bivd Phase III Widemng Median Instaliatlon Landscaoing. From Grove to Vnvard San Bemardmo Countv. Callfomia Dear Ms Perez Thank you for the opportunely to comment on the above-referenced document The Califom~a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that any protect that causes a substantial adverse change In the significance of an histoncal resource, that includes archeological resources, is a 'srgnficant effect requinng the preparation Of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR per CEQA guidelines § 15064 5(b)(c) In order to comply with this provision, the lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the area of protect effect (APE), and if so, to mitigate that effect To adequatety assess the projed- related impacts on histoncal resources, the Commission recommends the following action J Contact the appropnate Cal(fomia Histonc Resources Information Center (CHRIS) The record search will determine • If a part or the entire APE) has been previously surveyed for cultural resources • If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE • If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resouroes are located m the APE If a survey is required to determine whether previousty unrecorded cultural resources are present d If an archaeological inventory survey is requued, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of tha records search and field survey • The final report containing sde forms, site significance, and miflgaUon measurers should be submitted immediatety to the planning department All rnfortnation regarding sde locations, Native Amencan human remains, and associated funerry objects should be in a separate confidenLal addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure • The final wntten report should be submitted wdhin 3 months after work has been completed to the appropnate regional archaeological Information Center J Contact the Native Amencan Hentage Commission (NAHC) for ' A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and infortnabon on tnbal contacts in the project vicinely who may have adddional cultural resource information Please provide this office with the following citabon format to assist with the Sacred Lands File search request USGS 7 5-minute quadrangle Gelation welh name townshio range and section. • The NAHC advises the use of NaWe Amencan Monelors to ensure proper identfication and care given cultural resources that may be discovered The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Native Amencan Contacts on the attached list to get their input on potential project impact, particularty the contacts of the on the list d Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preGude their subsurface existence • Lead agencies should include in their mdigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of accidenfaliy discovered arcneologicai resources, per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) §15064 5 (f) In areas of identified arohaeological sensdivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native Amencan, with knowledge m culural resources, should mondor all ground{lisiurbmg acbvi6es • Lead agencies should include in their mdigation plan provisions forthe disposition of recovered artifacts, in consutta4on wdh culfuraly affiliated Native Amencans J Lead agencies should include provisions far discovery of Native Amencan human remains or unmarked cemetenes In their mitigation plans • CEQA Guidelines, Section 15084 5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Amencans identified by this Commission if the initial Study ident~es the presence or likely presence of Native Amencan human remains within the APE CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native Amencan, idenbfied by the • ~-~I NAHC, to assure the appropriate and d~gnrfied treatment of Native Amencan human remains and any associated • grave hens V Health and Safety Code §7050 5, Public Resources Code §5097 98 and Sec §15064 5 (d) of the CEQA Gwdelmes mandate procedures to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains m a Iocatton ocher than a deciceted cemetery Please feet free to contact me at (91 G) G53-6251 ~f ycu have any quesftons Cc State Cieannghouse Attachment List of Native Amencan Contacts • • T~ ~'"~ ~!' 1 Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Mttlgatton Monrtonng Plan ~l No Mitigation Measure Timing Pertonnance ObJective Responslbllity Aesthetics To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed in a manner which minimizes the impacts of the new construction on adjacent scenic resources Mimm¢ing impacts shall be accomplished by incorporating design features that Design the project m a way that signature 1 a Maintain the greatest possible physical distance between the historic buildings sWC- By consultant dunng minimizes impacts on visual , design lures, and objects, and the road ROW resources name b Do not regmre the reconfiguration of external or inlemai features of the historic proper- windows and related free-standing structures including entrances ties , , c Avoid the loss of related landsca a elements where ossible date Where trees of the eucalyptus vnndrow are taken for the alignment and new ROW new Eucalyjr Mitigate for impacts to eucalyp- signature tus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1 1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code During consbuction by tus windrow, which is a rlsual 2 19 08 where feasible, unless d is determined by the City Engineer that the proposed project ' City and contractor resource along the proect corri- would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined in the City s dor name Municipal Code Secnon 19 OS 040 date Development of the new pedestrian overcrossing and future rail bodge shall incorporate archileo- lural treatments as identified and outlined in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Foothill Incorporate a bodge design that signature Boulevard -Historic Route 66 Ysual Improvement Plan in order to enhance these elements By consultant dunng meets the design criteria estab- 3 vnlhin the context of the newly designed Foothill Boulevard Al a minimum the overcrossing in- design and by City Iished by the City of Rancho cluded wtlh the proposed project shall be designed so that architectural treatments as outlined in following construction Cucamonga for the Foothill name the Speufic Plan and Improvement Plan can be added to the bodge either when the bodge is Boulevard Comdor constructed or at a later dale date Air quality signature Construction related dust abatement measures shall conform with the Erosion Control Plan that Measures to be corned Minimize impacts to air quality 4 shall be prepared for the proposed project In addition, all requirements oudined in SCAOMD's out by contractor dui- from construction related aclivi- Rules 401, 402, 403, and 403 1 shall be met (SCAOMD, June 16, 2000) trig construction lies name date Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Mitigation Momtonng Plan Page 10/7 Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Mitigation Monitoring Plan No Mitigation Measure Tlming Performance Objective Responsibility Biological Resources ey City poor to cteanng (or raptor surveys and Pnor to construction for Poor to cleanng, surveys shall be conducted for raptor nests that may be located in eucalyptus bumovnng owls and signature trees that are to be cleared by construction of the protect If active nests are identified, buffer homed lizards Buffer Prevent impacts to raptors and 6 zones shall be set up around the nests until nesting season is complete Surveys for bunowing areas, if necessary, to bunowmg ovAs and homed liz- ovAS and homed lizards shall also be conducted poor to construction These mitigation measures be delineated by a arils name are anticipated to reduce potentially substantial impacts to raptors, burrowing owls, and horned qualified biologist, and lizards to minimal levels fenced poor to con- struction by the con- dale tractor Dunng design by con- Design and consbuct new road- signature 6 All new Ughhng should be directional hghbng that points away from native habdal, d feasible, and sultant and dunng `may hghbng to mmimu:e impacts toward the roadway construction by coo- to native habitats name tractor date Erosion Control Plan to be prepared by corn signature Dunng construction, night-hghbng shall be shielded from environmentally sensitive areas to the tractor and approved by City Engineer poor Minimize negative impacts from 7 as defined in the Erosion Control Plan that shall be and dust-control measures ossible extent construction activities on vnldlife , , p to conslmction Meas- prepared for the proposed protect, shall be implemented ures to be tamed out in the project area name by contractor dunng consbuction date 8 See Mitigation Measure 2 See Mitigation Meas- ure 2 See MNgahon Measure 2 See Mitigation Measure 2 Communi Resources By City tollovnng enw- Provide fair and adequate tom- signature Property acquisdion or relocations shall be corned out pursuant to the Umfonn Relocation Assis- ronmental ctearance pensation to property owners for 9 revised lance and Real Property Acquisition Polices Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646) new nghlof-way necessary for , and poor to conslmc- name 1987 Uon consWction of the proposed proect dale See construction related mill anon measures under au uali , h drolo and water ua0 ,noise, and tr ans ortatioNUaRc sections of this t able Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Page 2 0( 7 Mtiga6on Momtonng Plan • • • • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Mitigation Monitoring Plan T No Mitigation Measure Timing Pertormance ObJective Responsibility Cultural Resources To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed in a manner which minimizes the impacts of ilia new consWction on adjacent historic properties Mimmmng impacts shall be ac- complished by mcorporabng design features that signature 10 Maintain ilia realest ossible h sisal distance beMeen the historic buildm s structures 9 P P Y 9 See MNgation S M . ee digation Measure 1 and oblecls and the road ROW Measure i name Do not regmre ilia reconfiguration of eMemat or internal features of the historic properties, inGuding entrances, ~nndovrs and related free-standing stmctures Avoid the loss of related landsca a elements where ossible date i t See Mdigation Measure 2 See Mdigatwn Meas- ure 2 See Mitigation Measure 2 See Mdigation Measure 2 Should archaeological resources be encountered during consWCtion, work shall be suspended in the area of the discovery until a qualdietl archaeologist can assess the significance of the find T o be mGuded m signature Should paleontological resources be encountered during consWC6on, work shall be suspendetl specifications by con- Address any unanticipated ar- 12 until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find sultant during design chaeological, paleontological, or and implemented by human remains that are discov- If human remains are unearthed during construction no further disturbance of the site shall be contractor during corn ered during censbuction name permdted as ouWned m State Health and Safety Code Section 7050 5 until the County Coroner stmcbon has been able to make a delerminanon regarding ilia origin and disposition of the remains pursu- ant to Public Resources Code 5097 98 date Geolo and Soils By contractor prior to The contractor shall develop and implement best management practices (BMPs) to control soil (develop BMPS), and Control and minim¢e soil ero- 13 erosion and sedimentation during and immediately follovnng consWChon of the protect See also during and immediatey Mibgahon Measure 20 follovnng Qmplement Sion BMPs construction signature Further evacuate the soils and geologic characteristics of the protect area as part of final design, gY consultant during identfy and address Issues that 14 and identify any measures necessary, d applicable, to meet UnrverSal Building Code Standards may exist along the protect com- design forexpansive soils dor related to expansive soils name date Hazards and Hazardous Materials signature 15 All hazardous chemicals used during construction shall be disposed of in accordance vnth apple- BY contractor during and at the completion Reduce the potential for expo- sure or harm from hazardous cable federal, stale and local requirements of construction chemicals name date Foothill Boulevard (Slate Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue MiugaUOn Mondonng Plan Page 3 oI7 Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Mitigation Monitoring Plan VI No Mitigation Measure Timing Pertormance Objective Responsibility Hazards and Hazardous Materials Poor to conducting further sde-speafic contaminant source scopmg and work efforts, the follow- ing additional information shall be developed a Final detemunation of which sites, d arty, would be fu0y or partiaiy acquired signature b Determination of specfic construction activities planned on or near potential contaminant Determine it additional hazard- 18 sources, including arty uUUly work By City poor to coo- ous malenalslwaste mvestiga- c Development of site-sperafic hydrogeologic information, inducting geology and groundwater stmclion Uons are necessary name depth and daection ovm- ulators and ro ert ds and mtemews vnih re f d th M p p y g renew o agency recor ore in- ep d ers/occupanis of potential contarunanl