HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/11/20 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETINGS
1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m.
November 20, 1996
Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
City Councilmembers
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem
Paul Biane, Councilmember
James V. Curatalo, Councilmember
Diane Wi!!iams, Councilmember
Jack Lam, City Manager
James L. Markman, City Attorney
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
City Office: 477-2700
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The
deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday of the
week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such
items.
A. CALL TO ORDER
1. Roll Call: Alexander Biane , Curatalo
Gutierr~;z , and Williams __
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City
Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue
not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive
testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are
to be limited to five minutes per individual.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and
non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time
without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or
member of the audience for discussion.
1. Approval of Minutes: October 16, 1996 (Curatalo absent)
Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 10/23/96, 10/30/96 and
11/06/96; and Payroll ending 10/31/96 for the total amount of
$2,929,066.21.
Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of
October 31,1996.
Approval to authorize the advertisement of the "Notice Inviting Bids"
for the construction of Traffic Signals and Street Improvements at
Base Line Road and East Avenue Improvement Project, to be
funded from Fund 12, TDA Article 8 Account No. 12-4637-9203.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-151
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE
"NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND
STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT BASE LINE ROAD
AND EAST AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
TO BE FUNDED FROM FUND 12, TDA ARTICLE
8
15
2O
21
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
Approval of application for Grant Funds from the Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation Program for the Metrolink Corridor
Beauti~cation Project and the Don Tapia Trailhead Facility.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-152
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT
FUNDS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM
UNDER SECTION 164.56 OF THE STREETS
AND HIGHWAYS CODE FOR THE FOLLOWING
PROJECTS: METROLINK CORRIDOR
BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT AND TAPIA
TRAILHEAD FACILITY
Approval of the Environmental Initial Study Parts I and II and
Issuance of a Categorical Exemption for the proposed Rochester
Avenue Street, Storm Drain, and Railroad Crossing Improvements
from 450 feet south to 250 feet north of 8th Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-153
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL
STUDY PARTS I AND II AND ISSUANCE OF A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE
PROPOSED ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET,
STORM DRAIN, AND RAILROAD CROSSING
IMPROVEMENTS
Approval of Map, execution of Improvement Agreements,
Improvement Securities, Memorandum of Understanding
Agreement for Tract 13566 and Order the Annexation to Landscape
Maintenance District No. 8 and Street Lighting Maintenance District
Nos. 1 and 8 for Tract 13566-2 and 13566, located on the south side
of Wilson Avenue, west of Cherry Avenue, in the low density
residential district, submitted by TMP Homes.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-154
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND FINAL MAP OF
TRACT NOS. 13566 AND 13566-2
25
27
29
30
47
50
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-155
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING AGREEMENT SUBMITTED
BY TMP HOMES
RESOLUTION NO. 96-156
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN
TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 8 AND STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 8 FOR
TRACTS 13566-2 AND 13566
o
Approval to appropriate $335,600 from Fund 01 (General Fund
Reserve for Integrated Waste Management), and approval to
appropriate from the Unreserved Fund Balance $50,000 from Fund
13 (Recreation Fund), $25,000 from Fund 14 (Air Quality
Improvement Grant Fund), $46,870 from Fund 20 (Park
Development), $130,000 from Fund 21 (Beautification Fund), and
approval to appropriate an additional $200,000 from Fund 20 (Park
Development) based on revenues reflected in the adopted Fiscal
Year 1996/97 Budget, for the Renovation of the Lions East
Community Center, and approval to award a contract to Old Hickory
Construction, Inc. (CO 96-054) in the amount of $854,000 (plus a
10% contingency).
Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement (CO 96-
055) with IWA Engineers to provide a Program Development Plan
in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the City
Parks/Recreational Facilities and Access Ramps, Sidewalks and
Driveways in public rights-of-way and approval to appropriate $9,700
from Fund 40 - LMD 1 (Account No. 40-4130-9320), $29,680 from
Fund 41 - LMD 2 (Account 41-4130-9320), $14,600 from Fund 43 -
LMD 4 (Account 43-4130-9320), $18,00 from Fund 90 - PD-85
(Account 90-4130-6028), and $21,200 from Fund 10 - Prop 111
(Fund 10) for services attributable to said agreement.
10.
Approval to award and authorization for execution of contract
(CO96-056) for Arrow Route Street Improvements, from the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Spur to 400 feet west of
Milliken Avenue, to be funded from Transportation Systems
Development, Account No. 22-4637-9522 and SB-150, Account 35-
4637-9522.
11.
Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract
12832, located on the proposed Day Creek Boulevard, between
Highland Avenue and Victoria Park Lane, submitted by the William
Lyon Company.
3
51
52
55
56
59
60
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
4
12.
13.
14.
15.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-157
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
FOR TRACT 12832
Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract
13279, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, between
Rochester and Milliken Avenues, submitted by the William Lyon
Company.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-158
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
FOR TRACT 13279
Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract
14139, located on the southwest corner if Etiwanda Avenue and
25th Street, submitted by Centex Homes, a Nevada General
Partnership.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-159
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
FOR TRACT 14139
Approval to Release Agreement and Security Deposit for Interim
Flood Control Fadlies for Tract Numbers 11934, 12044, 12045 and
12046, from R.C. Land Company.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-160
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING THE RELEASE OF AGREEMENT
AND SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR R.C. LAND
COMPANY
Approval to accept Improvements, Release the Faithful
Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond and file a Notice of
Completion for Improvements for Tract 13890, generally located on
the south side of Banyan Street, east of Haven Avenue.
Release: Faithful Pedormance Bond $ 455,210.00
#B95-013091
Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond 45,521.00
#B95-013091
62
63
65
66
68
69
7O
72
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-161
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
TRACT 13890 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING
OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE
WORK
16.
Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bonds for Tract 13930,
located on the west side of Hellman, south of 19th Street.
Release:
Maintenance Guarantee Bond
#985325S
Maintenance Guarantee Bond
fffi85324S
Maintenance Guarantee Bond
#985327S
$ 29,700.00
56,400.00
19,000.00
17.
Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bonds for Tract 13945,
located south of Highland and east of East Avenue.
Release:
Maintenance Guarantee Bond
On-Site
Maintenance Guarantee Bond
Highland
$ 25,400.00
40,500.00
18.
Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 111-3313-
6967 for Tract 14121, located on the southwest corner of Highland
and Milliken.
Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond
#111-3313-6967
$ 45,980.0
19.
Approval to accept the Northeast Park and East Avenue Street
Improvements, Contract No. CO96-011, as complete, release the
bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion
and approve the final contract amount.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-162
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
NORTHEAST PARK AND EAST AVENUE
STREET IMPROVEMENTS, CONTRACT NO. 96-
011, AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A
NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
73
74
75
76
77
78
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first
reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time
without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be
removed for discussion.
CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR THE RECOVERY OF
COSTS FOR SECOND POLICE RESPONSES TO PARTIES
ORDINANCE NO. 561 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.32
TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE
RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR SECOND
RESPONSES BY POLICE TO PARTIES AND
OTHER ASSEMBLAGES
CONSIDERATION TO EXTEND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
8802 (CO 88-199) - STANDARD PACIFIC - A request to amend the
termination date of the Agreement for Eljwanda Highlands (Tentative
Tract 13564 and Tract 13565) for approximately 282 acres located
at the northeast corner of Wilson Avenue and Wardman Bullock
Road.
ORDINANCE NO. 562 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 88-02 FOR ETIWANDA HIGHLANDS
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to add Big Box retail as a
Conditionally Permitted Use on approximately 33 acres, plus a
request by the City for consideration of an additional contiguous 40
acres, for a total consideration of approximately 73 acres within the
Industrial Park designation (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, generally located north of Fourth Street, east of
Milliken Avenue, and west of the I-15 Freeway - APN: 229-263-18
through 21,229-263-48 through 53, and 229-341-13.
79
81
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
ORDINANCE NO. 563 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-05 AMENDING
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT TO
ADD WAREHOUSE-STYLE RETAIL
MERCHANDISING AS A USE FOR 73 ACRES OF
LAND, LOCATED NORTH OF FOURTH STREET,
EAST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND WEST OF
THE 1-15 FREEWAY IN SUBAREA 12 - APN: 229-
263-18 THROUGH 21,229-263-48 THROUGH 53,
AND 229-341-13
84
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public
hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive
public testimony.
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16
REDESIGNATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR} -
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A public headng on a draft
Final EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, Development Distdct
Amendment 95-02, and Tentative Tract 15727 to authorize the
development of 351 single family dwelling units and a neighborhood
park by the reclassification of approximately 82 acres from Industrial
Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and
the consideration by the City of alternative land use and zoning
designations of Office, Commercial, Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) forthe remaining 60 acres of land within the area bounded by
Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth
Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga
Creek on the west. APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 08, 10, 11, 13, 17,
18, 19, 26, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 39.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-03A - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A
request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from
Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) for 77 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the
Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street
on the north, and the City will also consider an altern&tive
designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre).
APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the
Industrial Park designation to alternative land uses for the remaining
land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the
east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the
Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
91
91
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast
comer of Sixth street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on
the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
the City will consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 08, and
39.
For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street
on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, and Fourth
Street on the south the City will consider Low Residential (2-
4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood
Commercial, and Office as alternative land uses.
APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
LLC - A request to amend the Development Distdct Map designation
from Industrial Area Specific Plan to Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre) for 82 acres of land at the intersection of
Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
bordered by Sixth Street on the north, and the City will also consider
an alternative designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11,13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33·
With this application the City will also consider amending the
Industrial Area Specific Plan designation to alternative land uses for
the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald
Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman
Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast
corner of Sixth street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on
the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
the City will consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling
units per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling unitS. per
acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and
39.
For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street
on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, and Fourth
Street on the south the City will consider Low Residential (2-
4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood
Commercial and Office as alternative land uses.
APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-04 - CUCAMONGA
CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to remove 82 acres of land at the
intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood
Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, from the
91
91
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land
to Development Code Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units
per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
Wrth this application the City will also consider amending the
Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16 to alternative land uses
and amending development standards for the remaining land
bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east,
Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the
Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
Removing approximately 15 acres of land located at the
southeast corner of Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue and
bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood
Control Channel from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for
the purposes of rezoning the land to Development Code
Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) or
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative
land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39.
Removing approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth
Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east and
Fourth Street on the south from the Industrial Area Specific
Plan for the purpose of considering Development Code Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial,
Neighborhood Commercial, and Office as alternative land
uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
Consider changing the development standards and land
use activities for Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT
15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A total residential
development of 342 single family lots and a 5 acre neighborhood
park on a total of 82 acres on land to be rezoned to the Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the intersection
of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
bordered by Sixth Street on the north. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17,
18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-163
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION
WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF
9
91
298
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-164
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-
03A, CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 92 ACRES
OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET,
AND EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE
CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-
062-02, 05, 06, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND
39.
ORDINANCE NO. 564 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02, CHANGING THE
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, SUBAREA
16, INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) FOR 97 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET, NORTH
OF FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN
AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK
CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06,
11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39
ORDINANCE NO. 565 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-04, TO
DELETE 97 ACRES OF LAND FROM SUBAREA
16 OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH
STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET, AND
EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE
CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND
AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR SUBAREA 16, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06,
11, 13, 17, 18, 19,26,32,33, AND39
10
318
321
324
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
11
RESOLUTION NO. 96-165
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
15727, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 342
SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK ON 82 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN
APPLICATION FOR REZONING TO THE LOW
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF FOURTH STREET AND THE
CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL
CHANNEL, BORDERED BY SIXTH STREET ON
THE NORTH, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13,
17, 18, 19, 26, 32, AND 33.
329
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements.
The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony.
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH A
SPEED LIMIT OF 50 MPH ON MILLIKEN AVENUE FROM 4TH
STREET TO BANYAN STREET. A SPEED LIMIT OF 40 MPH ON
BASE LINE ROAD FROM SPRUCE AVENUE TO EAST CITY LIMIT
AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 45 MPH ON ROCHESTER AVENUE
FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO BANYAN STREET
ORDINANCE NO. 566 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020
OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE
REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON
CERTAIN CITY STREETS
344
350
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
The following items do not legally require any public testimony,
although the Chair may open the meeting for public input.
1. CONSIDERATION OF THE FREEWAY AGREEMENT AND
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (CO 96-057) FOR
PROPOSED ROUTE 30
355
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
12
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
The following items have been requested by the City Council for
discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may
open the meeting for public input.
1. DISCUSSION OF PARKING ISSUE RAISED BY TONY ESPINOZA
2. DISCUSSION OF ROLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY
COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
360
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to
discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this
meeting, only identified for the next meeting.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City
Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue
not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive
testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are
to be limited to five minutes per individual.
L. ADJOURNMENT
MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS
PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROCHESTER, BETWEEN
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE; VALLEY BASEBALL
AND JERRY FULWOOD, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, NEGOTIATING
PARTIES; REGARDING TERMS OF PAYMENT.
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my
designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda
was posted on November 14, 1996, seventy-two (72) hours pdor to the
meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
City Council Agenda
November 20, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-/1~/IL~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING FREEWAY AGREEMENT AND A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE
ROUTE 30 THROUGH RANCHO CUCAMONGA
12
359
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
The following items have been requested by the City Council for
discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may
open the meeting for public input.
1. DISCUSSION OF PARKING ISSUE RAISED BY TONY ESPINOZA
2. DISCUSSION OF ROLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITY
COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
360
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to
discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this
meeting, only identified for the next meeting.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City
Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue
not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive
testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are
to be limited to five minutes per individual.
L. ADJOURNMENT
MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS
PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROCHESTER, BETWEEN
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ARROW ROUTE; VALLEY BASEBALL
AND JERRY FULWOOD, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, NEGOTIATING
PARTIES; REGARDING TERMS OF PAYMENT.
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my
designee, hereby cerdfy that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda
was posted on November 14, 1996, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
October 16, 1996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Reaular Meetina
A. CALL TO ORDER
A regular mee~ng of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, October 16, 1996, in the
Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Coundlmembers: Paul Biane, ReX Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Andrew Arczynski, Assistant City Attorney; Jerry B. Fulwood,
Deputy City Manager; Brad Buller, City Planner; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bob Zetterberg, Integrated
Waste Coordinator; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Suzanne Ota, Community Sen/ices Manager; Paula
Pachon, Management Analyst II; Deborah Clark, libran/Manager; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager;
Chief Dennis Michael, Fire Protection District; Capt. Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department;
and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk.
Absent was Councilmember: James Curatalo.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to the Cucamonga Dodgers Girls Softball Team congratulating them
for the A.A.U. National Gold Medal.
Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to the team.
The Cucamonga Dodgers Girls Softball Team asked that the City Council be honoran/members of
their team and presented them with shirts and hats. The girls thanked their parents and coaches for
all they have done for them to be so successful.
B2. Presentatjon of a Proclamation Declaring the Week of October 23-31, 1996 as Red Ribbon Week in
Rancho Cucamonga, and Presentation of Certificates to Red Ribbon Week Button Design Winner and
Honorable Mention Recipients.
Mayor Alexander read the Proclamation designating Red Ribbon Week from October 23 - 31, 1996. Mayor
Alexander continued by introducing the Red Ribbon Week Button design finalists and winner. He introduced
Jessica Helton, Aaron Leonard, Richard Skidmore and David Sheasby, who were given Honorable Mention
awards. He announced that Richard Skidmore was the Design Winner.
City Council Minutes
October 16, 1996
Page 2
B3. Presentation by Active Ride Shop regarding Project Skate Park Fundraiser.
Mayor Alexander requested that Park and Recreation Commissioners Jim Clopton, Ann Punter and Bruce Ann
Hahn join him on the stage. John and Shane Wallace presented the City with a check in the amount of $6,735
which was earned from the fund raiser for the skate park. He thanked the Council, Park and Recreation
Commission and City staff for their assistance on this project.
Mayor Alexander presented a Proclamation to Active Ride Shop for their successful event.
B4. Ede Swistock, Janet Riddle, and John Hoffman thanked the Shedff's Resen~es, Citizen's Patrol and
Explorers for all of their work on the Grape Harvest Festival and presented them with a check in the amount
of $10,000.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
C1.
Larry Rhinehart, of the AQMD, in Diamond Bar gave a report on the Districrs activities. He stated they
are available to help the City with any air quality issues.
Councilmember Willjams brought up electric buses and asked if the AQMD would be developing some kind
of an incentive program to get bus companies to use them. She felt this type of transportation should really be
pushed to be used.
Larry Rhinehart referred to the electric buses as the Ballard Bus and stated they would be happy to
encourage partnerships for the use of the electdc buses.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
D1. Approval of Minutes: September 18, 1996
October 2, 1996
ITEM REMOVED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS.
D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 10/2/96 and 10/9/96, and Payroll ending 10/3/96 for the total
amount of $3,483,449.90.
D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of September 30, 1996.
D4. Approval of the Environmental Initial Study, Parts I and II, for the proposed Arrow Route Street
Improvement Project from the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Spur Crossing to 400 Feet west of
Milliken Avenue and Issuance of a Categorical Exemption therefore.
RESOLUTION NO, 96-139
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED
ARROW ROUTE STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM THE BURLINGTON
NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILROAD SPUR CROSSING TO 400 FEET WEST
OF MILLIKEN AVENUE
City Council Minutes
October 16, 1996
Page 3
D5. Approval of Payment to Active Ride Shop for "Project Skate Park" Public Liability Insurance in the
amount of $640.00.
D6. Approval to appropriate the prior year's unexpended funds as well as reprogramming of funds for the
Lions Center East and West ADA Improvement Projects, and amendment of the Community Development
Block Grant 1995-96 Annual Action Plan.
D7. Approval to allow the Mayor to adopt and sign the change made by the Executive Committee of
PARSAC on the Joint Powers Agreement (CO 94-030).
RESOLUTION NO. 96-140
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE AMENDED JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT OF THE PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF
CALIFORNIA (PARSAC)
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Willjams to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports
contained in the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item D1. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Curatalo
absent).
DISCUSSION OF ITEM D1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Coundlmember Willjams inquired if the City Clerk had received her corrections on the minutes up for approval
and were they being changed to reflect her corrections.
Debra Adams, City Clerk, stated the minutes would be corrected as noted.
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to approve Item D1 as corrected. Motion carried
unanimously, 4-0-1 (Curatalo absent).
No items were submitted.
No items were submitted.
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
G1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR THE RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR SECOND POLICE
RESPONSES TO PARTIES Staff report presented by Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Clerk.
Councilmember Gutierrez thanked Mr. Dedynski for bdnging this to the Council's attention. He felt this
Ordinance would help the City recover the cost for police officers having to go out on these types of calls. He
City Council Minutes
October 16, 1996
Page 4
hoped this would help to eliminate loud party disturbances so the police are not having to go out to a house
three and four times.
Councilmember Biane stated he supported the recommendation of the Public Safety Subcommittee.
Councilmember Williams stated she has received calls from people who are having daytime noise disturbance
problems as well, and asked if this Ordinance would apply to this type of situation.
Andrew Arczynski, Assistant City Attorney, stated it would apply for daytime or nighttime disturbances.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public headng. Addressing the City Council was:
Mr. Dedynski flanked the Council and the Public Safety Subcommittee for their work on this and was
glad it was going to go into action.
Councilmember Gutierrez again thanked Mr. Dedynski for bringing this to the Council's attention.
There being no further response, the public hearing was closed.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 561.
ORDINANCE NO. 561 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.32 TO TITLE 9 OF THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE RECOVERY OF
COSTS FOR SECOND RESPONSES BY POLICE TO PARTIES AND OTHER
ASSEMBLAGES
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance
No. 561 for November 6, 1996. Motion carriled unanimously, 4o0-1 (Curatalo absent).
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
H1. CONSIDERATION OF PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
COMMUNITY SKATE PARKS Staff report presented by Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager. She
indicated members from the Park and Recreation Commission would also be speaking to the Council about
this item.
Jim Clopton, Park and Recreation Commissioner, stated they have tried to get as much information
as possible from various sources. He stated they would like to see a safer environment for the kids.
He felt a fadlity on a street comer where walk-in traffic can access it would be the best. He mentioned
the Commission is aware of the liability insurance problem, but is very excited about this project.
Ann Punter, Park and Recreation Commissioner, stated this is not something that has happened
overnight, that they have worked on this a long time. She stated they would like to see a pilot skate
park project centrally located in the City that would be a drop-in type of facility. She stated the
Commission felt Spruce Park would be a good location because of its size and because it would not
interfere with other activffies in the perk. She suggested there be an architect to design the skate park,
but that there should be a task force to work on this also.
City Council Minutes
October 16, 1996
Page 5
Bruce Ann Hahn, Park and Recreation Commissioner, stated they felt the next step would be to get
the task fome together and get started on this project. She mentioned the City of Temecula did a lot
of fundraising for their skate park and that they really got the community behind it. She indicated she
has had people contact her that would like to help out on this project. She stated they would like to ask
the City Council to loan them the money for the architect until they have raised enough money to pay
for it. She added that the Active Ride Shop is also ready to do another concert to raise money.
Councilmember Gutierrez inquired how many acres were in Spruce Park.
Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager, stated about five.
Councilmember Williams inquired how many acres the skate park would take up.
It was reported it would take about one-quarter of an acre.
Jim Clopton, Park & Recreation Commission, stated they need a long linear area which would help for
the design of the skate park.
Mayor Alexander asked how much money they would need for the architect.
Bruce Ann Hahn, Park & Recreation Commissioner, stated approximately $10 - $12,000.
Ann Punter, Park & Recreation Commissioner, stated they were asking for the City to match ACTIVE
dollar for dollar, but that they would pay the City back after they raise more money.
Mayor Alexander asked for this matter to come back to the Council at the next meeting for further discussion.
Councilmember Biane stated staff could look at this at mid-year to see if this can be accommodated. He felt
the City should be doing more than matching dollar for dollar.
Coundlmember Willjams pointed out that vadous vendors also donated things to help support the fundraiser.
ACTION: A report to come back at the next meeting to discuss monetary support for this project.
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
I1. REPORT ON GRAFFITI STATISTICS Staff report presented by Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste
Coordinator.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked if they are current with the graffiti complaints.
Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator, reported they are on top of this.
Councilmember Gutierrez brought up a pdvate company he had heard of that does graffiti clean-up.
Mayor Alexander stated he has heard of other agencies that are not happy with this type of service.
City Council Minutes
October 16, 1996
Page 6
Jack Lam, City Manager. stated this was looked at many years ago. He stated there are a number of
employees that work on the graffiti unit that do an excellent job. He pointed out that the maintenance staff is
cross trained to do maintenance work as well as graff'~ removal. He felt the graffiti removal program was very
successful.
Councilmember Gutjerrez stated he has heard from a lot of people that it does in fact get removed quickly, but
he has also heard from people that the graffrd problem itself is getting worse. He stated the public notice signs
seem to be getling hit, and that the graffiti should be removed from them quickly. He also indicated that the
Victoda Park Lane and Rochester area is getting hit very hard. He suggested the graffiti hot line number stay
in the Grapevine so that people are familiar with it. He asked if the maintenance staff could do an inspection
on Monday mornings along Haven and Foothill and other main intersections to check for graffiti.
Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator, stated they do have certain routes that are checked every
Monday morning.
Mayor Alexander asked if the City is getting reimbursed for the removal of graffiti when someone is caught in
the act.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated there has been a couple of instances where the City received restitution.
Councilmember Williams asked for an update on the old Backwaters Building.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated once the new business goes in there the graffiti problem will hopefully be
eliminated.
Bill Makshanoff, Building Offidal, stated a Chinese Restaurant is supposed to go in at that location and that the
City has had other code enforcement problems with that owner at another business he owns.
Councilmember Biane stated he had been contacted by a resident that lives at a property along the Route 30
fight-of-way between Haven and Hermosa where there is a wall that runs along there. They had reported to
him that graffiti is on there and they had been contacted by Code Enforcement to maintain this wall which he
stated they really did not have access to unless they jump over it to clean the outside of the wall. He stated he
understood what these people were up against trying to control something they can't control. He did not really
think Code Enforcement should be making them responsible for this and that the neighborhood should get
together and create an Adopt-A-Wall group or the City should be taking it on.
Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator, stated he is aware of this and that there is a volunteer group that
went out to do some painting. He stated they have offered to form an Adopt-A-Wall group for that area. He
stated if the gentleman would form it, he would be more than happy to go out and talk, but that he has not
heard from him since.
Bill Makshanoff, Building Offidal, added that when graffrd is on private property but is adjacent to a public fight-
of-way, that the City will sometimes go ahead and take it off, but because the wall is hard to get to it is kind of
a Catch-22 situation.
Councilmember Williams asked if maybe SAN BAG shouldn't be responsible for this.
Councilmember Biane stated he just didn't really think it was fair for the resident to be responsible. He added
if the City can't get to it, why should the resident be responsible.
Bill Makshanoff, Building Official, felt there was some merit to that.
City Council Minutes
October 16, 1996
Page 7
Councilmember Biane stated he wasn't sure what needed to be done, but didn't feel it was appropriate for a
citizen to do something that the City itself can't do because of its access. He felt something should be worked
out with the neighborhood. He offered to help get the neighbors together on this.
Councilmember Williams asked if the City still has the free paint since paint is so expensive.
Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator, stated yes, it is available through the Household Hazardous
Waste Program.
Councilmember Gutierrez felt this information should go in the Grapevine also.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated Bob Zetterberg spends a lot of time working with the community on helping
with these types of problems.
Councilmember Biane thanked the staff for all of their hard work and that he felt it is a very good program.
Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator, thanked the Adopt-A-Wall people for their continued assistance.
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
J1. Councilmember Williams asked for an update report on the Animal Shelter after its first month of
operation to be on the next agenda.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
K1. Mr. Dedynsld wanted to also thank the Police Department for their work on getting Ordinance No. 561
approved.
K2. David Tom commented on the amount of traffic that goes into the Etiwanda High School because he
lives above the school. He also added he has a big concern for the traffic at East and Base Line
because he feels it is unsafe, especially between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Mayor Alexander asked if he had met with the Traffic Engineer on this.
Mr. Tom stated yes.
Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer, stated Caltrans has a proposal to seismically update or upgrade the bddges
and that will be done by the end of this year, and when that is completed the signal will go in after that. He
stated as part of this project, Caltrans will provide a four-way stop sign at this location until the signal goes in.
He stated the signal probably won't go in until the end of next Fiscal Year.
Mayor Alexander asked for there to be three, 3- consecutive days of 30 minute monitoring at this location and
asked for a report to come back at the next meeting.
K3. Pamela Stewart stated she has a booklet that the City of Ontado puts out on graffiti that she felt was
very helpful.
City Council Minutes
October 16, 1996
Page 8
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss Property
Negotiations per Government Code Section 54956.8 for property located on Rochester, between Foothill
Boulevard and Arrow Route; Valley Baseball and Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, negotiating parlies;
regarding terms of payment. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Curatalo absent). The meeting adjourned
at 8:50 p.m. No action was taken in Executive Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
Approved:
·
Fee-'
IL.U')UJ
il
;
V V v V
V V V V
v V v V
O. ZZ ~,. O. t,)
I..4 O0 ~r Z
ZZ
ZZ
t Z
IL. li. ~. i,)
I--I-- ~
I,-k, _1 i.~
0
Z Z~e Z
I,,,,
%
¢
,~1,-,I
I,,-
I I
I ·
· ·
· I
I
I ·
· ·
ell ·
· I
· ·
· ·
· I
· , · ·
we ·
~,tl I
~1 I
· I
, I I
~1 I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I.
I
I
I~I
I
I I
I I
I e
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
e
I e
I I
~ A A
·
0
·
¢ ·
Z
I--'*'*
e, Lt/Itt~
,d
I--
k4
"'1"|
j**
·
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
I-- I
I I
· ·
· I
· I
· ·
I~1
I1-1
Io-I
I~1
· ·
· I
I I
I ·
I
·
I I
I ·
· I
·
I I
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
I:
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
I I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
I1,~1
I I
i~-i
I~.1
· I
·
Z Z ZZZO
%
41-1
ZIi,~
_1
I--
..... ~ ~ ~ -*
V
v
v
~Z
~W~
w w
~ZZZZ~
~z owooo O~woo ooo~
V
,J
~Z
·
~ ~ J
V,,AZU
,/
),
~4
(,~
II t
V V
V V
v ~ V ~
I-
0
I-
I,
k4 ~L.
I I I I I I
· e · ·
~ .~ ~.:~~o
~,n ~ .4' e,,
·
I
0
o O
,,-4,-s
Z
Q~ Z
Z
t, JZo
R,,0
_,(:~
:,-4
uJ
uj l:
V
· · · · · t · · · · · · ·
\
Z
tJZO
~,~
, A A
Z
-r ·
~,~
I,,.-~
..J
y
~4
~.~
Z
c~
_1
I-
I--
I
I-,.,',"
M. 4At. U
|;
II--I
"'1'1
I~1
in~I
Z
~ Z
0 ZO~ ZZ ~
,I
0
'r
~J
1..
"'i
sue mw O03~O0~OOOZZZ~O~O ZZ Z~%~[OO~O~Z O~Z 0
I I
I. ·
I I
· ·
I ·
· ·
I ·
· I
I
· ·
· I
· I
· I
I ·
· I
·
I
I
I ·
· ·
· I
I I
· ·
· I
I ·
·
· I
I
· I
Itul
I
i,vl
IC~I
IuJI
· ·
~ Z
Z O ~ z
J-- g
......
; A A A
A 'A A
A A A
I'::
Z
il
ii
11/13/19%
CITY OF RAIe C~AI4~
PORTFOLIO MASTER SUMMARY
OCTOB~ 31, 1996
CITY
CA~
INVESTMENTS
PEEKlit OF AVERAGE
BOOK VALUE PORTFOLIO TERM
AVERAGE ---YIELD TO MATURITY---
DAYS TO 360 365
MATURITY EQUIVALIg[T EQUIVALE]fr
Certificates of Deposit - Bank ...............
Local Agency Investment Funds ................
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon ............... $
Treasury Seniorities - Coupon ................. $
Mortgage Backed Securities ................... $
11,825,532.~ 19.76 555 206 6.111 6.195
12,629,630.31 21.10 1 1 5.521 5.598
34,387,6545.25 57.45 1,592 1,257 6.555 6.646
272,845.(30 0.46 1,1843 34)3 6.057 6.141
743,983.85 1.24 8,286 4,598 7.821 7.929
TOTAL INVESTMENTS aM AVERAGES ............. $ 59,859,647.91 100.00% 1,133 822 6.263% 6.350%
Passbook/Checking Accounts ................... $ 1,071,261.65 1.973 2.000
(not included in yield calculations)
Accrued Interest at Purchase ................. $ 7,233.90
TOTALCASH a lid I~3R(2HASE INTEREST ............. $ 1,078,495.55
TOTAL C.A.~H ~ II{VESTNE]iTS ................. $ ~,938,143.46
MOiffi{ ENDING FISCAL
TOTAL EARNINCk~ OCTOBER 31 YEAR TO DATE
C~]rrent Year $ 340,736.81 $ 1,354,102.01
AVFARAGE DALLY BALA]{CE
EFFECTIVE RATE OF RI~rURM
$ 61,949,682.54 $ 63,303,297.56
6.48% 6.35%
TR
DATE
I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and
is in comformity with the investmet policy adopted August 7, 1996. A e0py of
tim investment policy is avail~le in tile Administrative ~rvices l)el>artment.
The Investment ~ocJram herein shM provi~ sdficient ~ fl~ liquidity to
meet the next six monttm estimatj.=d expenditures. Source of Valuation -
Interactive Data Corporation automatic pricin~ service.
11/13/1996
CITY OF ~ CUCAMONGA
IWgE.STMENT ~RTFOLIO DETAILS - IIFv'ESTMENTS
~ 31, 1996
CITY
CASH
IIf~ESTMI3dT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- YTM --- MATURITY DAYS
NUMBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK
00937 FCI/fi{II.L INDEP BANK 04/06/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.950 6.950 7.047 04/09/97 159
00965 GREAT WESTERN BANK 01/25/96 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 5.050 5.050 5.120 01/29/97 89
00966 GREAT WESTERN BANK 03/04/96 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 4.700 4.700 4.765 03/04/97 123
00977 GREAT WESTERN BANK 09/17/96 1,810,532.50 1,810,532.50 1,810,532.50 5.300 5.300 5.374 03/18/97 137
00924 SANIdA 12/28/94 1,000,0430.00 l,OOO,O00.O0 1,000,000.00 7.250 7.250 7.351 12/27/96 56
00933 SANWA 02/23/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 6.920 6.920 7.016 02/24/97 115
00945 SANIdA 05/02/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.410 6.410 6.499 05/02/97 182
0095.B SANWA 11/22/95 500,000.00 54)0,000.00 500,000.00 5.600 5.600 5.678 11/26/96 25
00975 SANIdA 05/22/96 1,500,000.00 1,5(X),O00.O0 1,500,000.00 6.000 6.000 6.083 05/26/98 571
00976 SANWA 08/06/96 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 5.650 5.650 5.728 08/08/97 278
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 11,825,532.50 11,825,532.50 11,825,532.50
11,8~,532.50 6.111 6.195 206
LOCAL AGENCY INVESU{ENT FUNDS
{XXX)5 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND
OOIM)4 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND
SUBTOTALS and AVEPAGES 13~480~835.81
11,452,81~.44 11,452,818.44 11,452,818.44 5.601 5.524 5.601 1
1,176,811.~7 1,176,811.87 1,176,811.87 5.570 5.494 5.570 1
12,629,634).31 12,629,650.31
12,629,630.31 5.521 5.598
FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - COtlPON
00964 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/16/96
00969 FEDERAL FANJICREDIT BANK 03/05/96
00973 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/20/96
00978 FEDERAL FARM SIT BANK 10/03/96
00922 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/19/94
00939 FEDERAL B O tIE LOAN BANK 04/06/95
00940 FEDERAL HC)!4E LOAN BAIIK 04/06/95
00962 FEDERAL MOME LOAN BANK 12/18/95
(N)971 FEDERAL IN314E LOAN BANK 03/19/96
00974 FEDERAL !{ONE LOAN BANK 05/21/96
00938
00957
00967
00968
00972
00926
0<)947
00959
00960
FEDERAL iK314E LOAN MORT(;. CO 04/06/95
FEDERAL BONE LOAN MORTG. CO 11/20/95
FEDERAL { LOAN MORTG. CO 03/06/96
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORT<;. CO 02/22/96
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORT(;. CO 05/15/96
FEDERAL NATL M'rG ASSN 12/29/94
FEDERAL NATL 14TG ASSN 05/08/95
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 11/29/95
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 11/24/95
~ AVEPAGES 34,866,083.67
2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,970,625.00 6.030 6.030 6.114 01/16/01 1,537
2,000,00{).00 2,000,000.0{) 1,976,250.00 6.165 6.165 6.251 03/05/01 1,585
1,0(30,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,010,625.00 6.500 6.500 6.590 05/20/99 930
1,500,000.00 1,54)0,000.00 1,512,656.25 6.610 6.610 6.702 10/06/99 1,069
1,000,000.43{) 1,000,000.00 1,024,687.50 8.030 8.030 8.142 12/19/97 413
965,156.25 1,000,000.00 998,750.00 4.570 6.638 6.730 12/30/96 59
942,968.75 1,0(10,0(0).{30 987,500.00 5.240 7.030 7.127 11/30/98 759
4,000,000.00 4,00{),000.00 3,950,000.00 6.195 6.195 6.281 12/18/00 1,508
995,312.50 1,000,000.00 998,125.00 5.880 6.053 6.137 03/19/99 868
1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,017,812.50 7.025 7.025 7.123 05/21/01 1,662
1,002,031.25 1,000,000.00 1,010,625.00 7.420 7.226 7.326 09/23/99 1,056
2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,482,812.50 6.290 6.290 6.377 11/17/00 1,477
1,998,750.00 2,000,000.00 1,971,875.00 5.990 6.005 6.088 03/06/01 1,586
1,985,312.50 2,000,000.00 1,954,375.00 5.695 5.867 5.948 02/16/01 1,568
3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 3,025,312.50 7.275 7.275 7.376 05/15/01 1,656
1,998,125.00 2,000,000.00 2,005,000.00 7.700 7.752 7.859 12/10/96 39
1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,532,343.75 7.270 7.270 7.371 05/08/00 1,284
4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 3,977,500.00 6.230 6.230 6.317 11/28/00 1,488
1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,023,370.00 5.970 5.970 6.053 11/25/98 754
34,387,656.25 34,430,245.00
34,500,000.00 6.555 6.646 1,25'
n/13/1~6
CITY Of ~CUCAMONGA
INVES~ENT PORTfOLIO DETAiLS - INVESTMENTS
OCTOBER 31, 1996
CITY
CASH
INVB~ENT
NUMBER ISS~ER
AVERAGE ~RCHASE
BALANCE DATE B(X)K VALUE
STATED ---Y~4- NA~RITY DAYS
FACE VAL~E F~L~KET VAI~E RATE 360 3~5 DATE ~0 NAT
TRRAS~RY SECURITIES - C04JPON
00903 TRFAS~Y NOTE
AVERAGES
06/08/94
272,845.00
IK)RTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES
00071
00203
00002
00069
00004
SUFI~3TALS and AVERAGES
FEDERAL HOME LOAN 140RTG. OO 02/23/87
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 09/21/87
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL IK)RTG A 06/23/86
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL 140RTG A 05/23/86
SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN 07/25/86
748,833.59
272,845.00 277,000.00
46,942.46 48,193.34
99,509.30 107,723.19
79,450.64 80,558.32
23,377.84 22,919.45
494,703.61 449,092.64
743,983.85
708,486.94
277,346.5 5.625 6.~7 6.141 ~/31/97 ~3
39,141.14 8.000 8.336 8.452 01/01/02 1,887
108,672.42 8.54)0 9.557 9.689 09/01/10 5,052
67,582.92 8.500 8.621 8.740 05/15/01 1,656
3,223.84 9.000 8.534 8.652 03/15/01 1,595
493,697.21 8.750 7.261 7.361 07/25/11 5,379
712,317.53
7.821 7.929 4,598
TOTAL INVESTMI~NTS and AVG.