sources identified as a potential impact to the pro- date tecl, d feasible Mitigation measures that shall be applied once the above information has been developed are identified below a A CERCLA "due diligence" Phase I Environmental Ste Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted for each acgmsdion properly where the potential for hazardous maten- alslwaste issues exists based on the results of the previously described tasks (see Milr Necessary analyses to t gallon Measure 16) The ESA shall be prepared per ASTM Standard Practice for Envi- be pertormed by con- idenldy any sites along the pro- signa ure ronmental Site Assessments (E-1527-00) in order to fully evaluate potential enviroo- tractor poor to final test route that may have hazard- 17 acgmsNOns Based on the results of the ert bitihes assoraated wsih ro l h t ous waslelmalenals Issues that y p p men a a design ADL conlamo- Phase I ESA, (he need for further Phase II site investigations can be determined na[ed soil tllsposal by shall need to be addressed or name b Systematic groundwater sampling shall be conducted vnlhin areas where groundwater contractor remedlated poor to construction could be encountered during construction Such sampling ran be performed in coo- dale luncbon vnth other Phase II efforts c Soil samples shall be collected, tested, and anatyzed for aerialty deposited lead coo- tammation poor to construction If contaminated sod is identified then d shall be prop- el dis osed of nor to construction Foolhdl Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Page 4 o/7 Mr6gaUOn Momtonng Plan • • • a • • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Mitigation Monitoring Plan ~_ No Mitigation Measure Timing Pertormance Objective Responsibility Hazardous MaterialslWaste (continued) Procedures developed during the ESA and supplemental enwronmenlal documentation, if neces- sary, shall be implemented by the contractor dunng construction These may mctude the imple- mentation of aaste-speafic health and safety plan, site-speafic contaminant management plans, removal of storage tanks, and a general construction contingency plan AddNOnal mitigation measures to be canted out are Evaluation, testing, and a Evaluate all sWCtures that vrould be demolished as part of construction for the pies- remediation and/or ence of asbestos-containing matenal and lead-based paint poor to demolition Reme- f these evaluations shall be am le- th th d t d h d disposal by contractor , p ance vn e recommen a mns o ia oq m accor ' poor to censtmction (or Prepare plans to help protect signature s mented Demolition of sWctures contaimng asbestos shall conform vnlh SCAOMD dunng censWction rf worker safety and to manage, Rule 1403 prewousty unidentified contain, and address the discov- 78 b Test and properly dispose of or remediate traffic slope and pavement marWng matenal hazardous waste or ery of any unantiapated or unl- name overthree years old d it contains more than 0 5 percent lead by dry weight Testing and matenals are discov- dentified hazardous wastes or removal regmrements for yellow sloping shall follow Construction Program Procedure erect) Pian prepara- matenals Bulletin 99-2 (CPB 99-2) hon by contractor to date c If excavation reveals unknown potentially hazardous wastes or undergrountl tanks, occur prior to constmo work shall be stopped immediately or redirected until the area in question is invesb- bon gated and mNgation proposed If, at any time m the design and construction phases, prescnbed mitigation is not tamed out, adddronal enwronmenlal documentation pursuant to CE0,4 must be completed to disclose urr mitigated impacts City or consultant to Mmimrze Uaffic arculabon im- signature 19 Develop and implement a construction staging plan following design to minimize impacts related Prepare plan poor to censtruction Conlrao pacts related to construction, detours, and closures, assoa- to construction, detours, and closures tor to implement plan ated vnth constmction of the name dunng constmchon proposed pro/ect date Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Mdiga6on Momtonng Plan Page 5 0/ 7 Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Mitigation Monitoring Plan No Mitigation Measure Timing PeAortnance Objective Responsibility Hydrology and Water Quallty Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented dunng consWChon m accordance vnlh the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Plan Storm Water Pollution Pre- vention Plan (SWPPP) that shall be developed by the contractor that includes provisions for the implementation of the BMPs and erosion-control measures The (ollovnng BMPs shall be in- cluded in the NPDES Plan for the proposed protect along vnlh any others identified by the Re- gional Water Quallty Control Board (RWOCB) Incorporatron of BMPs into the signature proted design and preparation of a UmiUn consimcbon and all ro ecl acimties to a well-0erined all nment 9 p I 9 SWPPP to be prepared NPDES Plan to minimize erosion 20 b Avoiding water resources by centrador and the transport of sdt and pot- name c Refueling equipment at least 30 meters (100 feet) from washes lulants into the water courses in d Prohibiting runoff from construction achvdies to enter washes the prged area e Using measures such as straw bales and silt fenrang to control erosion dale t Cap all pipes overnight that are less than 30 centimeters (12lnches) in diameter g Prohibit pets on the construction site h Kee the site clean and remove trash dail signature All reasonable measures to capture and detain unwanted discharge shall be addressed to ac- SWPPP and Erosion ceptable standards, as identified in the SWPPP Erosion-control measures shall be implemented Control Plan to be Capture and detain unwanted 21 as identified m the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepared by the contractor and approved by prepared by centrador discharge and mimm¢e erosion name the City Engineer poor to constmcton date Design any drainage improve- signature Drainage improvements along the protect route shall be designed so that they do not impede or Dunng design by con- menu so that they do not have a Federal Emergency Management d do not raise the existin fl d fl t 100 22 g -year oo ows, an redvec sultant negative impact on existing Agency (FEMA) adopted 100-year base Uood elevation by 0 3 meter (t foot) or more floodplains name date Noise Construdion noise levels and hours of constmction activity shall only be permitted as specified in all equpment al Code In adddion amon a Muma h C f h C t f R p , g o uc e i y o anc Section 17 02 720 o t shall have sound-control devices no less egectrve than those provided on the onginal egmpment signature and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust As dnected by the City of Rancho Cuca- gy contractor dunng Limit /minimize construction if ation measures ate additional noise miti l t ll 23 , g appropn emen imp monga, the contractor sha construction related noise impads name deemed necessary by the City, which may include, but would not be limited to, changing the lora- bon of stationary conslrucbon egmpmenL shutting off idling egmpmenl, rescheduling construdion acoustic bant- or mstalUn uction work f st d t d g , vance o con r en s m a activity, notifying adiacenl resi d t ers around stationary conslrucbon noise sources a e Foothill Boulevard (Stale Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Page 6 0/ 7 Mrtrga6on Monrtonng Plan • • • • Foothill Boulevard (State Route 66) Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Mitigation Monitoring Plan No Mitigation Measure Timing Performance Objective Responsibility Po ulatlon and Housln Prowde fan and adequate relo- By City follovnng enm_ cation resources for displaced signature Property acquisition or relocations shall be carved out pursuant to the Unrform Relocetwn Assis- ronmental Gearance residents Only requned rf resi- 24 lance and Real Property Acquisition Poliraes Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91 b46), rewsed dential relocations are neces- and prior to construo- 1987 bon sary, which, at this time, is not name anUapated as part of the pro- posed protect date Public Services 25 See Mitigation Measure 19 See MNgation Meas- ure 19 See Mitigation Measure 19 See Mdigation Measure 19 Trans ortation/rrafgc 26 See Mitigation Measure 19 See MNgalmn Meas- ure 19 See Mingabon Measure 19 See Mdigation Measure 19 Utlll and Service S stems See Mitigation Meas- See Mitigation Measures 13 and See MNgation Measures 13 and 27 See MNgahon Measures 13 and 20 ures 13 and 20 20 20 28 See MNgation Measure 15 See MNgaUon Meas- ure 15 See Mdigation Measure 15 See Mdigation Measure 15 L ~+ Foothill Boulevard (Stare Route 66J Between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue Page 7 oI7 MilrgaGOn Momtonng Plan STAFF REPORT • ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ' RANCHO Date: September 13, 2006 (;UCAMONGA To: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: William J O'Neil, City Engineer By: Maria E Perez, Associate Engineer Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FOOTHILL BOULEVARD PHASE III MEDIANS AND STREET WIDENING FROM GROVE AVENUE TO VINEYARD AVENUE -The City of Rancho Cucamonga is proposing to widen Foothill Boulevard to 6 lanes and install a raised median, between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue The proposed action also includes replacement of the existing steel railroad bridge with concrete through girder pedestrian bridge In addition to the street widening the public elements of the Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan (VIP) will be implemented with the protect as well Decorative sidewalk, decorative street lights, an entry arch, decorative treatments to existing and new traffic signal poles, as well as decorative pavement treatments per the VIP will be installed as a part of this protect. The project area includes Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard • Avenue The proposed protect will increase the number of lanes along Foothill Boulevard which will improve the traffic service level of the major divided street Construction duration is expected to last two years and will be initiated in 2007 Funding for this protect is being provided by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The purpose and need of this project is to improve the circulation and level of service of traffic on Foothill Boulevard between Grove Avenue and Vineyard Avenue. Small areas of parkway will be acquired from 22 individual parties to accommodate the street widening but the acquisition is not expected to affect any private structures Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for consideration BACKGROUND The subject project was advertised and noticed beyond the recommendations of the City Attorney, as a public works project in conformance with the General and applicable Specific Plans Since the time of notice and advertisement, staff has received several inquiries from residents relative to the Red Hill Realignment portion of the subject protect In light of the recent development proposals in the area and the subsequent discussion of circulation issues, staff would like the opportunity to expand notification of the project Staff requests that the project be continued to the October 11"' Public Hearing • ITEM A CXyr ~l f G ~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Re• Foothill Bivd Medians -Environmental Assessment September 13, 2006 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant the continuance for the item to be heard at the October 11, 2006 scheduled meeting Respectfully submitted, ~ ~~~~ Wi m J O'Neil City Engineer WJO MEP Attachment Exhibit A -Vicinity Map • • ~~ ~~SQ • RESOLUTION NO 06-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND DETERMINING CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT FROM GROVE AVENUE TO VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A Recitals 1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the first General Plan Apnl 6, 1981, which indicates Foothill Boulevard a "Special Boulevard" on the Circulation Element, Figure III 2 On September 16, 1987, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (incorporated into the Municipal Code through Counal action 1999), Section 17 32 of the Municipal Code The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan reflects the median and median breaks 3 On August 2, 2000, the City of Rancho Cucamonga entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc to provide engineering design services for the Foothill Boulevard Widening Protect, from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue 4 On November 17, 2001, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the 2001 General Plan • Update, an update to the original The Circulation Plan, Exhibit III-4, identifies Foothill Boulevard as a Mator Divided Arterial 5 On February 6, 2002, the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted the Foothill Boulevard Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan, which defines decorative elements that have been incorporated within the protect plans 6 On November 14, 2001, the Historic Preservation Commission recommended that the existing bridge located west of Baker Street be designated a Historic Point of Interest 7 On the 11th day of October, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the environmental assessment of the Foothill Boulevard Widening Protect from Grove Avenue to Vineyard Avenue and concluded said hearing on that date All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred B Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows 1 This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct • 2 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission dunng the above-referenced meeting on October 11, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows ~"~s~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-90 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 Page 2 • a The property to the north of the subject site is Mixed Use, the property to the south is Mixed Use and Medium Residential, and 3 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows a The proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan This is achieved through the widening of the street to six traffic lanes and the installation of the median island per the Circulation Element, where Foothill Boulevard is designated a Major Divided Arterial, and b The proposed prolect is in accord with the oblectrves of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located, and c The proposed prolect is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code This will be achieved through the realignment of Red Hill Avenue and installation of the median with the designated median openings, and d The proposed prolect is in conformance with the Foothill Boulevard Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan This will be achieved through the implementation of various decorative elements to be installed with this prolect, including, decorative arch, pedestrian bridge, decorative street lighting, pavement enhancement, and • e 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 forthe environmental assessmentfor the prolect, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence thatthe prolect will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Monitoring Program attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference, based upon the findings as follows a Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the prolect Based on the findings contained in that Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the imposition of mitigation measures, there would be no substantial evidence that the prolect would have a significant effect on the environment Based on that determination, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared Thereafter, the City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration b The Planning Commission has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and all comments received regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based on the whole record before it, finds (i) that the Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with CEQA, and (n) that, based on the imposition of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the prolect will have a significant effect on the environment The Planning Commission furtherfinds • that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission Based on these findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration ~9--~sa PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-90 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 Page 3 • c The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the protect that has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081 6 and finds that such Program is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during protect implementation The Planning Commission therefore adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the protect d Pursuant to the regwrements of California Fish and Game Code Section 711 4 and Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 753 5, the Planning Commission finds, based on the Initial Study, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and considering the record as a whole, that there is no evidence before the City that the proposed protect will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends The street widening portion of the protect is occurring within areas currently utilized by fronting properties as parking Parkways fronting undeveloped areas, vacant land, will be completed as development occurs Based on substantial evidence, the Planning Commission hereby makes a declaration rebutting the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in California Department of Fish and Game Regulation 753 5 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Code, Section 753 5 ) e The custodian of records for the Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Those documents are available for public rewew in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750 • 5 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby adopts the Environmental Assessment for the protect subtect to each and every condition set forth below, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference Environmental Mitigation Aesthetics i) To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed in a manner which minimizes the impacts of the new construction on adtacent scenic resources Minimizing impacts shall be accomplished by incorporating design features that a) Maintain the greatest possible physical distance between the historic buildings, structures, and obtects, and the road ROW b) Do not require the reconfiguration of external or internal features of the historic properties, including entrances, windows and related free-standing structures c) Avoid the loss of related landscape elements where possible • 2) Where trees of the eucalyptus windrow are taken forthe alignment and new ROW, new Eucalyptus maculata trees shall be planted at a 1 1 ratio per City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code 19 08, where ja-~I S3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-90 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD W IDENING PROJECT -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 Page 4 • feasible, unless it is determined by the City Engineer thatthe proposed protect would meet any of the Eucalyptus maculata tree replacement exceptions as defined in the City's Muniapal Code Section 19 08 040 3) Development of the new pedestrian overcrossing and future rail bridge shall incorporate architectural treatments as identified and outlined in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Foothill Boulevard -Historic Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan in orderto enhance these elements within the context of the newly designed Foothill Boulevard At a minimum the overcrossing included with the proposed protect shall be designed so that architectural treatments as outlined in the Specific Plan and Improvement Plan can be added to the bridge ether when the bridge is constructed or at a later date Air Quality 1) Construction related dust abatement measures shall conform with the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepared for the proposed protect In addition, all regwrements outlined in SCAOMD's Rules 401, 402, 403, and 403 1 shall be met (SCAOMD, June 16, 2000) Biological Resources 1) Prior to clearing, surveys shall be conducted for raptor nests that may • be located in eucalyptus trees that are to be cleared by construction of the protect If active nests are identified, buffer zones shall be setup around the nests until nesting season is complete Surveys for burrowing owls and horned lizards shall also be conducted prior to construction These mitigation measures are anticipated to reduce potentially substantial impacts to raptors, burrowing owls, and horned lizards to minimal levels 2) All new lighting should be directional lighting that points away from native habitat, if feasible, and toward the roadway 3) Dunng construction, night-lighting shall be shielded from environmentally sensitive areas to the extent possible, and dust-control measures, as defined in the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepared for the proposed protect, shall be implemented 4) See Mitigation Measure 2 Aesthetics Community Resources 1) Property acquisition or relocations shall be carried out pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 • ~-~f S~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-90 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 1 1, 2006 • Page 5 Cultural Resources i) To the greatest extent feasible, the roadway shall be designed in a manner which minimizes the impacts of the new construction on adjacent historic properties Minimizing impacts shall be accomplished by incorporating design features that Maintain the greatest possible physical distance between the historic buildings, structures, and objects, and the road ROW Do not require the reconfiguration of external or internal features of the historic properties, including entrances, windows and related free-standing structures Avoid the loss of related landscape elements where possible 2) See Mitigation Measure 2 Aesthetics. 3) Should archaeological resources be encountered during construction, work shall be suspended in the area of the discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find Should paleontological resources be encountered during construction, work • shall be suspended until a qualified paleontologist can assess the significance of the find If human remains are unearthed during construction no further disturbance of the site shall be permitted as outlined in State Health and Safety Code Section 7050 5 until the County Coroner has been able to make a determination regarding the origin and disposition of the remains pursuant to Public Resources Code 5097 98 Geology and Soils 1) The contractor shall develop and implement best management practices (BMPs) to control soil erosion and sedimentation during and immediately following construction of the prolect See also Mitigation Measure 1 Hydrology and Water Control 2) Further evaluate the soils and geologic characteristics of the prolect area as part of final design, and identify any measures necessary, if applicable, to meet Universal Budding Code Standards for expansive soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1) All hazardous chemicals used during construction shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local requirements • /~--155 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-90 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD W IDENING PROJECT - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 Page 6 • 2) Prior to conducting further site-specific contaminant source scoping and work efforts, the following additional information shall be developed a) Final determination of which sites, if any, would be fully or partially acquired b) Determination of specific construction actrvities planned on or near potential contaminant sources, mcludmg any utility work c) Development ofsite-specific hydrogeologic information, including geology and groundwater depth and direction d) More m-depth review of agency records and interviews with regulators and property owners/occupants of potential contaminant sources identified as a potential impact to the protect, if feasible 3) Mitigation measures that shall be applied once the above information has been developed are identified below a) A CERCLA "due diligence" Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) shall be conducted for each acquisition • property where the potential for hazardous materials/waste issues exists based on the results of the previously described tasks (see Mitigation Measure 16) The ESA shall be prepared per ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E-1527-00) in order to fully evaluate potential environmental liabilities associated with property acquisitions Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, the need for further Phase II site investigations can be determined b) Systematic groundwater sampling shall be conducted within areas where groundwater could be encountered during construction Such sampling can be performed in confunction with other Phase II efforts c) Soil samples shall be collected, tested, and analyzed for aerially deposited lead contamination prior to construction If contaminated soil is identified then it shall be properly disposed of prior to construction 4) Procedures developed during the ESA and supplemental environmental documentation, if necessary, shall be implemented by the contractor during construction These may include the implementation of asste-specific health and safety plan, site-specific contaminant management plans, removal of storage tanks, and a general construction contingency plan Additional mitigation measures • to be carried out are /-J"~~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-90 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD W IDENING PROJECT -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 1 1, 2006 • Page 7 a) Evaluate all structures that would be demolished as part of construction for the presence of asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint prior to demolition Remediation, in accordance with the recommendations ofthese evaluations, shall be implemented Demolition of structures containing asbestos shall conform with SCAQMD's Rule 1403 b) Test and properly dispose of or remediate traffic stripe and pavement marking material over three years old if it contains more than 0 5 percent lead by dry weight Testing and removal requirements for yellow striping shall follow Construction