61,194,130.57
59,859,647.91 59,875,071.59
59,940,649.75
6.263% 6.350% 822
11/13/1996
CITY OF P. AN<3K)~
INVES~EN~ I:~)RTFOLIO DETAI~ - CAS~{
O~'q~O{~ER 31, 19~
CITY
INVES~EN~
NUMBER I~UER
AVERAGE PURt'q{ASE
BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE
STATED ---YT){--- MATURITY DAYS
FACE VALUE MAIH~ET VALUE ~TE 360 365 DATE ~ MAT
<3{EChOING/SAVINGS ACCOUI~rS
00180 BAle< OF AMRI~
00979 BANK OF AMERICA
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES
755,551.97
Accru~ Interest at Purchase
1,013,892.61
57,369.04
1,071,261.65
7,233.90
1,078,495.55
2.000 1.973 2.00)
2.000 1.973 2.000
1.973 2.000
TOTAL CASH ~ INV{S $ 61,949,682.54
60,938,143.46
11/13/19~
CITY OF
~MFOLIO )~STR INVESTMEIFr AOrlVITY BY TYPE
0CIOER 1, 1996 - OCI4D{~ER 31, 1996
CITY
CASH
STATED TPu~NSACTION ~Rtg{~SES S~L~/~RI' ES
UPE INVESIq(ENT # IS,qUER ~TE DATE OR DEI4DSITS OR WHq{D~W~ S
CER'rlFIO. ATLS OF DEI~SIT - BANK
BEGI~I~ BALAK ·
11,825,532.~
11,825,532.~
LOCAL AGENCY INVES~NEN~ FUND~ (Monthly Summary)
O(N)05 L(~.AL AGENCgf INV~ ~ 5.601
00804 LOO. L AGEI~"Y I~ST FLrlfl) 5.570
and ENDI~ BJ~[jkNCE
3,170,349.~
16,2~.83
BMI~IMBAhQ4CI
4,600,000.(
14,043,013.92
3,186,616.39 4,600,000.0 12,629,6~.31
CHECKING/SaVINGS AC<X)UNTS (Monthly Summary)
00180 BANK OF AMERICA
0(079 B~Q{K OF {~
2,245,0(0).00
B~INNING B~ZANCEj
2,362,000.0(
1,188,261.65
2,245,0(0).00 2,362,0(0).~ 1,071,~1.65
FEI)ERMu AGENCY I~UES - CfNIE3N
0{)978 FEDElb4Ju FAE4 C~2J)IT ~ 6.610
00921 FEDE&AL B~ R~G ASSN 7.0~
ENDING
BEGINNIIG E~LAI~2B:
10/03/1996 1,500,000.00
10/10/1~96 1,981,250. O0
1,500,0(0).00 1,981,250.00
34,868,906.25
34,387,6%.25
~q~F~S~Y SF~:URITIES - (X3UI~DN
BEGINNING B~J~NCE:
272,845.00
272,845.00
SUB~)TAJuS d ENDING
TOTMuS BEGINNING B~J~kNCE:$
BEGINNING BALANCE:
10/15/96 783.42
10/25/~ 3,414.04
10/17/96 1,257.40
10/07/~ 48.24
10/28/96 2,635.69
752,1PP.64
O.(N) 8,138.79
743,983.85
62,950,681.96 6,931,616.39 8,951,388.79 60,930,909.~
CHef OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20, 1996
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City _C_ouncil
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager,
FROM:
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY:
Linda R. Beek, Junior Engineer
SUBJECT:
AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISEMENT OF THE 'nOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE
CONSTt(UCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT
BASE LINE ROAD AND EAST AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, TO BE
FUNDED FROM FUND 12, TDA ARTICLE 8, ACCOUNT NO. 12-4637-9203
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve the plans and specifications for the Construction of Traffic
Signals and Street Improvements at Base Line Road and East Avenue Improvement Project and approve
the attached resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids".
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject project plans and specifications have been completed by staff and approved by the City
Engineer, with the Caltrans permit pending minor corrections to the plans and specifications. This project
will coincide with the Caltrans seismic retrofit project at this location. All possible coordination will be
required of our contractor with the Caltrans contractor.
The engineer' s estimate for construction is $210,000, said funds to be appropriated from Fund 12 (Account
Number 12-4637-8913 and 9608). Legal advertising is scheduled for November 26 and December 3, 1996,
with the bid opening on January 7, 1997.
Respectively submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:dlw
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. ~(,g"/.~/
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT BASE LINE
ROAD AND EAST AVENUE IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO
RECEIVE BIDS
WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain
improvements in the _City of Rancho Cucamonga.
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the
construction of certain improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the
City of Rancho Cucamonga be and are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT BASE LINE
ROAD AND EAST AVENUE.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing the work specified
in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the
following words and figures, to wit:
"NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS"
Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County,
Califomia, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that said City of Rancho Cucamonga
will receive at the Office of the City Clerk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or
before the hour of 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, January 7, 1997, sealed bids or proposals for THE
CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT BASE LINE
ROAD AND EAST AVENUE in said City.
Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730.
Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, marked, "Bid for THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREET
IMPROVEMENTS AT BASE LINE ROAD AND EAST AVENUE".
PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California
Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles I and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less
than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in
which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages
for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations
of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem
wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and
are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of
such determinations to be posted at the job si..t_e.
Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman,
or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or
mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work
done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the pro-
visions of said Labor Code.
Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning
the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him.
Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any
apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the
public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate -
of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in
the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be
less than one to five except:
A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has
exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or
B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or
C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at least 1/30 of its membership through
apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or
When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all
of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight
journeymen.
The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration
of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticable
trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such
contributions.
The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections
1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements
may be obtained from the Director of Industrial relations, exoofficio the Administrator of
Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of apprenticeship Standards and its
branch offices.
Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the
execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and
be govemed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in
Division 2, Pan 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the_ _Labor Code of the State of Califomia as amended.
The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five
dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract,
by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each
calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more
than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code.
Contractor ag/ees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the
work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are def'med in the applicable
collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8.
The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's
bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%
of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the
same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check,
certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount
of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference
between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be remmed to the lowest
bidder.
The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said
work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in
an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given
to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the
work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and
the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance
covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into be~'een
him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work.
No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been
issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Contractor shall possess any and all contractors licenses, in form and class as required by any
and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract;
including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General Engineering Contractor) in accordance
with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code,
Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto.
The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code", Section
7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date,
and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being
provided is true and correct.
The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City
ofRancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of__t_he City Clerk at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, Califomia. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City
Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of
$35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE), said $35.00 (THIRTY-FIVE) is nonrefundable.
Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed
when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional
nonreimbursable payrr2ent of $ 15.00 (FIFTEEN DOLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and
overhead.
The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth
in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the
Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense,
substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention).
The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the fight to reject any and all bids.
By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Dated this 20nd day of November, 1996.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, this 20nd
day of November, 1996.
William J. Alexander, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debbie J. Adams, City Clerk
ADVERTISE ON: November 26, 1996, and December 3, 1996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 20, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM FOR
THE METROLINK CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT AND THE DON
TAPIA TRAILHEAD FACILITY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolutions approving grant
applications through the State-funded Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) program.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Each year, the Resources Agency of Califomia solicits local agencies to apply for grants under the
Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program (EEMP). This program was established by
the enactment of the Transportation Blueprint Legislation of 1989 (AB 471, Katz) and its intent is
for the Legislative to allocate $10 million annually. Accordingly, staff is recommending the subject
two projects.
Metrolink Railway Corridor Beauti~cation:
This project is aimed at providing naturalized planting (plant materials which can live off of rainfall
once established) within or adjacent to the Metrolink Corridor. Trees, shrubs, rock and mulch are
the design elements to be employed where opportunities exist between Archibald and Haven
Avenues, and adjacent to the Empire Lakes Golf Course. This is the first phase of what will be an
on-going effort to beautify the Metrolink Corridor. Requested EEMP funding for this project is
$103,217.00.
Don Tapia Trailhead Facility
This project which is located on Alta Cuesta Drive, south of Base Line Road, will provide a trail
head/staging area and the next segment of the Cucamonga/Demens Community Trail between Base
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDS
November 20, 1996
Page 2
Line Road and Foothill Boulevard. The location, which is currently undeveloped, is basically a
widened area between AIm Cuesta Drive, and the flood control channel, which fronts on to
residential property. Development of this facility would greatly enhance the overall appearance of
this corridor, as well as provide a desperately needed connection with the trail system. Also, the
proposed staging area at the Don Tapia Trail Head Facility provides a very necessary access point
in the heart of the community to the trail system for multi-use. It provides oppommity for users to
park automobiles and transition to bicycles, horses, or foot travel for recreational purposes or to
reach schools, parks, business areas, industrial sites, libraries, residential areas and work sites.
Requested EEMP funding for this project is $300,000.00.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:MO:dlw
Attachments
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL
ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM UNDER THE
SECTION 164.56 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE FOR
THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS: METROLINK CORRIDOR
BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT AND DON TAPIA TRAILHEAD
FACILITY
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted AB 471 (Chapter 106
of the Statutes of 1989), which is intended to provide $10 million annually for a period of 10 years
for the grant funds to local, state and federal agencies and nonprofit entities for projects to enhance
and mitigate the environmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Resources Agency has established the procedures and criteria for
reviewing grant proposals and is required to submit to the California Transportation Commission
a list of recommended projects from which the grant recipients will be selected; and
WHEREAS, said procedures and criteria established by the Resources Agency require
a resolution certifying the approval of application by the applicant's governing body before
submission of said application to the State; and
WHEREAS, the application contains assurances that the applicant must comply with,
and
WHEREAS, the applicant, if selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of
California to carry out the environmental enhancement and mitigation project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA hereby resolves as follows:
1. Approves the filing of an application for the Environmental Enhancement and
Mitigation Program for grant assistance.
2. Certifies that said applicant will make adequate provisions for operation and
maintenance of the project.
3. Appoints William Joseph O'Neil, City Engineer, as agent of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not
limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be
necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project.
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
tit CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
EEM
GRANT
APPLICATIONS
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20, 1996
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY:
Lucinda Hackett, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY PARTS I AND II AND
ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED
ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET, STORM DRAIN, AND RAILROAD CROSSING
IMPROVEMENTS FROM 450 FEET SOUTH TO 250 FEET NORTH OF 8TH STREET
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting and approving the
Environmental Initial Study Parts I and II and Issuance of a Categorical Exemption for the proposed
Rochester Avenue Street, Storm Drain, and Railroad Crossing Improvements from 450 Feet South to 250
Feet North of 8th Street and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
This report presents an Environmental Assessment Initial Study for the proposed Rochester Avenue Street,
Storm Drain, and Railroad Crossing Improvements from 450 Feet South to 250 Feet North of 8th Street
and Issuance of a Categorical Exemption.
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines, the attached
document has been prepared to permit construction of the above mentioned improvements. The project
involves street widening and installation of new storm drain, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter,
drive approach and railroad crossing safety equipment.
It is the Engineering Staff's finding that the proposed project ,,,,'ill not create a significant adverse impact
on the environment and therefore recommend that these improvements be classified as Categorically
Exempt.
Respectfulty-'~ubmitted,
City Engineer
Attachments
WJO:LH:dlw
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY PARTS I AND II AND
ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE
PROPOSED ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET, STORM DRAIN,
AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has reviewed all
available input concerning the proposed Rochester Avenue Street, Storm Drain and Railroad
Crossing Improvements from 450 Feet South to 250 Feet North of gth Street; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves the
Environmental Assessment Initial Study and issuance of a Categorical Exemption for the proposed
Rochester Avenue Street, Storm Drain and Railroad Crossing Improvements from 450 Feet South
to 250 Feet North of 8th Street Projects.
Section 2: The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the
Califomia Environmental Quality Act.
JERSEY ' :BLVD
ARRBW RTE
PR OJE C T
SITE
n~
W
W
t1111tl//1111111111 I
//8th STREET
II
6th STREET
Ld
Z
Ld
SCRRA
IIIIIIIII111111
6-th STREET
4th STREET
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ROCHESTER AVE AT EIGHTH ST
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
J
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
PART I - INITIAL STUDY
General Information
1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City ofRancho Cucamonga -
10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. California 91 730
2. Address of project: Rochester Avenue at SCRRA Railroad Crossing
3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project:
City of
Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. California 91 730 - Contact.'
Lucinda Hackeli (909) 477-2740 extension 2372
_4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains:
5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project,
including those required by City, Regional, State and Federal Agencies: Street Closure Permit.
City Council Approval. Southern California Railroad Authority Permit
6. Existing zoning district:
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Rochester Avenue Street. Storm Drain and
Railroad Crossing Improvements
Project Description and Effects:
8. Site Size: Approximately 0.3 Acre
9. Square Footage: 49.600 square feet
10. Number of floors of construction: N/A
11. Amount of off-street parking provided:
12. Attach plans: N/A
13. Proposed scheduling:
14. Associated project: N/A
15. Anticipated incremental development: N/A
16. If residential. include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices of rents and
type of household size expected: N/A
-1-
17. If commercial, indicate the type. whether neighborhood. city or regionally oriented, square
tbotage of sales area and loading facilities: N/A
18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift and loading facilities: N/A
19. If institutional, indicate the major Iitnction, estimated employment per shift, estimate occupancy,
loading facilities and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A
20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or reasoning application, state this and indicate
clearly why the application is required: N/A
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects?
(attach additional sheets as necessary). Refer to Attachment.
21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches. hills or
substantial alteration of ground contours.
22. Chance in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or
public lands or roads.
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or
quantity or alteration of existing drainage patterns.
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10% or more.
29. Use of disposal or potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
substances, flammable or explosives.
30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire.
water, sewage, etc.).
31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil,
natural gas, etc.).
32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
Discuss below all items checked yes
Yes No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Environmental Setting: See attached
33.
Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil
stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing
structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site, snapshots or
Polaroid photos will be accepted.
-2-
34.
Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural.
historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of
land use (one-thmily, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc. ). and scale of development
(height. frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity, snapshots or Polaroid
photos will be accepted.
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements ltmaished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
intbrmation required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and
inlbrmation presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand
that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made
by the Planning Division.
., c"-,/" / . ~.,../..f,
Title: Associate Engineer
-3-
ATTACHMENT PART 1
PRO3ECT DESCRIPTION EFFECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:
25 & 27)
During construction, the noise level, vibration, dust and odor at the project site will temporarily
increase. It will return to its normal level after completion of the project.
33 & 34)
The project is at Rochester Avenue, from approximately 450' south to 250' north of 8th Street. North
of the project is fully improved with an ultimate street width of 72', the south end is 60 feet wide and
it is partially improved with curb and gutter, at the easterly side and asphalt concrete berm at the
westerly side. Approximately 60' north of 8th Street is the Metrolink railroad crossing (formerly
ATSF). The street width at the railroad tracks is approximately 25 feet, with no curb, gutter and
sidewalks. There is an existing storm drain box culvert under the railroad track at the east side of
Rochester Avenue. The land on the northeast comer of the track is vacant and undeveloped. Eighth
Street is 24' wide from Rochester Avenue and tapered up to 32' wide to approximately 100' west
without curb, gutter and sidewalk at the southerly side. Within the vicinity of the project area there
are industrial facilities and warehouses with a total of approximately 15 to 30 employees working
around the area. In general, the topography of the project site is flat. There are no cultural, historical
or scenic aspects to be significantly impacted by the proposed improvements.
The improvements consist of street widening of Rochester Avenue at the railroad track crossing from
26' to 72' in order to eliminate the "bottle neck" transition and to fit four lanes of traffic to match the
existing. It also includes removal of the railroad track box culvert, construction of storm drain lines
and related structures, A.C. paving, median island, sidewalks, curb, gutter. street lights, warning
signals and crossing gates (by Metrolink). The length of the project is approximately 700 feet.
Tentatively, the project is scheduled for construction in March, 1997.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. BACKGROUND
Name of Proponent
Address and Phone Number of Proponent
Cal![brnia 91 730 (909) 477-2740
Date of Checklist Submitted
Agency Requiring Checklist
Name of Proposal, if applicable
Improvements
Ci.tv of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga,
July 8. 1996
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rochester Avenue Street. Storm Drain and Railroad Crossing
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all 'yes' and 'maybe' answers are required on attached sheets).
YES MAYBE NO
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
ao
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
b,
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering
of the soil?
X
c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
e,
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on
or off the site?
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may
modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of
the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
X
X
X
X
X
Page 2
YES MAYBE NO
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such
as earthquakes, landslides. mud slides. ground failure.
or similar hazards'?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient
air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors:
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water
movements, in either marine or fresh waters?
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface water runoff?.
Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water?
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of
surface water quality, including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptions
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding or tidal waves?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 3
YES MAYBE NO
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs. grass, crops
and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plant into an area, or in a
barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any
species of animals (birds, land animals including
reptiles, fish and shell-fish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered
species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result
in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal produce new light or glare?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 4
YES MAYBE NO
10.
11.
12.
13.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances
(including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals
or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition?
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or an emergency evacuation plan?
Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a
demand for additional housing?
Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for
new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to water-borne, rail, or air traffic?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 5
YES MAYBE NO
f Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists
or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas?
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities?
ao
Electric power?
Natural or packaged gas?
Communications systems?
Water supply?
Waste water facilities?
Flood control structures?
Solid waste facilities?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4/
Page 6
YES MAYBE NO
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a,
Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
X
X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
18.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any
scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
X
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
X
20. Cultural Resources.
Will the proposal result in the alteration of, or the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
X
b,
Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure,
or object?
X
Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
X
Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area?
X
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
Page 7
III.
IV.
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
(A short-term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into the future).
X
Does the project have impacts which are individually limited
but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on
two of more separate resources where the impact on each
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of these impacts on the environment
is significant.
X
d,
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
(Narrative description of environmental impacts. )
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required.
X
I find the proposed project CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT per Article 19, Class 1 C, Section
15301 of the California Environmental Qua/t4'ty'Ac-t,, ,
'x
Date ,' ;-: / f,// '-- ....- ....,-.~-:/--, c"'_ . ~ (.z~-f
' Signature
Associate Engineer
Title
ATTACHMENT PART II
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
1 ) Earth
b)
There will be excavation for the removal of the existing channel, A.C. pavement and for
the proposed storm drain line. The new pavement will require base and sub-base
preparation which includes cut, fill and compaction.
2) Air
a&b)
Construction equipment, along with the hot bituminous
temporarily increase air emission and/or objectionable odor.
paving materials, will
3) Water
b)
The additional roadway surfaces will slightly increase the run-off water on the street;
however, the project provides drainage inlet to intercept and minimize these water flows.
c)
An existing Box Culvert under the railroad track will be removed as part of the street
widening and be replaced with a storm drain inlet, reinforced concrete pipe and a curb
outlet structure to divert the water from the railroad track back to the street. The existing
master planned storm drain at Rochester Avenue. Eighth Street and Arrow Route will
intercept the run-off water and keep it from flooding downstream.
6) Noise
a)
Existing noise level will increase temporarily due to the equipment operations during
construction, which may create disturbances to the general public working near the
project area. Equipment noises can be mitigated by the installation of noise attenuators
and restriction of the hours of operation.
Tra n sp o rtatio n/Circ u !a tion
b) The street widening and the new drainage structure ~vill increase the existing elevation
of the street and the adjacent grade south of the railroad track. This proposed grade
elevation will increase the flow of water in the parking lot area. To protect the parking
lot from excessive surface flow or future flooding, the City will reconstruct and elevate
the parking lot accordingly. During reconstruction, the people who work or do business
in that facility will park on the street temporarily. This project does not affect the
number of the parking spaces.
d)
The project will have an interim effect on the present pattern and circulation of the
vehicular movements and traffic during construction. Such vehicular circulation and
traffic impact can be mitigated by providing detour and advance warning signs.
Increase in the traffic hazards to motor vehicles. bicyclist or pedestrians may occur
during the construction period. Such hazards can be mitigated by installing enough
warning signs.
16) Utih'ties
a)
New safety crossing equipment. signals and gates will be installed, creating minor
electrical alterations for the new systems. One existing power pole needs to be relocated
which is in conflict with the proposed catch basin.
b)
The existing channel under the railroad track will be removed and will be replaced by
installing 48" drop inlet, 36" RCP storm drain lines and catch basin.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 20, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer
APPROVAL OF THE MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 8 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NOS. I AND 8 FOR TRACTS 13566 AND 13566-2, LOCATED ON THE
SOUTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE, WEST OF CHERRY AVENUE, IN
THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SUBMITTED BY TMP
HOMES
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the artached resolutions approving Tract Map
Numbers 13566 and 13566-2, accepting the improvement agreement and security, accepting the
memorandum of understanding agreement, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance
District No. 8 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 8, and authorizing the Mayor and
the City Clerk to sign said agreements; and authorizing the City Clerk to attest and the City Engineer
to present the Tract Map to the County Recorder to be filed for record.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Tentative Tract Map No. 13566, generally located at the south of Wilson Avenue and west of
Cherry Avenue, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1987, for a residential
subdivision of 161 single family lots. Design Review 95-16, for the remaining 42 lots, was approved
by the Planning Commission on September 11, 1996.
The Developer, TMP Homes, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction
of the off-site improvements in the following amounts:
Faithful Performance Bond:
Labor and Materialmen Bond:
Monumentation
Tract13566 Tract13566-2
$212,000.00 $975,400.00
$106,000.00 $487,700.00
$ 3,050.00 $ 3,850.00
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TRACT NOS. 13566 AND 13566-2
November 20, 1996
Page 2
Design Review 96-15 for Tracts 13566 and 13566-2 is conditioned to construct/reconstruct the flood
wall along the west tract boundary south of Hickcox Lane as required by the City Engineer. The
Memorandum of Understanding Agreement allows the developer, TMP Homes, to continue with the
development through a deposit in the amount of $50,000.00 to secure the retrofit. It outlines the
issuance of the building permits with respect to the retrofit of the flood wall.
Copies of the Improvement Agreement and security, the Memorandum of Understanding Agreement
and the Consent and Waiver form for annexation signed by the Developer are available in the City
Clerk's office.
Re.Spe~,fully submitted,
Wil~~~~
City Engineer
WJO:MEP:dlw
Attachments
& PROJECT
135
_ SITE
N
I
Z~ ,.~XJMMrT
CITY OF
RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
ITEM:
TITLE:
EXHIBIT:
VICINITY MAP
TRACTS 13566 &
13566-2
RESOLUTION NO. q&-/---~4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY,
AND FINAL MAP OF TRACT NOS. 13566 AND 13566-2
WHEREAS, the Tentative Map of Tract Nos. 13566 and 13566-2, consisting of 13 and 29 lots,
respectively, submitted by TMP Homes, Subdivider, generally located south of Wilson Avenue and
west of Cherry Avenue has been submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga by said Subdivider
and approved by said City as provided in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and
in compliance with the requirements of Ordinance No. 28 of said City; and
WHEREAS, to meet the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the Final Map
of said Tract said Subdivider has offered the Improvement Agreement submitted herewith for
approval and execution by said City, together with good and sufficient Improvement Security, and
submits for approval said Final Map offering for dedication for public use the streets delineated
thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California, as follows:
That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved
and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City
and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and
That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and
sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by
the City Attorney; and
o
That the offers for dedication and the Final Map delineating same
be approved and the City Clerk is authorized to execute the
certificate thereon on behalf of said City.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AGREEMENT
SUBMITTED BY TMP HOMES
WHEREAS, Development Review 96-15 was approved by the Planning Commission
September 11, 1996 with a with condition to construct/reconstruct the flood wall along the west tract
boundary south of Hickcox Lane as required by the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the developer has submitted the Memorandum of Understanding Agreement
to provide for the construction/reconstruction of the flood wall.
NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I: That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2: That said Memorandum of Understanding Agreement be and the same is
approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is
authorized to attest thereto:
RESOLUTION NO. q&._./..,~'(~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 8 AND STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 8 FOR TRACT NOS.
13566 AND 13566-2
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously
formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said
special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 8, Street
Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 8 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and
WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the
property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the
Maintenance District; and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the
Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation
without notice and heating or filing of an Engineer's "Report".
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as
shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the
Maintenance District.
SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of
all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder.
EXHIBIT 'A'
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 8
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 8
_.
__~
:~' WILSON AVENUE "'
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 131~6~2 13566&_
EXHIBIT "B"
WORK PROGRAM
PROJECT: TRACT NOS. 13566 AND 13566-2
STREET LIGHTS:
Dist. 5800L
S1 ---
S8 24
NUMBER OF LAMPS
9500L 16~000L 22.000L 27.500L
15 .........
LANDSCAPING:
Community
Equestrian
Trail
Dist. D.G.S.F.
L8 33696
Turf Non-Turf Trees
S.F. S.F. Ea.
2215 9192 208
* Existing items installed with original project.
ASSESSMENT UNITS:
Assessment Units
Bv District
Parcel DU S 1 S8 L8
N/A 42 42 42 42
Annexation Date: November 20, 1996
Form Date 11/16/94
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20, 1996
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY:
Karen McGuire-Emery, Associate Park Planner
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $335.600 FROM FUND 01 (GENERAL
FUND RESERVE FOR INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT). AND
APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE FROM THE UNRESERVED FUND
BALANCE $50,000 FROM FUND 13 (RECREATION FUND). $25.000
FROM FUND 14 (AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT FUND),
$46.870 FROM FUND 20 (PARK DEVELOPMENT). AND $130.000 FROM
FUND 21 (BEAUTIFICATION FUND), AND APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE
AN ADDITIONAL $200.000 FROM FUND 20 (PARK DEVELOPMENT
FUND), BASED ON REVENUES REFLECTED IN THE ADOPTED FISCAL
YEAR 1996/97 BUDGET, FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE LIONS EAST
COMMUNITY CENTER. AND APPROVAL TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO
OLD HICKORY CONSTRUCTION INC.. IN THE AMOUNT OF $854.000
(PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council appropriate funding as noted above for the construction of
the Lions East Community Center Renovation Project and award a contract to Old Hickory
Construction Inc., in the amount of $854,000, plus a 10% contingency, for a total of $939,400.
BACKGROUND
On October 15, 1996, bids were received for the Lions East Conununity Center Renovation Project.
The Architect's estimate for the project was $1,034,835. The low bid, provided by Old Hickory
Construction Inc., was $854,000. Staff anticipates the project to begin construction early in
December with completion by July of 1997.
ResPectfuT~y
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 20, 1996
Mayor and Members of the Ci.ty Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Michael Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH IWA
ENGINEERS TO PROVIDE A PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT FOR THE
CITY PARKS/RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND ACCESS RAMPS,
SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND
APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $9,700 FROM FUND 40-LMD 1 (A/C 40-4130-
9320, $29,680 FROM FUND 41 - LMD 2 (A/C 41o4130-9320), $14,600 FROM
FUND 43 - LMD 4 (A/C 43-4130-9320), $18,000 FROM FUND 90 - PD-85 (A/C
90-4130-6028), AND $21,200 FROM FUND 10 - PROP. 111 (FUND 10) FOR
SERVICES ATTRIBUTABLE TO SAID AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve, award and execute the subject Professional
Services Agreement with IWA Engineers to provide a development plan for ADA compliance and
approve the subject appropriations.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
In 1990 a Federal Law was passed to allow citizens with disabilities to have reasonable access to
public facilities. Under Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) various compliance
requirements were set forth for public entity compliance. They are (1) conducting a self-evaluation
of all facilities and (2) compiling a transition plan outlining obstacles and describing methods, costs
and schedules for implementation. After this program development plan is completed structural
changes providing accessibility for the disabled can be prudently scheduled and completed.
The City has been proactive by programming structural improvements into the Capital Improvement
Program. Specific examples include the Curb Access Ramp Installation Program which has an
annual budget of $25,000.00 and in the last three years has installed over fifty access ramps in
accordance with the ADA Guidelines. Also, an additional 25 ramps have been installed at part of
the City's Capital Street Resuffacing Program. We have a ramp providing accessability to City Hall.
J
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
November 20, 1996
Page 2
Drinking fountains at City Hall and the Stadium meet handicap requirements. Telephones at the
Stadium have been retrofitted to meet handicap requirements. Electronic doors for the front entry
to City Hail have been installed, which is another ADA reqi'ement to provide complete access for
handicap individuals. In addition, we have budgeted significant dollars in our assessment districts
to provide ADA Compliance in our parks. City staff has done considerable work in site assessment
and data collection of ail the street intersections, mapping the locations where curb cuts are required.
The proposed consultant will supplement this work by analyzing driveway and sidewalk slopes
within public rights-of-way and compiling all data into the program development plan.
Requests for proposai~ to provide a program development plan covering ail facilities within the City
(City Parks/Recreation Facilities, Access Ramps, Sidewaiks and Driveways in public rights-of-way,
City Buildings/Facilities, and Fire District Facilities), were sent to Construction Control Group, Los
Angeles and IWA Engineers, Fountain Vailey. IWA Engineers submitted by far the best proposal.
Their proposai included a planning workshop, site assessment and data collection, self evaluation,
complaint process, transition plan, compliance evaluation process, public relations program and
financial strategy. City Parks/Recreation Facilities and Access Ramps, Sidewalks and Driveways
in public fights-of-way will be included in this program development plan as Phase I. Phase II
which includes the remainder of City Facilities will be budgeted next fiscal year. The firm of IWA
Engineers is recommended based on the strength of their proposal, their familiarity with the city's
facilities and the associated fee.
The fee for said proposal per the agreement is $95,260.00 ($86,600.00 plus 10% contingencies) and
will be funded by Account Nos. 20-4532-6028, 40-4130-9320, 41-4130-9320, 43-4130-9320, 90-
4130-6028 and Fund 10.
Respectfully submitted,
WilliamQJ-56"Neil
City Engineer
Attachments
WJO:MO:dlw
,_57
ADA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Infrastructure and Facilities
PHASE I
Public RJW
· Disabled Access Ramps @ Intersections
· Sidewalks
· Driveways
City Parks/Recreation Facilities
· Bear Gulch Park ·
· Beryl Park East ·
· Lions Park &Center ·
· Beryl Park West ·
· Church Street Park ·
· Coyote Canyon Park ·
· CucamongafDemens Channel ·
· Heritage Community Park ·
· Hermosa Park ·
· Kenyon Park ·
· Milliken Park ·
Old Town Park
RC Neighborhood Center
Red Hill Community Park
Spruce Avenue Park
Victoria Groves Park
Vintage Park
West Greenway Park
Windrows Park
Trails/Paseos
Ellena Park
N/E Community Park
PHASE II
City Buildings/Facilities
· City Hall ·
· Sports Complex ·
· 9th Street Yard ·
· Metrolink Station ·
· Regina Winery ·
· Public Safety
Animal Shelter
Grove House
Library
Alta Loma Packing House
Rochester Base Line Site
Fire District Facilities
· Fire Station 1 - Amethyst Street
· Fire Station 2 - Admin. Offices - San Bemardino Road
· Fire Station 3 - Base Line Drive (trailer
· Fire Station 4 - Jersey & Milliken
· Fire Station 5 - North Banyan
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~MONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20.1996
TO.'
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Linda R. Beck. Jr. Engineer
SUBJECT:
AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR
ARROW ROUTE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM THE BURLINGTON
NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD SPUR TO 400' WEST OF MILLIKEN
AVENUE, TO BE FUNDED FROM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 22-4637-9522 AND SB-140, ACCOUNT 35-
4637-9522
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council award and authorize for execution the contract for Arrow
Route Street Improvements, from the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Spur to 400' west of
Milliken Avenue, to the lowest responsive bidder, to be funded from Transportation Systems
Development, Account No. 22-4637-9522 and SB-140, Account No. 35-4637-9522.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Per previous Council action, bids were solicited and a bid date of November 19, 1996, was set. This
project is being coordinated with the Burlington Northem Santa Fe Railroad and they have scheduled
their portion of the project. We anticipate starting the City's portion of the project December 16,
1996. A bid summary and announcement of the lowest responsive bidder will be submitted to
Council prior to the Council meeting. The Engineer's estimate is $81.061.00.
Respectfull~?itted, ~
WJO:LRB:Is
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA2MONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20, 1996
TO:
Mayor and Members of the C(ty Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT
1283'5, LOCATED ON THE PROPOSED DAY CREEK BOULEVARD,
BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND VICTORIA PARK LANE,
SUBMITTED BY THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject
Improvement Agreement Extension and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said
agreement.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Improvement agreement and improvement security to guarantee the construction of the public
improvements for Tract 12832 were approved by the City Council on May 22, 1986, in the following
amounts:
Faithful Performance Bond:
Labor and Material Bond:
$ 1,600,000.00
$ 800,000.00
The developer, The William Lyon Company, is requesting approval of a 12-month extension on said
improvement. The project is located on the proposed Day Creek Boulevard, between Highland
Avenue and Victoria Park Lane. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are available in
the City Clerk's office.
Respectf, submitted,
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:ls
Attachment
October 31, 1996
Ms. Linda R. Beek
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Improvement Agreement Extensions
Dear Linda:
Enclosed you will find our check in the amount of $502.00 and the executed and notarized
Improvement Agreement Extensions for Tract 12832 and 13279. We have been unable to
proceed with the development of these projects due to severe economic conditions that
have prevailed over the past few years.
Please call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
D. Bryan Aa'stin
Vice President
RESOLUTION NO. q~ ~ / -5 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR
TRACT 12832
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its
consideration an Improvement A~eement Extension executed on October 31, 1996, by The William
Lyon Company, as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real
property specifically {]escribed therein, and generally located on the proposed Day Creek Boulevard,
between Highland Avenue and Victoria Park Lane
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement
Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of
said Tract 12832; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement A~eement Extension is secured and accompanied by good
and sufficient Improvement Security., which is identified in said Improvement Agreement Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City, ofRancho Cucamonga, Califomia hereby
resolves, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security, be and the
same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement
Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA.~MONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20, 1996
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
BY:
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
,h
Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer z~'
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR
TRA~T 13279, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND
AVENUE, BETWEEN ROCHESTER AND MILLIKEN AVENUES,
SUBMITTED BY THE WILLIAM LYON COMPANY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject
Improvement Agreement Extension and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said
agreement.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Improvement agreement and improvement security to guarantee the construction of the public
improvements for Tract 13279 were approved by the City Council on November 5, 1987, in the
following amounts:
Faithful Performance Bond:
Labor and Material Bond:
Rochester Avenue
$ 303,559.00
$ 151,779.00
Victoria Park Lane
S362,055.00
5181,027.00
The Developer, The William Lyon Company, is requesting approval of a 12-month extension on said
improvement. The project is located on the south side of Highland Avenue. betv/een Rochester and
Milliken Avenues. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are available in the City
Clerk's office.
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:ls
October 31, 1996
Ms. Linda R. Beek
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Improvement Agreement Extensions
Dear Linda:
Enclosed you will find our check in the amount of $502.00 and the executed and notarized
Improvement Agreement Extensions for Tract 12832 and 13279. We have been unable to
proceed with the development of these projects due to severe economic conditions that
have prevailed over the past few years.
Please call me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Vice President
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA., CALIFORNIA, _ APPROVING IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR
TRACT 13279
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its
consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on October 31, 1996, by The William
Lyon Company, as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real
property specifically described therein, and generally located on the south side of Highland Avenue,
bet~veen Rochester and Milliken Avenues.
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement
Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of
said Tract 13279; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by good
and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California hereby
resolves, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security be and the
same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Ageement
Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20, 1996
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY':
Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT 14139,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVENUE AND 25TH
STREET, SUBMITFED BY CENTEX HOMES, A NEVADA GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject Improvement
Agreement Extension and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Improvement agreement and improvement security to guarantee the construction of the public
improvements for Tract 14139 were approved by the City Council on February 1, 1995, in the following
amounts:
Faithful Performance Bonds:
111 33 12 5689 $ 1,298,000
111 33 12 5697 $ 696,000
111 33 12 5713 $ 903,000
111 33 12 5655 $ 214,000
111 33 12 5663 $ 730,509
111 33 12 5721 $ 580,382
111 33 12 5639 $ 216,000
The Developer, Centex Homes, a Nevada General Partnership, is requesting approval of a 12-month
extension on said improvement. The project is located on the Southwest Comer of Etiwanda Avenue and
251h Street. Copies of the improvement agreement extension are available in the City Clerk's office.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:LB:ls
Attachment
CENTEX HOMES
October 15, 1996
Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer
The City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Tract 14139
Extension of Improvement Agreement
Dear Linda:
I am in receipt of your letter, (see attached) requesting renewal of The
Improvement Agreement and Securities for Tract 14139 and am requesting our
completion date be extended to December of 1997 as all improvements are not complete.
I have enclosed, per your request, the Agreement Extension form in triplicate signed and
notarized.
If you have any questions or need further information please call me at
(909) 279-4000, extension 244.
Sincerely,
Margaret Taulane
Contracts Admin.
MT
Enclosures
letter\ranchocuc\extension
CENTEX REAL ESTATE CORPORATION · SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIVISION
2280 WARDLOx, V CIRCLE, SUITE I50 - CORONA. CALIFORNIA 91720 · 909 279 4000 · FAX 909 273 2100 CC/~7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRA~T 1413 9
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has for
its consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on November 20, 1996, by Centex
Homes, a Nevada Ge_neral Partnership, as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way
adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the southwest
comer of Etiwanda Avenue and 25th Street; and
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement
Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of
said Tract 14139; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied
by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement
Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California hereby resolves, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement
Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said
Improvement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City, Clerk
to attest thereto.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 20. 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manger
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL OF RELEASE OF AGREEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
SECURITY DEPOSIT FOR INTERIM FLOOD CONTROL FACILITIES FOR
TRACT NUMBERS 11934, 12044, 12045 AND 12046, FROM R. C. LAND
COMPANY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the release of
agreement and security deposit from R. C. Land Company.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
On July 20, 1983, the City Council approved an agreement with R. C. Land Company. Per the
agreement R. C. Land Company deposited $10,000 for maintenance security of interim flood
control improvements until installation of Day Creek Channel was completed.
The Day Creek Channel and is complete and a request for release of funds was made by R. C.
Land Company.
The attached resolution authorizes release of the agreement and $10,000 security deposit.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. q~,/~ ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
RELEASE OF AGREEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
SECURITY DEPOSIT FROM R. C. LAND COMPANY
WHEREAS, Agreement recorded August 4, 1983, document number 83-176590, approved at the
City Council meeting of July 20, 1983 by Resolution No. 83-128 by and between the City and R.
C. Land Company.
WHEREAS, said agreement provided $10,000 maintenance security for interim flood control
improvements by R. C. Land Company
WHEREAS, Day Creek Channel is complete and interim flood facilities are no long needed.
NOW, THEREEFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HEREBY RESOLVES, that said agreement and security deposit may be released to R. C. Land
Company.
I
I
NTS ~
gAkVk:
II ;I II II It II I II II j
~ L//I/F ~
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGIN~,k'IING DEVlSlON
ETEJ~RELEASE OF AGMT. & DEPOSIT
~ TRS. 11934, 12044-4~ _
~r~. VICINITY MAP
7/
CITY OF R_&NCH0 CUCANfONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20.1996
City Council and .Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Managgy
FROM:
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY:
Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer
SUBJECT:
ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFOR34ANCE
BOND_, ACCEPT A MAI'NTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR TFL~CT 13890, GENEFLL[,LY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BANYAN STKEET, EAST OF HAVEN
AVENUE
RECOMNIENDATION:
The required improvements for Tract 13890, have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it
is recommended that the Ci~' Council accept said improvements, authorize the Ciky Engineer to file
a Notice of Completion and authorize the CiF Clerk to release the Faithful Performance and accept
a Maintenance Bond.
BACKG ROUND/ANALYSIS:
As a condition of approval of completion of Tract 13890, generally located on the south side of
Banvan Street, east of Haven Avenue. The applicant ,.,.'as required to complete street improvements
for the tract. The applicant has submitted a Maintenance Guarantee Bond. Therefore, it is
recommended that City Council release the existing Faithful Perthfinance Bond and accept the
Nlaintenance Bond as follows:
Developer:
Greystone Homes, inc.
495 East Kincon. Ste. II 5
Corona, CA 91719
Release:
Accept:
Faithful Performance Bond: B95-013091 in the amount ofS455.210.00
Maintenance Bond: B95-013091 in the amount or'545.521.00
Respectf..~u%submirted.
Wi tliam ~f..(~5~
Citv Engineer
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF P,.-k.NCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFOFL\:IA, ACCEPTING THE
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TtL--XCT 13890, AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public impro;'ements for Tract 13890, have
been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
W"HEREAS, a notice of Completion is required to be filed, certitS,.'ing the
work complete.
NO~,V THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the v.'ork is hereby accepted and the
Cit2,.' Engineer is authorized to sign and file a notice of Completion with the Coun.ry Recorder
of San Bemardino Count,','.
C IYY OF RA_NCHO CUCA~MONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO: _
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 20, 1996
May_or and Members of the-_C. ity Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer
RE.U..EASE OF MAINTEN.Aa\'CE GUARANTEE BONDS: NO.9853255 IN' THE
.,,-LMOUNT OF S29.700; NO. 9853245 IN' THE AMOU,."NT OF S56,400; AND NO.
9853275 IN THE AMOU,.'NrT OF S19,000 FOR TRACT 13930, LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF HELLMAN, SOUTH OF 19TH STREET
RECO~.I~IENDATION
It is recommended that the CiD.' Council authorize the CiD,' Clerk to release Maintenance Guarantee
Bond Numbers 9853258, 9853248 and 985327 for Tract 13930, located on the `.vest side of Hellman,
south of t9th Street.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The required one-vear maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from
detects in materials and workmanship.
Release:
Y. Iaintenance Guarantee Bond
NIaintenance Guarantee Bond
Maintenance Guarantee Bond
Developer:
Hix Development
437 S. Cataract. Suite 3
San Dimas, CA 91773
Respectfull,.' submitted,
\\"illiam~~l
City Engineer
\VJO:LR.B:is
No. 9853258 S29,700
No. 9853248 S56.400
No. 9853278 S19.000
,r
DATE:
TO: _.
FRO:',,[:
BY:
SUBJ.ECT:
CITY OF Z,-L\'CHO CUC:-LMONGA
STAFF REPORT
November 20, 1996
,.kIay_or and 'Members of the Giiy Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil. City Engineer
Linda R. Beck, Jr. Engineer
RELEASE OF MAI'NTEN.-~"4CE GUAFLA, NTEE BONDS IN' THE AMOU~'TS OF
S25.400 AND S40.500 FOR TR. ACT 13945. LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHLAND
AND EAST OF EAST AVENUE
RECO~I,.MENDATION
k is recommended that the City Council authorize the CiD.' Clerk to release .Maintenance Guarantee
Bonds for Tract 13945, located south of Highland and east of East Aventte_
B AC KG RO UND/ANALYS IS
The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from
detects in materials and worl,amanship.
Release:
Maintenance Guarantee Bonds:
Developer:
Citation
l 5101 Redhill Avenue. Suite [ 00
Tustin. CA 92780
On-Site 525,400 Highland S40,500
Respectfull.,.' submitted,.
: /
\\'illjam"3:. O'Neii
City Engineer
\VJO:LP,_B:Is
CIYY OF Z-L\THO CUCA_MONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO: ._
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 20. 1996
May_or and Members of the CLty Council
Jack Lam, AICP. City Manager
William J. O'Neil, Citv Engineer
Linda R. Beck. Jr. Engineer
RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUAFLANTEE BOND NO.111-3313-6967 IN'
THE AMOU.'NT OF S45,980 FOR TFLACT 14121. LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHLAND AND M[LLiKEN
RECO~'I~IENDATION
It is recommended that the Cib' Council authorize the Ci~' Clerk to release Maintenance Guarantee
Bond Number 111-33t3-6967 for Tract 14121, located on the southwest comer of Highland and
.killliken.
BAC KG RO UND/ANA L YS IS
The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain flee from
defects in materials and v,'orkmanship.
Release:
Developer:
.',,laintenance Guarantee Bond I I 1-3313-6967
K. Hovanian
3991 McArthur Blvd.. Suite 300
Newport Beach. CA 92680
Respectfully submitted,
\",'ill' m J. O'NeiI ~a
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:ls
.--k~ac,~nents
'7ce
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA2vfONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20, 1996
Mayor and Members of the C4_w Council
Jack Larn, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
William J. O'Neil, City, Engineer
BY~
Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer
SUBJECT:
ACCg.PT THE NORTHEAST P.42,.K .&\rD EAST AVENUE STREET
IMPROVEMENTS, CONTFL-XCT NO. CO 96-01 I, AS COMPLETE, RELEASE
THE BONDS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGFNEER TO FILE A NOTICE
OF CONLPLETION .,-MNT) APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT
RECOMaMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept the Northeast Park and East Avenue Street
Improvements, Contract No. CO 96-01 I, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice
of Completion", release the Faitkful Performance and Maintenance Bonds 35 days after filing of
notice of completion and approve the final contract amount ors 1,271,658.40.
BAC KG RO UND/.-MN'ALYS I S
The subject project has been completed in accordance vdth the approved plans and specifications
and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final contract amount, based on project
documentation, is SI,271,658.40.
Respectfully submitted,
\ViiHam J. O'Nei[
Ci~' Engineer
WJO:LRB:Is
Attachment
k,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF R_ANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALff..=OP~N'IA, ACCEPTiiNrG THE
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR NORTHEAST PARK
AND EAST AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS,
CONTR_,kCY NO. 96-01 I, AND AUTHORIZFNG THE
FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE
WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Northeast Park and
East Avenue Street Improvements, Contract No. CO 96-011, have been completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a notice of Completion is required to be filed, certi~'ing the
work complete.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the work is hereby accepted and the
City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a notice of Completion with the Counv,.' Recorder
of San Bemardino County.
ORDINANCE NO. 561
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9,32 TO
TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO REC(~/ERY OF COSTS FOR SECOND
RESPONSES BY POLICE TO PARTIES AND OTHER
ASSEMBLAGES.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
Section 1.
A new Chapter 9.32 hereby is added to Title 9 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code, to read, in words and figures, as
follows:
CHAPTER 9.32
Recovery of Costs for Second Responses by
Assemblages.
9.32,010 Recovery of Costs Authorized.
9.32.020 Costs Constitute Debt.
Police to Parties and Other
(A)
(S)
9.32.01 0. Recovery of Costs Authorized.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the city shall be authorized
to recover its costs incurred when any members of its police (sheriff's)
department respond a second time within a twenty-four (24) consecutive
hour period to any party or other assemblage of persons within the city if:
The owner and/or other adult person in possession of the premises has,
at the time of the first response, been delivered a written notice as
hereinafter described or such written notice has been posted as
authorized herein; and
There is probable cause by police to believe that a violation of Penal
Code § 407, § 415 or § 416 has occurred on the premises any time after
first responding.
The written notice required to be provided shall state words to the effect that
a warning is hereby given that if police (sheriff) respond again within twenty-
four (24) hours thereafter, such second response may be deemed to be a
special security assignment over and above the law enforcement services
normally provided, and the owner and/or other adult person in possession
of the premises shall be liable for payment of all costs incurred by the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, including administrative costs and overhead. in
providing such law enforcement services.
Ordinance No. 561
Page 2
(c)
If no owner or adult person in charge of the premises can be located or
identified at the time of the first response, the written notice required heroin
may be posted in any visible outdoor location near any entrance to the
premises. In such event, the owner and any other adult person in
possession of the p_r-A_mises at the time of the response by police (sheriff')
may be held jointly liable for the costs of such second response, as provided
heroin.
9.32.020. Costs Constitute Debt.
The costs provided for herein shall be computed by city and shall be forwarded in
the form of an invoice to the owner and/or adult person in possession of the
prorinses at the time of the police responses, and shall constitute a debt
recoverable as a debt due and owing on a written contract. In the event city is
required to institute any legal proceeding to recover such costs. it shall be entitled
to additionally collect all costs, including a~orney's fees. incurred as a result thereof.
Section 2.
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 word thereof,
regardless of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,
sentences, clauses, phrases or words might subsequently be
declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted by subsequent
legislation.
Section 3.
The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause
the same to be published within fifteen 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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November. 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
William J. Alexander, Mayor
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT'r' OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AN
EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREE:MENT NO. 88-02 FOR ETIWANDA
HIGHLANDS
A. Recitals.
follows:
The California Government Code Section 65868. now provides. in pertinent part. as
A Development Agreement may be amended, or canceled in whole
or in part. by mutual consent of the panics to the agreement or their
successors in interest.
2. On January 7. 1989, the parties hereto entered into a Development Agreement
concerning a residential development. 'Etiwanda Highlands," (hereina~er referred to as "the
Agreement").
3. The original developer, Caryn Development Company. was succeeded by Standard
Pacific Corporation.
4. Standard Pacific Corporation has requested Amendment No. 1 to Development
Agreement No. 88-02. as described in the title of the Ordinance. Hereina~er, in this Ordinance,
the subject Amendment is referred Io as the "request."
5. On October 9, 1996. the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a fully noticed public hearing and recommended approval of this request.
8. On , the Cky Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a
duly noticed public hearing on the request.
7. All lecal prerequisites prior to the recordorion of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE. the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find.
determine, and ordain as follows:
1. This Council specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals. Pan A. of this
Ordinance oare true and correct.
2. Therefore. pursuant to Section 55868, of the California Government Code. the City
Council approves Amendemnt No. 1 of the De,.telopment Agreement 88-02 as attached here~o as
Exhibit '1 ."
3. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shaft 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.
RECORDING REQUESTED
CITY, OF RA~N'CHO CUCA,~.,10,NGA
~,%',HE~N RECORDED. RETUR~'q TO:
CITY OF .::~.ANCHO CUCAt,,1ONGA
10500 Civic Con:or Drive
Rancid Cuc..~monga. CA 91730
At, n: D~bbie Adarns
AM4E~"',/DMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 88-02
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
ENTERED INTO ON JANUARY 7, 1989 ENTERED INTO BY AND
BETVVEEN CARYN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND THE CITY OF
IRANCHO CUCAMONGA
A. Amendment.
1. Section 2.2, Term. is hereby amended to read as folbws:
2.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the
Effective Date and shall. unless sooner terminated or extended as
heroinafter provided, terminate on October 5. 2005.
Section 4.3. Design Review of Project. is hereby amended to read as follows:
4.3 Desion Reviev,, of Proiect. In order to implement the density,
allocation and height provisions heroin specified, Developer shall
follow the applicable design review procedures of the Ci~. In addition
to the design review procedures contained in the City Development
Code, the City's "Etiwanda North Specific Plan Design Guidelines"
shall be used in the design and review of all development within the
Properly.
3. Exhibit "D" is hereby deleted in its entirety.
4. Other than as specifically amended hereby. the Agreement and each and
every term and provision thereof. shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the pa~ies hereto have entered into this Amendment No. I to
this Agreement as of the dates set forth below opposite the name of each such pa~ty.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Dated:
By
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Dated:
By.
Debra J. Ariams, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
CITY OF RANCHd CUCAMONGA )
SS.
On , before me. Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, personally appeared W~lliam J. Alexander. Mayor, and Debra J.
Adams, City Clerk, personally known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed
to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their
authorized capacity. and that by their signatures on the instrument the persons. or the
entity upon behalf of which the persons acted. executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and officia[ seal.
Jan Sutton. Deputy City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION
By:
Date: Title:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
)
) SS.
On , before me. the undersigned. a Notary Pubtic
in and for said County and State, personally appeared and
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who executed this
instrument as of STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION and
acknowledged to me that such o~'~cer is authorized to execute on behalf of such
corporation.
WITNESS My hand and official seal.
ORDINANCENO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING INDUSTRIALAREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 95-05 REQUESTING TO AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT TO ADD WAREHOUSE-STYLE RETAIL
MERCHANDISING AS A USE-FOR 73 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED
NORTH OF FOURTH STREET, EAST OF MILLIKEN AVENUE. AND WEST
OF THE 1-15 FREEWAY IN SUBAREA 12, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-263-18 THROUGH 21,229-263-48
THROUGH 53. AND 229-341-13.
A. Recitals.
1. Mission Land and the City of Rancho Cucamonga have filed an application for Industrial
Area Specific Plan AF'nendment No. 95-05, a text change as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A."
and described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance. the subject Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On September 25, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution Number 96-58,
recommending to the City Council that Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-05 be
approvetit and on November 6, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public headng on the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. ORDINANCE.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A. sf this Ordinance are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented this Council dudng the above referenced
aublic hearing on November 6, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public
iestlmony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 73 acres of land, basically a stacked
rectangle configuration, located north of Fourth Street, south of the extension of Mission Park on
:he eastern portion and thence south of the extension of Mission Vista Dnve on the western pomon,
east of Milliken Avenue. and west of the I-15 Freeway and which is presently vacant. Said property
is currently designated as Industrial Park, Subarea 12 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. and
b. The property to the north of the western portion of the subject site is designated
as Industrial Park, Subarea 12 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and is developed with ofT'ice
and industrial buildings and vacant, and to the north of the eastern portion of the subject site is
designated General industrial, Subarea 11 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and is vacant: the
property to the west is designated as Mixed Use, Subarea 18 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
and is vacant; the property to the east is designated General Industrial, Subarea 14 of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan. and includes the I-15 Freeway and vacant land; and the property to the south
is ~esignated Regional Commercial, City of Ontario. and is developed.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ISPA 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
November 6.1995
Page 2
c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
and
This amendment does promo't~ the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element;
e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties: and
f. This amendment could have a significant impact on the environment; therefore,
an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared together with a Statement of Findings of Fact
in Support of Findings, for Significant Environmental Effects of the Project and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and has been certified as adequate consistent with provisions of
California Environmental Quality Act by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
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 subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment could have significant impacts on the environment;
however, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared together with mitigation measures
which will reduce most impacts to a level of less than significant. Certain impacts cannot be
mitigated to a level of less than significant; however, the benefits of the project outweigh the slight
impacts identified for the project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted
by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1.2, and 3 above, this
Council hereby approves Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 95-05, with text changes
as set forth in the attached "Exhibit "A."
SUBAREA 12
LAND USE DESIGNATION
Industrial Park
PRIMARY FUNCTION
i'his area will pr. ovide for a high qualit'/character to several en:,"/ways :a the CL"y. This area will also
provide an opponuni~ for tourist oriented uses such as hotels and motels which relate to the air:or't,
activities. The subarea is boated east af MiXliken. west of Devote Freeway. south of future alignment
of 5i:h Street. ~o 4t,h Street and extends along Milliken to 6th S~reet.
PERMITTED USES
Custom Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing
Administrative and Office
Professional/Design Services
Research Services
Ljght Wholesale. Storage and Distribution
Building Maintenance Services
Business Supply Retail & Services
Business Sueport Services
Communication Services
Ea~:ng and Drinking Establishments
Financial. Insurance. and Real Estate Services
Hote!lMoteI
Recreaticnal Facilities
Administrative Civic Services
Flocd Contml/Utifit`y Corridor
Automotive Rental
Medical/Health Care Services
Personal Services
Restaurants
Adult Enler:,ainment (')
· Adult Entertainment Zoning Permit required.
CONDITIONAL USES
Automotive Sales and Leasing
Automotive Service Station
Convenience Sales and Services
Entertainment
Fast Food Sales
EXHIBIT "A-I"
IV-74
,=cad and Severage Sales
Cutrural
Puofic Assembly
Public Safe~ and Utili~ Services
P, efigious Assembly
Convention Centers
Day Care Facilities
Schools
Res:aurant with Bar or Ente~ainment
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising
Subarea)
(See
Special
Considerations under
£XHIBiT "A-1"
IV-75
i '.. L.'X D USTRIAL AR'F,-t.' SPECI. F. tC ,
i SECTIOiVlV-'SPECt. t. ':-:./:
,.'. ?:L:!.-:';: .
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
PROPOSED :VEW TEXT
To preserve and enhance the image of the community, special
considera'don shall be given to the quality of site design.
architecture. and landscaping of all properties adjacent to the I-
15 Freeway. Attractive screening of outdoor work. loading,
storage areas, roof and ground mounted equipment from
significant freeway points of view shall be required.
As an extension of retail sales now permitted as an ancillary
use within a warehouse development, retail sales shall be
permitted as a primary use for Warehouse-Style Retail
Merchandise businesses within a Warehouse-Style Retail
Merchandise Center. Said Centers shall be located within
approximately 73 acres of land on the north side of Fourth
Street between Milliken Avenue and the 1-15 Freeway. A
Master Plan approved through the Conditional Use Permit
process shall be required for each Warehouse-Style Retail
Merchandising Center. In addition to all uses permitted, or
conditionally permitted in Subarea 12, retail uses shaft be
permitted or conditionally permitted, consistent with the
General Commercial Uses within the General Commercial
District of the Development Code, Section 17.10.030, and
which are incorporated into the Industrial Area Specific Plan
by reference. In the event of a conflict between whether a
use is permitted or conditionally permitted, the Industrial
Park requirement applies. However, added retail uses must
offer Warehouse-Style Merchandising as defined and
incorporated into each Center's Master Plan. Further, a
distinctive Warehouse Style-Retail Merchandising design
vocabulary shall be developed for Fourth Street between
Milliken and the 1-15 Freeway and incorporated into each
Center's Master Plan. Compatibility with adjacent existing
and intended Industrial Park and General Industrial
Development shall be demonstrated through site planning,
building design, and landscaping and incorporated into the
Master Plan for each Center.
EXHIBIT "A-2"
IV-77 ~ig
Area S.,neci/Fc
Parr ill. Sec. :'
r
USE TYPES
AC~.: E.',:er, ammen(
A;::c;::ural/Nursery Supplies & Services
An:real Ca:e
Au::.--.:::ve F;eel Storage
A;::m::i,~e Rental
Au::m::;velLi;rt[ i'n,;CX Repair -
A:::...--.o:we/Truck Re;;mair - Major
,A~:z,.--.m~e Sales ancl Leasing
IA'.:,'m:::ve Service Cour~
::,.::n-c::ve Serv,ce
i_
=u;;c;n; Ccn:rac:crs Office &
Suzc:ng C:ntracors Slotage Yarcl
5u,cmg Maintenance Services
5":iCin~ & LicJn~ E=uiomenl Su='~tjes & Sales
5:.smess S,'pply Retail & Serv,ces
Bus:hess Su=Oar~ Services
Z:..'...~.umcs:ion Services
Cc,-.ven,ence Sa~es & Services
E.t:~.~,aanr~eri[
Ex:enszve h.'nDaC: Commerc:al
.-'as: .:==C Sales
::nan: al. Insurance & Real
='-:: & qeverage Sales Es:a~e Services
!F- r...=l -'. C:ematcrt Serv,ces
i-e=vv E":.:~.-'men: Sales .l.
~:'~::.' ';,rhciesaietRe:ad Commer-.,al
La'.~Z'y Serv,ces
v~e:..ta'.)-'-,_a!1.'l Care Servtces
"e~:: e::m P;:c:u.--.s S:orage
:,e::?~::cn .:ar-dztles
'~es:.:.rantS w;:.'. 5at :r Ente?.a:nment
FS:e-_:--:;/B..~,;Clng Su:;l~es & Hs,.-e !.reprovemen:
..~ i vvaren:use-Srvle Retail Merc,han~isinq
';C'~S
'~ - in:us:hal
.'~0 · .-!.aven Avenue Overlay
S; - General lnCus:ri:al
%IL HI · Mmzmu,.--, I~,~a~ Heavy InCus:rial
hi - Heavy InCus:rtal
'.IU, CS -;.IlxeC Use/Open Space
TABLE Ill-1 (Continued)
tcccl
Ic c! c
plc .=1 1
I
cic
Pip
I
P
iAIAIA
IC
C
P
IIII
'=iC CI I P
P P tP[P '=
c'tclcl.=l~,
I i i
c'l I Ic
'c-tcIclc
I I
tc c Ic
C'IC
I
c c Ic
P
I
C[C
ic C
C ~C
lcl
P)
;:' [P P
P P P
iC
C C'C C
P P~
P~P P
.= !~c
C
C
C
P
C
C
P
P
P
C
P
A tAIAIAJA
i~l.=l
'= ICtCl I
I.=
C
C C C C
JP ;:, p P
I ;:' P'P P
p tc p !c tc
I P PiP .=
clcl
clc
Iclc
C C
C P C C
C C
C C C C
C C C C
; P P P
IC
Iclc
Ic Ic .=
lice
I I c
A AI
C
P
P
C CI
t
C
Pl
P
P
P
C
C
C
C
P
C
C
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
I T.'G .3 an ez:eC:/r'Jm t,~e IBcus:."?al Area SDec:t~c .;/an (!SP). rotease refer [0 Table 111-2 of the ISP lot a c:.~;,'e:e Cesc~;trCn of the
~ ze':,,:'s~s. If you nee~ ~e!D tn cefe.~ning :,~e lan~ use :y:~ :./a ~us hess 31eBse con:act :~e Ptanntng Oivrx;Cn at (~09) 477.2750.
EXHIBIT "A-3" ill-4
- Pe..'m.,,-::e,j Use ·
- Ccncrticnally Pemn~r,e,~, Use
· Ncn-martce,j Uses no( =errn~eC
- Adult En:e.'l, ainrnenl Z: mlng Perre,: R'.CuzreC
- Re.~er ',o Haven Avenue Overlay Dis:rue: !:r aCdi:icnal restrio:one
- Refer to Su~rea 12 Special Considerations for additional restrictions 4(
L ' CD US TR. ZAL AR. EA SPECIFIC PLAN NO, 95-05
PROPOSED zVElY TEXT
CommercSal Use Tvzes
Soeciaitv Ruildina Supplies and Home Improvements: Activities
typically include, bu~ are not limited to: retail and wholesale sales
and installation of specialty items, such as paint;
wall/floor/window coverings; doors and windows; building
materials; hardware. plumbing and electrical supplies; bath and
kitchen fixtures and supplies; lighting; swimming pools and
supplies: and garden furnishings, materials and supplies.
Activities shall be conducted in enclosed buildings of 25,000
square feet or less. Uses excluded from this categorl are
general merchandise stores.
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandisincl Business: Within an
approved Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center this
category adds to the retail uses already permitted for the
Subarea in which the Center is situated. Retail uses shall
be added which are consistent with General Commercial
Uses within the General Commercial District of the
Development Code (Section 17.10.030) and which are
incorporated herein by reference. In the event of a conflict
between whether a use is permitted or conditionally
pertained, the Subarea requirement applies. Light
Wholesale, Storage & Distribution is already a permR-ted
use. The intent is to emphasize and expand retail use in
conjunction with warehouse use in Subarea 12 which is
transitional between industrial and retail commercial land
use areas.
EXHIBIT "A-4"
L
DATE:
TO:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~MONGA
STAFF REPORT
November 20, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manag'~r
FROM:
Brad Buller, City Planner
BY:
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECTS:
Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation EIR o
Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC
Envir~hmental Assessment and General Specific Plan Amendment 95-03A -
Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC
Environmental Assessment and Development District Amendment 95-02 -
Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC
Environmental Assessment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04-
Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC
Environmental Assessment and Tentative Tract Map 15727 -
Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC
(Full titles shown in Exhibit "A")
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission. at its meeting on October 9, 1996, recommended certification of the
subject EIR, adoption of the associated Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation
Monitoring Program; approval of the subject General Plan, Development District. and Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendments and Tentative Tract Map 15727. Approval of these items by the
City Council would permit the development of a 342-unit single family residential project within the
area currently designated as Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The detailed analysis of each application and their issues are contained in the attached Planning
Commission reports dated October 9, 1996. The findings and conclusions are contained in the
resolutions as adopted by the Planning Commission and included in the attached City Council
Resolutions and Ordinances.
As a result of the Planning Commission hearings and follow-up information, the following
changes/amendments should be noted:
The Cucamonga School District raised school impaction concerns at the meeting on
October 9, 1996. As a result, the District requested, and the applicant agreed to. a
condition to enter into a mitigation agreement for school impacts prior to issuance of
building permits. This provision has been included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
and as a condition of the Tentative Tract approval. It is expected that the applicant will be
able to provide an update on the status of the agreement process at the Council meeting.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
EIR, GPA 95-03A, DDA 95-02,/SPA 95-04 & TT 15727
November 20, 1996
Page 2
Changes requested by the applicant to several of the tract map conditions have been
incorporated in the final resolutions, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
FACTS FOR FINDING
The Facts for Findings are contained in the attached Planning Commission Reports and in the City
Council Resolutions/Ordinances for each item.
CORRESPONDENCE
The following additional correspondence has been received since the Planning Commission action:
1. City of Ontario dated October 31, 1996, regarding the listing of projects that may affect the
cumulative impacts. The project mentioned in the letter should not significantly affect them.
ACTION
If the City Council concurs with the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission, it would
be appropriate to affirm the recommendations .by adoption of the attached Resolutions and
Ordinances.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:AW/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Complete Project Descriptions
Exhibit "B" - Environmental Appendix
Exhibit "C" - Land Use Appendix
Exhibit "D" - Tentative Tract Appendix
Exhibit "E" - Public Testimony Appendix
Resolution Certifying the EIR
Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment 95-03A
Ordinance Approving Development District Amendment 95-02
Ordinance Approving Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 95-04
Resolution Approving Tentative Tract Map 15727
Complete Project Descriptions
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 18 REDESIGNATION ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR'~ - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A public hearing on a draft Final
EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment
95-04. Development District Amendment 95-02, and Tentative Tract 15727 to authorize the
development of 351 single family dwelling units and a neighborhood park by the reclassi~cation of
approximately 82 acres from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per
acre), and the consideration by the City of alternative land use and zoning designations of Office,
Commercial, Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) for the remaining 60 acres of land within the area bounded by Sixth Street
on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and
the Cucamonga Creek on the west. APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 08, 10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 28,
31, 32, 33, 34, and 39.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95o03A - CUCAMONGA
CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use designation from
Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 77 acres of land at the
intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth
Street on the north, and the City will also consider an alternative designation of Low Residential
(2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210o062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Park designation to
alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald
Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
on the west as follows:
For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and
Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel the City will consider Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05,
06, and 39.
For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue
on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will consider Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre), Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial,
Neighborhood Commercial, and Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08.10, 11,
13, 28, 31, and 34.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC ~ A request to remove 82 acres of land at the
intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth
Street on the north, from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land to
Development Code Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11.
13.17, 18.19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Subarea
16 to alternative land uses and amending development standards for the remaining land bounded
Exhibit "A"
Complete Project Descriptions
by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east. Fourth Street on the south, and
Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
Removing approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street
and Hellman Avenue and bordered-e~ the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land to
Development Code Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06,
and 39.
Removing approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald
Avenue on the east and Fourth Street on the south from the Industrial Area Specific Plan
for the purpose of considering Development Code Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre), Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood
Commercial, and Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31,
and :34.
Consider changing the development standards and land use activities for Subarea 16 of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02 -
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the Development District Map
designation from Industrial Area Specific Plan to Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per
acre) for 82 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood
Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, and the City will also consider an alternative
designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19.
28, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan
designation to alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north,
Archibald Avenue on the east. Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the
Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street and
Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel the City will consider Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06,
and 39.
For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north. Archibald Avenue
on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will consider Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre), Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial,
Neighborhood Commercial and Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11.
13, 28, 31, and 34.
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the above described projects.
Complete Project Descriptions
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 CUCAMONGA
CORNERPOINTE LLC - A total residential development of 342 single family lots and a 5 acre
neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres of land to be rezoned to the Low-Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), located at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek
Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18,
19, 26, 32, and 33.
3
ENVIRONMENTAL APPENDIX
Planning Commission
(Exhibit "B-1 ")
Staff Report,
October 9,
1996
Planning Commission
(Exhibit "B-2")
Resolution No.
96-63
Exhibit "B"
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAzMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 9, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Alan Warren. AICP, Associate Planner
INDUSTR',AL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
LLC - A public hearing on a draft Final EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment
95-03A, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04. Development District
Amendment 95-02, and Tentative Tract 15727 to authorize the development of 351
single family dwelling units and a neighborhood park by the reclassi~cation of
approximately 82 acres from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), and the consideration by the City of alternative land use
and zoning designations of Office, Commercial, Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for the
remaining 60 acres of land within the area bounded by Sixth Street on the north,
Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and
the Cucamonga Creek on the west. APN: 210-062-02.05.06, 08, 10.11.13.17,
18.19.26., 28, 31, 32, 33.34. and 39.
ABSTRACT/INTRODUCTION: Upon submittal of General Plan Amendment 95-03A, City staff
determined that a focused environmental impact report, in conformance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), would be needed to address the anticipated impacts of the
proposal. The draft Final Environmental Impact Report (FEtR), including responses to comments.
has been completed. The purpose of this hearing is to review the report, public comments, and
responses to comments concerning the adequacy of the FEIR. After receipt of public testimony
and Planning Commission discussion, staff recommends that the Commission consider
recommending certification of the EIR to the City Council. If issues are raised that the Commission
believes require responses not immediately available during the meeting, staff recommends that
the item be continued in order to complete any responses or revisions.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Notice of Preoaration (NOP) circulated: On November 2, 1995, a notice of preparation of a
Draft EIR for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and Tentative Tract (TT) 15727 was
circulated. In that notice, the project area was defined as being within Subarea 16 of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan. This area is larger than that of the proposed tract and
neighborhood park because of the City's decision to study the proposal within the context of
Exhibit "B-I" d9 7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
the larger 142-acre subarea. The EIR content was designed to be a planning tool to help
determine appropriate land use arrangements for the enlarged study area. This decision
resulted in an EIR that addresses impacts from the following perspectives:
1. The specific residential development proposal of 351 units (now 342) and its
relationship to the remaining land within the subarea and surrounding neighborhood.
2. The most intensive or "worst case" scenarios for each type of land use were
considered. This aspect of the EIR reviewed various land use alternatives for the
specific project as well as the remnant subarea portions not part of the tract application.
These alternatives were included to provide the Planning Commission and City Council
with a boa~ range of alternative land use relationships upon which to determine the
most beneficial plan for the area.
Draft FEIR circulated: The Notice of Completion (NOC) of the draft EIR was forwarded to the
State Clearinghouse on July 17, 1996. The 45-day comment period ended on August 30,
1996, with the City accepting comments received up until September 3, 1996, because of the
Friday weekend and Labor Day office closings. The NOC was posted on the property on July
15, 1996, and copies of the draft EIR were mailed to those responsible agencies that
requested copies. The NOC was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on July 18,
1996.
Correspondence: Nine letters were received. The letters and the responses are attached
under Correspondence/Response to Comments. This material will be added to the draft
to form the Final EIR when certified by the City Council.
Response to Comments: Generally. the changes are technical, reflecting comments from
responsible agencies. The responses describe the disposition of significant environmental
issues raised. They include revisions that can be made to the proposed project to mitigate
anticipated impacts or objections. Also. detailed rationale is provided explaining why
comments were not incorporated if the City does not agree with the recommendations and/or
objections raised in the comments. The most significant disagreement is with the State
Department of Conservation's assertion that the site is a designated deposit of aggregate
resources and, therefore, potentially affected by resource protection requirements. Staff is
following up on this issue as it can potentially affect a significant aspect of developing portions
of the City. In short, staff believes the basis for the State's comments is in error.
SummaN of Sianificant Impacts: The FEIR has been prepared according to CEQA and State
guidelines and staff supports the adequacy of the document. The document's primary thrust
is the evaluation of the "worst case" buildout potential for 92 acres of Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) with the remaining 46 acres being Industrial Park land. The
'worst case" accounts for the largest residential unit count (659) allowed for under the density
range. The EIR, as required, addresses project impacts on the site in its present
undeveloped condition. The document also moderates the severity of impacts (air quality,
traffic, etc.) by its acknowledgment of the sito's approved industrial land use and anticipated
impacts. This approach provides discussion for "no build" and "currently permitted buildout"
scenarios under the "No Project" alternative (please refer to the EIR, page 8-1).
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9.1996
Page 3
At the beginning of the Executive Summary, the potentially significant impacts, recommended
mitigation measures, and the potential for unavoidable adverse impacts are listed. Of the
environmental impacts identified, many can be mitigated to a level of not significant. Other
items have been mitigated to the maxim~_um extent feasible, but still have not been mitigated
to a level of below significance. The FEIR identifies four impacts that would not be reduced
to a level less than significant after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, they
are as follows:
Traffic/Circulation - Each development within the total project area (TT 15727 and
adjacent properties) will be required to mitigate all on-site traffic and specified off-site
impacts through installation of frontage improvements consistent with the City of
Rancho C._ucamonga General Plan's Circulation Element, as well as contribute to the
City's Transportation Development Nexus Fee program for off-site impacts. The
proposed roadway improvements should improve the areas of significant traffic impacts.
However, there may be insufficient right-of-way available, or feasible to obtain, to
accommodate proposed improvements. Therefore, the traffic impacts should be
considered significant and potentially unavoidable.
The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's EIRJMaster Environmental Assessment (1988)
identified City-wide traffic as a significant cumulative impact, but not adverse if freeway
facilities are expanded.