Program Procedure Bulletin 99-2 (CPB 99-2) c) If excavation reveals unknown potentially hazardous wastes or underground tanks, work shall be stopped immediately or redirected until the area in question is investigated and mitigation proposed If, at any time in the design and construction phases, prescribed mitigation is not carried out, additional environmental documentation pursuant to CEQA must be completed to disclose unmitigated impacts • 5) Develop and implement a construction staging plan following design to minimize impacts related to construction, detours, and closures Hydrology and Water Quality 1) Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented during construction in accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Plan Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW PPP) that shall be developed by the contractor that includes provisions for the implementation of the BMPs and erosion-control measures The following BMPs shall be included in the NPDES Plan for the proposed protect, along with any others identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) a) Limiting construction and all protect activities to swell-defined alignment b) Avoiding water resources c) Refueling egwpment at least 30 meters (100 feet) from washes d) Prohibiting runoff from construction activities to enter washes e) Using measures such as straw bales and silt fencing to control • erosion f) Cap all pipes overnight that are less than 30 centimeters (12 inches) in diameter ~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-90 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 Page 8 • g) Prohibit pets on the construction site h) Keep the site clean and remove trash daily 2) All reasonable measures to capture and detain unwanted discharge shall be addressed to acceptable standards, as identified in the SW PPP Erosion-control measures shall be implemented as identified in the Erosion Control Plan that shall be prepared by the contractor and approved by the City Engineer prior to construction 3) Drainage improvements along the project route shall be designed so that they do not impede or redirect 100-year flood flows, and do not raise the existing Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) adopted 100-year base flood elevation by 0 3 meter (1 foot) or more Norse 1) Construction noise levels and hours of construction activity shall only be permitted as specified in Section 17 02 120 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code In addition, all equipment shall have sound-control dewces no less effective than those provided on the original equipment and no equipment shall have an unmuffled exhaust As directed by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the contractor shall • implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, if deemed necessary by the City, which may include, but would not be limited to, changing the location of stationary construction equipment, shutting off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, or installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources Population and Housing 1) Property acquisition or relocations shall be carried out pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Public Law 91-646), revised 1987 Pubbc Services 1) See Mitigation Measure 5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Transportatron/Traff~c 1) See Mitigation Measure 5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Utr6ty and Service Systems 1) See Mitigation Measures 1 Geology and Soils and 1 Hydrology and Water Quality • 2) See Mitigation Measure 1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ~`~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-90 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 • Page 9 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY Pam Stewart, Chairman ATTEST James R Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R. Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of October, 2006, by the following vote-to-wit AYES COMMISSIONERS • NOES COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS • ~~ s~r~~ DATE October 11, 2006 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM James Troyer, Planning Director BY Tabe van der Zwaag, Assistant Planner SUBJECT CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF A PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION TO DENY MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00647 - ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS - A request to co-locate a wireless communication facility on an existing monopole wireless facility at 9272 Hyssop Drive - APN 0229-283-12. • BACKGROUND The applicant proposed the co-location of a wireless communication facility on an existing monopole wireless communication facility The proposed equpment will include asix-sector antenna array mounted at 70 feet and a ground level equipment shelter The existing 90-foot high monopole was approved under Conditional Use Permit DRCUP94-16 Modification of a Conditional Use Permit regwres re-application for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17 04 030 g 1 Further, the proposal is a Malor Wireless Communication Facility that regwres a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 17, Development Code Section 17 26 050 Staff informed the applicant that the existing wireless facility is a legal non-conforming structure because it does not meet the City's current standards for these types of facilities Non-conforming structures may not be altered or reconstructed pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code/ Title 17, Development Code Section 17 02 130 c, therefore, the proposed alteration of the existing monopole to add co-location egwpment would not be permitted without upgrading the structure to meet ail current City standards including, but not limited to, a stealth design Staff informed the applicant that because of the high visibility of the site from the I-15 Freeway, a monopine design would be a more appropriate match The applicant argues in his Letter of Appeal that the proposed design is appropriate for the industrial location of the site, and that the proposed flush-mounted antennas will be barely visible after they repaint the existing pole The applicant also believes that the additional bulk of a monopine design would have a much greater negative impact on the site than the current monopole design with flush-mounted antennas ANALYSIS Staff recommended the original denial for the following reasons • 1 The proposed wueless communications facility is not consistent with the General Plan in that the existing wireless facility is not of a stealth design and does not conform to Section 6 4 6 5 of the Item B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00647 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS October 11, 2006 Page 2 General Plan This section states that a goal of the General Plan is to "ensure that communication towers are located and designed to blend with the surrounding environment." It goes on to outline that this goal is achieved by using stealth design techniques The current non-stealth design does not conform to the intent of this goal, and the addition of a second wireless carrier will only intensify the current non-conformity The addition of a second carrier is the City's opportunity to replace the current non-conforming design with a stealth design and to bring the site into conformity with the General Plan. 2 The proposed wireless communications facility is not in accordance with the obfectives of the Development Code or the purpose of the distract in which the site is located Chapter 17 26 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of the Development Code outlines the conditions under which wireless communication facilities are approved A mafor obfective of this Chapter is to put the goals of the General Plan into action Section 17 26 30 of this Chapter lists the criteria to be used in reviewing the design and location of these facilities Subsection Ai states that when considering the appropriateness of a design for a wireless faality, "stealth facilities and concealed antennas are preferred " The proposed design is in direct conflict with these criteria and the goals set forth in the General Plan • 3 The proposed wireless communications facility does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code The existing wireless facility, on which the applicant proposes co-locating, does not conform to the development standards outlined in Chapter 17 26 of the Development Code Permitting a second wireless carrier to occupy the present non-conforming facility would increase the level of non-conformity which is in direct conflict with the intent of Section 17 02 030 of the Development Code This section states that "no non-conforming use shall be enlarged or extended in such a way as to occupy any part of a structure or site which it did not occupy at the time it became anon-conforming use." The intent of this section is to limit the number and extent of non-conforming uses by regulating then enlargement or alteration Permitting a second wireless carrier to co-locate on an existing non-conforming facility would be in conflict with this section of the Development Code The proposed wireless communications facility, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the quality of life and iniunous to properties or improvements in the vicinity The design of the existing non-conforming wireless facility is not architecturally compatible to the surrounding area and has a negative aesthetic impact on the neighboring property owners The addition of a second wireless carrier will only increase the negative effects of the existing facility Section 17 26 010 of the Development Code states that the purpose of the regulations in Chapter 17 26 is to "regulate the establishment of wireless communication facilities and thereby protect the public health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in Rancho Cucamonga " Without complying with the design criteria outlined in Chapter 17 26, staff can only find that the present design will be detrimental to the properties and improvements in the wcinity of the facility CORRESPONDENCE This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Vallev Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radws of the protect site • tj- c~- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00647 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS • October 11, 2006 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the applicant and uphold the Planning Director's decision to deny Minor Development Review DRC2006-00647 Resp ctfully submitt , Jam Troyer, AICP Planning Director JT TV/ge Attachments Exhibit A Appellant's Letter of Appeal dated September 7, 2006 Exhibit B - Site Plan Exhibit C - Elevations of the Proposed Wireless Faality Exhibit D - Planning Director's Letter of Denial dated September 5, 2006 Draft Resolution to Deny Appeal for Conditional Use Permit DRC2006-00647 • U ~ _3 ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS • metroPCS MetroPCS Protect Office 8578 Utlca Avenue, #100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 September 7, 2006 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Planning Commission, On behalf of Royal Street Communications LLC (Royal Street), I would like to appeal the decision of denial of DRC2006-00647 by the Planning Director to the • Planning Commission for reconsideration. We are aware of the aesthetic concerns of the planning department, and have made improvements to the design. The planning department would like Royal Street to replace the existing pole with a monopine at 9272 Hyssop Drive. In most situations, Royal Street willingly replaces poles when asked to by a Iurisdiction despite heavy costs and extra time and effort considerations. Royal Street is asking to place antennas on an existing pole located in a heavily industrial area. This type of cooperation among wireless carriers is called collocation, and is strongly and explicitly encouraged by Section 17.26.030 A.4.a of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Royal Street is aware of, and shares your aesthetic concerns for the community, and has made improvements to the design. Royal Street now proposes to mount the antennas as flush as possible to the existing pole. When painted to match the existing pole, the change to the existing setting would be barely discernible to the public. The proposed equipment cabinets are completely screened from Hyssop Drive. Also Royal Street is willing to upgrade landscaping, repaint the entire pole, and has removed the microwave dish. Royal Street will ultimately do what is best for the community, but strongly • believes that the general idea is that cell sites should have minimal impact on the EXHIBIT A a-~ urban landscape. In this case, flush mounted antennas painted to mach the pole would provide the least impact to the surrounding commurnty and I urge your support for approval of this "minimal impact" collocation. The bulk of a new fake pine tree adds far more impact than the flush mounted option presented. MetroPCS is a fast growing company that offers cellular calling plans featuring unlimited minutes and long distance for around 40 dollars per month, paid in advance, with no bills or credit checks. This innovative business model allows access to cellular phone service for many people who have been underserved by existing carriers, as well as for people who desire a simple and affordable alternative to their exstng service. MetroPCS and Royal Street Communications are building a new network together in Los Angeles, Orenge, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties under Royal Street Communications' FCC license. All leases and permits are to be under the name of Royal Street Communications, but the cellular network wdl be marketed under the national brand of MetroPCS. Royal Street Communications is the holder of FCC license number (FRN) 0012198735, call sign WQE6557, granted and effective 12-21-2005, a copy of which is enclosed with this appeal. • Should you or any City representative have any comments or require further information, I may be reached on my cell phone, (909) 896-0945 or via email at ibekeCa metroocs coin Thank you for your consideration in reversing the denial by the Planning Director. Sincerely, ~' ~~.,~- John Beke ~ MetroPCS ` Site Acquisition Manager • c~~ Temtory: LA_EAST t p C Srte Number. LA0825E me rol S Site Name: Vista Existing Shot Number: 325_T_01 ', Photo-S~m h ~~ ~ Proposed 6 sector antenna array F' t' ~~ - - ,•n,.