Air Quality - Long term air quality impacts, the daily emission rate under a worst-case
buildout scenario would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District°s
(SCAQMD) thresholds of significance. The proposed land use change, however, is
considered to be consistent with the 1994 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in that
it would generate fewer daily emissions than a buildout under the subarea's current
designation. After implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the long-
term impacts generated by development of the subarea are considered less than
significant. The cumulatively significant carbon monoxide (CO) hot spot concentrations
that exceed state standards (as shown in EIR Table 5.3-6) will persist if roadway
improvements cannot be made to improve intersection levels of service. As it has been
noted that some improvements may not be feasible, both the subarea's potential
buildout and 'l'F 15727's contribution to this cumulative impact is considered potentially
significant and unavoidable.
In comparison, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's EIRJMaster Environmental
Assessment (1988) identified air quality as a significant unavoidable impact from
development of the City.
Noise - Development of the subarea with the proposed residential, park, and industrial
uses would create potentially significant but mitigable impacts on existing, surrounding
residences in the short term. To mitigate the ambient noise levels for properties off
Fourth Street, it would require sound barriers (16 feet in height) that would not be
aesthetically acceptable. Therefore, it may not be feasible to fully mitigate anticipated
noise impact without considering the elimination of lots along Fourth Street or requiring
alternative non-sensitive land uses along Fourth Street. These two solutions would
constitute a major redesign and as such, be beyond typical project mitigation. As a
result. without project redesign, the ambient noise impact on future residents is
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 4
considered potentially significant and unavoidable. Subsequent project-specific noise
analysis may indicate less noise attenuation is needed when the actual residential tract
design and house configurations are included.
The Rancho Cucamonga General ~P"lan's EIP-JMaster Environmental Assessment (1988)
identified noise as a cumulative adverse impact that will increase proportionally but not
exceed levels typical in other Southern California communities.
Solid Waste - Development of Subarea 16, and the residential tract in particular, would
result in a significant increase in solid waste generation when compared with the
existing conditions. With the possible closing of solid waste landfills in San Bernardino
County, Iogg-term solid waste capacity is a serious issue because of the lack of feasible
landfill sites in the area. While the implementation of recommended mitigation
measures will reduce the project's impact, because there is no known solution to the
landfill shortage at this time, this project's impacts are expected to remain cumulatively
significant and unavoidable at a project development level.
Impacts that can be mitigated below a level of significance include:
Land Use o The land use relationships that will result from the proposed development
are the primary issues of the General Plan Amendment. It was for this reason that the
amendment application area was expanded to included the entire subarea and the EIR
alternatives included possible alternatives for the adjacent properties. Very early in the
study, staff recognized that inherent incompatibilities between the resident component
and the remaining industrial component would probably be a determining factor in the
general plan amendment decision. From this perspective, the EIR consultant used the
development standards to lessen the degree of incompatibility.
Police Protection - Development of the subarea as proposed would place additional
demands on the City-wide law enforcement services. The impact on police services
could be cumulatively significant. By implementation of design features to reduce the
potential for crime activities, impacts will be kept less than significant.
Fire Protection - Development of the subarea, as proposed, woutd result in considerable
increases in the demands for various fire protection services currently provided by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The costs to relocate a fire station to
meet the demand would not be adequately generated through standard property taxes
and, therefore, the impact to fire protection services are potentially significant.
Annexation into Mello-Roos District 85-1 to assist in the funding for facility relocation
should reduce the financial impacts to less than significant.
Schools - Development of the residential portions of the subarea would result in the
generation of approximately 648 new students to the elementary and high school
districts in the area. Both of the school districts administering the area schools have
indicated that the existing enrollment levels are at or near maximum capacity.
Therefore, the impact to schools is considered potentially significant. The impact will
be reduced to less than significant by requiring the residential development to
/OO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR o CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 5
participate in the high school district's Community Facilities Assessment District as well
as pay the elementary school district's property tax increment through existing impact
reduction measures.
5. Water Supply - Development of the subarea, as proposed, would result in an inevitable
and partially unanticipated water demand increase which apparently can be
accommodated by the Water District. To accommodate that demand, however, would
generate a significant impact on existing water distribution facilities. With the
construction of a 12-inch water main on Fourth Street with development and
establishment of a refund agreement (with the Water District) for future development,
as mitigation measures, the impact would be less than significant.
6. Storm Drainaae - The proposed project would inevitably increase stormwater runoff that
would be generated on site and collected by the area's drainage channels. The
increased human activity on site would also significantly increase potential stormwater
pollution when compared to existing conditions. With the implementation of flood
control measures (Master Drainage Plan revision and Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan) and construction of stormwater facilities, the impacts can be mitigated to less than
significant levels.
Cultural Resources o Development of the subarea may ultimately affect the historic
Lucas Ranch Complex, a potential local landmark and National Register eligible
property. The ranch is not on the land proposed for 'IF 15727, but within Subarea 16,
and, as such, is part of the overall project consideration. The City's Historic
Preservation Ordinance would be utilized when development is proposed to officially
consider its designation as a landmark. In addition, as a mitigation measure, it is
recommended that all new development within the subarea should incorporate historic
themes. With these measures, the impacts would be less than significant.
F4
Unavoidable Imaacts - The City must balance the benefits of the proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits
outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, these effects may be considered "acceptable."
The California Environmental Quality Act requires the City to adopt a statement of its views
that the significant unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable due to overriding concerns.
This Statement is included in the project's Resolution of Approval.
Non Environmental Issues - At staffs direction, a separate Fiscal Impact Analysis was
included in conjunction with the EIR. Review of fiscal issues is not required by CEQA, and
as a result, the study is not addressed in the environmental analysis, but provided as an
independent study. which can be found in Appendix "H" of the E1R. The results of the study
will be discussed in the General Plan Amendment report.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM: State law requires the City to adopt a monitoring
program for the changes to the project that are required or mitigation measures that are adopted.
Essentially this is a reporting program designed to ensure compliance during project
implementation. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is contained .in Table 11-1 of the FEIR
and will be considered by the City Council as part of the project approval findings. If alternatives
ta the project are adopted, the mitigation measures may be modified in response to changes in the
potential impacts.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 6
The MMP identifies each adopted measure or required change in the project design that mitigates
or avoids significant environmental effects. The MMP establishes a reporting format and is
intended to provide a means for decision makers to gauge the effectiveness of mitigation
measures.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution, thereby recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:AW/jfs
Attachments:
Draft Environmental Impact Report (previously transmitted)
Correspondence/Response to Comments
Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Resolution Recommending Approval of the Final Environmental Impact Report
!2.0 .'R,Z_~?ONS:_ TO CO.',.LM_:XTS OX THE DR..L-'T '::R
12.0 KHSFO.',;SE TO CO~L%[EN'TS O.N THE DR_--Lr"T FEfX
12.1 Nodcing and Availabi![t)' of Draft EIR
E'~e Draft ELR (DEIR) for C'~e Ra,~d".o Cuc~.~.monFa Lqdus~ial Area 5Dec,:flc P!a~ Subarea
Redesigr~a~on wa.s Drem~-ed by ~ne Chv of R~nd~o Cuc~,en~ P[L~g DeDar~en~
assistance of Ln~com CocoraYon. L~e ~ PIL~g DepL-~en~ (lead agent/) fo~var~ed
copies of the DE~ as weU as a "Nonce of Combfelon of Ln [nvL-ommen~ Doe. end" fo~ ~o ~he
State Cle~nghouse Ln 5acr~Lnto. The 5ta~e C[eLi~ghouse ad~owIedged receip~ of the DEIR
and estab~hed a 45-day DubEc review De~od for One reDo~ be~g ]~y 17, lgg6 ~d
Au~t 30, 1~96. This pubic review period w~ subseauLn~v extended ~o ~Deember 3,
became ~ne~o Cu~monp Ci~ Hall was dosed m Friday, Aunt 31, t996 and Monda7,
~Dtember 2, 1996 ~abor Day). The m~uose of ~e mubUc review me~od ~ to provide ~terested
mubEc agerides, ~oups, ~,d Lndividua[5 ~e oF?o~i~[ ~o commit on ~e contanS
compIetLness of ~ne DEaR and m sub~t ~es~onv on the possible env~o~en~ effects of the
proposed project. ~
12.2 Receipt of Com,menLs
5ec~on 15088(a) of ~e Calfiomia LnvL-orumental Quality Act (CEQA) GuideEnos provides
any person or ent/ty to sub_re. it co~,enr. s to a lead ag-_nc[ conce..'-j~ng any ~_nviron.~me_ntaJ effects of a
proiect beanE considered by the lead ag~_".cy. Ln ad~rion, the CEQA Gu. ideLLnes require that the
lead agency evaluate com&-~ents on the environ.m~n~al ~sues received L-ore =,e.,'sop~ who reviewed
the DEIIR and prepare w.fitten responses.
According to Sec~on 15088C0) of Line CEQA Guidem'.es, the :soap. sos to comm_,L~ts must desc.~be
Line :iSDOSiPion Of si~'nificant e_nviron_mentaJ issues raised. If Lhe .lead agLncy. deternnines that
dnanges to the DELR are w~'-:.anted, revisions c~n be made to ~-~e proposed project to mitigate
anticipated L'nDacts or objec~op.s. Addi~onal!y, C-re re:soonses must provide detailed rationa'.e
as to why co_,z'~',en~ were not LncorDorated Lf the lead ag~_".o.' Ls at ratio.nee with the
:eco~_-ne_ndador,.s and/or obj_ecdons :iced Ln ~ne co='_-'._,~.t.s. Ln either case, Lhe C!_QA GuideL-.es
:ecui.-e good faith, reasoned az~ajvsLs ;_~ responses.
12.3 Li~t of Coma:nentors
LinE the 45-day ~ubLic review pe.fiod, a total of :';_ne orga.:Lza--:ons/person_s provided wri.':.en
co='_m_~.~ on Lhe DE_r-< to One Ci~:' F'[an,ni".S
Date
A. J~y 26, !996
g. I~7 29, 1995
C. Aug, '_st 2,5, 1996
D. Augus~ 23, 1996
r. August 29, 1996
F. Au~_'s: 29, 1996
Aug-~s: 23, !996
OrganizationJ?erson
Southe.m CaUjomia Regional Rag
Authority
Cuca.monga Count',' Water Dis~ic:
Ciw of O'P. ta:!o
Demar,.~_.ent
ChLno Bashn Municipal Water
District
ia..<e Fa.[!er Associates
Cha~ffey Coru-'n,"'-i~es
Center
Carta
Signatory. Pa=,e
Ron Y, la?h2eu, Manager, !2-3
PubLic Projects
Ja.mes H. CtLne, Jr., DL-ector of 17:-,~
Lng~r,~.!ng and L-.sDec-~on
]L'T.. Ragsdale, P.-inci2a! Pla.n. ner 12-24
Gar7 E. Hackney, Manager of !2-33
Iake FaHer i2-35
Max A. van Balgcoy, Presldent 12-47
Caria FLoranee !2-49
CUCAMONGA iNDUSTRiAL ARE.-.'. SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA i-~ R-EDE-=!GNAT[ON E[R
!2-i
!2.0 .~d_=?OXSr TO COM.~.!-'X'.:50X THE D.~{FT IL~
Date
Augus~ 30, 1996
Organiza~ioaBF. erson
Govemor's Of~ce of Fla:::_-.g ~'~d
Research
[. August 26, 1996
12.4 Comunen~s and Response~ to Cotnment~
Signator,' ..Page
.~n~e:o A. ~livasFiata, Chief, i2-52
5ta:e C!ea:L"~g~,ouse
Jason R..%farshai!, .-x. ssistartt 12-55
Director
Provided on the following pages are copies of the ccmm~mt letters received duzing [,he publ/c
review memiod and the responses to eadn con-uT, enL P:ovided below is a list of the DELR pages
that have ~ a2r, e.nded Ln resDor,.se to the various conn~me~.~ subm_;tted cn the DEIR during the
public review period.
Page 1-I0 (Table 1-1, ,.X,f. it'igat/on Measure `%!)
Page 1-!0"(Table 1-t, ,.x,[.;~ga~on Measure W-l)
Page 2-3 (Fig~_,re 2-2)
Page 4-2 (Figure 4-!)
Page 4-5 Gable 4-1)
Page 5.1-9 (last sentence oi second pa, ragraph)
Page 5.1-17 (third paragraph)
Page 5.!-19 (first sentence of 5ec~on 5.1.4)
Page 5.5-2 (first sentence oi fL:-th paragraph)
Page 5.7-2 (Figure 5.7-1)
Page 5.74 Gable 5.7-!)
.Page 5.7-5 (,'vS~ga~on Measu.re
Page 5.S-! (second sentence and thL-d buLleted item)
Page 5.8-2 (Fig.are 5.S-!)
Page 5.S-3 (first ~-,'o sentences of Section 5.3.4)
Page 5.3-4 Gable 5.S-!)
Page 5.S-5 (~L~ga,~ion ~'feasure ~,V-1)
Page 5.9-1 (/i:'tin sentence and second buJU~eted item)
Page 5.9-2 (Figure 5.9-1)
Page 5.9-3 (f-L-st two sen',ences of 5ec~on 5.9.4)
Page 5.94 CTab[e 5.9-!)
Page 5.!0-2 (first tkree sent~_nces of Sect/on 5.10.4)
Page 5.10-3 (Table 5.10-1)
Pages S-3 and 8-4. CTab[e 8-!)
Page 1!-5 (/able 11-!, ~ffiga~on Measure ~!)
Page 11-9 CTab[e !i-1, .X,5~gation Measure W-!)
Du.'i'~g the .Dre.vara~on of ~.is Resmonse to Co~z.~..'~ ticcuLvert, the City of Rancho Cucaznonga
PlazL'~Lng Deva~:~ent requested Lhat Mi~ga~on Meas~-e `%t oi One DEER'be amended be:ause, as
current!v worded, it may be Lnte:-oreted that each deve!ovL-tent cn the proiect site wil! pay
vroDer~v tax LncreEnent directly to the Cuca.n'~onga 5dneo[ District (CSD). 'Fnerefore, ~f/tigat!en
:,,leasure ,%! on pages 1-!0, 5.7-5, and !!-3 oi the DE~ Ls hereby an'~ended to read as follows:
"[5-1] Eac2'~ resEdentia[ develoomen~ wkhL~ Subarea 16 shah be condi~oned to
par:icipate in the CJTjfH'D's Cr'D No. 2 as well as pay CfD's vrove."vz tax
Lncrement Lhrou.~h =x/sing LL"'~DaCt reduc~oa measures."
RAXCHO CUCAMOXGA IXDUSTR[.-'.L AREA 5PEC[FiC PLAN
SUBAREA
!2-2
METROL]NK
jul:,' 26, l~
En,/icsm C3_-7_.orazion
A~cura Hills, CA 91301
Hear ~-Zs. =ern~ei::
File
?JliCHO CUC;_.MOSGA Z-N=3USC'RZ-'-", .'-2. HA S_=ECZFZC
SUBSlEA !6 .=,EDESiGN'ATiO}~ EiR
Please reference your ..,.,..--.._ _ En-.;irDnmenaa~ im. zacz Re-_or~ of
_ ~= - =m - _ (DEiR)
ju!v 1996 for Eb.e above subicon.
As a ma.'_~er cf inform~a.nicn, The Ssunb. ern California Regional Rail
Au~:ncri.z:,- (SCR.=~) is a five (5) Coun=-v join=_ Pswers Agency fDrm....ed
l~ manage Li-.e ~lannin~, design, c~nsLFzc~ion, operaLion and
r. ain.~enance cf che METROLZ~iK csmmu.-=- -=~] s';s~em. One of SC.=2~.'S
.'..e.-.-~er agencies, San 3ernardino Asszciazed Governmen.is (S~_~AG),
..... ~ .-he righz-of-wav and zracks ~ETF. OLi~i< c.=erazes c~;er wizkin
San Bernar~ino Ccun.~'/. SCP3~. manages dav F_.o dav ma-
arise frca ihe c=era.-_ion and mainnenance cf ~he ~-'TROLi~FK S'/snem
st. beka!f cf Sn--N'3AG.
:';e kave revie'.,;ed ~he E. EZR and ka-./e Eke fc!!ewin= csmmenls :o make:
Hellman Ave.-.ue is a norzh-scu=_h seccnda:~/ ar.~eria!
s .... .- cr3ssinc zl-.e c~-~m~ -=~-cad righ~ of wav and
This grade crossing was re~ui!!
c:,'e~=~] =~rsa~ i ...... .,emen: project.
e~zi~ped wiik fiaskinE/igkus, ~eils and ~ales; bun is
nc~ e~d.~ ~-=~ wilb. raised median islands due ~o ins
reslric=ive cecme~/ ar.~
Hellman Avenue crossinc cf zhe METROLi3FX Railread w:~
see an increase in use : = ~ke sr.sscsed Cucar. s:.~=
'Csrne~oin~e residen~ia!
C9~.F? EiR does not address issues associ=~=~ wink
-~en~ia! zr~ffic denslav increases az line He!it. an
l'zenue g-=~= ~-cssin~. We ~=~ :~';e zkaz furzker anai'/sis
cf iraf rio ckanges an zke .XETRCLi}iK Railroad crcssing
r. usz ~e i ....... razed in lka Final E!l as a funszisn cf
~'zblis safely. it. zke ful'zr~, we ~eiieve nkaz a zraffis
A
2 . ~lease cot .... .=k=, iden:ifica:ion of .-~= .~=,-=~r.rvK
-=.aiiroad cn Figur== ?-?; 4~!; and 5.7-i. These graphics
dezic= the rai!rcad as 'r. eicnging ~J .:he Amchison,
TcDeka and San.:a --'e .Railrcad (ATS.-'), ~he former
T~= co ..... ncmenc:=.- .... ;s ':,!ETF. OL!N.K FJ._-L.=.O~._D.,
ycu ha','=_ any c=es.:icns, pl==== call Byrcn Nor=~ .... .= my s:aff
(2!3) 244-70D9 ' -
- j
'-. :jcrdioerg - SCP3C-.
Alan :-/arr=,n
Associate Planner
Cinv of Rancko Cuca:..cnca
!'D-=O0 Civic C-:n:er Drive
?.ancko Cucamonga, C_'-. 91730
P-'.~.C SC.=3~. C=,n=_ral Tissu=,
ZZ.,D R.E570.',,'5:_ TO CO:.C.',.,.-'.x,'T~ 0.",' THE DR_-'.F?
RESPONSE TO CO.M.MENTS
Ron Mathieu, Southern Califomia Regional Rail Au~'nod:v (dated July 25, 1996):
A1
Tine ~ird paragraph cn page 5.2-16 of fi,.e DE~. provides a.n a.nal:,'sis of the mroject's
potenhdal traffic/safer, h'npacts ~ the He~.an Ave.hue ~ossLng of the N[ETt~OLLN'K
Railroad (just norLh of $Li~ Street). The DEIR's traffic/cizcula.hlon a.nalysis also
dete..-mined that the proposed project wo~d generate 688 average daily ~ips at the
intersection of He!lrnan Avenue and 8th St'eet (50 ,~.2vs du.,ing L,he ..~.=X,[ peak hour and 80
~'ivs du.,-Lv.g the D,[ pea/< hour). This amouni of project tr. aiiic Ls not a-nticiDated to
generate a sio.~.n/ficant sa/ety ~mpac~, nor dc, es it warr~_nt a traffic signal or railroad
preemp~on at the intersect/or', of HelJ_m,_n Avenue and Sth 5tree,'. However, the
appHcLnt will be recuired to pay transForla~on fees for ~e vroject; a vordon of these
fees w~ b__e used./or the fu~%L.-e/nnding o{ ~aj.:ic si~..,a. L5 and railroad Dree_znDl::ion, when
voiu.me and safe.'-/(nLu..m.L',o_,' o[ accide. nrs, etc.) cend.iP_ions wa~-rant si~naIiz~tion with
L-a.L:'ic ::tom obher cu_"'~uJaive develoo~ents.
A2
The com_,me.,-,t idenIL;ies that Fig'~',-es 2-2, '---!, and 5.7-! oi ~e DELR incorrectly label the
raLlroad near 8th 5~eet as the Atebin. son, Tope'.<a, and Santa Fe Railroad (-XTSF), Lnd
that the correct nonnendature for ',.he raiL-Dad is ~FETROLLN'K RA_rLROAD. There/ore,
Fig'ures 2-2, 4-1, ~nd 5.7-1 of ~he DEIR have be~n amended to ider',i%' the railroad as ~he
METROLL'x/i< R_A. ILROAD. These revised ~g,d. res are prov'ided at the end
resDon_.ces ,'o Connnle.nt Le~er "A".
R.~.',:CHO CUC.-z.'..MONG.-'. [NDLrSTZi.-'.L .~R-'z.-~. 5PEC[F!C PL.-kN
SUB.'-.RE.-.'. !5 .RED-'S,:G.',j.-'.T[O.',.' ErR
'.2-~
anua^~ ua^~H
en~:e,',y ue',Zl!'/| l
-I
oJ'~
'l
A
/~
CUCAN'IONGA
COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT
ju!v 29, 1996
Cfu/..f Rsncho Cucsmer:.,-=-=s
F!annfr. g .Divi-;f -
(OIl
City of Rancko CucaT. onga
Ccm_T, uniLy Ce:,'elo;men: Dewar .... =..~
10500 Civic Cancer Drive'
Rancko CucLT. onga, California 91710
Alan Warren
Associa~= ~i~=-
jEFF.:.-"." .;.. :,~.F.T=.=.
· =..C=:'.=.T .',4EUFELD
liE. ~HCr'
DONALD J.
J[.~C,%,l[ ,~,1. WILSCN
Dear Fz. 'Warren:
Thank !'ou for the op_cor:uni.:l' to revie:,; and csr. s..enc on ~he
,Z_=f_ :nvirc.~_~.en.:a! imoac: R=_~_cr~ (Eil} prepared
Rancko Cuc~-..onca induszria! .'-sea c-=~;fic a~ Suba-==
Redesi_cT.a~ion. The CucaT, onga Coun:v 'Wa~er Dis:ric: (Dis~ric:)
is involved iP. ~wo prima~v service areas the: wi.~ ~= affec:ed
ly this _srojec~' These ser,ic= ~-=~s are _:o:elo!e wa:er deliveries
ar.d cs~ n~:ic- =~; ~r=_aspor:a~ion of demeszic and induszria!
'..,'~s~e'..;a~er. As s~ch m',/comr. e~Ls ~-= ;~-=~-=; an c=~:iO?. 5.8
(Wa~er [uTp!y} a~d SecEion 5.9 (Sewage). A::ached are copies
of ~c~h sec:ions wi~h cem~:enzs a~d/or revisions as no~ed.
Seczicn S.8 WA'r~'---! S'U~_PLY
Seczion 5.~.1
a. The DisLricm provides "~o~able" wa~- =-cm ins various
sources and dis:ribuzes ~o differen~ users.
b. The :hit= ~,,~n=,-~; izE7. lis:ed under e:cisning 'wazerlines
should be cha_nged :o "10" due .:.g a race.hi s','s~=_,m upgrade.
a. Need :o make chan_ces == no~ed.
B
CUCA:-~CNGA CCL]N'Y"f '.SAT-'? ,D:ST.-',:CT · P.C. ~CX ,_,-~ · .~ANC:~C CL.'CA>,IC;-'GA. CA El .,"2_:-j5,7_~ · C,=.$-~}
CLZ?' of F,a.-.ch._q C._,c=__-..cr.~-=
C,-:v 29,
a refun~ a~reemenz "may°' L= :~=~=~=~ ~e~enden~
upon w~e~e: ~he 12" ~.~a~erZine ~alifies. Under
~e Dis~ricz's ref-nd poZizies, only ~az ~crzicn
of the wa~erline installation re_.~uiremenz ~ha~ is
"offsite from Eke 9rojecz" is subjec~ to a refund
agr~emenz. 3ased cn zazs presented tkaz ~'cu!d
inc~,'== cniy the 300 ;==-= from Archibald
Zn this insz~ce, any -=~'-~ ~Traemen~ a~reed co
would ~e based cn ccmple~ion of residen~ia! units
ra.zh=_ d.an "esaizazed ~a~er de~d".
B5
B6
Seczi~ 5 9
SecZion 5 . 9. i _~<is.~ing Conditions
a. "Zn ~he fu.zure .... ", P.P-4 has noching ~o dc ~'izh tkls
projec.z All flsws =--- Ehis Drojecz w{]~ ~low ~o
RP-i. Flo,..zs from ~he nor~heas~ area of ~he Districz
FiFxre 5.9-1
a. ~Teed zo rake correczions/re:;isions as nozed on
enclosed·
if you have an,/criestithe -=c~-dinc ~,,' of the c-qr_r. enzs please
con~act ~he ~ndersi~ed a~ your ear!losE convenience.
Yours [rulE,
E-'-cZosures
BS
!2-11'
5.5 ;','.-'.7_-:= ~L'.'-TL':
B
5.3. WATiR 5U??LY ~ I
5.3.! ~ng Ccndifor~
~Re Froy~t site Has w!Enh~/~ne I c[ ire Cuchmcn~ Ccu=r/Water Dis~!c: (CC;~D). The
CG~D ace'Z-as its ~:r.;_.t. _.i L./_. ' ' water hem ~%-e4 water
~.~ay d~ng 5~gh der.~d, r~%~ =.czar). ERe [cu~dwa:r c~.~
i993). The CC~'/~ has ~%'ee czPz~cPs :o Nf,~U '~reated ware:; t,~o denver '~'a~e:
~ta~e ~Vatsr ?:o'e~, --
~d ~ defyere wa:r ~cI~ ~Re Colorado ~;'er. ine Ng,~U has con~c~
C~oughout ~e 5ouERe~ Caii]o~ia a:ea :o sup?['/a ~ot~ a[ 4 ~ -:;uon ace-/ee:
ye~-. Mob'ever, d~e 5z. 7ieid oi ~D 'water sc~c~ or2v 2.4 ~cn
csnnc2~g aEt~dej d~t[ wet ye~-s, d,=~ ~cuih: yeL-s, cznrac:ed
O'~ _ , CC'¢4"T'D w'a:e: d~__"nL-,d beT, re-*_". J";:,' lccl L--~d ju/,.e ]co= :.,'~.s ~; -~'~ _;;t:,~., ~.~Hor,.
.............. --~---.
day (mgd), oi 'whir/: aFFrax'~.a:eiv '-.3 F_-r-_n: ..~=_.es i-cm M=,~,'D scu_.--:~ (CC,~;D --'::.",__!
?rz<!uc2cn Report). B~e~ '__'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_':~. a d~r.'c:-wide i'=~re ~c;uh-~on of ~':3,~CO, '~'ae District
a-.".~d,ates a_n ~-_--.ate d~__-Rand cf 575 _-'.~d CBoy'le i".E~J.e~'Ln~, !~93).
Vv'itZ-j_,R Zzne !, '.iRe m. ajo~T.,' c.: water Lrzrz=-/ssic:'.._'-.-: dis~budcn -:aciii:ies ro~,;-o-: :o se.-,'e
L"'.e c~-'~_-'.~'.it'/~..'e cl.-rL'Rdv in Diace. C"_'r"_'YI.v, 'wa.'er Ls su=D]/ed to 7.LsT. e i via
ret':a-'o:'s (;e-'-:udng etadot_s) .:==m "Re u.=.-_~. Zone 2 :~e_-/oh- eye:e_--. Howe,/~-, witx;n "~.e neL-
h-"'_:e, "no CG*~,'D e.,',',',',',',',',',~=ec_s to ccr. s_--;c: a new 9 =';utah ~_.Uon :ese:-/oh- CRese.-,'ah- ZC) for
· water s'.om=e ~cad.-/h Zone !. ".:'.e =:tsaR'=/:~er.'o;: would ~o-o.--~/./;_m~:ove 'wat~-
~_nd cB~adr,. o[ zone !. ",~/!tS;n '"Re s:vdv a.~a, ho'-ve';er, ',:.e c..u'.=:: s.'-~:!c de:T~-, .brae (,c0
!!O ?~i) ~ considered :o be .-de~-'a:e.
//
-i..~st--.g 'wat-_-ii=.es "nat se:-/e fRO .mrc]~: site ~'~. sho'-.m Ln K'T--'-e 5.3-i and ;isted bdow:
10' 1;--.e on '"Re SOu',/", side o~
· i0' h_L--.e cn ERe ','-'~t side of A: d- ;-' a/ .d
' 'X7 L;~.e cn '"Re e~_s: side o.; .~_--,i'_;baid Arthue;
' B' U'Re an ',_Re ',,/~: side c.; Hou-nr'. Ave='.ue, ex'-:udin~ a s.ec~cn accss Cuc-__--.onFa
· 10' iL--.e on ~".e north side of 4th 5_---.~_._t be .~wetn_ HPU----2.n a. nd Cxc'-_--.ong-a Cree. ',vi'...~ ~,~'o
2D'x!0' s:' ,~b-h-.s hntO, but no: acoz,
-=f.s~'-.g wat~ c:ns'c..=~on cnsite
indud~ dam,~dc ~nd i~n~czping '~ b:/ERe ~ing :~id~c~ ~=d ~n~L-,' .b~=~s.
Vhne',~-d ~nd ~-;d h~cn of ~:e Frc~: ~:e's a .i:!t~ lonzer
5.3.2 ~i~old oi
~:e prcj~'s water supFiy
~T.~ted water dried subs:~nda![','
· ZRe CCv~ ~Va:er M~:er
adecua:~v s~J,.ed; or 2 ne'~' r. aier water ~t~ ~e re~-ed h~ order :oserte ~e urc~ec:.
R.-'..wCHO CL.'C.-'.:.~.C.WG.~. [NDU_~TF.;.-'.L A?,i.:. 5pICrFiC ?L.-'.X
5U~.:.F,i.-'. 1! -=-='D=5!Ex':';''''
'1
B
Fro
J
5=5=r:z !6 ?:tr..:.":.;
_'e', e: . _ an: or :uza_'ea
sf.~e and generate zn
c; Far shc~,,i~ h Table_ 5.5-1,
resident!ally desiEnated po,~on c.; ~".e Frcj~t site ',vc~d ,.'=rsc. e 3.c5,4C0 gL/;~ons car day, the
mub~:c Dark 'wo~d --~-~ 72G0 -"=_/;~ons and ""~e hndus,.-.ial =Lok Do.~on o.: d'~e sf:e 'world
· - -
recui-°e !23,2S0 g-jJons ~er da'/.
:ERe Dro:ose-'i :rzfec: L-v.'ofves a !,_-.d use dv_nEe i'c,=,. at. Lndusr'ii~ desiF, arlcn to a residential
do,i_'-_,a~an .-'.s i~c',~'= hn _c,e_c~on S.0 AL~_.T, ati','es, bu//dou: o.: Subarea !5 ~_s mro:a.~-~_' 'wcdd
resu/t h a '.-9 =erc~".~ ~=ea:er d~_.--~_~d ."or water ~=,_~, ~ L"'.e en=_-e subarea were ,~o
with ;~,dus_--j~ ?i--k. T:tis F. eater de_.'mar. d Ls a..~rlibut=_~[e sole!',' ,~o f=e resid~t-:ai so.--jon of the
· Fro.ro-~-d-' .Drcf.~:t. .-'.!cRcu[h it r-~..% b.~ =..-Fed ERa: file Dis,.'.k:'s ',vaCer _-'.aster o;.a.n did nc~
LRddva~e G-as .~0 ~erc-_-~t hnee~e L'R de_--.~nd, "he CC:,~TJ has hndiza:ed [:at ire water de_--.Lnd
~--', ~ adecua:e'.,v suc~:./:ed and t:.a: a ":viii Ser:e" i ..... wc',:/d b.e n
.... · ..... -~r=' ,__ ~o [ndi:'!dua1
de','e:ocr, a.-.t.s u_-'cr'., w:-irt=_n recu-,'~: (i'C=a?F, !9.c5). Therat'ore, ro siFji.~.'c-_nt '."~Dac. scn 'water
suFp'-'y a..-e ~x=ec:ed :o be F_=em:ed by tire =rc=osed ~"::dcut cf 5uba_-ea
it should be noted ~'~at aiJ devejo=~.e:~: 'wi'j-in tire suba_-ea wa~d have to co_-t?[y ',,,'eft se'/erai
/ccaJ and state 'water coF3e.--'a~on re~"';a~cn.s, i-.dudLnE fie hn..s:a//at~on of wa.~er conse..-,inE
Ea-ndsca?Lns as de.z_ned LR C".aDter !,°.!~ of the .l.znd-~o Cuo..r. cng'a M,._.-~_;dual Code. .~_n
addi~jona! z~.ea---s oF water conse:-/a~jcn ;3 "Re u_~ ~{ -~'-:~--o; ',vas:ewater :'cr nen-po.'~b[e u_~:s,
where econa~/c-;lv feasible.
Wkn reg~-d to :j'.e adezuac,' o.; exisin~ h~des, '"~e addi',/on~ 'water dcln~ d~a: wo~d b~
~nes. 5F~ic~y' b~dcu: of fie ~ro=csed Frc~ wa~d o~e a d~Lne Ln water pres~e h~ the
~nd .~-de~d A;'~ue hn Fo~n SC~t ~-~ ~ czr~id~ed ~o ~ a Foten~,/siFi~nt
c[ d%e ~roucsed
:ERe CCr/v"D z~zi-..~aL-.s a Water De'z~o:_m-_-,: F.--e _m/:ffz-a~jon :mt-z_m :o rd~Zg~te potentially
5 .
sf_~;--=c~nt Lr, Dac_s cn [oc"j water fadties (au'j'to:=.=ed u.-Y.,- Or. di.-2.'-,ce No. 3C-D). Adthough
5.:= '__-~ de,,,~oDo_-s of a.~ are-_s of the ~rojec':_. site wauid be :-e_~d.L_-rj :o .Day 'j=ese .:e.~, h-'t tlnis c~_se,
de'/e. jo~n'l~-',t o.: "'%e pro]e.~.. site -__s DrO1DOSed '.vou.[d/_~-.e_-'ate pa_'-dc,{~riv excessive i_--.=ac..s 'which
~-_%not be/m.:ily mjti~:ed by ~/ne ."e~z .=mF"__m CK-=aF.D, !-c95). Anerefore, tire
:'R=aC'3 on "J. is!n_Z '*'ate [a~es are cot. sidereal :o r__---.ai.n ~o:_--~.'Sa//v sf_'~TjL~ic~RL
Czzmar. g= C.o.--..,.--:Tc:'.-.::,-
~r~ccse. d Dub;:: Dark 'would d__-J'~.z:'td a
~-!-~,--Jzs--k-~_ above, a.!C'lo uEh tj'te CC'ArD ;_s able
'iRe ?raiect's :-_~=ac: on ~_=islng hnlms~--.:cT.~:e L,,maL-.s ~.ote.ndaiL'/
5.5.4 C',-z=v, zh~-:e h'nvacts
[--mc[e_T·e_'%ti~c:% Ci ~jne re!a.~ed sr~ecj_s 'wct. Hd g_o--.L-=_-:e ~_n :_'nceL~e L~ 'water c: .... ': ci 577j.~7
.
s";;o-s per dav ,,q'able 5.3-i): 5~dou: ci ERe ?roFcs~_'
',vc";d :'-.cease Cir,-.v{dl ',va:er "~e by !,43':]37 E=;lc.--s .r~_r day.- ?he sro=c_~--' p.~eci_. revres~_n.ts
'~7 re_-~o_n: oi L~'j.S c'L.--.uiad;'e to_hi..'?o d-.e r~:_=--,: '"Rat '"re z"__--.,.;arlve proiec:s are ccv. sLs:e_-.: with
.R.-'.N'CHO CUC.-'.:,'.O.'qGA [>;DUSTF, Z.-'.L .-'. F, iA .~F-'_CEFiC PLA.'q
5L'?.-'.R_.-. : ....... : .... - .........
B
!.Suo:,."tu 16 Pot.r_uu. al 3,',ldout
P=5.:~
l C"-,'-'-:~ve
Sin~Jfe
C',==c',./L':.d,'-~/
CoL' Ca~-..c Cub
."c: ~
C"_i{:_ C"'=
=E__---~_>..:/Subr,.~cn
D~g A~ir Far. or"
L":./LI 5. q"..t.tr= ['c~.: (Im.{/day/,m~-=.) flmy~Lmy/c~u
Sua,"x= !5
C'-"'.":~n~': C:,'r.-tr/ain.'z Tat-'
'Foul
C,T'~'Li°ugdaY)
395.4C0
12j:.~O
2!O.~C.O
7_~C0
.131 ,.3C'X) 19g.,4C.O
170
172
."5 :~ 33'7,0
0.52 :: I~EO
~5 '-~ 1530
0.!7 --" 3_li'O
035 --,- 3_'r70
Oe4 :: ', .c7,o
1 !.314
I .~2
147.-:.00
109.0'75
3 15372
3.292
21-~
N/A
N/A
,S7T,.i~7
_c'a~-e= 16 ? : :t r -' - ' B '.da:'o " : .: ,~ C zznl '.z!~' v e Pr. a.i e c '~
· 2cu.~:: '3oyt. c Ez~.:-~:r.g CzU_c.-:::.-.' 5--p..".~h,-_' i.:~Fi'. 7:~!: Z'-}
! ,4.03!17
CUCAN(ONG.-', t. ND:jST.~,iAL AREA SPECiFiC
5U3.-'.?,:A ':E ?,-'DES[GN.-'.T'.'ON
B
e".e C;.-,"s Ge.-.e:ai ~l-_; ~noZ Use
- .= ........ ":as ~-".'<~:a.'.--d ;=-'.uZa:i'.'e L':c:ezse k-'. '.,,'a:e: de_-.z:-.d c~n
be ac:~ .... ~aced b;' [':e C'is,.--.'::.