~'r- ~,~ i 1 D~recnonal Map `" Y i r~ 1 f i1i~ ] ~. . v , , k `_ - ~,yr., aNbit d""a.'Nt° ~ ~N'Zf~r~ ~Y~''~c'2',. wn., r{ F e {y S ~ e ~,,.~ `~~ 4 ~`~~ a • • • Lxisung GxisUng • • • Radto Station Authorization Page 1 of 1 Federal Communicatlons Commission Wireless Telecommunicatlons Bureau Radio Station Authorixatlcn (Reference Cepy Ony) Thle b not an oifimal FCC I'tceftse. tt b a rsoord of pudic IMormation corttalrgd In Ute FCC's licensing database on the date that this reference copy was gergrated In cases rrttara FCC rules t?•qulrs ftw proserrUtion, poetlng, or dtsplay of an FCC Bcenap, this document may not be used In place of an onkial FCC Incense Licensee Royal Street Cammunrcahons, LLC ATTN Robert A Gerard Royat Stre~ Communaatgna, LLC PO Box 2385 611 Htll Street Southampton, NY 71989 FCC Rsglatragon Number (FRN): 0012198735 Call Sign: FIb Number: WQEB557 Radb Service CW - PCS Broadband Grant pate EHeetHe Date Expiratlort !tile PrIM Dees 122112005 12721/2005 12212015 1229f2005 Market Number. BTA262 Ctmnnet Bloelc CS Sub-Market Dealynator. 5 Market Name: Los Angeles, CA • 1st BWldout Data 2nd gWtd.eut pate Jr0 BWidout pate 4th BuBdout Data 122112010 12212015 1 Special Condhlara or WahanlCondltiom Condltlorss Pursuant to Section ?09(h) of the Communxxhons Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U S C Secbon 309(h), this license is subject to the following mrMihoru Ttus license shall rqt vest in the Incenses any nght b operate the atahon rqr any tight m the use of the frequarxies desgnated m the hoarse beyond the teen thereof nor in any other manner then auCforced hereto Nedher the Irc;ense nor the nght granted thereunder shall ba assigned or othervnse transferred m vroladon of the Commurvcatrons Act of 1934, as amended. See 47 U.S C Section 310(d) Ths GcEnse is aubjed m terns to the right of use or control con6erred by SeGan 708 of the CommunkaLona Act of 1934 a amended See 47 U S C SeW on 708 A 9rsPhrcat re{xeserdahon of the geograptvc area authonzed to this call sgn may be generated by selecbng'Ucense Search' at the krllawvg web address ~Ilww~y fce~oy/wtblu151 FCC 601-MB September 2002 r~1 l http //wtreless2,fcc gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/pruttAuth_market~sp~hcKey=2771558 12129/2005 ~" I EXH GA ~_~p~ '~ ~33p555 ~ ~~ga w '~3g a o ~ '" N ~ ~ Y ~~ y ~ y E 6 1 6 ~ ~g96 N~ ~y11 I ~ ~ ~ T y g 6 ~ E Y ~ c V" ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~ @F ltl _ Z~ 4 g3 / g 3 I 413 7 as ~ Q Q 8~ g66 $,, $ F~ YEg 4 ~ a J ~ ~ ~ a c v w: 3w~ ~r~ e ~~wv a \ ~ ~ v \` i \ i i ~ I ' g ~1 d 9 E ~ ' ~ \ J _ J ~~ I ~~ I ~_ I I I J I~ I I1 ~~i''~1-~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I_I I~-__-__-__-__-__~ cvs: ymi ux~eov. AMd OILtl1N0 z 5 IBIT B a w N --~_.______~ ~-i.~~__~ _._®__-~..~___.__...~.__.~ J • • • US K~~ ~~~~ .~~. a 8~ m C ~~~ 3 W ab e ~~ ~~ ggs >g E ~ o b e 0 e I Y ~I ~g • EXHIBIT C 9 ~s u ~_ ri H ~g9i~ "'~u ~' Via? ~~ 2 gBgy &~ Y 6~d w ~g~ ~ z 0 w W L V- ~~ u ~ ~ yC~3 ~~ ~ ~ m 83 tier S~ °~~ yy ~ 'S ~ o ~ x O e ~ ay gg $ e d~ 2 y a ~ 8 1 F ~ is EI ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ayyll ~ 2 ~ ~ i q a C@ fi 0 0 0 4 g F ~ii~ ~ £ ~ x g S a „ ~ : ~ U ~ $ g 6 6 i~ q 3Z N ~~ ~ ~ ~ 4 ~: _ ~ ~~ ~~~ E £ B~c E g8 € ~8 °- ~~ ~~ P€ !1 _~ o -- ° --- "" e °~ ~~ i ~ i E a ~ 4 u~l.~ ~ J R ~ d' ~¢ R ~j° $? Yl ~& ~R 'lY q3 64a 91' O 2 O J W 5 H 6' 2 W f N W ____~.._~.-____e_o~~_~~_~~ia ~.____~-_______.~____ :~-_.._..__-- J • J • Mayor WILLGIM ] ALEXANDER Mayor Pro Tem ~~ DIANE WILLIAMS /-\\ Counatmcmberr • RFX GUTIERREZ L DENNIS MICHAEL }-- SAM $PAGNOLO ~~'-, ,.~~ Crty Manages ~~(T''',,~'"~ THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ]ACx LnNt, AICP - v- jZArrcxo G'UCAMONGA September 5, 2006 John Beke Royal Street Communications 8578 Utica Avenue, Suite 180 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 SUBJECT• MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00647-REQUEST TO CO-LOCATEA WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON AN EXISTING MONOPOLE WIRELESS FACILITY AT 9272 HYSSOP DRIVE - APN: 0229-283-12. Dear Mr. Beke• The Minor Development Review process for the above-described protect has been completed and the protect has been denied based upon the following findings Thank you foryour participation and cooperation during this review process u Fmdinos 3. • EXHIBIT D 1 The existing 90-foot high monopole was approved under Conditional Use Permit DRCUP94- 16 The applicant proposes adding an additional wireless carrier to this existing wireless communication facility Modification to a Conditional Use Permit requires re-application for Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 17, Development Code Section 17.04 035 G.1 Further, the proposal is a Major Wireless Communication Facility and requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 17, Development Code Section 17.26 050. Staff has informed the applicant that the existing wireless facility is a legal non-conforming structure because it does not meet the City's current standards for these types of facilities Non-conforming structures may not be altered or reconstructed pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 17, Development Code Section 17.02 130 C; therefore, the proposed alteration of the existing monopole to add co-location equipment would not be permitted without upgrading the structure to meet all current City standards including, but not limited to, a stealth design. Staff recommended that a monopine design would be a more appropriate match for the site The proposed wireless communications facility is not consistent with the General Plan in that the existing wireless facility is not of a stealth design and does conform to Section 6 5 6 5 of the General Plan This section states that a goal of the General Plan is to ensure that communication towers are located and designed to blend with the surrounding environment It goes on to outline that this goal is achieved by using stealth design techniques. The current non-stealth design does not conform to the intent of this goal and the addition of a second wireless carrier will only intensify the current nonconformity The addition of a second carrier is the City's opportunityto replace the current nonconforming design with a stealth design and to bring the site into conformity with the General Plan 2 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 • Tel 909-477-2700 • Fax 909-477-2849 • www ct rancho-Cucamonga ca us ~-l3 ~ DENIAL LETTER DRC2006-00647 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS (JOHN BEKE) September 5, 2006 Page 2 • 4. The proposed wireless communications facility is not in accordance with the objectives of the Development Code or the purpose of the district in which the site is located. Chapter 17 26 (Wireless Communication Faalities) of the Development Code outlines the conditions under which wireless communication facilities are approved A major objective of this chapter is to put the goals of the General Plan into action. Section 17 26 30 of this chapter lists the criteria to be used in reviewing the design and location of these facilities Subsection Al states that when considering the appropriateness of a design for wireless facility, stealth facil~t~es and concealed antennas are preferred. The proposed design is in direct conflict with these criteria and the goals set forth in the General Plan The proposed wireless communications facility does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. The existing wireless faality on which the applicant proposes co-locating does not conform to the development standards outlined in Chapter 17.26 of the Development Code Permitting a second wireless carrier to occupy the present nonconforming facility would increase the level non-conformity which is in direct conflict with the intent of Section 17.02 030 of the Development Code. This section states that no nonconforming use shall be enlarged or extended in such a way as to occupy any part of a structure orsite which rt did not occupy at the hme rt became a nonconforming use. The intent of this section is to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses by regulating their enlargement or alteration. Permitting a second wireless carrier to co-locate on an existing nonconforming facility would be in conflict with this section of the Development Code The proposed wireless communications facility, together with the conditions applicable thereto, • wdl be detrimental to the quality of life and injurious to properties or improvements in the vianity. In that the design of the existing nonconforming wireless factlity is not architecturally compatible to the surrounding area and has a negative aesthetic impact on the neighboring property owners. The addition of a second wireless carrier wdl only increase the negative effects of the existing facility. Section 17.26.010 of the Development Code states that the purpose of the regulations in Chapter 17.26 is to regulate the establishment of wireless communication facdrties and thereby protect the public health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in Rancho Cucamonga. Without complying with the design criteria outlined in Chapter 17 26, staff can only find that the present design will be detrimental to the properties and improvements in the vicinity of the facility. This decision shall be final following aten-day appeal period beginning with the date of this letter. Appeals must be filed in writing with the Planning Commission Secretary, stating the reason for the appeal, and be accompanied by a $1,605 appeal fee If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact Tabe van der Zwaag at (909) 477-2750, Monday through Thursday from 7 00 a m to 6 00 p m. Sincerely, PLANNING DEPARTM T ! i~ ~_ Jame R. Troyer, AICP Planning Director • JT TV~ma jL, • RESOLUTION NO 06-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2006-00647, A REQUEST FOR CO-LOCATION OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING MONOPOLE W IRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON THE WEST SIDE OF HYSSOP DRIVE AND SOUTH OF 6TH STREET IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 14), AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN 0229-283-12. A Recitals 1 Royal Street Communication, filed an application forthe issuance of Minor Development Review DRC2006-00647, as described in the title of this Resolution Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Minor Development Review request is referred to as "the application " 2 On the 5th day of September 2006, the Planning Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga denied the application with the appropriate findings enumerated and informed the applicant of their right to appeal under prescribed procedures. 