5.5.5 ~fi~a~an
The .:oi/owL-._z ;d~an me~u;~ ~ ;~-~ m ~uc~ ~:~c: Lm~ac:s ~o wa:~: [acHilles ~a I~ss
..... ~ ...... r .......... ~, m -
~ ~$==~nc/. Because cdne; de','e!cc=.~=~ '~'i~=hn '~ s~b~-~
Wa~er Dis~ct h '~hEd eadR de','e[cF~.en: w~-!~ ERe Drciec: sire
de','e!c=r.i~: c[ ~ze =ub~c DL-k h~Eafcn svs:m L~dude s~d~zu~ whZd~ a~ow /or eas'/
ccnversicn cf fne h~adcn s'/szem ~:r. =o:a~[e wa:~r to :eda;~; wa:er use.
5.3.5 Residual Adve.-~e hm~=cLs
De'/e/oo_m~-,.: of 5uba_-ea 16 as =:oscsed 'would :esui: 'h
,aa ___ u.ra.".fcf=a:ed
",Va:er Dis,.--~ct. De'/e.;o==.--".: hn '.'-.e suba_-_-~. wc,_..'f also g"-"'.era:e a .Do: ...... si~'d.:icr,,:
;".=ac.~ on e.",isd.:-.~ ',vat_~: dLs..~bu.~cn :":;;=o-; hcw-.','er...v~.~ hm.DKe_--.e=:a~on o~ ~i~.e m.;iiE~fian
---.ezsure desczbed above, "'-'.~ L-'.=a:: ',,,'o,';d be reduced :o
"" r " =";G [.~'D'U.cTF,r-'' -'~:: _,c?_-'CZF:"
?- .-'..- ,. H 0 _ U C .-' ....0 .-= ..............
_~ U ~ .:. ?. -' .:. l:' E-'D-'_,cCG>j.:.TCC,:,.' -'~?,
PL .-'.>,'
7
B
5. ? S F~' A G ,'-
p;av~d~d bX ERe C=~mc=~ C~n~/Ws:~; D[s~c: (CC~D) ~e~n~s. ~R~ ~e~e=: oF
~d ~~ aH h~:exe~to: sl,'s:er~, r. cn-r~d~ab~e w~:ewa:e: iL~es,: ~d w~ste
r~2~.a~on D~n~. Sewace c~,'
day) is cleanly toured ~o Re~an~ Plant NO. i ~=!), wi~dR ~ o~era:ed by ~e C3~Fv~ ~ Es
located L~ ~Re ~/of ~,~oT~P! h~ a rear.~=: desi~ cz=ad~,' of ~ ~on z~f~ons p~- daK
,~k~°Y[e ~n~~ !993).~Re ~on c ccr~r=~cn of n~ :e~on~ ~a~.~nt fadlilies is
' i5' sew~ne cn One w~ sid~ af .~-d~d Avenue;
' 8' sew~ne Ln Foyer S~ee: ~cm ~:~-~d Avenue :o aD~ro~ate!v Z~0 f~: wes:;
~inE hy~c ~?adF of a sewer ;;2e ~ ~ ~o a deDCR-~,e:~ ~/d) ;~o of 02~ far
eDad~/(L~, D/d = 0.50).
-=.9.2 T,'_-~:sholds of
:'he prziect wa'~d g~_--.~-a.~e a s~ET;_=.z-~-'Z sewage :._--.sac :_: ERe LRFidsated ',,'a~tewate: gt-,.er2:ed
wcuid ~×c__~.'_~ E".e ?_.--.ai'~i~ ca~adr/ of ~_-dsi"~E ~',,'~- ,';-.es a.'~d/cr '*'a_sze',vater
.:ad]i~es, or L-' ERe ?roi_~.: :e'z. uL-5 tke L-.sr~;L=rlcn of addSthai ri~<!Lnes :o se_--'e ERe
wa:_~- .'.'~r'. C"-e L'-~_2 .:=r r_-a_-r, en: a_-.d dL~.rcsad ~'7 'he .'~ .-'_-.F!-~ Cz'.:.-..-z _~L-.imZzn
R.~.N'C.%'O CUC.-kMONGA ~NDUSTF,'.'.z,.L .-'-R-'.-'. S?EC".FiC PL.:..N'
5L'B.-'.?,Z.-'. :~ F,E?E_=[C>:.-'.T~C>Z E".R
Deve!oc_--.~:: e.; S,'ba.-ea !e as ::c=osed :vou/,d subs:~".ri=~:%, L".ce~e ~:,= L-.cu:'.~ o{ se;va~e :vbjdR
is c'-:r=__-.:!y ~":.era:ed by .L"~e e2zh: .~.x!slnE, bcz,.es. :"i've pr~ec: '~,'c~d D!ac.= add.; .~icna]
cn e.--d.sf.nE sewer u-~es ~-.d 'he ':RS! wag:.=wat.=r ~ea~_a.-~.: V~L'.L ks ;-~'/'~cated h Table 5.9-1. full
.~ubEc Dark (L: it ccnta~t;,:ed !aGa:or.'es) wo~d [=-terate 950 EF..d a:'.d E~e L'-dus~'/lai ~a:k uses
· ,~cu!d ~=-nerate !47,2C0 gT.~d. ..~5 d/_%-'~--ed_' h -~-2c-Zcn S.0 -~2:emati'/es, ~",e overa//
~--~eration :e.vresez.:s a 25 pert,,-..~ deceLse h who: would be ~.-~.era:ed :d ~Re en!-e subarea were
~o be deve!e=ed 'wkh ;--.du.s,.--~-~ ~a_'k ,J:ses Ls c,.zr~_nUX desi.c-...ated. -'Fz. ere.:ore0 F'-.e
E~-"~eratlon c?a:ed by [he :rcFcsed ~rciec:.. e._~. ~ ccz-s.:dred :o 'L--e zdecua:eSv acco_~.cdat.=d h
h'~dus~ =a_-k wou/d '_-'e_ d:_'e'.~ed to d~Ct, TD's ';--no L'~ A:c/-dbaid Avenue. -"']~.e recla[_-lab[e
sewa ~e
,5 would be Lrar. s=c.-.ed :o F.P!, ',~'hic/R has a.n -_'dsf_'~ re_-na/.-d.~ casad:-/of 6 .-nEd. Subare_=
16 se',,,'age '*'cu/d L=c.-~_se tire Eoad a! .RZ~! b?' 03.3 reed, wh/c/n ;.s not cc~afdel-ed :o be
~-'v~n the .D ;.a.n,"s r__~".a. Ln/n~ coDatit'/..T:'~e ]cn~-t~"r~_ L--~=rove_-,en[s necessa_-/:o ac=oru.-noda.~e
pro.~osed pr~]ec."s se.,,.,'age g_---:.~..~,-~o'n wcu/d be oP..'se: by 'C~e Dfs,%r2c:'s co[/eci~an of cor=.ect:_'cn az.d
~/.,~e_' -:e'~_5. [--~. addi~z/on, any deve]o~_-'.-_~: h~ "".e subarea wc~ be s',z~ect.. ~o s~ate wa:er
coraez/adon r.~c_..~cc= (suc/-x as ]o'~, '.qa',~_- use 5.x:?'-~s and wa:er p:?s~,z? :er,._da~tc.--3) wkizh
wo,'_2d, h ,~a_-n.. -m/zi-d.ze ;'he a_--.cu.'nt of sewaEe r.-q~i-e~_,g cou.er-.~cn and =ea_---~,~--.:. There/ore,
si~'~;=ca-~' L--Rvac. s re]a~ve :o sewage d/svcsa/a_-.d .'ea_--'~_-~,: would ccr_-
5uba.-ea
De ',' e.; o .c_-: _--,. ~ cf ~--.e .351-d_'.,,,,e~JE.;-:.g u:u;t C,'c..~c-=.~ C~,--",.~.."'=o;,.,"'tte :~si~e. nt,~at s',.:bdi'3..sion and
ass,x/a~ed .=-;'e ace rubric vL-Z< wau/d g_--.c.-~te a :ota/c/ ~5,720 zrd of se'*'aEe. Based ur,--cn
a-naiysLs ?r~--_"-'~.:ed above, :Sis ;--.cease h sewage g_--~.t-a'dcn ~ not cen.slde:.-,-d ,'o be_ a
~mvac:.
5.9.4 C~'u!adve !_~vac-~
D?v~o.Dmc,: of ',/~e c.L_~,..b.;~:'e .vr~ec3 uLLsted L~ Tabie ~I ',~,cu!d g-'~,e_~e a.DproxL.mate!
1,178,~-c0 ~'L/::cns ._-"'2 day o{ was,~ewater CTabEe 5.9-1). Togedne: w~iC'~ the ~wage g-~n~-ated
de'/e_:o.c;_--nc-U Ln _cuba.-?.a !5, c,__--...da~dve sewage g-~e.:~,dun is e.,'-'=~ec..~_' to read'-, !,505,070
s[-'~'L=-cznt c,L-"~u/a~dve L.~vac'~ re.~a~/'/e '.o sewage.
5.9.5 .V~t'{ga~Zsn .%~e.a. su. zts
-~e'zau_~e .'xD SiFi:'[C~nt L.--.DaCa :e.:a~ve :o ~wage ha;'e ':e~_. Zdenf!ed m z.i~Eadcn
a-e_ recu/zed. '
5.9.5 Residual Ad','e."~e r:,vaC. s
L'.ce=--se d--~-2.-.d.s cn ~--,-~'dn~ so'we_- u-.~.s a:.d was:e',,'=_:er _'ea_--.~-.: -;ac~.:~es, :.he =rcf..ec~.5
R .-'-NCHO CUCA.MGNG.-', [ND.Lr,=T?,',._'.L ._'..RE.=. 5 ?--'C[FiC ? L .-'..\' ~UE.-'.E-=-=. '-:' F,-'~ES:77:.-'.75~>:
B
B
· ;L.q'.~.~,, :-..z t
?'-'-~F'
~9
?"~F_' ,=---k $ac
27'0 177,920
.770
C_..-::~-....,e:--~:
CffZc'= ]_3 ac 15'C~
C"d,.Zd C,L"-: .za~,Z/,-'-[ .56 ac l_cu'~3 114
.VaLrt.*~--.a.,...ce .=aS:;rt N/A
='r-e':~-Z"'i Su:~'sad,--n. N/A '
T:'a,~;-.,~.v/~= T:',~,er N/A
-~-ANCHO CUC.-.'.:d. ONGA '.'NDUSTR~AL AREA 57-ZC'~7:C .=L.-%N
SU3.'-.ZE.:. 25 ZZD_ZS~G~'_.T~,~N _-,.'v
:2.0 .~5?OX5-' TO CO.~[.~[-'XT5 O>; THE D..~-'..-'?
RESPONSE TO CO,%I,%~ENT5 FROst:
]a.~es ~. CHne, Jr., Cuca~onga Counh' Wa~er District (dated July
B1
B2
B3
B4
B3
The corn.mentor suggests that d~e second sentence oi Secdon 5.S.i oi the DEIR (page iS-i)
be revised to more accu.,-ate[y desrd~be the WDe oi ~vater acquL-ed and disLributed by the
CucaLnonga Coun,~,' Water DLs~'ict (CC;'VD)7 h'nereiore, 'd'te second sentence on page '5.S-1
oi the DEIR is hereby a_u'-tended to read as ioUows:
"The CC~,V"D acq,..LL-es its potable ware: from three water sou..-ces:
g':oundwater (23 percent), su.rface water from canyons (7 vetcent), and
Lmported water (65 percent, w:'dch is used primaril.U d,,.l ng i-7tigh demand,
sub. met monU-us)."
zne cou--~,c-ntor reauests that the third buUeted kern in 5ec~on 5.3.! of the DEiR (page
5.S-!) be revised to ind.;care that a 10" water ;H.ne exists on the east side of Arcbib, aid
Avenue, not an 8" waterline. There/ore, the dRLrd but/eted item on page 5.8-1 o.: the
DELR is hereby amended to read as
"' 10" Line on the east side of Azch.;b~d Avenue;"
The commentor identifies that revisions are reauh-ed to F/g-.u-e 5.8-1 oi the DELR in order
to re:~ect recent upo.oTades to the Ci,ty's waterI/.nes a/ong Ardnjba/d Avenue. Therefore,
Fig~..u-e 5.8-! of the DE[R has been amended to include these recent system upgrades and is
provided at the end of Line responses to Comment Let'tot "B".
The coLzume_ntor cIL-hfies that One 12" warermine requL, ed as a part of ~L/~gation :'vIeas,,L-e
l,V-! Ln 5ec~Zon 5.8.5 oi tile DEEDR (page 5.8-5) Ls h't additio~ ~o aJj other water!L-,es
required to be h'nsta//ed on the project site. Tnere.;ore, the .:Lrst sentLance in .'vfitiza".ion
,.'vfeastLre i,V-1 on pages 5.S-5, 1-1b Cfab[e I-!), and i1-9 (TabIe 11-t) of ERe DEiR is ~erebv
a...'-nended to read as .:oHows:
"Ln addition to payLng conneclon 'tees and h"tstalling all requited ',va.'er]Lnes
on the project site, the Cucamonga Corne:'vointe or the F.:s,~ ran/or
de','e!ovment of the area shad cons~.~C a 12" water maLn in Fou..-~n 5tree~
ber,.,'e,,_n C,-'camenga Creek Channel Lnd Ard~bald Avenue. l/CucL,-nonFa
Co.-nervointe ;.s Line iizst major deve!opment oi Lhe site, then the !2" water
_znai~ shadJ be Lnst~Ied p~or to fi~nai mspecdon approvaJ. Ii the Lndustria!
buijdLngs a. re the F_-st maior develovmen~ oF the site, then the 12" water L-naP
shall be Lnst~.LUed v.fior to issuance of ce.-~jicates oi occuva~nc;."
Co~:,_~'zt ac.tcnowledged. P.~or ~o LssuL-.ce oE certiijcates of eccuvanc,' .:Dr the Lndus:r~a[
b~din~s or/inaI hnsvec~on approv~ /or the residen~al s~act'i-es of Cuca_~cn~a
Cor?,er'dohnte, a de~e."Ln.L-'taMon :vEil be ~made b'/~e CCt, V'D as ~o who"nor or not ERe 12"
waterZL'-.e qua!iiies for a ~.fi.m.d agreement. if !~ Es de.~er-mined Ena~ Ene 12" waterZine
does cuaLL~,, the torn! arr'..ourtt oi ERe re.~nd a~- ...... ;vou/d be Lhen be c~cn. Liated b;' :'.Re
CC~,'/"D based on the District's ~e.:u.nd policies.
R.-'.-x,'CHO CUC.-k.~,IONGA I.','DLrSTRtAL .-~.~EA SPECIFIC PLAX'
5U3.--'.REA i6 REDESEG.'<.-',T[ON
!2-l~
!2.0 ~-~SFOX.;E TO CO.~.r.~[_:X'T5 O:",' TH'- D.:L-'.FF E.rR
B~
BS
B7
C,;~mg ~tigation .'v£easu:e ;'i-L L'~ Sec~o,", ~.S.5 of .',:Re DE,:~ (?a~,,e 3-3-5), the com2.e.'".tor
cZardies d".a: ~n;' :eb'_nd a~'.ee_-~en~. a~'..eed ,:o :~'ou[d be based oa co--,vLef. on of :esiden:!al
u.nits raLb. er d'~a~'~ "esti_ma~ed :,'a~er deT~L".d." Tp, ereiore, ~'~e last z-e'.t~,~ce L-~ -Mitigation
.X, feas~-e W-I on pages 5.3-5, 1-!0 (TabLe !-i), ~nd i!-9 (TabLe !!-!) of tl~,e DEiR is hereby
a_,'-~ended to read as/oEo;~'s:
"Because other develovmen,~ ~ithin L~e subarea will also be deFende_nt
this water maLn, a re.Fund agreemen~ shall be established w[~ the
Cucaznong-a Coun,ty ~,Vater District in whid-~ each development wiLhin the
project site shall Frovide a pro-rata/unding, based ur, cn the cornpLot/on
residential units of each particular deve!ov~,enL"
The corn. n~entor iden6_des that the ii/'d'~ sente_~ce in 5ec~on 5.9.1 of the DEIR (page 5.9-!)
Ls incorrect. This sa.nte.nce incorrecdv states: [n the d:,d:tzre, a/'l flOWS will be diretrod to
Re~...ona[ Plant No. 4 (c:~rrent!y ~:na'.-r constr:.~c:ior.) fir treatmen: and/or reclam~t."on
(~oyle Eq. gir. eering, 1993). instead, sewage from the proiect wo~ ac~ailv flow ~o
Redohal 'Plant No. ! (RP!). In addition, ~'tows &ore the northeast area oi the District
w~ be dive~ed to Regional Plant No. 4 (R. P4), wk/d-~ will L'~ tu_m allow ~or additional
cavadtv at RP!. ~'~ereiore, the iii~n se..nt~ce on page 5.9-1 oi the DEER/s hereby
a.mended to read as io~ows:
"All sewage from d~e proposed project w/ll flow to R,PI; sewage from the
no~'~heast area oi the Dis~ict will be diverted ,'o Regional Plant No. 4,
wbidn will in ~ allow for additional capacid' at RPI."
The comm~_-nt requests that Fig,.Lre 5.9-1 of the DEER be revised because it incorrectly
LLlustra~es a 12" sewerLine along HelLman Avenue and an 8" sewerLine along 4th S~reet.
There/ore, Figure 5.9-t of the DEL'R has ~ a.D.~nded to e!imina:e. these errors and is
provided at the ~'-.d oF [he responses to Con'~'nen,~ Le~er "B".
T~e a.m~_',d_-',ent ,'a FEEL'--e 5.9-! o.; ':he DEER roEriding ~e exis,!ng S" se',,'erLLne ~ong 4th
5~ee.~ als;o re~uL-es tha~ ',/~e second bu~jeted kern L-~ Sec.~on 5.9.1 of ti~e DEER (page 5.9-!)
be amended as
"' S" se',verULne Ln Fo,~L:'~ S~eet from east of Cuca.monFa Cree. k Channel to
approxL_ma~e!y ,cOO' east;"
.R.A.~CHO CUCAMONGA [~'DUSTR[AL AREA SPECiFiC PLAN
SUBARE.-',
!2-2'.
EXISTING WATER LINES
12-22
.... C!:y 3ound,3,-,f
EXISTING WASTEWATER LINES
C I T Y O F ~~ O :"".4
3S3 -:~.57 "~" &T.;EET. CI','tC CEi"JTi.; UN :A:-(!C' CA'..IFJ.~,J~i~..;~".;- P ~- FAX ~.=~el
AUgUS; 26, 1996
i:lr,,d Bu!l'"r, City
City of Rancho Cucamonga Pt',nning Dc.;~rn~nl
P.O. B~x gO7
R,'mcho Cuc-among~, CA 91729
... 46,,,; ,,
c., ot ..
t ~,' · CF.. .
~ o~'t;g ;r~g2,~n2e
SUBJ'F. CT: SUBA?.E.~. 16 REDESIc3NAT~f}N t<l K
.~_
De~ Mr. But!err
:,'ou for d'P. oF.:o='u~.i~y zo r,-.vi¢,~ :he draft En,,'irc;,,~.::;al impact
Plan :::;ub~', 16 Rodesign,lion. After canside."ir.~ r.":: information con.r.:-in=d ix C':= Ell"(. d,.c City
On,-.~io offers the tiallo,-~i:tg t:nmmcnls r'nt incnrp, orafian inn the final gIRt
Cu.mul~.:ive lmpa~;s - Tnb[c 4-I (List at' R. tlated I'mjeer.t,).~hnuld include thr. manufac,,uri:'.g
~.~dition fnr Frlto-Lay at the .~or'J~eas: comer ot'-';h and Ar~:hi,",.'~ld (squa_r: fOO[aV, c ~".o'*,'a) .',rid
tee Koll v,'a.rzhausddistribution proj.-':t saud: ofArr~w, c.-tst nf O'&wood. ,',rid .saudn of Tuu--'---"-
(=400,000 sC, u~c
Sho_."; Tern Nois-, b: .-.ac:s - VCnile Lh, e Rancho t.'t~c,nmnn~_a 1
from 650 ".m. :o g:00 p.m.. Mor'.day thraugh
Cnc rons,."x::tion a~dvi:>' k li:::i~ to a 7:00 a.n:.
tb.= sau:h side of dth.
~ - The location or' Onta.rio Center Scboa! in f }n:arin is sh,~.'n in Rr'nchn Cuc-_mong: :-'st
Figure 5.7 i.
C3
',,Vc a?pr_-ciate being kent i.~form:d of the continuing ;,pplicatinn m~d look fo~':,zd [o your r=spun~c tu
,
thzse ~ammcn:s. if you hay= a:y ~u~stisr~ or ::crd mnrz infn~ation. p[:~= 5c:[ ~= cu uM[ :::: ~i
(U09)391
ONT.,\R[O ?LAN,'NiNG DE?ARTMEN'['
/~sdale. i[~P'~'/~ L,'---
Princi~a!
C
!2.0
RESPONSE TO CO,M,%~ENT5 FRO.~d:
Jim Ragsdale, Cih' of OntL"io Pla,rming De~ar~ent (dated Aug-ust 26, 1996):
C1
The comr~,,entor requests that Tabte 4-! (List oi Re!a.te~ Projects) oi the DEIR be a.,.mended
to ;.ndude boLh ~,e Frito-Lav a. nd'Koil .A_-row Center projects. However, the Frito-Lay
project ;s abeadv included in Table 4.t (page 4-4.) of the DEIR as related project nt.r,L~
i3. Table '.-4-1 (page 4-5) of Lhe DEER i~ hereby amended to ;,_r,,dude the followLng
h-Lforr~adon regLrding the KoLI :-L.-row Center project:
No. T,vp.e
32 DR 95-33 Industrial 47t,625 sq. ft. S/o A'row Approved
on ~.08 aces Route, E/o
"' W'hite Oak
Figure 4-! (page '.--2) of the DELR has ~so ~ artended to Lnc!ude ~n. is related project
and is tabe./ed as c~,,.nnu.lat/ve proiect nu_mber 32. The rev~ed FiFe 4-t Ls provided at
end of the responses to Comment Le-~er "C".
.As a result of fie addition of this industrial project to the related projeC. s l.~t, several of
fine cL.mu/a~ve impact analyses provided in Sec.qon 5.0 of the DELR must be revised,
including Sec~ons 5.1.--_', 5.8.4, 5.9.4, and 5.10.4, as well as Tables 5.7-!, 5.8-1, 5.9-1, and
5.!0-!. However, the following revisions will not dnange the cond~fens of Lhe DE!R's
c',~mu!adve L--'~=act analyses.
Section 5.!.4 cCumu!ative Land Use fropacts1 -The first sentence included W 5ec,qon 5.!.4
of d'~e DEER (page 5.1-19) E$ hereby a..me_nded ',o read as
"Deve!oDr, ent of Lge projects ;listed Ln Table -I-1 wo~d reset L-~ the
cor. s~.2cdon of 673 dwelling u.,,'dtL 3C() aJes of indusL'-ia] ,use, over !44,000
sc'_'L-e feet of office space, over 2.-. ,~on scua,-e fee: of retai[ space as well
as a variety of oLger tnisceLla.neou_~ ti.~e$ in southern .Rancho Cu~_n'~ong-a and
nor. i'~er'n C)ntar'io."
S-ecfion 5.5.4 cCumula~,.'e Water 5upp[?' [_-.pacts]- The f~st two se,.tences included L=
Secdon 5.3.4 of the DEER (page 5.8-3) are hereby annended to read as follows:
"L--.vlem. entadon of the related projec~ would generate an Lncrease in water
d~__~=_nd of 908,61! gallons per day (Table 3.8-1). Buildout of tlne proDosed
proiect and cu_mula~ve projeC..s comi~;.,n~d wou/d L"lcrea.se Cit~/wide water use
by i,434,791 gallons per day."
Section 5.9.4 (Cumu!a~'.'e 5e'.,'aze [m.~act5~- Tae first ,",,'o sentences Lncluded Ln Section
5.9.4 of '_'~e DEIR (page 5.9-3) are hereb,;' amended to read as foi!ows:
"Deve!ooment of .L'~e c. tnn~a~ve proje,:t~ listed L~ Table 4-1 wou!d generate
approxL_'-na~e!y 1,252,910 gallons per day of was:ewater (Table 5.9-1).
Toge-_6. er with the sewage ~'on"-a'°~ by deve!oDment Ln Subarea 16,
c .... I=fiv: sewa~'~ von~'a~on is ~xo°~''~ ,'o reach 1,578,990 gaL~or',s oer day."
R.-'.NCHO CUC.a. MONG.:. [NDUSTRCAL AREA 5PEC.rF[C PLAN
5UB.~.RE.'. ~6 REDES[GNAT[ON
!2.0 .~?ON5: TO CO.~,I.ME.',T5 ON TH-' D.;L-~.F. EER
Section 5.:0.4 (Cum. u!a'.ive Solid tv~s:e [.-..7_~cts/- .T:,.e fLzst :.t'~:ee
SeePion 5.!0.4 of tb.e DELR (page 5.!0-2) ~e b. ereb?' ~_~.ended ~o ~e_~d ~-s/oi2ows:
"L--.D!e..me_,,,ta~Zon of L~.e cumu!a~ve projects ~ted L'R Tabie 4-! ;,'odd
a.n esf_.ma~.ed ].5!,672 add,iPionai .~o,.'nds ai solid waste ~er day (Table ~.10-1).
Full deve!oDment of Subarea 16 as proposed ;.a combL'~a~Zon wiL~
oi ~e cumulative projects woJ4d :es,u.lt L'~ a lotal L,:cze~e in solid waste
gene:at,ion of approximately 176,210 ..~,ds per day. Subarea ].8's impact
re~resents 14 percent of tln.is ~,_mulative ~otaj."
Tables 5.74, 5.8-!, 5.9-!, and 5.10-1 of the DELR have also ~ annended a.nd are
provided at the end of the responses '.o Corn. me.hi Letter "C".
The 6:30 a.m. const-z-ucfion st~"t ~:ime b. as be--'~ L'~cluded L'~ G'~e City of Ra..~dno Cucamonga's
Deve!oD~ent Code fo~ se;,e~al years and is s~j2 considered appropriate for the ~zoBosed
project. I4owever, the R,_nnho CucL'nonga Plaru'4n~ Com_-n2ssion or Cit'/Co,-'?,dd could
consider delaying the cons~'uc~on st~ time ~o 7:00 a.m. Tn2s con'Lz?_nt w~ be for, re:deal
~o the decision-makers for considera~on.
The con',=nent iden~f-;es Lha~ ~he !ocaPion of ~t~o Cente: ~ool m Fi~-e 5.7-! of the
DE~ (page 3.7-2) is Lncorect. ~qere~ore, F~e 3.7-1 of ~e DEIR has ~ ~ded to
~us~a~e the acm~ location of ~L-io Center ~noo[. ~i elem~n:L7 s~oo[ ~s ~ocated
at 8~ NorC~ C~nter Argue be~_n 4th S~eet ~d L~E.d L~e Boulevard. The
rev~ed FiFe 5.7-1 b provided at ~e ~d of the resDo~es ~o CoL~t Le~er "C".
R.-'.NCHO CUCAMONGA [NDUST?,[AL AREA SPECiFiC PLAN
5UB.iREA !6 REDES~GN.'~-TiO-Y EER
LJ
D,.~ellin$ Square_, Fac:ors' -- tnc:eas.e
L'nits FootaSe K to $ 9 to I2 K :o :3 9 :o I2
[Subarea 15 Potential Buildour t
ResL..'~..::?.~ 659
L':;bs.~. :_'S P,'rk
S4:)7,395 sl
0.7336 0.2
Total
Total
K-12
517 132 648 43%
N/A
NIA
~Cuca~onga Come.~oin:e
?.'si.~.~..::'i
j Cumula,'ive ?~iec:s
5L~g!e Fa,.-f_Iy
Co.-.do.--..L~=':-..s
A.=a._-=~..e:-.:~
C z. .-. . .-: .t':~. '_' !
O.:~ce
:r._"",.-/z!
Gc~.e.-a[
Club ,~,~.~.
FacL/i:';
35% 0.7556 0.2
5 ac
53 t 0.7~36 0.2
170 0.~6 0.2
172_ 0.7Sf.,6 0.2
I44.1;5
27/46
2.~95.756
4,.q.7 ac
25S.f~3 ,'c
7347
41310
275
7! 346
N/A
25~ 66 325
133 54 167
135 35 170
NIA
N'/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
NI/A
N/A
NIA
527 135 662
1,310
iZ-Z9
TABLE 5.S-t
:.':~ C.:.mu~:::v: w,.:-.r
Dwelllag Acre~ or Factor' Total % of
Units Square Feet (gab'day/acre) (ga. Fdny/du) (gallons:day) Cumuhdve
ISubarea 16 Potential Buildout
Res~ge,-.et,'i
?ublic P~rk
/r. dus:ritff P,'rk
Cucamonea Corner'aolnte
Reside.-.:i;!
Public Park
]Cu, mu:'~Uve Projects
Siag!e Fat.Sly
Condo~.ihiums
Corr.'nercicl
Or'fie:
R:~ional Corr',-,,:::i-~
Light [ndus~-ial
Gene."-M [ridusUal
O:ker
Golf Course Club House
It:
C'r. ild Cz: Fa;ili:y
M~r.:en~-.c:
E!:z:"'i,c~ SubsLy:ion
Trans..-'fission To~':r
659
35t
-'6 :C
j
1,500
2.680
Subare: 16
600
Cuc.=mong,, Cornerpoin:e TotaI
395.400
7.500
123.2S0
526,150
2 !0,600
7j00
2Id.iUO
331 dO0 Igg.dEK3
170 250 ".2043
!72 250 '".720
C'-'mu~.ffve ProjecLr To~al
3.3 :c ]j70
0.52 ac 2.5S0
5j :: 2.530
-'0.7 :c 2.580
"q.90 :c 13'0
0. i7 .:c 3jT0
0.9j ac 3...570
0.06 ac 3j70
1.662
Iz7.400
t09.076
3~6.92~
dOT
3.392
N/A
N/A
N/A
91J:5.6 [ 1
37%
63".-
Subcrea 16 Po:en."'-~I B'aildou: ;ins C',mula.ff;'e Projeers
' Sour::: Boy~: E.".ginc::fing Corporation. S:.:::mber [-393. Tab[= ]-3
1.434,791
:. 2-:',2
DwL:Hn~
Uniks Ac.'.'s (g~'-%yiacr-J Igab'~:ty/du)
46 ac
270
(g-~onsJday}
177,~3o
950
147,2C0
325,080
% o!
Cumula~ve
21%
[ CucL-'~onga Cora¢.-?om:e
?"biic Park
5
270
l~0
94.77,0
95,72'j
Rzs:'d.--,.: = !
SL'~g!e Fa_.--,~iv 33!
Cortdor. tb,j,.'=s 170
Apa__"z-n.~.ns
O!~ce
NeighbQrheod Re:ail
Re,anal
Gc-.erai i.ndus..~.M
Go[/Cou.-se C!..b House
[c_-
C:~ld Ca,'~. FacH.-:
.x4air.:¢na, nce FaCEire
E!ec..--2cal Subsaaron
T.;a:'.smLssicn
33 ac I..cCtD
0.52 ac l..aC'O
55 ,c
40.7 ac 32C0
Z~S.,~O ac 3200
.!7 ac !jCO
0.95 ac 1.,cCO
.C6 ac i.,cCO
270
2~
C:.'n':u.r=:i:'e P.'~;t,":.s To:;z(
59~70
45.050
~27'3
1.17g
:C-4.500
130240
325.4,50
323
114
NIA
NIA
NIA
12.52.910
79%
Subarea I6 Pocrnffal B:tildout Tius Cumufa.'i:'e Pro/¢c:s
1j73.990
' 5ou:ce: ~O"'~ Enginee.'ing Com.~ora~cn..-ku~'.:s:. '1,c93.7abZe 2-2 and 3-3.
12-31
TA~L=,
Generation
DwdlLn~ 5.=ploy~es Fac:e~
Units .-~c:'es Fe: ..k~:,. (pounds/day)
Sac
2O
To:a[
(pounds/day)
16.25 ' 10.7C9
5.7" 29
15 ' !3.SO0
Subart= 16 Tot=Z 24.53S
%
Cumu!a~v~
14%
i C..c~_monga
Sac
I5.25 ' 5.704
5.7" 29
Cueamong" Con:.trTol.'.:e To:M 5,735
!Cu_m..la~ve
SL-.gEe Fa..':diy
Ne:~>bethoc</Re:aU
Re~or. al
O:h.-'
Goff C:u.~e Cub
C~_:!d Car-.
Ei.~,.--..caf
Tra.~,sm..ssion Tower
331
15.25 · 5379
I5.23 · 2.7~3
!5.25 ' 2,7~5
0.52 a: iO 10" 124
55 ac 20 I0" li.CeO
40.7 ac 20 !5 ' 12210
l,=S.,:0 ac 20 125 ' 115505
.17 ac
0.95 ac
.06 ac
151.arZ
Subarea 16 ?o:~..dal Builds:t: 7[::s Cum:dativ.' Pro.itc.'s
175210
· _'So..:ce: San 3e.'T,a:.dL",o Csu.'..-.,' ~,slid :';as:e .',!ar.a~emen: ?'_,r.. 1-~.:6..Assumes 3.25 ~ersans per
"Source: C~ur.r:' o.; San 3emardir. o,
CHIF!O BASI
z~'!G~ICIPAL WATER DtSTR!CT
-~C ~.:e..'7'/r-.~. ':j.Z;. ,: .-":.-.an:.. "'
" ' · ~,., ;2225
TEL (;C$.} 2Z7C2~1 . FAX (gO-ca) 257-2E54
August 28, 1 $S6
CiW cf Ranchc Cucamonga
Communi'ty DevCcpmenz Department
105OC Civic Cenl:er Drive
Poncho Cucamonga, CA el 730
AT.n: Alan Warren, Asscciats Planner
Subject: lndu~rial Area Specific Plan Subarea i 5 Redes/gnadon - EIR
Gentlemen:
Thank ycu fcr [he oppor-[uniZy to review the ab. cve dr:~ environmental impact repcrL
We have :he following comments:
On page 5.9-i you Kate That "In the future, all flows will be directed zo Racisnal Plan:
No. 4 (currently under constructinn) for treatmen~ and/or disposal." '
The site of this prcpased deve{apmen: is not a pan of the area which is proposed
be dive.~ed to Regicnal Plan~ No. t~. It will continue :s be directed :o the Oistric~'s
Regional Plan~ No. 1.
you have any questisns, please coil Ken Ps,:ersen in cur Planning De;anment.
Gal2 Hackne/y~
Manager of Ftannina
GEH\KP::c
D1
D
jot, n L_ A,~er;on
_e ;c~aC, ttTreaz:s,-,,t
12-33
A.,":,ne
!2.0 272-~?ON5-' TO COM).[EXT5 ON T:-:E D.R.-~FT
RESPO,',4SE TO CO,~,~.'dENT5 FROM:
GAD,' E. Hackney, Chino Basin ,Municipal Water Dis~/ct (daeed August 25, 1996):
D1
Co.'n_ment ac'.<now!edged. Please refer to Response t.o Co,.'ru_m~_-~t B7.
R.~,.NCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
SUBAREA
!2-34
PLAN
JAKE FALLER ASSOCIATES
24005 Ventura Boulevard, Suit. e J
Calabasas, California 91302
818-222-2831 fax 81 8-591-0087
August29,1996
Transmi~ed by fax and US Mail.
Mr. Alan Warren
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho CucamcLnga, CA 91729
Draft Environmental Impact Repor-l:, dated July, 1996, for the
Subarea 16 Redesignation
of the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan
(GPA 95-03A and Tentative Tract 15727)
Dear Alan:
On behalf of Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC. the applicant for GPA 95-03A and Tentative
Tract 15727. we would like to offer the following comments regarding the Draft. Environmental
Impact Report. dated July. 1996. for the Subarea 18 Redesignation of the Rancho
Ct~camonga Indus;rial Area Specific Plan:
Comment ~1 re=ardin
, _ g revised Tentative Tract Map 15727. dated 7/25/95:
Subsequent to the EIR cGnsultant's preparation of the Draft E!R. dated July 19g5.
Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC has revised the Tentative Map in response to
concerns raised by City staff. We request that the Draft EtR be revised where
appropriate to reflect the following information regarding the proposed
Cu:amonga Cornerpointe project as shown on the revised Tentative Map,
dated 7126196:
a)
No private roads are proposed in the project. only public roads. The fifth
paragraph on Page 5.5-2 under the sub-heading 'Cucamonga
Cornerpointe Subdivision' refers to 'proposed private roads.' and shsu[d
be revised.
b)
The third paragraph on page 5.1-17 discusses the side yard and rear yard
setbacks that have been desicned to mitigate any potential conflicts
beb..zeen the residential and industrial park uses. The revised Tentative
Map shows the following design e!ements. which we request be inc!:.ded in
the Draft, EiR:
E
i) 39 single-family lots will abut the industrial park oropenies
ii) 29 of those lots ;viII have backyards be:',,veen the common
property line and the homes.
iii) The remaining 10 lots would have a side yard between the
common property line and the homes with those lot widths
ranging from 75 to 86 feet.
iv) The minimum setbacks proposed for the project along the
industrial park are now a 30-foot minimum for side yards and a
60-foot minimum fcr rear yards.
t
,El
Comment ~2, regarding Mitigation Measure W-1 (Table 1-1, and Page 5.8-5):
It should be noted that the Comment Sheet dated 7/17/_c5 from the Cucamonga
County Water District for the Technical Review Commi~ee meeting for Tentative
Tract 15727 (copy attached), calls for a continuation of the 1 O-inch waterline in 4th
Street between Hellman Avenue and Archibald Avenue. Mitigation Measure W-1
(Table 1-1, and Page 5.8-5), should be revised to show a requirement for a 10-
inch water line. instead of a 12-inch line.
Comment ~3, regarding the S~orm Drainage section (Table i-1, and Page 5.1 i-7):
Revisions to Tentative MaD 15727 have been made subseeuent to the EIR
consuttant's review of storm drainage. The revised Tentative Map and hydra, fogy
stud'.,, indicate that the stormwater runoff from the area designated for future
industrial use has been planned for and will be acc. omoda[sd appropriately. We
request that the Draft EIR be revised to reflect this.
F.2
Comment ~-4~' regarding Master Plan imsrovements (pages 5.1-9 and 10):
The Land Use section discusses prc.:osed changes to the Master Plan for subtic
improvements in Subarea 15 and to .'.he phasing of those improvements. The
second paragraph on ~age 5.1-9 states that '...an assessment district may ~ave
to be formed" once the Cornerpoints project and the public park are approved and
deve!oped. We request that the Draft EIR be revised to make it dear that
Cucamonga Cornerpoints LLC pro.,,.oses to buiid the public improvements
required with Tentative Moo 15727 ar.d the proposed public park ,,,Jithou~; the use
of an assessment district. The owners and/or de,;e!opers cf the industrial
deve{osment area east of the prcposed resident(el area may chocse to prcsese
an .=ssessmen~ district for the industrial park area. but we would no~. anticia=-:e
th_=.: ~istrict ',vculd/nc!ude :he public .sark or any of the residen,:ial area.
Comment =.'5, regarding the comparison of the prcpcsed pr.cjec: and alternatives
Section 8: ----
Table 8-1. 'Comparison of Potential Impacts of Proposed Project and
Alternatives," compares the "Subarea 16 Potential Buildout (Proposed Project)'
with four different potential alternative developments. As Not. e #1 in the table
explains. the table compares impacts in terms of development of the overall
subarea, not just the proposed Cucamonga Cornerpointe residential project. The
'Proposed Project" or 'Subarea 16 Potential Buildout" c,slumn. however. is based
on a potential density of over 7 residential units per acre for the 91 acres of
Cornerpointe, Cook, and Blessant properties, which is dose to the maximum
allc;vable for Low-,"vledium Residential.
In actuality. the current proposed Tentative MaD 15727 shows only 342 unks on
the 77-acre Cornerpointe property. which is a density of -".5 units per acre. If we
apply that same density to the entire 91-acre residential par'lion of the 'Subarea
16 Proposed Project." a total of 415 residential units would result compared to the
659 units. The "Proposed Project" column in Table 8-1 reflects the unmitigated
impacts of these hypothetical 659 units combined with an estimated 907.398
square feet of industrial park buildings and a 5-acre park.
We request that Table 8-1 also show an additional column for comparison
purposes entitled 'More Precise Subarea 16 Procased Project" based on the
proposed Tentative MaD 15727. which includes the more realistic 415 residential
units instead of the hypothetical 659 units. This additional column would provide
information which would more dosely re~ecz the actual impacts that can be
anticipated from the development of Subarea 15. Acscrding to our calculations,
this additional column would provide the information on the at, ached Exhibit A.
Ccmment '"6, regarding the Fiscal Impact Analysis:
Although CEQA does not require tha.'. a fiscal iracart anai'.¢sis be made far an
the City chose to have the Fiscal Impact Analysis. dated July 8, 1996. and
prepared by The Note!son Comaany Inc.. oil, ached ~o the E!R.
It should be noted that the Fiscal Imaact Analysis reflects an earlier project design
with small lots and detached condominiums. The new project design, as shc'..jn
an Ten~afi,/e MaD 15727. revised 7/25/~c6. is csmc. ased of la:~er single-retail,/Ict`s
which average 5,845 square feet in size.
It appears tha~. the dollar values used in the 'Average Value cer Unit" column cf
Table 8 of the analysis reflect the previous small lot and de~a_.-hed condom~nium
design of t`he Cornerpaint`e prcjecL It is our be!ief. based on our current. markolin.=
data. :ha[ :he homes the?...vii! be b, uii~ an .:he new lar~er lat`s '...,ill range in value
fr.cm 5155.000 ~a 5225.000. We be!love :ha.'..'.he Fiscal Irasac: Resort shcuic
mcCi~eC .'.s :---:~='-' :his chance in order :s orsvide ...... ~";^ ..._ Cit'/'s
......._ .... t.--:--,,; and
:ec:s~sn .,--.8:<e.'s ..,.i:h mc.'s _=::'..:~!e Er'f:.'.-.ac::.^
As a result of the increase in the average value per housing unit. the average
household income for this pr~ect will also be higher refiec:ing the higher income
qualifications required for the purchase of these homes. As a result of these
increases, we believe that the amount of sales tax revenues derived by the City
will also increase correspondingly.
Additionally, we believe that the assumption in the Fiscal Impact Analysis that
50% of the new residents in Subarea 15 will shop in areas other than the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. may not be accurate. We don't believe that the analysis
takes-~mo sufficient consideration the draw of the nearby major power centers that
have been built along Foothill Boulevard in recent years.
The Fiscal Impact Analysis also assumes that most of the Ci~'s expenses will
sta~ to occur from the very beginning of the proiect. This assumption does not
take into account the fact, that most if not all of the maintenance costs attributed to
the City will in actuality not be assumed by the City until the end of the project
development.
We request that the Fiscal Impact Analysis be revised to reflect all of the points
discussed above. We do not believe. however, that the revisions to the Dra~
and the processing of those revisions should be delayed by changes to the Fiscal
Impact Analysis. since the fiscal analysis is only an attachment to the E_IR. The
revised Fiscal Impact Analysis should. however. be available for the public
hearings so that the public and the public officials will have the most accurate
information available at that time.
I
7nis concludes our comments on the Draft EIR for the Subarea 16 Redesignaticn. dateC July.
I E96. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding these comments.
please don't hesitate to call me.
Sincsre!y.
joke F~i,er
a~achment
Mr. Geoff Reilly, Envicom Corporation
Ms. Map/Rauschenburg. Communities Sou;h'.'.'es~
Mr. Rick ,~,'iec. Gri~'~n Industries. Inc.
,~,lr. Br~c~ S:rickiand. Gri~'~n Industries. inc.
E
E
COL.~'T:' w.~TE_R D[S~.R/CT P.O. 30X
CUCA.'vlO.NGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT t
TRC CO~I3IENT SHZET
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
Date:
BY:
WATER:
TR 15727, Cucamonga Cornermointe LLC. Indusr. rial SDecific Plan Amend. # 95-04.
Development District Amendme'at # 95-02, Formerly CC~VD Engineering File # CD-7~
N~,VC 4th Street and Archibald Avenue,. AP.N's 210-060-002, 011,013, 026, 032, and 032
7f17/96
JOHN' KNAPP, Eng/n~ring Tedmician
Existing llY' waterline in 4th Street west of the SBCFCD Cucamonga Creek Channel.
existing 10" Waterline stubs on the west and east sides of the 4th Street channei
bridge excluding the center section, an existing 10" waterline on the west side ot
Archibaki Ave., an existing 8" waterline on the east side of Archibald Aye,, and-an
e.'d.sting 10" waterline on the south side of 6th SireeL
District Requires:
1) Continuation of 10" waterline between HeLlman Ave. stud Archibald Ave.
2) Normal connections to the public water system.
3) All public water mains to be 8" minimum sizing.
4) Any domestic meter which is to provide residential fire protection shall be 1"
minialum sizing.
-'D All public landscaping shall be served only from a separate landsave metered
service,
6) All public landscape or public domestic metered services shall have an aDDroved
Reduced Pressure Principle Assemblv installed as the required minimum t~dckflow
device.
D ALl meters are to be located outside of any pedestrian walkway area or a.nv vehicLttaz
tralTic area and shall be located within a parkway, landscape, or planter aze3.
8) Retocation of any effected metered service or appurtenanceZ
Existing 21" sewerline ajong the east ri~ht of way of Cuc_amonga Creek t:,'ing into a
sewerline in 4th St.. which extends auproximatetv 900 feet e.2.st thence sout2~ an e.'dstin_o
8" sewerline_:ax:t. he northwest- corni:r of 4th StZ and Archibald Ave.- that'flows to
existing 10" sewerline on the east side of Archibald Ave.. and an existing !~' sewerline
on the west side of Archibald Ave.
District Requires:
1) Development to be served bv the existing 15" sewerline exciusive!,'. Any other
sewerline access to be per District approval only.
2) Normal connections to the public sewer system.
3) No clean-outs to be installed within any enclosed garage areas.
4) All public sewer mains to be S" minimum sizing.
NOT'E:
.-t 10 foot minimum horizontal segaration is required between the centerline of :my tree and
the centerline of any water or sewer main (a 5 foot minimum dimension is required for
laterals). Any dimensicrn less than this required minimum requires prior writt--n approval.
.ALL PERTINENT LANDSCAPE PL.--kNTING PL.-x..NS ARE TO INCLUDE T'rrlS x'OTE
EXISTING PUBLIC ?.-kCILITIE5 TO BE FIELD vERIFIED
~'~ n RESPONSE TO COVv-"N"~ ON THE D.R_-k.=T. ErR
RESPONSE TO COM.MENT5
lake Fa/]er, ]a.ke ~a/ler A. ssociates (dated August 29, 1996):
E1
The coLmentor [dentiz'ies that ti',.e, applicant has .roy;sod Tentative Tract ,.MAD I5~7 Ln
response to various concerns raised by Ci.ty sta/f. Tenter/re Tract MaD 1572_7 was revised
subsequent to the ci.-culation of the DEER for public review and is now dated July 25, 1996.
.As a result, the comme~tor reques~ that several pages of the DEIR b.e revised to reflect
new idorma~on on the revised Tentative Tract MaD 15727.
Fk-st, the commentor identi/ies that private loads are no longer proposed for the vroject,
and requests that the fiith paragraph m page 5.5-2 oi the DEIR ~.'nd~ the sub~eadi'~g
"Cucamonga Comerpointe Subdivision" be revised accordLnglv. Therefore, the first
sentence~j fine fi./th paragraph m page 5.5-2 of the DELR is hereby amended to read as
fol2ows:
"Review of the site plan for the proposed Cucamonga ComervoL'~te
residential subdivision indicates that hhe proposed access drives a.nd cLl-de-
sacs would provide suf/'/dent width and turning tad,Z/to accommodate the
Dis.'-z'ct's fire and emergency, medical seD,'ice vekic!es."
The amendment to the fifth paragraph m page 5.5-2 does not d'~ange the DELR's
conclusion that the proposed subdivision could result Ln a potentially sig'ni/icant ~vact
re!afire to fire protection. However, this poten~aLly sig-n.fficant Lmvact can be
mitigated to a less than significant level through the ~mpIementation o~' Mitigation
Measure FP-t, whkh is proposed on page.5.5-3 of the DEIR.
Second, the commentor identifies that the revised Tentative Trac MaD 15/'2_7/r, dudes
diffe:en~ design elemenLs and requests that the thL-d paragraph m page 5.1-!7 oi
DELR be amended to re:'tect the di/ierent design e!ements. Therefore, the third
paragraph on page 5.1-17 oi the DELR Ls hereby amended to read as foL/ows:
"'Ln order to adotress h~s potential land use corjlict, the Cuca~monFa
Corne.,-vointe subc[/vision proposes to '~e side yard a:.d rear yard setbacks. O~
the 342 potent/a/lots, 39 would Lmmed./ate[y abut indus~-ia/park designated
prope.~cy,. O~ these 39 lots, 29 of the lots would have backyards be.~.-~n the
com.mon propertF Fine a.nd the homes, with a iota/lot !enF~h bet'weo_n 1!0 and
i60 ieet. The remai,,~-~g 10 [ors would have a side yard betwee. n t. he
property LLne and the homes with lot widths ranging from 75 to 56 ieet. The
miimum setbacks &ore ead'~ dwe~,Aing u_n.k to the con'~on property Lne would
be 30 feet for side ;,'ards and 60 fee,' for rear yards. Am eight foot high
mason.7:, .c<:retn wall would a/so be cons~'u~ed bet'*'e-=_n the residential
deve!o.vment and Lndus~Tial Dark. The proposed to~ widLhs and lengths
co~ZvLned with the mason.,-,' waL/wit[ sez-~e ~o reduce poten~ai land use
compat/b;lib/;.L-nvacts be~,veen the reside.ntia/a. nd indus.'r'ial uses. However,
bec..ause the precise ,u.ses wkid'~ wig _~".d uD L'~ L~he i.ndus~ia/park po74~on
C".e subarea are u_n_lc~own at Lbi5 iv, e, adverse land use compatibLLi.ty L-.'nvacts
may still be generated. J. ndusLr'ia/buildings ','h.ic/~ are 75 feet L'1 height,
warehouses with 24-hour ~-ucZ-~Lng ouera~ons loca~ed a~ the rear of the
L",dus~"ia[ park pa.rce/s, and ce.,'taLn custom znanu/actu.d. ng activities
b. voJvLng no.'dous/nu~sance substances are all potent/a[ realities of ~he
L-~dus~ia[ park' which co~d degrade the livabiELty of areas beyond a
sidevL,'d setback of 10 or !5 Feet. .-ks such, tlne proposed design of t.he
RANCHO CUCAMONGA .rNDUSTR[AL AREA SPECEF[C PLA>:
SUBAREA 15 REDESiGN.-'.T,ZON E[R
~ ~ .'~ R-'S.vONS-Z ""~ CON!.MLx.T5 ON ':'HE DP,.-X.-':T
E4
Cuc~__mong~ Co.-r,e:~oL~.ta subd;,v;.s~or. Ls cor_~ide:ed ;o generate a Do ~n, ,.
adverse Land use co.='. ,pa~!b;:;--;'
it sho,~d be noted that ~',,e po'.e.,'.tiaE?' sis--v2ficL".'- !Lv4 uz.e com?atibi!it:,' LinDacts
described above can be .m2tigated to tess thLR sig-n.L~ic~-~t Levels through i~mD[ementation
of M. itigatS. on Measures LU-2 Lhrou.~ LU-5, whlc~%.are proposed cn pages 5.1-19 and 3.1.-
20 of Lhe DETR.
The commL-ntor notes that the Comme.nt Sheet dated July 17, 1996 ~'om the Cuca.monga
County Water District for ~e Tecb. nicai Review Com.m.i~ee meeting for Tentative Tract
MaD 15/'2_7 calls for the con~.nua~don of the t0" waterthe Ln 4th Street betvze,,_n Hellman
Avenue and .4a-dn. ibald Avenue. However, M.r. James H. CLne, Jr., Director of LngL~.-ing
and i_nsvection of the Cucamonga Count/Water District, has indicated (personal
com.mu.nicafion, September 10, 1996) L,hat C".e July 17, I996 Comment Sheet Ls ~corr. e~ a. nd
that a 12'_-' water ma/.n will be requ. L-ed be~.vee. n ',.he Cue_znonga Creek Charmer and
.-trr2dba.!d Ave_hue. Please reier to Response to Co=uments 54 and 136.
The re,;ised Tentative Tract May I5/m-7 a.'~d August 20, 1996 DraL~age Study are still
sui:qec't., to review and approval by the Ciw of Rand',,o Cucamonga Lnglm~rLng Division.
However, vre!imLna.7 review of the revised ~'act mad and drainage study indicates that
most all oi the poten~ai storm drainage LinDacts desc,Zbed in Sec~on 5.11 of t_he DE!R
have be~_n accoz/tmodated, LndudLng stormwater runof/from Line indus~"-bj park potdon of
the subarea. The applicant for Cucamonga ComerpoLnte LLC has already complied with
storm drainage M. itigation Measu.res SD-1 and SO-3 wh. Ed~ a.re listed cn pages 5.11-9 and
5.11-10 of ',.he DEIL NLitiga~on Measu-"~ SD-2 and SD4 (page 5.!1-10 of the DEiR)
have yet to be implemented. Coz:nb/.ned wiLh t. he revised ~act mad L'ld drainage stud?',
L.mDtementat~on of NLit'iga~on Measures SD-2 ~,",d SO4. would :'educe votentiallv
signL/icant storm draLnage LinDacts m less than sig-n;dicLqt levels. The applica_nt may
a2so be requ. L'ed to meet an',' additional storm drLnage conditions :,ezor,_-t~"xded bv the
CiP/'s Engineering l>ivision.
The con'~me_ntor idenL~es that Cucamonga Come-'poLn,~e LLC vrooeses to build G~e DubEc
LT~DrOve_.'-n~L'IL5 required with Tenta~ve T.'~C, ~aD 15/'~-7 and ~e proposed public park
wiLnout the use of an assessment dis~ict and reouests ~a: Line seccrad pazagraph m page
5.1-9 of tlne DEIR be revised accordingt'/. Tr'.erefore, the last sent~'.ce Lnduded hn the
seccnd paragraph on page 5.1-9 of the DELR is hereby a_me_nded to read as follows:
"However, it shou/d be noted that Cut-~.mong'a Corne.-voLnte LLC proposes to
build the public iznproveme_nts reouired w!tln Tenta~ve Tract NfaD 15727 and
the proposed oubL/c park without ~e use of an assessment dis ~.ct."
.An assessment d_Lstr'ict may s~l_[ ~ needed for ~ne Lndus..'T2~ Dark DO.'?.iOn Of Subarea !6;
however, suc. ln an assessw. ent dls~ict ;..s not L-,,ticiDated ~o L'-tdude E'",e public Dark or
residential portion of Eqe subarea.
~,~-d/e the Cuca~monga Come::poLnte subdivision b proDosed to be de'.'etoved at a dens!v:'
4.6 dweLLLng u.PSts per acre, it B ~--d~-~o=,n at CnEs ~e if Ene C~k and/or Blessent
proveXes wo~d ~ deve[oved at ~E5 s~.e res[den:ia[ densip/.
(Alternatives) o[ the D5~ Lna[vzed C~e ~:L-e proj~ ~nd~ a worst-case scen~-io,
ass~ng that ~e res{den~al por~.on of SubL-ea !6 wo~d be develooed a: a dens[~i over
d'~lv;n~ ,Lni~ per.acre.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA iNDUSTRIAL ARE.:, SPECIFIC PLAN
5USAREA !6 REDESrGN.-',TiON
!2.!? ESFONSE TO CO,%.',.~(EXT_~ ON' THE D.t,~ZT. E2
E6
dwe:/L.;~.g ,--'.~Ls per ace (L~read oE over 7 d:,'e~.':n~. "-~:s ~er acre), "'.e:'. :he '-'N.fgre Precise
Subs-ca !6 Proposed Project" desc.;bed b;' .'%e coz.=._~..~or wo~d Ldeed mo~ closeiv
rese=ble the acmaJ. dweLL'~¢, u=fi~.s :ssac!ated :,',2fi'~ d'~e project. For c.o='.?e.:~.son =~oses,
Table 8-I cn ,pages 8-3 and 84 of ~'~e DE~ b hereby ~_~ded ,~o inc:ude an a~di?ional
coI~.n entided "~fore PrecLse Subarea !6 Potential Buildout (-%fore PrecLse Proposed
Proiect witln Residential Densities ~.'~Dnn T~'-..:a~ve Tract 15727)". 'Fne ~-_-nended version of
Table S-1 is provided at ',.he ~.d of Con~z.~nt Letter "E'. The new coi,un'~n provides a
revised desc~ption of the residential con'~Den~nt of ~d'~e proiect and ab-o identifies ~he
envLror~-nen~a.[ in~pacts associated with t~he '..%bre Precise Subarea 16 Frooose. d Proiect.'°
The Cir/of Randno Cucan~onEa identL=ied several =minor errors in Lhe a.me_~ded version of
Table S-! that was subn"d~ed by L.'ne cor~mentor. These e:'rors have be~,-~ corrected and
az:ne-~d.~4~ version of Table S-1 of the DEiR kas ~ subseque_ntly approved by the City.
However, the annended version of Table S-! dc-es no~ dnange the conclusions of'Section
(Alte.m.a.fi!_'es) of the DELR.
As stated by the co~.~m~ntor, the fiscal anaD,'sb oreDared for the DE'_'_'2 was based cr~ an
earlier proiect design wiLlq s_--,ajJ lots L'~d detached condosi-~,~.s. .As such, the
con-~._~_,tor requests that the fiscal analysis L'e revLsed based cn the proiect as currently
propo:-~ (larger sinEle-~amily lots wkid'~ average 6,~..5 ~uare feet Ln size). However,
the fLscaI consu/mnt has not bern autho~.zed to co=nDle~e a model --~.run for the new
proiect. Therefore, provided be!ow [s an esi"na~on by the fiscal con~,,_jmn( of the fiscal
iznpacs resulli.~E from ~e new proiect desc~:o~on.
The co_~_mentor notes that the new larger loLs (3~2 lots) will range in p.fice ~om S155,000
to 5ZZS,GO0. The attached Tables 1 and 2 show an estin~a6on of "he net fiscal innpact
resujL~.g L-onn the change L*~ the project_. Table 1 displays the net fiscal iLnDact
at~ibutable to the Cuc:z~anEa ComerDointe r.~orLfi~L, ra~on. .As proiected at buiI~out,
the net .~._scal i/~Dact of the CucazLanga Comer-Dointe residen~da] ccrnn=,onent of the
proiec. t ~,'~/I re,him a surDtus o{ approLi~mateiv 538,000 cor'.Dazed with ordy Sil,0O0 under
the old projet. Table 2 displays an es,~..~ma~on o.r the cos~ and ~v~,.,_,es resut~nE
Lhe ~nl-e developmen~ under fine new project descr~p~on.
Tne sa!es tax g~_neraSon calcula6on built into the model Ls 1L"C<ed dL-ectly to the
reside*.~a.[ develooment assun'~pfion. s. Thus, the rev~ed proie-c, does Ln fact Lncrease
overa/2 !evel of ret~l saJes tax .'~v~nues to C-*,e City as is reflected in the Table '1 and
TabIe 2 .~roie~on_s.
WiLh :egHd to the co~mznent about the proiect..ed CiW capture rate of re.'ail saJes, the
~caI co~t stays co~ed to i~ c~.==t ~ro]~on of ~ ~rc~t ~ ~e best
conser,'a~ve estate of ~e Ci~'s ~o~en~ caD~-e of ?~w residen~al d~m~d. Given
~e lack of a re~on~ retail cLnter ~ R~d~o Cu~mon~ ~d the proj~'s proxL~ to
retail L'e~ ~ nei~bo~ng commences, the ~sca[ co~t has deterned ~hat a
Dercenc cable rate ~ ~ appropriate esimate. Based ~ the ~scal
expelthee, ~ney be~eve ~at ~v uD~v~-~ ad~,~,en~ in ~s ~re h~ the potential of
comprcr3m~ the Lnte~ of G~e fiscal ~n~vsis bF potential!F L~]a~q~ C[~,' rev~ue
projec~ons.
The =',ethods used by ~,e fiscal consultant to dete.~--m/.-~e the fiscal costs of public
nna. Lnt~--.az~ce b described m pages !8 and !9 o( the fiscal ~.L'~.DaC~ anaJysis (under
subheadLnE "Public Work.s ~'vfa.inten~-nce Cos.:s") and on the Fzst page of AppendLx I to the
fiscal ~a!vsis. 'Fnese meC-~ods wL-e pre:'!ousE:,' reviewed and approved by Lhe Ci~,'
ELLnd~o Cuca.~monga.
RA.~;CHO CUCA.~[ONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
5UB.-',REA 15 REDES~GNAT[ON'
! 2-44
Table !
ES~'I'%_iATION OF FISCAL I~IPACTS OF CUCA.',IO,NGA COR.','ERPOI.';T
R:sid:ncial ComForts-no Only:
A:r~s: i42.3
Uni.:s: 650
C'cz:..onga CoraerPoim:
Act=s: 77
Units: 342
C"c'_.'n. onga ComerPoint as a P'.rc=amg-. of Residential Component
Ac;:s: 54. 1% __
U,':ks: 52.6%
Buildout
· -:~-.~..'y T.:x '~25.762
T.'---sfzr Tzx g .-'97 4.47 I
5'd,-~ Tzx 56.143 29..5-:.0
F-~-'~dse F_~ ! l ~OS9 58.976
3~L:-.--',
7.'_.-.sf.':~ F:'~m CL~_' Ag:.':d~ lOl .9 l= 51512
.~'~-":'::,c'~ R_-~¢.nue 13.79S 7250
Total .?~,cnu~ $319303 $167,950
COS'T3:
4.41% Units
1.40% Units
9.'~5% Unir~
18.48% Unrts
0.00% Umts
16.30% Unt~
2.27% Unxts
52. ~2
· ?~L/c: C~:s- 331379 -~I6.9E0
S,-z.z: :.!-'n".'u:x=: 1 I4.761 61095
5;-'.r:'= Dr".L': ,M:i'~'-'-~:,-'e: 4.636
P'.::-'.inI D.-:'?a.~c 4.891 2.573
R:,.-'r-~:ion ?."~gr'_~ 20. ! 29
CZ~ A".'--in~"_eon "rid O"',mcd 66.7 t 7 35. 193
r~t_-! CasLr $332,dFF2 $129,~5d
:Vet Fisc=i Imve. c:
,Vet Fisc,,l lm.~cc: under Previot:s
Tow-.t l,~.cre.~se in F~cgl Revenues to the City
S38,096
510,784
3'2_7,312
5.24% A~
0.00% No P~_-ks in CC
19.17% Acr,~
0.77% Ac,~
0.79% Uni~
3.27% Units
10.$d.% Units
40.09%
:245
5L~L',L-~RY OF' R.ECU.:L~.L','G FISCAL IMPACT O.N CITY OF
5L'BA?-.L.~ t6 AR. EA :'ISC.~,L L'.PACT .-IF. PORT
At P.:'rc:nr
Buildout oCTo:..~L,
COS,Z:
36591 102%
S I j59 L-~7%
13~34~
6~U 1.3%
~.~91 1.~%
20.129 5
73.3 l0 20,5%
· ?~'7'/,0 OF .:b,'v'SN'UE TO 1.77,
.~ ='T ESC~.L D.E~ACT
SL'P. PLUS CIDEziC'j)
SURPLUS (DEzl-xCR')
HOUSLNG UNIT, L~4 PLACF.
'~'i-9 C.F.D..~r__~ndng a[ Poll=: NO
DCLLF Dl""n;n D;:~nrnr:
In rr,zpon.~r tn :h.~. Dr-%% E!X fur d~c h:du.v-FlMl ,',ten Sn~c{~c
Plan Subs-ca !0 ~c~csi~adol;, w= would ~{e :o offer C~e
t'nflo~ng r~s~ons~ :c~ dh~g culwr~ resources (~S. !2}:
,
'~,'c cuucuF ~.'iC'-. the E. ndi::gs 'S'~at '~,ere ,~,'- nn histo.'-ic
z'c~ourcc~ ~-:r.hin Lhe proposed 77-~cr-. [:uca.~cnga
Cornc~oi=t~ :csidcnd~ p:oj~r.t.
concur d".a; The ~djacen[ Lucas Raach Cuvaplcx i3
hjsto:-ic:dly .~ig'ni~caa[ a.cd support the zilidge. tion
meaS,~rP..~ ~nd additional recoznr. tc::dation3 as propo:ed.
3.
We disa[rce ~at [he ducu,./lc::ta~:jon on "'-.is historic
resource (such a~ rcpor".~, or~ histo.--los. or photogaph.~}
bc ur:l.y dc.vositcd w.iL~ C:c Ci,-/of R~u'.cho Cuc~mnnga. Lhe
R~-alcho Cuc=.'uong= Public tibr;u?', ~_-.r[ :hr. historic
pl-cacr,'~idon commission ({,r {[ e,'dsts). These agent!e3
,-,o: Fcilia.r v,-{C'~ prof:s;ionid!y rnanag'jna such specializ=d
z=ateria.ls =ccord/n~ to ctlrr~.n[ iibri,~' a.:",d
s::L.-~d:~rds so ;hnr ;hr.v i,-e both prosee'veal ~':d rcad:Jy
;cc.--ssihlr. rn ~e pUhT.'[c. Wc SuZX==L, r/:::-aZv:-=, C~csc
m~f~.r;als be dcposized v.~:Lh ~uch regional histoHcai
agencies as the Mod:! Cu!uay Room of C-.e On=%-:o
Libra_7 or Lhc ChaF.':y Communities CukurzL1 Con:or.
F1
F2
F3
tf [ c~: prcrrldc any fu.~-her assis'.z-'.ce, =Iea~e nnntacl 2. e a;
)'Our corV.'cnicnCe.
·
D178~/TI
Cordlv, Lty.
Max A. van Balgooy
Prcsiden;
F
i2.0 .:E_cPONS.-' TO COM.M'ENT_; ON THE DRAF.
RESPONSE TO CO,M.',~,ENTS FRO.M:
~:[a.x A. van Baj~ooy, Chaj-fey Com. mun. i~es CLd~Ltral Center (dated Aug'ust 30, 1996):
F1
F2
F3
Combine_hi ac_knowied~ed.
Comment ac1<.nowledged.
The City of Randno Cuca.monga's exLstLn~ pro~r.am for culmza.[ resou.rce documenta~on,
presen'ation, ard~vLng, and public mresentaSon is considered to be su/ffdent for the
proiect site's cu.[t'ural resou:ces. It should be noted nhat Cne proposed doctm~e,nmt~on of the
c~.l~ra.[ resources {~ a :ecom_mendat~on of ~e DEIR and not ~- reg,~ed rrdSgation measu,re.
R.-',NCHO CUC.-',.MONGA [NDUST.R[.-kL ARE.-'. 5PEC:.=[C PLAN
SrjB.'-,REA 15 REDES[GN."-T[ON Er.R
1!-45
G
August 30, 1996
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Attention: Alan Warren. Associate Planner
Comments and-C, onn~rn.~
Ranclno Cucamonga Industrial Area 5pacific Plan
Subarea 16 Redeslgna'~ton EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 95112019
Dear Mr. Warren:
This correspondence is in response to the information contained in the above
mentioned Draft Environmental Impact Report which analyzes the potential
environmental impacts associated with the development of Subarea 16 of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga's Industrial Area Specific Plan.
We are concerned with the environmental [mplicationsAmpacts of the proposed
rodesignation as addressed in the above referenced document; as well as
environmental implications/impacts which may not have been adequately addressed
in the above referenced document.
The E1R required descriptions of mitigation measures %o reduce significant adverse
impacts reveal that share are impacts wMlcln cannot be reduced below significant
Ievels by The propo.~ed mitigation measures as Identified. According to the FIR the'
proposed project would generate significant and unavoidable adverse impacts in the
areas of air quality, noise and solid waste.
Although '~Re alternative analysis referenced- and the document- concludes that
lesser irapat--Is would be generated by the proposed proiect than if the subarea were
to be developed entirely under the current land use designation, we ere concerned
that lhese "beneficial impacts" associated with the land use change as proposed are
far outweighed by the significanl and unavoidable adverse impacts that would be
generated.
We are concerned that the conclusions reached in the referenced EIR as to
significant/insignificant environmental impfications/impacts on land use.
traffic/circulation, fire protection, police protection, schools, water supply. sewaOf~,
C1
!2-49
3;
G
storm drainage and culture/resources may not have analyzed to the extent necessary
those factors which would more accura[ely refie~ the reel impacts on the City of
Rencho Cucamonge, its citizen/residents, businesses end visitors.
We are concerned that this Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation
a. nd the Project as proposed will have bolh short and l'o/qg term significant adverse
impact on the City of Rancho Cucamonga, its citizens/residents, businesses and
visitors.
As the Gateway to Hancbo Cucamonga and to tlne Ontario International Airport, II~e
City of Rancno Cucamonga, ifs c. ifiz~n/m.~idanfs and businesses have a significant
opportunity ~o follow be. sT practices in its ptannlng and development of this property
and all of ~be City of Ranctnc~ Cucamonga.
Representing the Curtearned Citizens of Rancho Cucamr3nga,
Carla Florence
9580 Meadow St.
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
989-3262
co's: Interested Parties and Concerned Citizens of Rancino Cucarnonga
cf/dn
12-50
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMEX'[S ON THE DRAFT EIR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Carla Floranee (dated August 30, 1996):
The commentor expresses concern over the potential- environmental impacts that could be
generated by the proposed proiect, and notes that the DELR may not have adequately
analyzed such environmental impacts. The commentor is also concerned that the
potential benefits from the proposed land use redesignation of the project site are far
outweighed by the impacts that would be generated by the project.
The DEER for the proposed project was prepared fit accordance with the environmental
impact report preparation requirements established under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended. The State of CaLifornia Office of Planning and
Research CEQA GuideLines were strictly foLlowed, along with advice and ~uldance from
the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. The principal objectives of CEQA
are that the environmental review process involve the general public, and that the EIR
be an idormational document that will idorm members of the public, City decision-
makers and technical reviewers about the environmental impacts associated with
implementation and operation of the proposed project. Section 15151 of the State CEQA
GuideEmes defines the standards for EER adequacy:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision-
makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently
takes into account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental
effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the suj~'ciency o/an EIR is to be
re'OiL'wed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not
make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR would summarize the main points o/disagreement
among the experts. The courts have not looked fir perfection; but for adequacy,
completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
Section 15146 of the State CEQA GuideLines also states: The degree of specificity
required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of speci~city involved in the underlying
activity which is described in the EIR.
The DEER clearly identifies that the proposed project will result in potentially
significant (short-term and long-term) environmental impacts. The level of signfficance
of the environmental impacts were determined by using appropriate "thresholds of
signfficance' which were derived ~rom existing City,, state, county, and federal
standards. Mitigation measures are proposed in the DEER in an effort to reduce or avoid
such impacts. Section 11.0 of the DEER also fitdudes a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan for the project which outlines the actions required to ensure that all
mitigation measures are completely implemented and monitored. However, the proposed
project would still result in significant unavoidable impacts even after the mitigation
measures are implemented.
In order for the City of Ra.ncho Cucamonga to approve the project, they must first prepare
a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for these tmmitigable impacts. The SOC
will be required to describe why the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the
project's significant unavoidable impacts. The City decision-makers will be responsible
for approving or denying the project as currently proposed.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA [NDUSTR[AL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA !6 REDESIGNATtON EIR
12-5i
32
PETE WILSON
,tate sf alif rnia
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 I~-NTH 5TRE,=T
SACRAMENTO 95~14
THE CITY OF RANCEO CUCA,MONGA
10500 CIvIc C=-,N'TER DRIVE
· IA,NCEO CUCA~ONGA0 CA Y i
AUgUS; 30, 19~5
~c:on
SEP 0 5 ~S96
City of Rancho Cucamon0a
~lanning Divi;~ion
TP.e Sca;e C!earin~rlc'ase ~as su=mlc~ed the ahov~ nam:d d1~fL Ei~vironmcn~:l impac~
McFcrt (SIR) to ~elec~cd mcacc a~czlci~: for review, The revie~ period is n~u n]nsed
~nd ~he comm-nr.= ~rnm the re,~ondin~ a~ency(ies) is(are} encloseG. on the enc!oee~
your comment paC'ragP ~. cnmp]ete. if the coterie package is noC in order, pleaee
n0tlry the Scare clearlngncu~e l~edia~ely. Rc,.=,~=i Lu ~:f:~ to the project's
eighz-~igit Sta:e Clea~i~l~cuuc nu~cr co Lha~ we may re~po::d promp~!y.
P!~_ase no~e c.".ar. See%ion 211U~ O: ~he California publlu R=~uu~ues Code retired
Uh~L:
"a respon~!b!e agency or nth~r public agency shall only make substantive
coteries regaruin~ ;ncze activeLies involved In a p~ujcu~ ~hich ~r¢ we=kin
an ~i=~ uf ~.xperzisc of ;he egcn~, ~r which arc r~ired :o be carried our
or approved by =he agen~'"
Co,~nenzi:~W aWcncics .-,.': alSO . equircd by this ~cccion co ~uppor= -.heir co-v~en:. with
=pccific documentn'.io,'
'T,'Z~ cu.unc:xL. ai'e forwarded for your uee in prepering your final EIR. Should you
need mere infor~a=ion or clarificaClon, we recomend =hat you cnm~ct the cow~enting
agency ( ~ P.~ .