3 The decision represented by said Planning Director determination was appealed in a • timely manner to this Commission 4 On October 11, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal and 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 11, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, and the contents of the Planning Director determination letter of September 5, 2006, and together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows a The application applies to a site located on the west side of Hyssop Drive and south of 6th Street in the General Industrial district (Subarea 14), and b The proposed site is presently developed with a single industrial building and a • wireless communication facility, and ~r~S PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-87 DRC2006-00647 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS October 11, 2006 Page 2 • c The application proposes the installation of asix-sector antenna array on an existing monopole wireless communication facility and the construction of an additional equpment shelter directly adfacent to the existing equipment shelter, and d The existing 90-foot high monopole was approved under Conditional Use Permit DRCUP94-16, and e The modification of a Conditional Use Permit requires re-application for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 17 04 030 g 1 f The proposal is a Malor Wireless Communication Facility that requires a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Title 17, Development Code Section 17 26 050 g The proposed wireless communications faality is not consistent with the General Plan in that the existing wireless facility is not of a stealth design and does conform to Section 6 4 6 5 of the General Plan This section states that a goal of the General Plan is to "ensure that communication towers are located and designed to blend with the surrounding environment " It goes on to outline that this goal is achieved by using stealth design techniques The current non-stealth design does not conform to the intent of this goal and the addition of a second wireless carrier will only intensify the current nonconformity The addition of a second carrier is the City's opportunity to replace the current non-conforming design with a stealth design and to bring the site into conformity with the General Plan, and • h The proposed wireless communications facility is not in accordance with the objectives of the Development Code or the purpose of the district in which the site is located Chapter 17.26 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of the Development Code outlines the conditions under which wireless communication facilities are approved A major objective of this chapter is to put the goals of the General Plan into action Section 17 26 30 of this chapter lists the criteria to be used m reviewing the design and location of these facilities Subsection Al states that when considering the appropriateness of a design for wireless faality, "stealth facilities and concealed antennas are preferred " The proposed design is m direct conflict with these criteria and the goals set forth in the General Plan, and i The proposed wireless communications facility does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code The existing wireless facility on which the applicant proposes co-locating does not conform to the development standards outlined in Chapter 17 26 of the Development Code Permitting a second wireless carrier to occupy the present non-conforming facility would increase the level non-conformity which is in direct conflict with the intent of Section 17 02 030 of the Development Code This section states that "nonon-conforming use shall be enlarged or extended in such a way as to occupy any part of a structure or site which it did not occupy at the time itbecame anon-conforming use "The intent of this section is to limit the number and extent of non-conforming uses by regulating their enlargement or alteration Permitting a second wireless carrier to co-locate on an existing non-conforming faality would be in conflict with this section of the Development Code, and j The proposed wireless communications facility, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the quality of life and injurious to properties or . improvements in the vicinity The design of the existing non-conforming wireless facility is not architecturally compatible to the surrounding area and has a negative aesthetic impact on the Q _~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-87 DRC2006-00647 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS October 11, 2006 • Page 3 neighboring property owners The addition of a second wireless carrier will only increase the negative effects of the existing facility Section 17.26 010 of the Development Code states that the purpose of the regulations in Chapter 17 26 is to "regulate the establishment of wireless communication facilities and thereby protect the public health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in Rancho Cucamonga " Without complying with the design criteria outlined in Chapter 17 26, staff can only find that the present design will be detrimental to the properties and improvements in the vicinity of the facility, and 3 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows a That the proposed protect is not consistent with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located b That the proposed project together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c That the proposed project is not in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code • d That the proposed protect is not consistent with the General Plan 4 Based upon the finding and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 through 3 above this Commission hereby denies the appeal of the applicant and upholds the Planning Director denying the application 5 The Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to certify to'the adoption of this Resolution APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2006 BY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Pam Stewart, Chairman ATTEST James R Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, • do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of October 2006, by the following vote-to-wit ~'~~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-87 DRC2006-00647 -ROYAL STREET COMMUNICATIONS October 11, 2006 Page 4 AYES COMMISSIONERS: NOES COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS • \J ~g Staff Report DATE October 11, 2006 TO Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM James R. Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00772 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to the definition of Accessory Structure in Section 17 02 140, amendment to 17 08 060 A Accessory Structures and Additions, and amendment to 17 OS 060 C Protections into Yards This action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA • Gwdelines This item will be forwarded to the City Council for Final Action BACKGROUND The City of Rancho Cucamonga presently has Development Code standards for the construction of all accessory structures bwlt anywhere within the community These standards address the size, location, materials, and aesthetic appearance of all such structures The standards created were put in place not only to provide for the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga, but also to provide aesthetic control of the appearance of such structures, especially as seen from the public right-of-way and adtoining properties. These standards, generally in their current form, have been in place since the incorporation of the City Accessory structures may include enclosed and unenclosed patios, barns, cabanas, gazebos, guest houses, second dwelling units, garages, carports, trellis, storage buildings, etc One of the most popular forms of accessory structures are storage sheds. The City currently has a large number of accessory structures that have been bwlt without benefit of the requred Bwlding and Safety building permit and in many instances, without conformance to the Development Code's standards addressing location, materials, and aesthetics A building permit is required for any accessory structure of at least 120 square feet in area It is the existence of these structures, and a desire by many residents to construct or install similar structures, that is the focus of this Code Amendment It is also important to note that the Code Enforcement Department is presently awaiting a review of the Development Code standards addressing accessory structures before it pursues further action on cases already opened for property owners with such non-conforming structures built without permits. • 'Accessory Structure Definition "A subordinate building which is incidental and not attached to the main bwlding or use on the same lot If an accessory bwlding is attached to the main bwlding or if the roof is a continuation of the main building roof, the accessory building shall be considered an addition to the main building " Per Development Code Section 17 02 140 Item C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00772 -DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 Page 2 • ANALYSIS Because of the existence of the structures noted above, the City Council has requested that the Planning Commission examine the current standards of the Code to determine whether these standards may need to be modified or adfusted to address current development trends and/or the apparent desires of many within the community Specifically, the Commission is being asked to examine Development Code Section 17 08 O60.A, "Accessory Structures and Additions," regarding the standards and criteria for the construction of permanent and semi-permanent accessory structures Particular attention is being sought regarding storage sheds, light framework and soft covered accessory "sun" shade structures, and artificial rockscapes that are becoming more popular within the community The attached pictures (Exhibit A) illustrate the variety of accessory structures that exist within the community that may not conform to the current Development Code, either by size, location, materials, or aesthetic appearance. It is arguable that some of the structures appear to be physically and aesthetically acceptable in comparison to the home on-site and the surrounding neighborhood It is also clear that some of the structures do not conform to the style, design, aesthetics or architecture of the home on-site or to the development within the immediate surrounding area As noted above, metal or plastic framed, vinyl, or cloth covered protective structures for cars, Recreation Vehicles (RV), boats, or other items are becoming more popular within the City of Rancho Cucamonga Therefore, it is reasonable to examine the current Code standards regarding such structures In addition to potentially creating standards and requirements that • will address improvements in quality, design, aesthetics, and durability, the cost of the structures noted may make them very attractive for consideration In the rewew of any Code Amendment, both the Commission and Council must address not only the perceived needs and desires of the individual property owners, but also the potential individual and cumulative impacts to the specific properties, neighborhoods, and the community in general that may result from the change. It is acknowledged that the accessory structures being illustrated within the attached pictures are a very cost effective method to cover or completely surround a car, truck, RV, boat, self-propelled equipment or other assorted items, protecting them from the sun, rain, and blowing winds common to the area The benefits to the individual property owners, however, must be weighed against the potential aesthetic impacts to the community by the proliferation of such structures The following amendments are proposed for Commission consideration: • Exempt accessory structures less than 120 square feet • Amend the definition to clarify that it includes any accessory structure regardless of whether a building permit is regwred including, but not limited to, enclosed and unenclosed patios, barns, cabanas, guest houses, second dwelling units, garages, carports, storage bwldings/sheds, trellis, gazebos, decks, and real or artifiaal rockscapes • Add clarification that athletic apparatus, and other sports related accessory • structures, such as batting cages, basketball backboards, skateboard ramps, etc and no play equipment, such as swings, slides, tungle gyms, playhouses, etc ,shall not exceed 16 feet in height C-a PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DRC2006-00772 -DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 . Page 3 Add setback and height regulations for temporary and permanent shade structures Add clarification that minor accessory structures with less than 120 square feet of floor area, and not exceeding 8 feet ~n height, may be located within any intenor side or rear setback area, but not within any front or corner side yard setback area except where screened from the public view Examples include, but are not limited to, storage sheds, trash enclosures, dog houses, play equipment, and playhouses It is also noted that, with the language being offered above, any structures bwlt using these standards would not require review and approval by the Planning Commission, but will be reviewed at the staff level. FACTS FOR FINDING Prior to the approval of any amendment to the Development Code, the Councl, based upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, must make a finding of the consistency with the General Plan ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Planning Department staff has determined that the protect is statutorily exempt from the regwrements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines The protect qualifies under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Gudelnes because it can be seen with certainty that this text amendment • will not cause a significant effect on the environment CORRESPONDENCE This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Vallev Daily Bulletin newspaper with a 1/8 page ad because more than 1,000 properties would be affected by the citywide scope of the amendment (all residential districts) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00772 to the City Council Respectfully submitted, R. ~~'"-' Jam s R Troyer, AICP Planning Director JRT DC/rlc Attachments. Exhibit A -Photographs of Accessory Structures Exhibit B - Development Code Section 17 OS 060 A Draft Resolution for Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00772 Recommending Approval to City Council • C-3 Typical Storage Shed Car Shade EXHIBIT A • C~ C-U Section 17.02.140 Definitions • STRUCTURE, ACCESSORY. A subordinate bwlding which is incidental and not attached to the main bwlding or use on the same lot If an accessory building is attached