Thic !enter acknowled~ee :hac you have complied with the SCare Clearinghouee review
rc~iremen:B for draft enviror~mental documents, putscan= ~o ~he Californi~
Envlrozlm~zlL=l Queliuf Ace. ~l:~ee c~n=~c~ Kri~tcn Dcrschcid at (916) 44S-06~3 if
you have any queszlonu regarding ~he environment~] r~v{~w prncess.
~N'I'~MU A. R!VASFLATA
Chief, Sta=c Clearinghouuc
EnC!oeures
L'~: Rcoourccs Agency
H
12-52
{3
Uok,
3:
H
243
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEL~FF EIR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Antero A. Rivasplata, Govemor's Office of Planning and Research (dated Aug-ust 30, 1996):
HI Comment acknowledged.
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDES[GNATION EIR
12-54
3,.i
I
8tare of Callforni.
Memorandum
TO:
FROM:
Project Coordinator
Resources Agency
DATE:
August 28. 1 996
Mr. Alan Warren
Mr. Larry HendarKen .,,
City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Deperb'nent '
10500 Civic Center Drive . _~
R.~d~ Cucamonga, California 91729 ""'
Depmnt of ConlervleJon
Office of Governmental and Environmental Rela'Jone
SUBJECT: The Draft Environmental Impact. Rei;xx't (DEIR) ' a
Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redeslgnation ~ $C~~
The State Mining and Geotogy Board (Board) staff has review, ed the DEIR for
the ~x3ve referenced project. The Board establishes policy for the cc~nlervatlon end
development of mineral resources and d~aslgnate$ areas having regional-mining
s.ignificarc.; The following comments are offered for your review.
We understand ~( ~ City of Ringhe Cucanx~ge ts c~rrenUy cor~dedng ~
~~ ~vwl~nt ~ ~ aa ~ ladusUal ~m S~c Plan. S~P= 1~
R~sianation. A ~ion ~ ~im ~~ ~v. lo~ im ~in I~ C/uffi~ ~
~ St~e Geo~i~ i$ ~taining i~t $gg~e ~ ~r mi~ ~s.
~ ~s, at~. ~ve ~ Desig~t~ by ~ B~ as ~ ere, ~ ~al Mi~l
SI~~ (Publ~ Re~ur~ C~ ~i~ ~.7). ~ CiW ~ Ra~ C~
II. ~in ~ CJ~t-Upla~ P~u~e~e~i~ Regis.
The p~G;;x~,ed construction of residential slice in this area would Impa~ ~e
future developme~ of aggregate reserves in the mineral resource area labeled Se, ctoc
D-12 (SDec. i-I Re~ort 143, Part VI, Clasaifr. a~n of Sand and Grsve~ Re~our~x Areas,
ClaremofN'.4Jpland ProducSon-Cont, umg~on Region, f987). This Seaor has beef~
deeignlted by the Bo~d as an are~ o( Regional Mint'el Signi~canc~ (SMAP, A
De.S~.' natiofi Report Number ~, January, fg87).
A$ contained in the DEIR's, Initial Study, Attaa'trr. e~ 'B', ~ the heeding ~1'
'Na(urel Resources', the auth~ reporbl: 'A,_~_~:=raJn~ to ~ C,ty'8 Gener~ flen, the
California Dr'vision of Mines end Geology t18s idenffffed 'aggregates' as the rrx:~
important re~Gurce In the City. None of the ~re~ate toureel cx;z;ur t~ Subsroe 1 e.
Furthermore, the r>ite is not known to support any oilier extre~e~ neturll relour~e$.
Theraft>re, development of the project site ~R~jid r~t tnhlbtt acaaS3 to any r~fouroel of
]:1
I2-55
157
Mr. AI~ Wsfre~ / Ms'. Larry Henderson
Page 2
~N~ r~ture.' As you can see from the attac~ed ~ ~ the DEIR's Pr~
L~ti~ ~ (Fl~te 2-2), Se~ D-12 a~ ~ ~ site ~
~ ~1~, ~ ~~ devet~ ~id ~r ~ 1~0 ~ Mi~al Cta~
by ~ S~e G~l~ist and Designat~ ~ ~vi~ Refill M~al Sl~ffi~ by
~d.
Your attention is called to Public Res, o~-c~s Cocle Sections 2762 and 2753
(Surfsace Minin~ end Redsration Act), arta:l Cmlifon~im Coci ~ Re~..~mtlor4 S4,~lz~
3~75 snd 3676 regarding lesd agency responsibllltles In tiesling witll minePal landl
Designated as t'~ving Regional Significance.
in llnd use conflicts. between urt}.en development and mccess to mineral
re.soLrce~, it is impartint titat the signific~z"ce ol' the mineral resoun;~e be r~iz.ed
anti ~ tl',eif potential Ic~.= ~-arefully be evatuned. ~efore, ~ ~t
recam~ ~ tn~ City lndud~ in tf~s FEIR · dilcuslion d the i~noe of
aggragaI~ risa. u'~e disaJsse~l tl~ve as It corx;a'ns land use pfopo~,sls ~ might be
Irr.,ompa~e with S~te. Regi~al. and City interests in utilizing these reKx.~rc~.
The Dep.ertment appredates the opixxlunity Io a:x'n,ment on th~ DEIR. If you
have any qza~imm regarding these c;ofnrnenIs, please cor'f,a~ John G. Pettish,
Executit Ofr'm.,,er. ) State Mining and Geology Board at (916) 322-1082.
· Marshail
Office of Govemmer~l and Env~ R~
cc: Jol'~ G. Parde, h, State MIning end Geolo~, Board
12-56
i2-57
I
.!
I/
Z
12.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DR:XFT
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM:
Jason R. Marshall, Department of Conservation, Office of Governmental and Environmental
Relations (dated August 26, 1996):
I1
The City of Rancho Cucamonga questions the State Mining and Geology Board's
designation of the project site as containing important mineral resources and is currently
investigating the issue. The aggregate resources map (Figur~ W-2) of the City's General
Plan was updated per "Designation of Regionally Significant Construction Ago~regate
Resource .Areas Ln the Claremont-Upland and San Bemardino Production-Consumption
Regions" (CalLfornia Division of Mines and Geology, January, 1987). This report did not
identify any important aggregate resources on the project site. As such, the Initial Study
for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation EIR als~
concluded-that the project site did not contain important mineral resources.
The City, has requested that the State review their records and make a fully documented
account of the actual adopted aggregate resources. At the time the State makes a factual
determination, the City will respond accordingly.
R.-kNCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
i2-59
11.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
11.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
In compliance with Public Resource Code Section 21081.6 (enacted by passage of AB3180
[Covtese]), public agencies approving projects which have the potential to cause significant
environmental impacts must adopt a monitoring and reporting program for the adopted or
required measures which would mitigate or avoid ~he significant effects. This section of the EIR
constitutes the Mitigation Ivlonitoring and Reporting Plan for the Subarea 16 Redesignation
project.
A project manager will be assigned by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director to supervise the
implementation of the monitoring plan throughout all phases of project development, from the
time the project is approved to the time the certificates of occupancy are issued. The project
manager will have the authority to stop the work of construction contractors Lf compliance with
any aspects of the mitigation is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The
project manager will also have the authority to refine, replace or add mitigation measures as
necessary which achieve the same goals as the adopted mitigation measures.
Table 11-1 is a master checklist which identifies the mitigation measures to be implemented and
how they are to be monitored. At the point each mitigation measure is implemented, a reporting
and implementation form (Table 11-2) shall be filled out, documenting the adequacy of
mitigation compliance. As a mitigation measure is completed, the project manager can "check
off" that measure cn the master checklist. Certificates of occupancy for any approved phase of
development within Subarea 16 shall not be Lssued until compliance with all mitigation measures
has been verified.
It should be noted that there will be multipie developments within Subarea 16 which will have
to comply with this mitigation monitoring plan. As such, a "fresh" mitigation monitoring
checklist and set of reporting forms must be completed for each development within the subarea.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION EIR
lid
z
*~: ~
IQ7
=_
:::t::2 Z ="r~ Z
e,- .= .~
RESOLUTION NO. 96-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16
REDESIGNATION WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS N SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals
1. There has been presented to this Commission in conjunction with the Commission's
consideration of the recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Development
District Amendment 95-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, and Tentative Tract
15727, a Final Environmental Impact Report.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report referred to in this Resolution consists of that
document dated July 1996, entitled "Draft Environmental Impact Report Industrial Area Specific Plan
Subarea 16 Redesignation" together with the draft Final Environmental Impact Report dated October
1996, including wdtten comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report and written responses
thereto submitted by staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and testimony presented during
hearings on the recommended approval of the said General Plan, Development District, and
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendments and Tentative Tract 15727 insofar as that testimony
pertained to the environmental matters, as well as the revised executive summary, including
revisions to the mitigation measures, as well as the mitigation monitoring plan. Hereinafter, the
above referenced documents will be referred to as the "Final Environmental Impact Report." The
entirety of the Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby incorporated in this Resolution by this
reference.
3. The public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Report was duly and
lawfully closed on September 3, 1996, following due notice to the public and all applicable public
agencies.
4. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report and concluded
said hearing on'that date.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga take the following action with respect to the Final Environmental Impact Report:
a. Certify that Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for General Plan
Amendment 95-03A, Development District Amendment 95-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04, and Tentative Tract 15727 in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") with
State and City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations.
Further, that the Planning Commission certifies that it has considered the contents of the Final
Exhibit "B-2" ~TH
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
E1R - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
96-63
Environmental Impact Report in considering the approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A,
Development District Amendment 95-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, and
Tentative Tract 15727;
b. Hereby recommend adoption of: (1) the Statement of Findings (EIR) and Statement
of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Attachment A, and (2) the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, attached hereto as Attachment B, based upon the following findings:
1) The facts and findings set forth in the Statement of Findings (EIR) Statement
of Overriding Considerations are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and
the Final Environmental Impact Report.
2) The Final Environmental Impact report has identified all significant
environmental effects. of the project; there are no known potentially significant environmental impacts
not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
3) Although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly
be mitigated or avoided have been reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of mitigation
measures on the project. These mitigation measures are attached hereto as pad of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program and incorporated herein by this reference.
4) Potential mitigation measure or project alternatives not incorporated into the
project (including the "no-project" alternative) were determined to be infeasible based upon the
considerations set forth in the Statement of Findings (EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact
Report and other substantial evidence in the administrative record. The cumulative impacts of the
project in relation to other projects in the area have been considered, and, except with respect to
those unavoidable impacts described in the Statement of Findings (EIR), mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project to reduce such impacts to insignificant levels.
5) The unavoidable significant impacts of the project that have not been reduced
to a level of insignificance, as identified in the Statement of Findings (EIR) and the Final
Environmental Impact Report, have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of
mitigation measures. The remaining unavoidable significant impacts are outweighed by the
economic, social, technological, legal, and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
6) The Final Environmental Impact Report has described a reasonable range of
attematives to the project (including the "project" alternative), even though these alternatives might
impede the attainment of project objectives and might create other significant economic, social,
legal, technological, or environmental impacts. A good faith effort was made to incorporate
altemafives in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and reasonable alternatives
were considered in the review process of the Final Environmental Impact Report and the ultimate
decisions on the project.
c. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b),
this application shall not be operative, vested, or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map
recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental action
is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino; and
(2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section
711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of
San Bernardino.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
96-63
In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant
to the provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder,
except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
2. The Secretany to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMM',,SS. ON OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
B '
airman
ATTEST: ~
I, Brad Buffer. Secretany 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 9th day of October 1996. by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNiEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROJECT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Findings of Fact has been prepared for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial
Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared
an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA GuideLines. The EIR was
subject to the review and approval by the Ranch Cucamonga Planning Commission and City
Council, and was certified as adequate by the City Council on
II. DESCRIP'RON OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San
Bernardino County. Known as Subarea 16 of the City's Industrial Area Specific Plan, the
project site is 142 gross acres in size, and is bounded by Sixth Street to the north, Archibald
Avenue to the east, Fourth Street to the south, and Cucamonga Creek Channel and Hellman
Avenue to the west. The proposed project consists of two components. The first component
involves the redesignation of 91 acres of the subarea from Industrial Park to Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). Because the City is concerned about potential land
use compatibility problems, the impacts associated with future industrial park development
on the remainder of the subarea is also evaluated as part of this project component. The second
project component is a proposed 342 single family dwelling unit subdivision on 77 acres of the
proposed redesignation area.
III. FINDINGS OF FACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21081, and
the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provide that:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact
report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment
that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or
more of the following findings:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the EIR.
b. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
c. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR."
After reviewing the Final EIR and the public record on the project, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga hereby makes the findings in Section IV, V, and VI regarding the significant effects
of the proposed project pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
EXHIBIT "A" 17 7
1
IV. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE
TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
LAND USE IMPACTS
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of 91 acres of industrial
park designated land from Subarea 16 of the City's Industrial Area Specific Plan, and its
redesignation for low-medium density residential use. The proposed redesignation is
somewhat inconsistent with the City's General Plan policy which calls for industrial park
uses along Fourth Street. The proposed development is also inconsistent with the adopted
Master Plan for the area which calls for different phasing, access and drainage
improvements than currently proposed.
Although the industrial park uses would be restricted through implementation of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan's performance standards, it is probable that some nuisance
noise, odor or lighting would impact the proposed adjacent residences beyond the proposed
setback and reqOire attention by City code enforcement.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required m, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following required mitigation measures:
[LU-1] The City shall adopt land use amendments and development standards for
Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan which will supercede the
provisions contained in the adopted Master Plan for Subarea 16. The
citywide Master Plan of Storm Drains shall also be revised to reflect the
currently proposed development. These administrative actions shall take
place prior to final tract map approval of the Cucamonga Cornerpointe
project.
[LU-2] The City should modify the list of Subarea 16's permitted and conditional
uses to exclude or limit more noxious ones. This modification shall occur prior
to Final Tract Map approval of the Cucamonga Cornerpointe project.
[LU-3] Future industrial development within Subarea 16 shall be subject to the
following building limitations:
· Height Limitation: 25 feet within 100 feet of abutting residential
development.
· Rear Property Line Building Setback: 45 feet when abutting residential
development.
· No loading doors/facilities, outdoor activities/storage nor mechanical
equipment shall be located beyond the rear wall of the subject
industrial building.
[LU-4] For the lots within the Cucamonga Cornerpointe subdivision which abut the
remainLug industrial park portion of the subarea, the following features
shah be included in order to reduce future residents' perception of neighboring
industrial park activities:
[LU-5]
a. An eight-foot slump block wall shall be constructed along the common
property line which separates the residential and industrial park
lands of the subarea. The base of the wall shall be planted with a 16-
foot wide buffer of evergreen vines and dense everg'reen trees (eight feet
of landscaping on each side of the property line wall).
b. Homes on lots whose backyards abut the industrial park shall be set
back 60 feet from the common property line. Homes on lots whose
sideyards abut the industrial park shall be set back 30 feet from the
common property line with additional wall and window insulation to
ensure interior noise levels to 45dB CNEL.
c. Minimize the number of windows which look onto the industrial park.
Windows which do look onto the industrial park shall be double-
parted.
The CC&Rs for the Cucamonga Comerpointe residential development shall
-disclose the presence of the adjacent industrial park and, to the extent
feasible, describe the potential nuisances which might be generated by the
industrial park.
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Development of Subarea 16 with residential and industrial park uses would increase the
daily generation of pollutants in both the short-term and the long-term. Significant long
term air pollutant emissions would be generated by vehicular trips going to and from the
subarea, and, indirectly, as a result of the use of electricity and natural gas in machines and
appliances.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Fact in Suppor~ of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
[AQ-2] All development within the subarea shall be subject to applicable provisions
of the City's adopted trip reduction ordinances (Ordinance No. 522 and 523,
Adopted April 6, 1994) as follows:
Industrial Park Development
a. Office parks with 1,000 employees or more shall provide onsite video
conference facilities.
b. Industrial development over 325,000 square feet in size shall provide a
minimum of one shower facility accessible to both men and women for
persons waking or bicycling to work.
c. Bicycle storage facilities at the rate of one rack or locker per 30 spaces
(minimum of a three-bike rack) shall be provided within all
development and related to planned and existing bicycle trails in
accordance with the Development Code Requirements.
d. Off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
office/industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking
area as designated for use by car pools and vanpools.
e. Convenient pedestrian circulation shall be provided throughout all
projects to connect public streets, parking areas and public transit
facilities with buildings and pedestrian open spaces.
Residential Development
f. Cucamonga Comerpointe's roadway improvements to Fourth Street
shall include a bus turnout.
g. Single-family development of 500 or more units shall provide a
telecommuting center or contribute toward development of one in an
amount satisfactory to the City Council.
FIRE PROTECTION IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would result i.n a considerable increase in demands
for the various fire protection, suppression, and emergency medical services provided by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The potential need for relocation of Fire Station
#2 to meet this demand would not be adequately covered by revenues generated through
standard property taxes.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[FP-1]
of insignLficance through
All property within the present boundaries of Subarea 16 shall be annexed
into Mello Roos District 85-1 in order to assist in funding Fire Station #2's
relocation and/or the hiring of additional personnel. Annexation of the
subarea shall be completed prior to recordation of Cucamonga Cornerpointe's
Final Tract Map. Subarea landowners shall each contribute their pro-rata
share of the administrative costs of annexation.
POLICE PROTECTION IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would result in additional residents, employees,
pedestrians, and vehicular traffic in the project area, which would increase the existing
demands for the various law enforcement and protection services provided by the San
Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. This impact is considered to be cumulatively
significant in that the need for additional officers may ultimately result in the need for new
or expanded police facilities.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
of insignificance through
[P-1]
All development in the subarea shall include the following design features to
reduce the potential for crLminal activity:
a. Street and night lighting should be provided on the project site to aid
crime prevention and enforcement efforts. Lighting standards should
meet or exceed existing City standards.
b. Landscaping should be designed so as to not conceal potential criminal
activities near windows or doors.
c. All garages should be enclosed.
d. The use of louvered windows should be prohibited.
SCHOOL IMPACTS
Development of the residential portions of the subarea would result in the generation of new
students that would attend schools administered by the Cucamonga School District and the
Charley Joint Union High School District. Additional students may also be generated from
future employees of the proposed industrial park. Because both of the t~,o school districts
have indicated that the existing enrollment levels are at or near maximum capacity, the
proposed project's impact to schools is considered to be potentially significant.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[S-1] Each residential development within Subarea 16 shall be conditioned to
participate in the CJUSHD's CFD No. 2 as well as pay CSD's property tax
increment through existing impact reduction measures.
WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS
The Cucamonga County Water District has indicated that the existing trunk lines that serve
the site can not adequately accommodate the project's future water demands without a
significant decline in water pressure. Although the project applicants would b~ required to
pay Water Development Fees to the District, these fees would not be sufficient to reduce the
potentially significant impacts relative to existing water distribution facilities to less than
significant levels.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially sig-nificant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[W-l] In addition to paying connection fees and installing all required waterlines on
the project site, the Cucamonga Comerpointe or the first major development
of the area shall construct a 12" water main in Fourth Street between
Cucamonga Creek Channel and Archibald Avenue. If Cucamonga
Cornerpointe is the first major development of the site, then the 12" water
main shall be installed prior to final inspection approval. If the industrial
buildings are the first major development of the site, then the 12" water main
shall be installed prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Because other
development within the subarea will also be dependent upon this water
main, a refund agreement shall be established with the Cucamonga Coun,ty
Water District in which each development within the project site shall
-provide a pro-rata funding, based upon the completion of residential units of
each particular development.
STORM DRAINAGE IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces and reduce the time of concentration, thereby increasing the peak stormwater
runoff potential from the project site. Because drainage facilities have not been identified
for the Blessent and Cook properties, stormwater runoff impacts from these two areas of the
site are considered to be potentially significant. In addition, the Cucamonga Comerpointe
system does not appear to provide for stormwater runoff from future industrial park
development within the Cucamonga Charmel tributary area.
With regard to potential flooding impacts, future development on the westerly portion of the
Blessent property and the northwesterly portion of the Cook property may be significantly
affected by the Hellman Avenue flood hazard area. Development of the subarea may also
generate potentially significant water quality impacts because of the nature of the land uses
and the considerable area of impermeable surfaces which would be constructed on the project
site.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
[SD-1]
of insignificance through
In order to avoid the potential sheet flow flooding that would be generated
from Sixth Street, building pads proposed along Sixth Street shall be raised
in accordance with Ordinance 545. In addition, it is the City's policy that
storm drains be installed whenever: 25-year storm runoff exceeds the
capacity of a street (curb-to-curb); a 100-year storm runoff overflows the
street right-of-way; or street lanes are not kept "dry" during a 10-year storm.
These criteria will determine if a storm drain will be required within Sixth
Street.
[SD-2]
[SD-3]
[SD4]
In order to avoid the impacts of the existing 100 year flood zone along
Hellman Avenue, development on the Cook and 131essent properties which
would be located within the flood zone shall either be responsible for the
construct-ion of the master planned storm drain in Hellman Avenue, or the
raising up of the building pads by 3 to 4 feet within that flood zone, in
accordance with Ordinance 545. More precise hydrology calculations would
be required to pinpoint the "safe" finished elevations of these sites.
If the raising of building pads is implemented, flooding would continue to
occur along Hellman Avenue and at any project ingress/egress locations. As
such, erosion control measures would have to be incorporated into the fill
slope of the raised building pads.
In order to avoid internal flooding problems within Subarea 16 as the area
develops, a revised master drainage plan should be prepared prior to the
City preparing conditions of approval for the Cucamonga Cornerpointe
-project. This report must identify the size and locations of all onsite storm
drains, demonstrate that these storm drains can adequately accommodate
runoff from "upstream" areas within Subarea 16 and specify the locations of
proposed points of discharge within either the Archibald Avenue or
Cucamonga Channel tributary areas. In order to ensure that the project's
future runoff into Cucamonga Creek Channel can be adequately
accommodated, the Army Corps of Engineers shall be consulted, and if
necessary, the impermeable surface areas within the project site shall be
reduced. In addition, a preliminary drainage plan for the project shall be
submitted and all storm drain designs shah be approved by the City Engineer
prior to final map approval.
To minimize the pollution of stormwater runoff, a stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP), identifying best management practices for use both
during construction and operation of all proposed residential development
shall be developed prior to Cucamonga Cornerpointe final tract map
approval, in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board
requirements.
A master SWPPP for non-residential land uses shall be developed prior to
construction of such uses. The SWPPP for the non-residential land uses shall
require the construction and monitoring of more comprehensive pollution
control facilities, both in terms of number and in effectiveness, for removing a
variety of potential pollutants. Such facilities should include, but are not
limited to, subsurface sedimentation and filtration slructures to treat "first
flush" runoffs. In addition, the plan must include provisions for a
coordinated, periodic sweeping program for all paved surfaces which
includes the application and vacuuming of approved detergents for
hydrocarbon removal, and an approved disposal program. In addition, the
SWPPP must demonstrate how runoff from the industrial portion of the
project will be prevented from discharging onto the residential area, such as
through the construction of berms.
CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed may ultimately result in the demolition of the
historic Lucas Ranch Complex. Because the Lucas Ranch Complex is eligible for a local
landmark designation as well as the National Register of Historic Flaces, the proposed
project's impacts to cultural resources are considered to be potentially significant.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[CR-1]
' Pursuant to the community design element of the City of Rancho Cucarnonga's
General Plan, all new development within the subarea should incorporate
historic themes.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CAN NOT BE
REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
T RAFFIC/CIRCULATION IMPACTS
By Year 2001, the peak hour trips from Subarea 16 would cause significant Lmpacts at the
intersection of Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street. By Year 2015, Subarea 16 traffic would
significantly impact two intersections: Vineyard Avenue/Fourth Street, and Archibald
Avenue/Fourth Street. In addition, the intersections of Hellman Avenue/Fourth Street and
Hellman Avenue/Sixth Street will be significantly impacted unless they are signalized.
Although, in theory, roadway improvements are available to reduce significant impacts,
there may be insufficient right-of-way available to accommodate these improvements, and
thus, significant traffic impacts may be unavoidable at certain locations.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will substantially reduce but not
completely mitigate the significant effects:
iT-l] Each development in Subarea 16, including the Cucarnonga Cornerpointe
subdivision, shall be responsible for mitigating traffic impacts by
contributing its pro-rata share of the list of improvements shown below, in
accordance with the City's policies regarding traffic impact fees and traffic
mitigations. Each development shall coordinate with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Engineering Department to determine whether the City's
required traffic impact fees are sufficient to cover the development's pro-rata
share of these improvements.
Year 2001
Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street · Add one eastbound Left-turn lane
· Add one westbound Through lane
· Add one southbound Right-turn lane
· Add one northbound Through lane
The above improvements are already planned by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. This will increase the number of existing through lanes from two
to three westbound and two to three northbound.
Hellman Avenue/Fourth Street · Signalize intersection
Hellman Avenue/Sixth Street
· Signalize intersection (optional)
Year 2015
Vineyard Avenue/Fourth Street
· Add one northbound Through lane
This will increase the number of existing through lanes from two to three in
the northbound direction.
Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street · Add one eastbound Left turn lane (by 2001)
· Add one eastbound Through lane
· Add one westbound Through lane ('by 2001)
· Add one northbound Right-turn lane
· Add one northbound Through lane Coy 2001)
· Add one southbound Right turn lane ('by 2001)
· Add one southbound Through lane
· Upgrade existing intersection signal
This will increase the numt~ of existing through lanes from two to three
eastbound, two to three westbound, two to three northbound, and two to three
southbound.
Hellman Avenue/Fourth Street
· Signalize intersection ('by 2001)
Hellman Avenue/Sixth Street
· Signalize intersection
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Development of Subarea 16 with residential and industrial park uses would increase the
daily generation of pollutants in both the short-term and the long-term. In the short term,
typical construction activities could generate on the order of 69.7 pounds of carbon monoxide,
8.7 pounds of reactive organic gases, 77.4 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 8.9 pounds of sulfur oxides
and 1,575.5 pounds of fine particulate matter each day. Should the entire subarea be
developed more or less simultaneously, the daily construction emissions would be higher. I f
the site is developed in a more piecemeal fashion, then daily emissions would be lower, but
they would occur over a greater time period. In addition, the subarea's contribution to
cumulative increases in carbon monoxide "hotspot" concentrations is considered to be
significant.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required i_n, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will
completely mitigate the significant effects:
[AQ-1I Dust
kept
a.
bo
substantially reduce but not
generated by the development activities shall be retained onsite and
to a minimum by following the dust control measures listed below.
During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of
cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enoug~h to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include we~ing down such
10
[AQ-2I
areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and
whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the
entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by watering,
revegetating, or spreading soil binders to prevent wind pickup of the
soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust
generation will not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction
debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
All development within the subarea shall be subject to applicable provisions
of the City's adopted trip reduction ordinances (Ordinance No. 522 and 523,
Adopted April 6, 1994) as follows:
Industrial Park Development
a. Office parks with 1,000 employees or more shall provide onsite video
conference facilities.
b. Industrial development over 325,000 square feet in size shall provide a
minimum of one shower facility accessible to both men and women for
persons waking or bicycling to work.
c. Bicycle storage facilities at the rate of one rack or locker per 30 spaces
(minimum of a three-bike rack) shall be provided within all
development and related to planned and existing bicycle trails in
accordance with the Development Code Requirements.
d. Off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
office/industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking
area as designated for use by car pools and vanpools.
e. Convenient pedestrian circulation shall be provided throughout all
projects to connect public streets, parking areas and public transit
facilities with buildings and pedestrian open spaces.
Residential Development
f. Cucamonga Cornerpointe's roadway improvements to Fourth Street
shall include a bus turnout.
g. Single-family development of 500 or more units shall provide a
telecommuting center or contribute toward development of one in an
amount satisfactory to the City Council
NOISE IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would increase the number of vehicular trips which
utilize the roadways adjacent to the site and, as such, incrementally increase the amount of
traffic noise generated on the local roadways. Although development of the subarea would
not result in an audible increase, subarea traffic in combination with cumulative project
traffic would cause an audible increase which cannot be avoided.
11
Because the project site is currently exposed to unacceptable ambient noise levels,
development of the proposed residential uses would result in exposure of additional
populations to unacceptable ambient noise levels.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will substantially reduce but not
completely mitigate the significant effects:
[N-1] Pursuant to Section 17.02.120 of the City Development Code, grading and
other construction activities which involve the use of heavy equipment shall
be restricted to Monday through Saturday 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., excluding
'holidays.
[N-2] Applicants for residential development within the subarea shall have an
acoustical engineer conduct and submit a final noise study at the time of
submittal of plans for building permits on homes which will border Fourth
Street, Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue. The final noise study shall verify
existing and future noise ambient noise levels based upon field measurements
taken after the ramps Linking Archibald Avenue and Interstate 10 are open.
Based upon the updated noise characterization, the study will discuss how
outdoor levels at the homes can be attenuated to less than 65 dB CNEL,
identify the building materials and construction techniques to be utilized to
reduce indoor noise levels to 45 dB CNEL, and verify the adequacy of
mitigation measures included in the building plans. Any proposed sound
barriers shall be designed in a manner which is acceptable to the City. The
building plans will be checked for conformance with mitigation measures
contained in the final noise study and conditions of approval.
SOLID WASTE IMPACTS
Full development of the subarea would result in the long-term daily generation of additional
solid waste. The amount of solid waste from the proposed project would be less than what is
expected if the entire subarea was developed under its current industrial park designation.
However, given the extremely limited amount of available capacity at both the Milliken
and Mid-Valley landfills, the proposed project is anticipated to result in a cumulatively
significant contribution to the regional solid waste disposal crisis.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
12
Facts in Support of the Finding
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce but not completely
mitigate the significant effects:
[sw-l]
Recyclable waste materials generated during construction of any development
within the subarea shall be separated out so as to facilitate the recycling of
these materials by the contracted trash hauler.
[SW-2] City maintenance of the public park shall include the recycling of green
wastes and the use of composted materials.
[SW-31
All proposed dwelling units in the subarea shall be designed with adequate
indoor/outdoor storage space to facilitate the separation and recycling of
recyclable materials.
[SW-4]
Each industrial park development shall participate in the citywide, non-
'residential recycling program, at the time it becomes available through
private, contracted haulers.
13
VI. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA GuideLines requires that EIRs describe a "range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly
attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives." Four alternatives to the proposed project were identified: 1) No Project
Alternative; 2) Low-Medium Residential Alternative; 3) Low-Medium
Residential/Commercial/Office; and 4) Low-Medium Residential/Office. These four
alternatives are described below.
Alternative 1: "No Project"
There are two scenarios which are both defined as the "No Project" Alternative. The first
scenario is the literal interpretation of the "no project, "which means maintaining the
project site as it exists today (Alternative 1A). Because the first scenario typically is not a
feasible alternative, a second "no project" scenario was also identified. The second scenario
assumes that 'the project site would be developed as currently permitted under the City's
zoning and general plan designations for the site (Alternative 1B). Alternative 1B consists
of 2,390,180 square feet of industrial park buildings and a five-acre public park.
Alternative 1A: No Build
Because the No Build Alternative would not permit any additional development, it
would result in the least amount of impacts compared to the proposed project and the
other alternatives. However, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the
proposed project and would not provide the same amount of benefits as the project (i.e.,
park site, infrastructure improvements, jobs, revenue to the City, etc.).
Alternative 1B: Currently Permitted Buildout
Alternative 1B would generate more vehicle trips than the proposed project, resulting in
greater impacts relative to traffic/circulation, air quality, and noise. This industrial
park alternative would also generate more sewage and refuse than the proposed project,
resulting in greater sewage and solid waste impacts. In addition, Alternative 1B would
requLre a greater amount of impervious surfaces than the proposed project; this would
result in more surface runoff than the project. Because this alternative involves more
industrial square footage than the project, it has the potential to generate greater
stormwater pollution impacts because there would be a greater potential that hazardous
materials would be used. Although Alternative 1B would generate more jobs than the
proposed project, it would not meet all of the objectives of the project.
Alternative 2: Low-Medium Residential Throughout
Under this alternative, the entirety of Subarea 16 would be removed from the Industrial
Area Specific Plan and redesignated for Low-Medium Residential (4 to 8 dwelling units per
acre). The exception would be the public park designation which is currently designated on
the general Plan Land Use Map and which is currently proposed as part of the Cucamonga
Cornerpointe development. The maximum number of dwelling units anticipated under this
alternative would be 1,036.
Although Alternative 2 would result in less land use compatibility impacts than the
proposed project, the policy inconsistencies are considered to be somewhat greater than the
project because there is no retention of any lands for industrial uses, and because the
inconsistency with SCAG's growth projections would be even greater. In terms of noise
compatibility, this alternative is considered to be worse than the proposed project because,
14
by resulting in substantially more dwellLng u_nits than the proposed project, it could expose a
greater number of sensitive receptors to existing unacceptable ambient noise levels than the
proposed project.
It is also expected that demands for police protection would be greater under this
alternative than that of the proposed project. This is because residential uses generate
more calls for service than industrial uses. In addition, Alternative 2 would generate an
estimated 1,019 students, resulting in greater impacts to schools than the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would also generate greater water supply impacts than the proposed project.
Although Alternative 2 has been identified as the "Environmentally Superior
Alternative," it would not provide as many jobs or revenue to the City as the proposed
project and would not meet all of the project objectives.
Alternative 3: Low-Medium Residential/Commercial/Office
Under this alternative, the western portion of the subarea, including the Cucamonga
Cornerpointe site and the Cook and Blessent properties, would be withdrawn from the
Industrial Area Specific Plan and would be redesignated for Low-Medium Residential use
with a five-acre public park. Therefore, the residential buildout of this alternative would
be the same as the proposed project. The remaining 46 acres of the subarea would also be
withdrawn from the Industrial Area Specific Plan and redesignated. Up to 16 acres of the
site would be redesignated for commercial use and 30 acres would be redesignated for office
use. The anticipated, non-residential buildout of this alternative is approximately 217,800
square feet of commercial space and 553,340 square feet of office space.
The land use policy consistency of this alternative is considered to be worse than the
proposed project because not only would the entire site be inconsistent with the adopted
Master Plan, but traffic and air quality generation would exceed SCAG's growth forecasts.
Under this alternative, the number of vehicular trips generated by the site would be 81
percent higher than that generated by the proposed project. This suggest that both onsite
and offsite sensitive receptors would experience a greater ambient noise level than
anticipated under the proposed project. The air pollutant emissions would exceed
SCAQMD's significance thresholds and are much greater than the emission levels expected
under the proposed buildout of the subarea. In terms of consistency with the AQMP, this
alternative is considered to be inconsistent because it would generate a higher rate of d ally
emissions than anticipated under the site's current industrial park designation.
The demand for police protection under Alternative 3 would be greater than the proposed
project because commercial and office land uses typically generate more calls for service
than industrial uses. In addition, water supply impacts under this alternative would also
be greater than those generated by the project. Although Alternative 3 would generate less
stormwater runoff than the project to the Archibald Avenue drainage area, it would
generate more runoff to the Cucamonga Creek drainage area. This alternative would not
meet all of the objectives of the proposed project.
15
Alternative 4: Low-Medium Residential/Office
Under this alternative, the western portion of Subarea 16, including the Cucamonga
Cornerpointe site and the Cook and Blessent properties, would be withdrawn from the
Industrial Area Specific Plan and would be redesignated for Low-Ivledium Residential Use
with a five-acre public park. The maximum residential buildout would be the same as the
proposed project. The remaining 46 acres of the subarea would also be withdrawn from the
Industrial Area Specific Plan and would be redesignated for an 858,350-square foot office
building.
The land use policy consistency impacts of Alternative 4 would be greater than that of the
proposed project because this alternative, by not retaining any industrial park lands, would
be completely contrary to the City's intent in setting aside lands for industrial
development. The air pollutant emissions under Alternative 4 would exceed SCAQMD's
significance thresholds and are substantially greater than the emission levels expected
under buildout of the proposed project. In addition, the number of vehicular trips generated
by this alternative would be four percent higher than that generated by the proposed
project. This suggest that both onsite and offsite sensitive receptors would experience a
greater ambient noise level than anticipated under the proposed project. The demand for
police protection is also considered to be slightly greater than what is expected under the
proposed project because calls for service by the office uses are expected to be greater than
that of the industrial park uses.
Alternative 4 would generate more water supply impacts than the proposed project. Also,
stormwater runoff to the Cucamonga Creek drainage area would be greater than that of the
proposed project. Finally, this alternative does not meet all of the objectives of the
proposed project.
16
VII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines provide
that:
"CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable adverse risks in determining whether to approve the
project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse impacts may be considered acceptable.
Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant effects
which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated,
the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on
the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement may be
necessary if the agency also makes a finding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3).
If any agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should
be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the
Notice of Determination." (Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines.)
Project benefits are defined as those improvements or gains to the community that would not
occur without the proposed project.
1. Impacts from Proposed Project
As stated in Section V, the proposed project would result in significant unavoidable
impacts relative to traffic/circulation, air quality, noise, and solid waste.