to the main building or if the roof is a continuation of the main building roof, the accessory bwlding shall be considered an addition to the main building Includes structures regardless of whether a building permit is regwred, including, but not limited to: enclosed and unenclosed patios, barns, cabanas, guest houses, second dwelling units, garages, carports, storage buildings/sheds, trellis, gazebos, decks, and real or artificial rockscapes. Section 17.08.060 A Accessory Structures and Additions Accessory structures of 120 square feet or greater floor area and a height of eight feet or greater, ,and additions to the main dwelling, may be located in a regwred interior side yard or rear yard, except as required in Tables 17 08 040-B and C, subject to the following limitations a Height A height limit of 16 feet shall apply within the required yard area Two-story additions may encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the requued rear yard if the Planning Director determines that the encroachment is necessary for a continuation and extension of the architectural design, • style, and function of the structure b Coveraoe A maximum 30 percent building coverage shall apply within any regwred yard area; however, shall also meet the maximum lot coverage limitations of this Chapter. Rear vard setback Accessory structures or additions, except 2-story structures, may be located 5 feet from the rear property line, excluding eave overhang Double frontage lots (through lots) adfacent to mafor and secondary arterials may not be placed 5 feet from the rear property, but rather must meet the minimum rear yard setback of the base district F'f~ HetraNT LIMIT a o i~ ~~ 5FT Mnx~ 5 FT. ~TF~GK- '\((•tWO 9T\/ • R~,tt ~ stvE ~ZEP~~-k EXHIBIT B C~ d Interior side yard setback The minimum side yard setback of the base district or that of the existing building shall apply, whichever is less, except accessory structures or additions may be located a minimum setback of 5 feet from the side property line only within the rear yard area, • excluding eave overhang. Unenclosed patios attached to the main bulding shall be located at least 5 feet from the side property line only within the rear yard area, excluding eave overhang e Front yard and corner side yard No accessory structure or addition shall occupy any portion of a required front yard or corner side yard 2. Play Equipment. No athletic apparatus, or other sports related accessory structures, such as batting cages, basketball backboards, skateboard ramps, etc. and no play egwpment, such as swings, slides, jungle gyms, playhouses, etc. shall exceed 16 feet in height. 3. Temporary, Portable and Permanent Shade Structures. a. equipment and bulky items. Portable, collapsible, or permanent shade structures made of canvas, vinyl, aluminum, wood, or similar materials, may be erected, installed, or maintained m within any interior side or rear setback area, but not within any front or corner side yard setback area or within a recorded easement. A mm~mum setback of 5 feet from interior and rear property lines shall be maintained. This section shall not apply to a garage or carport for which a building permit has been issued. • b A portable, collapsible, or permanent shade structure located within a required interior side or rear setback area shall have a maximum height of 10 feet. C Projections into Yards 1 Eaves, roof projections, awnings, and similar architectural features may project into required yards a maximum distance of 3 feet, provided such appendages are supported only at, or behind, the building setback line 2 Replacement chimneys, bay windows, balconies, fire escapes, exterior stairs and landings, and similar architectural features may project into requred yards a maximum distance of 2 feet, provided such features shall be at least 3 feet from a property line 3 Decks, platforms, uncovered porches, and landing places which do not exceed a height of 48 inches above grade, may project into any front or corner side yard a maximum distance of 6 feet and project into any rear or interior side yard up to the property line 4. Minor Structures and Equipment. Minor accessory structures with less than 120 square feet of floor area, and not exceeding eight feet in height, may be located within any interior side or rear setback area, but not • within any front or corner side yard setback area except where screened from public view Examples include, but not limited to. storage sheds, trash enclosures, dog houses, play equipment, and playhouses. EXHIBIT B C ~(~ • RESOLUTION NO 06-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00772, AMENDING SECTION 17 02 140 DEFINITIONS, AMENDING SECTION 17 08 060 A ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND ADDITIONS, AND AMENDING SECTION 17 08 060 C PROJECTIONS INTO YARDS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A Recitals 1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00772, as described in the title of this Resolution Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application " 2 On the 11th day of October 2006, 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 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 speafically finds that all of the facts set forth ~n the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct 2 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 11, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows The application applies to property located within the City, and The proposed amendment will 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 forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows a This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for the development, within the district, m a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development, and and This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code, • c The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially in~unous to properties or improvements m the vicinity, and Cyr' I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-88 DRC2006-00772 -DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 Page 2 • and d The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code, e The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan 4 The Planning Department staff has determined that the project is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Guidelines The project qualifies under the Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that this text amendment will not cause a significant effect on the environment The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent~udgment, concurs in the staffs determination of exemption 5 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby forwards to the City Council a recommendation to approve Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00772 by the adoption of the attached City Council Ordinance 6 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA • BY Pam Stewart, Chairman ATTEST James R Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R Troyer, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of October 2006, by the following vote-to-wit AYES COMMISSIONERS NOES COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS • ~-g • DRAFT ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00772, AMENDING SECTION 17 02 140 DEFINITIONS, AMENDING SECTION 17 08 060 A ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND ADDITIONS, AND AMENDING SECTION 17 08 060 C PROJECTIONS INTO YARDS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A Recitals 1 On September 6, 2006, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga declared their intent to amend the public hearing and notification requirements to increase the number of property owners receiving public hearng notices and to increase the amount of time between when the public hearing notice and when the hearing is conducted 2 On October 11, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Development Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No 06- ~_~, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said Amendment Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subtect Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application " 3 On ~~, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly • noticed public hearing on the Development Code Amendment 4 All legal preregwsites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B Ordinance The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows SECTION 1 This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct SECTION 2 Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on date, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows The application applies citywide, and b The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment, and c This amendment does promote the vision of our General Plan to uphold our critical values including "an ethic of strong citizen involvement in community affairs" by encouraging greater public participation in the public hearing process • SECTION 3 The Planning Department staff has determined that the protect is statutorily exempt from the requrements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Gwdelines The protect qualifies under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Gwdelines because it can be seen with certainty that this text amendment will not cause Cr I DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO DRC2006-00772 -DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA October 11, 2006 Page 2 • a significant effect on the environment The City Council has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent judgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption SECTION 4 Chapter 17 02, Section 17 02 140 - Definitions The definition for Accessory Structure is amended to read, in words and figures, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A" (new text is shown in bold and deleted text is shown with ~gf;) SECTION 5 Chapter 17 O8, Section 17 08 060 A Accessory Structures and Additions is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as shown in the attached Exhibit A (new text is shown in bold and deleted text is shown with stf+ket#fe~l-i) SECTION 6 Chapter 17 08, Section 17 08 060 C Projections into Yards is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as shown in the attached Exhibit A (new text is shown in bold and deleted text is shown with ~). SECTION 7 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless • of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation SECTION 8 The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California • C-IO Section 17.02.140 Definitions • STRUCTURE. ACCESSORY A subordinate bwldmg which is incidental and not attached to the main building or use on the same lot If an accessory bwldmg is attached to the main bwldmg or if the roof is a continuation of the main bwldmg roof, the accessory bwldmg shall be considered an addition to the main bwldmg. Includes structures regardless of whether a budding permit is required, including, but not limited to: enclosed and unenclosed patios, barns, cabanas, guest houses, second dwelling units, garages, carports, storage bwldings/sheds, trellis, gazebos, decks, and real or artificial rockscapes. Section 17.08 060 A Accessory Structures and Additions Accessory structures of 120 square feet or greater floor area and a height of eight feet or greater, . ,and additions to the main dwelling, may be located in a regwred interior side yard or rear yard, except as regwred in Tables 17 OS 040-B and C, subiect to the following limitations a Height A height limit of 16 feet shall apply within the regwred yard area. Two-story additions may encroach a maximum of 5 feet into the regwred rear yard if the Planning Director determines that the encroachment is necessary for a continuation and extension of the architectural design, style, and function of the structure Coverage A maximum 30 percent bwldmg coverage shall apply within any regwred yard area; however, shall also meet the maximum lot coverage limitations of this Chapter. Rear vard setback. Accessory structures or additions, except 2-story structures, may be located 5 feet from the rear property line, excluding eave overhang Double frontage lots (through lots) adiacent to maior and secondary arterials may not be placed 5 feet from the rear property, but rather must meet the minimum rear yard setback of the base district 16 uMIT'}GH~T ~I , EXHIBIT A 5 rT. ~~ ~tEAK ~ 519E o q ~~l I~ 5 FT r`~+1X ~ ~ (TNO ~iTp(tY) ~ ,~ tZi;A~~K C `l ~ d Interior side vard setback The mirnmum side yard setback of the base district or that of the existing building shall apply, whichever is less, except accessory structures or additions may be located a minimum • setback of 5 feet from the side property line only within the rear yard area, excluding eave overhang Unenclosed patios attached to the main bwlding shall be located at least 5 feet from the side property line only within the rear yard area, excluding eave overhang. e Front vard and corner side vard No accessory structure or addition shall occupy any portion of a required front yard or corner side yard 2 Play Equipment. No athletic apparatus, or other sports related accessory structures, such as batting cages, basketball backboards, skateboard ramps, etc. and no play equipment, such as swings, slides, jungle gyms, playhouses, etc. shall exceed 16 feet m height. 3. Temporary, Portable and Permanent Shade Structures. a. equipment and bulky items. Portable, collapsible, or permanent shade structures made of canvas, vinyl, aluminum, wood, or similar materials, may be erected, installed, or maintained in within any interior side or rear setback area, but not within any front or corner side yard setback area or within a recorded easement. A minimum setback of 5 feet from interior and rear property Imes shall be maintained. This section shall not apply to a garage or carpoK for • which a building permit has been issued. b. A portable, collapsible, or permanent shade structure located within a required interior side or rear setback area shall have a maximum height of 10 feet. C Projections into Yards Eaves, roof protections, awnings, and similar architectural features may protect into required yards a maximum distance of 3 feet, provided such appendages are supported only at, or behind, the building setback line EXHIBIT A and landings, and similar architectural features may protect into requred yards a maximum distance of 2 feet, provided such features shall be at least 3 feet from a property line 3 Decks, platforms, uncovered porches, and landing places which do not exceed a height of 48 inches above grade, may protect into any front or corner side yard a maximum distance of 6 feet and protect into any rear or interior side yard up to the property line 2 Replacement chimneys, bay windows, balconies, fire escapes, exterior stairs 4. Minor Structures and Equipment. Minor accessory structures with less than 120 square feet of floor area, and not exceeding eight feet in height, may be located within any interior side or rear setback area, but not • within any front or corner side yard setback area except where screened from public view. Examples include, but not limited to: storage sheds, trash enclosures, dog houses, play equipment, and playhouses. C is Staff Report DATE. October 11, 2006 TO. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM James R Troyer, AICP, Planning Director BY Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT• DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00690 -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - An amendment to Section 17 08 030E 2 b. Location of Animals This action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Gwdelines. This item will be forwarded to City Council for final action • ABSTRACT At the September 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission unanimously voted to initiate a Development Code Amendment for the properties impacted by the "70-foot rule" for corral placement REGULATION The zoning regulations regwre that horses be kept at least 70 feet from a neighbor's home Development Code Section 17 08 030E 2 b states b Location of Anrmals All animals, excluding household pets, shall be kept a mnrmum distance of 70 feet from any adjacent dwelling, school, hospital or church located on any adjoining site The location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures used to confine horses shall conform to this regwrement Commonly known as the "70-foot rule," this regulation was part of the County of San Bernardino Zoning Ordinance that was adopted by the City upon incorporation and has remained unchanged since A minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet is required to keep horses in residential zones With few exceptions, essentially only properties within the Very Low Residential and Estate Residential zones have a lot area of 20,000 square feet There are 3,979 acres of land in the Very Low Residential and Estate Residential zones which represent about 6 percent of the land inventory within the City limits, however, only 679 acres are undeveloped While there are no records on how many corrals or horses exist, the percentage is small ANALYSIS During staff analysis of Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM17343, staff asked Kevin • Ennis, Deputy City Attorney, to revew the "70-foot rule " He concluded that Development Code Section 17 08 030E 2 b would preclude a homeowner from keeping horses within 70 feet of a neighbor's home, but does not preclude a developer or the neighbor from bwiding a home, guest house, or second dwelling unit within 70 feet of the neighbor's horses Item D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00690 October 11, 2006 Page 2 Staff contacted Commissioner Richard Fletcher to gain further understanding of his concerns He indicated that the City's inventory of horsekeeping lots should be preserved He was concerned that the recent amendment to the second dwelling unit regulations could result in second dwelling units encroaching into the adfoining property owner's 70-foot setback The City amended its second dwelling unit standards, as regwred by State law, to allow second dwelling units in all residential zones Based upon the Deputy City Attorney's interpretation, this will not be the case because construction of a second dwelling unit can legally encroach into the 70-foot setback without a variance The problem would only occur if the second dwelling unit (or home or guest house) is built first, then later the neighbor would be prohibited from installing a horse corral within 70 feet Commissioner Fletcher is concerned that under this scenario, the neighbor would have to apply for a variance to bwld their corral OPTIONS The Planning Commission, in consideration of this matter, has three options The Commission may determine that the current regulation adequately addresses horsekeeping and take no further action, or • The Commission may direct staff to prepare a Development Code Amendment clarifying that the 70-foot rule only should be applied to the primary residence, hence, should not be applied to guest houses and second dwelling units Staff believes that this is the most appropriate solution because ~t will protect both the neighboring property owner's right to keep horses and the property owner's right to have accessory residences, or • The Commission may direct staff to prepare a Development Code Amendment and provide staff with alternative language, such as decreasing the horsekeeping setback If the Commission desires this option, staff recommends soliciting the input of the Alta Loma Riding Club RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission selected Option #2 at their September 13, 2006, meeting Carol Douglas, Alta Riding Club liaison, also testified in support of Option #2 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval of Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00690 to the City Council Respectfully submitted, R- ~'~°`~ Jam R Troyer, AICP Planning Director JT DC rlc Attachments Draft Resolution for Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00690 Draft Ordinance for Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00690 Recommending Approval to City Council • Da • RESOLUTION NO. 06-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00690, AMENDING SECTION 17 08 030E 2 b LOCATION OF ANIMALS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A Recitals 1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga filed an application for Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00690, as described in the title of this Resolution Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2 On the 11th day of October 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public heanng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date 3 All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows• • 1 This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct 2 Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on October 11, 2006, including wntten and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows• a The application applies to property located within the City, and b The proposed amendment will 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 forth ~n Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows a This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and wtll provide forthe development, within the district, in a mannerconsistentwith the General Plan and with related development, and b This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code, and c The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vianity, and • d The subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development Code, and e The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan D-3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO 06-89 DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00690 October 11, 2006 Page 2 4 The Planning Department staff has determined that the protect is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Gwdelines The protect qualifies under the Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Gwdelines because it can be seen with certainty that this text amendment that will not cause a significant effect on the environment The Planning Commission has reviewed the Planning Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent tudgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption 5 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby forwards to the City Council a recommendation to approve the Development Code Amendment DRC2006-00690 by the adoption of the attached City Council Ordinance 6 The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY• Pam Stewart, Chairman ATTEST James R Troyer, AICP, Secretary I, James R Troyer, 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 11th day of October 2006, by the following vote-to-wit AYES COMMISSIONERS NOES COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS • • • ~~~ DRAFT ORDINANCE NO • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00690, AMENDING SECTION 17 08 030E 2 b LOCATION OF ANIMALS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A Recitals 1 On September 13, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga declared their intent to amend the animal location regwrements 2 On October 11, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public heanng with respect to the above referenced Development Code Amendment, and following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No 06-89, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt the said Amendment Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subfect Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application " 3 On (~. ~, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Development Code Amendment All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. • B Ordinance The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows SECTION 1 This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Rentals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct SECTION 2 Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on date, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows a The application applies atywide, and b The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment, and c This amendment does promote the vision of our General Plan to uphold our critical values, including "an ethic of strong citizen involvement in community affairs" by encouraging greater public participation in the public hearing process SECTION 3 The Planning Department staff has determined that the protect is statutorily exempt from the regwrements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's CEQA Gwdelines The protect qualifies under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Gwdelines because it can be seen with certainty that this text amendment that will not cause a significant effect on the environment The City Council has reviewed the Planning • Department's determination of exemption, and based on its own independent fudgment, concurs in the staff's determination of exemption SECTION 4 Chapter 17 02, Section 17 02 140 -Definitions, the definition for the Accessory Structure is amended to read, in words and figures, as follows (new text is shown in bold) Q~ DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2006-00690 2006 Page 2 b. Location of Animals All animals, excluding household pets, shall be kept a minimum distance of 70 feet from any adjacent primary dwelling, school, hospital or church located on any adjoining site The location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures used to confine horses shall conform to this regwrement This setback shall not apply from any adjacent guest house or second dwelling unit. SECTION 5 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Ordinance ~s, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such deasion or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance The City Counal of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent legislation u SECTION 6 The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California r~ u ~~ Planning Commission Meeting of ~ ~) ~ /_ / V ~=, RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION SIGN-UP SHEET Please print your name, address, and city and indicate the item you have spoken regarding Thank you NAME ADDRESS 1 ~~ ~~~~~ X5111 ~..~~,~L~ ~Wb 2 ~- C J 1 ~.~-~ ~~ I 1~ i A y1d~~A r ~4 3 W ,11 ~_a- ~ ~`~ ~ 5 ~3~~ ~o~ Q,,._~..~./._~P CITY ITEM ~~ ~o '~ °L DOT ~ ,~arn~e~no~~I~^c~:1f ~ GAGS C d i('e~' 1~~1 ~~{ 6 ~ D~_,~ ~,G~/~i~c Cam- - ~ s ~ trv~-~ gJ O gCv~~-C- C4~''~~e ~ ~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ; 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 - 30 31 32 33 34 35 ~~ ~~1~ r~ i~