Project Benefits
The City of Rancho Cucarnonga finds that the following substantial environmental
benefits will occur as a result of approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A, and
associated Development District Amendment 95-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04, and Tentative Tract 15727:
Tentative Tract 15727, an 82-acre, 342 lot subdivision will provide an added
beneficial residential character to the existing single family neighborhood
north of Sixth Street. The inclusion of a five-acre neighborhood park as a part
of the tract project will provide recreational activity potential in a residential
neighborhood where little presently exists.
Applicants for development will be required to mitigate all onsite impacts and
specified offsite impacts through installation of frontage improvements
consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan's Circulation
Element, as well as contribute to the City's Nexus Fee Program for offsite
impacts.
Project applicants shall be conditioned to participate in City waste
minimization programs to reduce the flow of municipal solid waste to landfills.
Project applicants shall be conditioned to provide methods to facilitate the
recycling of solid waste material by contract trash haulers.
The land use amendments, while redesignating a total of 92 acres for
residential development, retains a significant portion within Subarea 16 for
industrial and commercial related activities that will provide a positive cost
benefit to the City when ultimately developed.
17
Also, the redesio~nation of land on the southwest portion of Sixth Street and its
ultimate residential development should provide a greater degree of land u:-e
compatibility with the residential neighborhood north of Sixth Street, than would
the development of an industrial center. The proposed development standards
contained in Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04 should aid significantly
in the mitigating nuisance potential for the adjacent residential areas.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
The City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that despite the incorporation of all the
mitigation measures outlined in the Findings of Fact on the proposed project, certain
environmental impacts remain which carmot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The City finds that these unmitigable impacts are outweighed by the project benefits
described above and are therefore acceptable. Furthermore, for the reasons discussed
above, the project alternatives identified in the EIR will have greater environmental
impacts than the project, will not meet the project objectives, or will not provide the
project benefits to the same extent as the project. Therefore, for the reasons described
in detail above, these economic, social, environmental, and other considerations make
the project alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible.
18
1 !.0 MITZGAT[ON N[OXFTOP,.ING AND REPORT,2,,'G
11.0 NEITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PL.4N
In compliance with Public Resource Code Sec~on 21081.5 (enacted bv passage of AB3180
[Cortese]), public agencies apFroving projec:..s wbZdn have the potential to cau~ sio~nificant
envLronmental impacts must adopt a moraltoting ~nd reDoring prog-rarn for the adopted or
required measures which world mitigate or avoid ~he signL/ic~----~t effects. This section of the
constitutes the Mitigation Mordtozing and Repor+ing Plan for the Subarea 16 Redesig'na~on
project.
A project manager wLll be assign. ed by the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director to supe.wise the
Lmplementa~on of the monitoring plan throughout all phases of project development, from the
time the project is approved to Line time the certificates of occupancy are issued. The project
manager will have the authority to stop the work of construction contractors Lf compliance with
any aspects of the mitigation is not occur,',ag after written notification has been issued. The
proiect manager will also have the authority to refine, replace or add mitigation measures as
necessary which achieve the same goals as C'~e adopted mitigation measures.
Table 11-1 is a master checklist whidn iden~ies the mitigation measures to be implemented and
holy they are to be monitored. At the point each n-d~gation measure is implemented, a reporting
and implementation form CTabIe 11-2) shall be filled out, docun~enting the adequacy of
mitigation compliance. As a n'd~ation measure is completed, the project manager can "check
off" that measure cn the master c~hecklist. Certificates of ocCuPanCy for any approved phase of
development within Subarea 16 shall not be issued until compHince with ad m-itiga~on measures
has been verified.
It should be noted that there will be multiple developments .within Subarea 16 which will have
to comply with this mitigation monitoring plan. .As such, a "fresh" mitigation monitoring
ched</ist and set of reporting forms must be completed for each development wiLhin the subarea.
R.-x.N'CHO CUCAMONGA I.N'DUSTR[AL AREA SPECIFIC PLA.N
SUBAREA !6 REDES[GNAT[ON fir
EXHIBIT "B" !i-!
Z
(.J<
< Z Z
Z
z
z
B-
Z
LAND U S E APPEND IX
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 9, 1996
(Exhibit "0-1 ")
Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-64
(Exhibit "0-2")
Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-65
(Exhibit "C-3")
Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-66
(Exhibit "C-4")
Exhibit "C"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
Exhibit "C-1"
October 9, 1996
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03A -
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the General Plan Land
Use designation from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units
per acre) for 77 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the
Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north,
and the City will also consider an alternative designation of Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Park
designation to alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street
on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and
Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth
Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga
Creek Flood Control Channel the City will consider Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39.
For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north,
Archibald Avenue. on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will
consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and
Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to remove
82 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek
Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, from the Industrial
Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land to Development Code Low
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18,
19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, Subarea 16 to alternative land uses and amending development standards for
the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the
east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
on the west as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 2
Removing approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of
Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga
Creek Flood Control Channel from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the
purposes of rezoning the land to Development Code Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as
alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39.
Removing approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the
north, Archibald Avenue on the east and Fourth Street on the south from the
Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purpose of considering Development Code
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office
as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
3. Consider changing the development standards and land use activities for
Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend
the Development District Map designation from Industrial Area Specific Plan to Low
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 82 acres of land at the
intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
bordered by Sixth Street on the north, and the City will also consider an alternative
designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11,
13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
VVith this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific
Plan designation to alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth
Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and
Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth
Street and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga
Creek Flood Control Channel the City will consider Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as
alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06, and 39.
For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north,
Archibald Avenue on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will
consider Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and
Office as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the above described
projects.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 3
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single family residential tract; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Drainage facilities, vacant, and apadments; City of Ontario - Open Space, Single-
Family, and Multi-Family Residential
East Food plant; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 5 (General Industrial)
West Single family residence/construction storage yard (unimproved); Low Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and vacant, City of Ontario - Limited
Industrial
General Plan DEsignations:
Project Site - Industrial Park
North Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South City of Ontario - Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Residential
(5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per
acre)
General Industrial
Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), City of Ontario - General
Industrial
East
West
Site Characteristics: The project site gently slopes southward at less than 2 percent gradient.
The site primarily consists of fallow fields of annual grasses and forbs and vineyards that are
in decline. In addition to the abandoned fields and vineyards, the site contains eight
residences: one is near the Cucamonga Creek Channel, two are located at the northwestern
corner of the site, one is at the northeast corner, and four are along Archibald Avenue.
Remnants of eucalyptus windrows dot the project site, as well as specimen trees associated
with existing residential landscaping.
LAND USE ANALYSIS: This land use amendment has been submitted by the applicant in
anticipation of consideration of Tentative Tract No. 15727, a 5-acre neighborhood park and 342
single family lot subdivision designed to the Low Medium Residential standards. The following
analysis addresses the issues in this context as well with the underlying residential ranges:
Appropriateness of the existing designation: Subarea 16 is the most southwesterly portion
of the Industrial Area and is adjacent to industrial and residential land in both Rancho
Cucamonga and the City of Ontario. With the Industrial Park designation allowing the least
intensive industrial uses, the subarea's roadway perimeter, and the increased residential
development standards to buffer the site, staff believes an industrial park project within the
present subarea can be made compatible to this surrounding area.
A Fiscal Analysis was developed (included in Appendix "H" of the EIR) for the project. It was
included to provide the Planning Commission and City Council a relative measure of the costs
and revenue of each alternative land use scenario. The present, all-industrial designation
provided the highest anticipated annual net fiscal impact (+$620,759) to the City when
developed as compared with the other alternatives.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 4
Appropriateness of the proposed project: The development of a large residential project
combined with the single-family neighborhood to the north would significantly strengthen the
residential character along Sixth Street. Also, the inclusion of the neighborhood park will also
aid in creating an enhanced neighborhood identity for the area. At 4.68 units per acre,
TT 15727 exceeds the high end of the Low Residential (2-4 dwellings units per acre)
designation. The neighborhood north of Sixth Street was developed at approximately 4.2
units per acre under the County·
On the negative side, the potential for nuisance to future residents from industrial activities
is significant as a common property line would be the dividing line of the two dissimilar land
uses. In addition, performance standards (noise, etc.) would become more stringent on the
industrial businesses as, typically, minimum levels change to the more restrictive at the
property line· Staff believes, however, in concert with the EIR, that additional development
provisions are needed if the residential designation is to be approved. These provisions
would include additional setback areas for both residential and industrial structures,
modification of some industrial activities that could potentially be nuisances (i.e., light
industrial, cremetory services, etc.), and location and orientation limits for industrial structures
(refer to ISPA Resolution Section 4.b-f).
The Fiscal Analysis of this scenario (land use) shows an annual net fiscal impact to the City
of +$267,683 when developed. This results in a 56.9 percent decrease from the existing
subarea designation. The annual net impact from TT 15727 alone is estimated at +$10,785.
Also, the project was evaluated in light of the Southern California Association of
Government's (SCAG's) current Regional Growth Management Plan which estimates the
future population, housing, and employment in the region. SCAG's growth projections for the
City are based upon the buildout potential in the City's General Plan. The proposed land use
changes would be inconsistent with the projections contained in the Regional Growth
Management Plan. But with an anticipated 2 percent increase to the present City population
and a I percent increase at buildout, staff believes that the level of change in the areas listed
above will not be significant.
Alternative Land Uses: The review of alternatives centered on potential uses for the out
parcels next to the requested residential. Alternatives for the tract only involved one other
designation, that being Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre).
Low Residential - With a lower residential density, staff believes it is appropriate to
generally view the impacts as no greater than, and sometimes less than, that of the
proposed Low Medium Residential. Therefore, Low Residential would be an acceptable
alternative wherever Low Medium Residential is determined to be acceptable. At just
over four dwelling units per acre, TT 15727 is close to the high end of the Low
Residential range.
Adjacent Land Alternatives:
Low Medium & Low Residential - One alternative that should be viewed as an essential
part of the land use decision is the similar redesignation of the out parcels (Cook and
Blessent) at the southeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Sixth Street. It is for this
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 5
reason that the EIR specifically includes these parcels as total Low Medium Residential
area in the project description. Staff anticipates some of the properties' access would
come off the northern portion of "A" Street. Staff does not believe that these parcels
should have a different designation than that of the proposed tract. Their smaller size,
odd configuration, and location, potentially surrounded by residential uses, raise many
questions about their viability with a different designation (refer to TT 15727, Exhibit
"C").
Low Medium Residential was also considered for the remainder of the subarea. In most
of the environmental issues, this alternative was listed as a superior alternative. In this
scenario, the two large northeast parcels could be designed as a separate residential
development. The smaller parcels along Archibald Avenue would need to be included
in the design of TT 15727 as they are undoubtedly too small to meet all the
development requirements for a separate residential tract.
Fiscal Analysis of Low Medium Residential for the entire subarea indicates an annual
net fiscal impact to the City of +$57,411 when developed This results in a 90.8 percent
decrease from the existing subarea designation. An all Low Residential designation
would result in an annual loss of $22,182 when fully developed. This equates to a
103.6 percent decrease from the existing subarea designation.
Office - This designation is viewed as an appropriate commercial use neighbor to
residential development, often as a buffer from more intense activities. Also, it was
deemed as a potential alternative because of the significant amount of business support
office activities that have been included in industrial park projects. The General Plan
encourages integrated complexes "to provide areas where related and support offices
can be located" while discouraging "the proliferation of individual isolated offices." A
sizeable office development along Archibald Avenue would be compatible with this
direction and might be viable as local office support for the industrial activities on the
east side of the street.
~=iscal Analysis of this alternative, in conjunction with Low Medium Residential on the
west portion, resulted in an annual net fiscal impact to the city of +$111,848 when
developed. This results in an 82 percent decrease from the existing subarea
designation.
Commercial - Consideration of this land use was solely to explore the potential to
provide retail/service businesses to the expanded residential neighborhood. As a result,
EIR alternative analysis provided for a commercial area of the approximate size of a
neighborhood shopping center with the office alternative. Neighborhood Commercial
districts are intended to meet the retail and services needs for a cluster of
neighborhoods of about 10,000 residents. Convenience Commercial (2-3 acres), a
category with Neighborhood Commercial, allows for small, localized retail and service
businesses that provide goods and merchandise to the immediate surrounding area.
As the commercial activities on the east side of Archibald Avenue are mostly business-
support related, providing for future residents' retail needs within the area may be
appropriate. Staff believes the area at the intersection of Archibald Avenue and Sixth
Street has the potential for such uses.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 6
The City-wide economic study, completed late last year, cautioned regarding the
significant increase in the City's inventory of commercial land. This study, however,
focused on major commercial developments. The study's consultant indicated that
expansion of neighborhood commercial development should not threaten major
commercial activity, as small centers are established where the immediate population
can support the local businesses.
Fiscal Analysis of this alternative of office with 16 acres of retail commercial and Low
Medium Residential on the west portion, resulted in an annual net fiscal impact to the
City of +$417,700 when developed. This results in a 32.7 percent decrease from the
existing subarea designation.
ENVIRONMENTAL AtGSESSMENT: The environmental analysis for the subject applications is
contained in the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). All of the above listed alternatives have been evaluated in the EIR and may also be
considered for adoption as well as the specific amendment request. The mitigations included in
the monitoring program are tailored for the recommended scenario of Low Medium Residential with
Industrial Park for the remaining land bordering Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street. If any of the
other land use alternatives are selected, however, staff recommends a continuance so the
Mitigation Monitoring Program may be studied for possible modifications.
CONCLUSIONS: Staff believes that the residential tract developed at Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), neighborhood park proposal, and accompanying land use changes
are appropriate within the following expanded provisions:
The 15 acres at the southeast corner of Hellman Avenue and Sixth Street is also changed
to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre); and
The Subarea 16 Development Standards for the remaining industrial land be amended to
increase setbacks, modify potential nuisance activities, add neighborhood commercial uses,
include building orientation criteria, and modify the master plan requirement (refer to ISPA
Resolution for specifics). Also, the project would create a remnant substandard lot at the
northwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street because of the ISP's 300 foot
minimum lot width (narrowest frontage) requirement for off-special boulevards. Because of
the extensive +900 foot Archibald Avenue frontage and examples of development possibilities
for industrial and office development shown to staff for this site, it is recommended that an
allowance for a reduced frontage be included for the property (refer to items listed in the ISPA
Resolution, Section B.4).
Finally, staff would also recommend allowing (subject to a conditional use permit) up to 5 acres of
neighborhood commercial uses at the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street
(ISPA Resolution, Sections B.4.c. & d). While the Office/Commercial EIR alternative indicated
increased levels of impacts in some areas (traffic, noise, police protection), these estimates were
based upon the entire remaining subarea potentially changing to those designations. Staff believes
that the 5 acres reserved for neighborhood commercial would not significantly affect the project's
impacts, but would provide a convenience to the area residents.
Refer to the Exhibit "A" with each resolution for a map reflecting the changes based on the above
conclusions.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 95-03, ISPA 95-04, & DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
October 9, 1996
Page 7
FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the
Planning Commission can make the following facts for findings regarding these applications:
The properties are suitable for the uses allowed in the proposed land use and Development
District designation in terms of access and size, as evidenced by the site's location adjacent
to existing single family residential development and the tract design's conformity with Low
Medium Residential District development standards;
The proposed amendments will have significant adverse impacts on the environment as
described in the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation EIR, but the
potential positive impacts of other environmental aspects to the adjacent residential areas will
provide sufficienJ benefits, as listed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, to approve
the amendments; and
Co
The proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan, Industrial Area
Specific Plan, and Development Code because of the site's capacity to promote the goals and
objectives for single family residential development and allow for the development of industrial
park land in the remaining portion of Subarea 16.
CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised for public hearing in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspaper, the properties have been posted, and notices were sent to all property
owners within 500 feet of the project site. Nine letters were received in response to the EIR and
another from an adjoining property owner in December 1996.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolutions Recommending Approval of GPA 95-03A, DDA 95-02, and ISPA 95-04 with Subarea
16 text amendments, as outlined in the Conclusions section of this report.
E :asPectful~
City Planner
BB:AW/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Resolution
Resolution
Resolution
- Existing General Plan Land Use Map
- Existing Development District Map
- Letter from George T. Assanelli
- Site Utilization Map
- Tentative Tract 15727
Recommending Approval of General Plan Amendment
Recommending Approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment
Recommending Approval of Development District Amendment
RESIDENTIAL
~ VERY LOW <2 DU's/AC
~ LOW 2-4 DU's/AC
~ LOW- MEDIUM 4-8 DU's/AC
ii:~:i:i:i:!:i:i:-:l MEDIUM 8-'~4 DU's/AC
~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC
HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC ~ """ ' "'
COMMERCIAL 6 ~
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD OMM. ~
C ·
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL'
"~'/'/*/~. INDUSTRIAL ,PARK
~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
~ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL "~:. -.' 0
OPEN SPACE
~ HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL '
~ OPEN SPACE '
~ FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY C
--- SPECIAL BOULEVARD
(4th
PUBLIC FACILITIES
i e/j/h ]
EXISTING SCHOOLS
PROPOSED SCHOOLS ~
PARKS '(EXISTING PARKS SHOWN 'P')
CIVIC/COMMUNITY
PLANNINGD|VISION
Projec:: .~FA q' r-2 --c>:~ A
'itle: ..te:~l~l'/.._kl~/.~._~D U'5,E 5
Exhib t: 4 - Date: ...........
RESIDENTIAL
I"~C"'q' VERY LOW-2 DU/AC
LOW 2-4 DU/AC
LOW-MEDIUM 4-8 DU/AC
MEDIUM 8-14 DU/AC
MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU/AC
HIGH 24-30 DU/AC
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
F"ilL='q NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
F"CL"'I GENERAL COMMERCIAL
["6F'l OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL
OPEN SPACE
~ HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL
OPEN SPACE
FLOOD CONTROL
UTILITY CORRIDOR
SPECIFIC PLANS
Immmwll
INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN
j,,,,,;.~;~pPm:.',i ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN
FOOTHILL SPECIFIC PLAN
Immmmll
PLANNED COMMUNITIES
~.p. VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY
~c?v.~,.~ TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
MASTER PLAN
SENBOR HOUSING
EQUESTRIAN
2
' mmmmmlmllll!!lm_ -
Project:
Title:
Exhibit:
Date:
December 6, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
RECEIVED
DEC ! 1 1995
RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-03A
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Dear Mr. Buller,
Thank you for your letter of 11-28-95. As an adjacent
property owner, I would like to provide some input to help
you in your decision on a possible zone change for subarea
16.
For the bast 20 years my mother has lived in the large
house. I have lived in the front house with my wife & 3
children. The third house has always been used as a rental.
We are all happy living here and since this is our primary
and only residence, we would naturally welcome a zoning
change back to residential so we could blend in with the
surrounding properties.
However after being a real estate agent for the past 20
years and presently a long time owner of single family
rental properties in Ontario, Upland and R.C.(Rancho
Cucamonga), I feel I should make you aware of a situation
which exists in regards to resident'ial properties below
Foothill Boulevard.
I currently own 5 rental properties in R.C. which are
below Foothill. As recently as last year(before I retired in
1995) I managed 5 other properties in R.C.(specifically in
the tract between 6th and 7th streets and just west of
Archibald Ave.).
Now here is the problem. Whenever I had or have a
vacancy, the calls from my advertisement in the paper
inquiring about the location of the property almost always
go like this; "Gee thanks, but we really want to live above
Foothill." Translation; PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO LIVE BELOW
FOOTHILL.
I now realize that the tract (between 6th & 7th) should
have never been built. Another example would be the Daisy
Apartments on the SW corner of Archibald & 4th in Ontario.
What a waste of an excellent commercial corner. And with the
upcoming expansion of the airport I can already hear the
complaints from the homeowners about the noise and why
weren't they told that this is an industrial area and why
are you building that office building over there and why
can't we have a park here, etc.
Again, even though I would prefer residential zoning,
the existing Specific Plan was well thought out and should
not be changed. I know R.C. needs money now, but we should
wait for the right development which will surely come.
EXHIBIT "C"
R.C. and this country have been very good to me and my
family (we are immigrants from italy) and we will support
whatever the City decides.
Sincerely, - -
George T. Assanelli 9510 Archibald Ave.
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91730
APN 0210-062-10
cc; Councilmember James V. Curatalo
1
Ix I
L~X; N i ts i '7--
RESOLUTION NO. 96-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03A, REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW
MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR
APPROXIMATELY 92 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF
HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 11,
13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for General Plan Amendment
95-03A as described in the title of this Resolution for 77 acres of land, to which the City of Rancho
Cucamonga considered an additional 15 acres of adjacent land. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the
subject General Plan Amendment of 92 acres of land is referred to as "the application."
2. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on this
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on October g, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 92 acres of land, located on the south side
of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel which is presently vacant and underdeveloped. Said properties are currently designated
as Industrial Park; and
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) and developed with a single family neighborhood. Some of the properties
to the west are designated Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are occupied
by an undeveloped construction storage yard. The remaining properties to the west are in the City
of Ontario, designated General industrial, and are vacant. The properties to the east are designated
industrial Park and are primarily vacant with remnants of a vineyard. The properties to the south are
in the City of Ontario, designated Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Density
Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre)
and are developed with drainage facilities and apartments; and
Exhibit "0-2"
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-64
GPA 95-03A - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
c. The application is part of a series of applications relating to Tentative Tract 15727
which proposes the development of 342 single family residential units and a 5-acre neighborhood
park; and
d. This application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and
with related development; and
e, This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
properties
application
f. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and, concurrently with this
by separate Resolution, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
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 I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a That the subject properties are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will not
result in any internal inconsistences with the General Plan and would not have significantly greater
impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties than would be expected under the
existing land use designation.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A to amend the land
use element of the General Plan including the map from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 92 acres of land, located on the south side of Sixth Street, north of
Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek Channel (see Exhibit °'A") and
all other applicable maps, tables, charts, and text of the General Plan to provide consistency with
the change.
5. The Secretan/to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING 'vlMI~SSI(,.)~/,~ THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Barker~C~rman
ATTEST
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-64
GPA 95-03A - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
I, Brad Buffer, Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RESIDENTIAL
', j VERY LOW < 2 DU's/AC
::::::::::::::::::::::::: LOW 2-4 DU's/AC
~ :! I LOW-MEDIUM 4-8DU's/AC , .,~,,
~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC ~'
~ HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC [[ , ,','H';~',, ~ '~':':':':" '
~ ....... ,, ...... ~ ........
~ MASTER PLAN REQUIRED
~.:::::::::~::~ COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ', 6th
~ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL..PARK
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
OPEN SPACE
~ HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL
~ OPEN SPACE
f-_-..-_-:_-,:
· ? ~PA
FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY CORb.
'---- SPECIAL BOULEVARD
PUBLIC FACILITIES
EXISTING SCHOOLS
PROPOSED SCHOOLS ~
PARKS I(EXISTING PARKS SHOWN 'P')
CIVIC/COMMUNITY
Project:
Title: ~,~'AjE/~,~ I.., Pz..~N
Exhibit: A Date:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-04, REQUESTING
TO DELETE 97 ACRES OF LAND FROM-SUBAREA 16 OF THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN
AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND AMENDING
THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SUBAREA 16, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 11, 13, 17,
18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04 as described in the title of this Resolution for 82 acres of land, to which the City
of Rancho Cucamonga considered an additional 15 acres of adjacent land. Hereina~er in this
Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment of 97 total acres of land is referred to as "the
application."
2. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on this
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application and associated applications for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and
Development District Amendment 95-02.
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 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 97 acres of land, located on the south side
of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel which is presently vacant and underdeveloped. Said properties are currently zoned as
Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16, Industrial Park; and
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) and developed with a single family neighborhood. Some of the properties
to the west are designated Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are occupied
by an undeveloped construction storage yard. The remaining properties to the west are in the City
of Ontario, designated General Industrial, and are vacant. The properties to the east are designated
Industrial Park and are primarily vacant with remnants of a vineyard. The properties to the south are
in the City of Ontario, designated Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Density
Exhibit "C-3" _.%""
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-55
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre)
and are developed with drainage facilities and apartments; and
c. The application is part of a series of applications relating to Tentative Tract 15727
which proposes the development of 342 single family residential units and a 5-acre neighborhood
park; and
d. This application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan,
Development Code, and Industrial Area Specific Plan and with related development; and
properties
application
e. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
f. Thi; amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and, concurrently with this
by separate Resolution, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
referenced
above, this
Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a That the subject properties are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will not
result in any intemal inconsistences with the General Plan, Development Code, and Industrial Area
Specific Plan and would not have significantly greater impacts on the environment nor the
surrounding properties than would be expected under the existing land use designation.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04
deleting from Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, 97 acres of land located on the south
side of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street. and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel and amending the text, tables, and maps relating to Subarea 16 as follows:
a. Part IV, Subarea 16, Primary Function, shall read as follows with strikcouts indicating
deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
"This Subarea serves as a transition zone from more intensive
industrial or commercial activities to residential areas in the southwest
comer of the City. As such, new development must be sensitive to the
surroundings with appropriate architecture and site planning to mitigate
potential conflicts. Land uses within the industrial area should be
compatible with surrounding uses north of Sixth Street and along
Archibald Avenue to provide for use activities associated with airports
such as tourist commercial. This subarea is located between Sixth
Street and Fourth Street r-,nd, west of Archibald Avenue end I lellmen
and contains property substantially undeveloped. It lies adjacent to a
direct access to the Ontario International Airport and is located at a
gateway to the City."
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-65
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
b. Part IV, Subarea 16, Permitted Uses, shall read as follows with atrikcouts indicating
deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
"Cuatom Manufacturing - '-
Light Memufacturing
Administrative and Office
Professional/Design Services
Research Services
Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution
Building Maintenance Services
Business Supply Retail Sales and Services
Business Support Services
Communication Services
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services
I lotcl/Motcl
Medical/Health Care Services
Recreation Facilities
Administrative Civic Services"
c. Part IV, Subarea 16, Conditional Uses, shall read as follows with ~trikc~ut~
indicating deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
"Custom Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing
Automotive Rental/Leasing
Automotive Service Station
Convenience Sales and Services
Entertainment
Fast Food Sales
Food and Beverage Sales
Hotel/Motel
Funcral and Crc,-natory Scrvicc~
Personal Services
Cultural
Public Assembly
Public Safety and Utility Services
Religious Assembly
Uses listed ("permitted" or "conditionally permitted"') in the
Development Code's Neighborhood Commercial District subject
to a 5-acre maximum and site constraints as listed in the
Special Considerations."
d. Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, second paragraph shall read as
follows with ~trikcout3 indicating deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
"A revised conceptual Master Plan (revises the master plan of
Development Review File Number 82-16) which outlines access,
circulation, drainage and timing of improvements ha3 bccn ~pprovcd
for this Subarc8 (3cc Dcvclopmcnt Rsvicw Fitc Numbcr 82-1C) is
required prior to approval of development plans. All new
development must be consistent with this Master Plan, or the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-65
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 4
appropriate revisions approved. Neighborhood Commercial uses
(listed as "permitted or "conditionally permitted" in the
Development Code) may only be considered within a 5-acre area at
or near the southwest comer of Archibald'Avenue and Sixth Street
subject to approval of a master plan for those uses within a larger
industrial park project. In the event of a conflict between whether
a use is permitted of conditionally permitted, the Industrial Park
requirement applies. It is not the intent to allow neighborhood
commercial uses to be scattered throughout an industrial project
nor to permit such uses within any existing complex designed
solely for industrial uses."
e. Pa~t IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, fifth paragraph shall read as follows
with strikcouts indicating deleted text and bold print indicating text additions:
"To prcscrvc end cnhancc thc i.-nagc of the c5mmunity spccial
considcration shall bc givcn to thc ~luality of sitc dcsi~n, architccturc
and landscaping of all propc~ics adjacent to thc 115 Frccway.
Attractive screening of outdoor work, loading, storage areas and roof
and ground mounted equipment from significant residential and public
right-of-way frccway points of view shall be required."
Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, new paragraphs shall be added as
follows:
"Building height limit shall be 25 feet within 100 feet of abutting
residentjelly designated property. No loading doors or facilities
may face, unobstructed, towards any residentially designated
property. No outdoor activities/storage or mechanical equipment
shall be located beyond the rear wall of any building that faces,
unobstructed, towards any residentially designated property or
public right of way.
The remaining portion of Subarea 16 at the northwest corner of
Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street, created by adoption of
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, is authorized to
have a Fourth Street single property line frontage of less than 300
feet. No further reduction of the Fourth Street property line is
permitted, except for the acquisition of public right-of-way."
g. Part III, Table II1-1 shall be amended to reflect the above text changes.
h. Part IV, Subarea 16, Figure IV-18, shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A."
i. All other applicable maps, tables, charts and text to provide consistency with the
above changes.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96~65
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 5
PLANNING COMMISglnN F THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
B
n "
ATTEST:
I. Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, BETHEL, NACIAS, MCNIEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
5
CIRCULATION
120' R.O.W.
100' R.O.W.
88' or less R,O.W.
RAIL SERVICE
IIIIt Existing
--t-+++-t-- Proposed
mmm
0 400~t 8007
1600~
Note: Parcel lines and lot configurations
are shown as approximation only.
PLANNING::D|VISION
TRAILS/ROUTES
0 0 0 0 Pedestrian
Creeks & Channels
· · · · Bicycle
Mufti-Use
Bridge
Access Points
IV-94
Special Streetscape/
Landscaping
1The sites shown may not be ctrrentty owned nor is the
location site specifr,, The depiction of a site is an
hdication of a projected future need that may be
adjusted over time as the City develops.
Project: 15 P/~ c~zj _
Title: 5Um-J~EA 16
Exhibit: A Date:
RESOLUTION NO. 96-66
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT . DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02, REQUESTING TO
AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, SUBAREA 16, INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 97 ACRES OF
LAND, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF
FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE
CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06.11, 13, 17, 18. 19, 26, 32, 33. AND
39.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for Development District
Amendment 95-02 as described in the title of this Resolution for 82 acres of land, to which the City
of Rancho Cucamonga considered an additional 15 acres of adjacent land. Hereina~er in this
Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment of 97 total acres of land is referred to as "the
application."
2. On October 9. 1996. the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on this
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application and associated applications for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A,
of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headrig on October 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 97 acres of land, located on the south side
of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street. and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel which is presently vacant and underdeveloped. Said properties are currently zoned as
Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16. Industrial Park; and
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) and developed with a single family neighborhood. Some of the properties
to the west are designated Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are occupied
by an undeveloped construction storage yard. The remaining properties to the west are in the City
of Ontario, designated General Industrial, and are vacant. The properties to the east are designated
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-66
DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
Industrial Park and are primarily vacant with remnants of a vineyard. The properties to the south are
in the City of Ontario, designated Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Density
Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per acre)
and are developed with drainage facilities and apartments..; and
c. The application is part of a series of applications relating to Tentative Tract 15727
which proposes the development of 342 single family residential units and a 5-acre neighborhood
park; and
d. This application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and
Development Code and with related development; and
e. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
properties
application
f. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and, concurrently with this
by separate Resolution, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
referenced
above, this
Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a That the subject properties are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will not
result in any internal inconsistences with the General Plan and Development Code and would not
have significantly greater impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties than would be
expected under the existing land use designation.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of Development District Amendment 95-02 to amend the
Development Districts Map from Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16, Industrial Park to Low-
Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 97 acres of land, located on the south side of
Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek Channel
(see Exhibit "A").
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
P G :~MISSION HE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
·
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-66
DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
,) ~'d,,,,,E~Ze .s~
ATTEST.
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
RES,!DENTIAL
VERY LOWz2 DU/AC
LOW 2-4 DU/AC
LOW-MEDIUM 4-8 DU/AC
MEDIUM 8-14 DU/AC
MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU/AC
HIGH 24-30 DU/AC
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL
~ OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL
OPEN SPACE
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL
OPEN SPACE
FLOOD CONTROL
UTILITY CORRIDOR
SPECIFIC PLANS DDA
immmmwl
|.,:,;.| iNoUSTRIAL sPEcmnc PLAN
·
|.~.~.-. ETIw~N~A SPECIFIC PLAN
· F.S.P. · FOOTHILL SPECIFIC PLAN
Immmml
PLANNED COMMUNITIES
ter., VISTA PLANNE > CO U.,T
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
~ MASTER PLAN
~ SENIOR HOUSING
~ EQUESTRIAN
Project: DDA ?5; --C> '2,
Title: DEUL"LG/:Nr--Arr Z')/57R4::T
Exhibit: /t Date:
TRA C T MAP APPENDIX
Planning Commission
(Exhibit "D-1 ")
Staff Report,
October 9,
1996
Planning Commission
(Exhibit "D-2")
Resolution No. 96-67
Exhibit "D"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
October 9, 1996
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buffer, City Planner
Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15727
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A total residential development of 342
single family lots and a 5 acre neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres on land to
be rez6ned to the Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at
the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel
bordered by Sixth Street on the north. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26,
32, and 33.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Project Density: 4.68 dwelling units per acre.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single family residential tract; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Drainage facilities, vacant, and apartments; City of Ontario - Open Space, Single
Family, and Multi-Family Residential
East - Vacant, underdeveloped; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16 (Industrial Park)
West Single family houses, underdeveloped; Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16
(Industrial Park) - NOTE: Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre~ has
been recommended and vacant; City of Ontario - Limited Industrial
General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Industrial Park (application change to Low-Medium Residential)
North - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - City of Ontario - Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low Medium Residential
(5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16 dwelling units per
acre)
East Industrial Park
West Industrial Park - NOTE: Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) has
been recommended and City of Ontario - General Industrial
Site Characteristics: The project site gently slopes southward at less than 2 percent gradient.
The site primarily consists of fallow fields of annual grasses and forbs and vineyards that are
in decline. Remnants of eucalyptus windrows dot the perimeter of the site and eight
residences/farmsteads are just outside the project boundaries: one is near the Cucamonga
Creek Channel, two are at the northwestern corner, one is located at the northeast corner,
and four are along Archibald Avenue.
Exhibit "D- 1" ~:-~ Lt~
,j
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Background: In mid-1995, the applicant began the process for formal consideration of a
single family development in Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Preceding the
review of the tentative tract application has been the formal consideration by the Planning
Commission of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and General Plan and zoning
amendments. Recommendations for EIR certification and general plan/zoning approvals
must be made by the Planning Commission in order to act on the tentative tract application.
Bo
General: The applicant is proposing to develop 342 single family lots on 82 acres of land
between Sixth and Fourth Streets, east of Hellman Avenue. The proposed tract is to contain
142 lots with an _average size of 6,448 square feet, 84 lots averaging 6,932 square feet, and
116 lots averaging 7,269 square feet. In total, the lots average out to 6,845 square feet.
Many larger lots are adjacent to the out parcels along Archibald Avenue to provide greater
setbacks from the industrial land to the north and east. The design meets or exceeds
minimum development standards of the Low Medium Residential District. No model house
plans have been submitted at this time.
As a part of the project, a five-acre park is to be developed at the tract's Sixth Street
entrance. The park will provide an enhanced entry statement southerly along the central
spine street, connecting to a northerly entry off Fourth Street. On August 15, 1996, the Park
and Recreation Commission approved a preliminary design concept for the park.
C°
Design Review Committee: On July 2, 1996, the Design Review Committee (Lumpp, McNiel,
Fong) reviewed the application and felt that the layout of the tract was acceptable and
recommended approval to the Planning Commission. The Committee recommended
conditions relating to streetscape design, enhanced sound attenuation, larger lots next to
industrial park land, and inclusion of a Master Plan of Walls and Fences. The Committee's
minutes are attached (Exhibit "E").
A Conceptual Landscape Plan for Fourth and "A" Streets has been submitted by the applicant
for Planning Commission consideration. Staff believes revisions are still needed before
approval by the Commission. The Master Plan of Walls provides a hierarchy of fences and
walls throughout the tract. Generally staff feels that the plan is acceptable, but feels specific
details still need to be worked out prior to Planning Commission approval. The attached
resolution provides for the Conceptual Landscape Plan and the Master Plan of Walls to be
returned to the Planning Commission for further review prior to approval.
Acceptance of landscape easements along rear and side yards fronting the central spine
street into the Landscape Maintenance District, in addition to the Fourth Street frontage, is
appropriate. It is recommended that these be installed with the first development phase, to
assure consistent landscape treatment and to minimize required points of connection for the
irrigation system. The public park will be maintained by a separate Park Maintenance District.
Typically we require park installation before 50 percent of the units are occupied. Therefore,
the Sixth Street frontage and the east side of "A" Street, north of lot 196, will not be
landscaped initially, although curb adjacent sidewalk will be installed. The west side of "A"
Street north of lot 227, which fronts a vacant parcel to be developed by others, is proposed
with an interim 6-foot graded parkway. It will not be accepted into the Landscape
Maintenance District until the adjacent property develops. The Design Review Committee
7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
has recommended completing the project entry off Sixth Street. Full fight-of-way is not being
required. Any installation of landscaping would be temporary and privately maintained.
Grading Committee: The Conceptual Grading Plan was approved on October 1, 1996, for
technical compliance with the City's codes and policies. Detailed analysis focused on the
facilities needed to handle off-site storm water through the tract, and their location and
appearance from within the development (refer to tract Resolution of Approval Section 4.3)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental analysis has been provided in the
Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact Report (EIR). If the
Planning Commission has recommended certification of the EIR to the City Council, it would be
appropriate for the Pl_anning Commission to take action on the tentative tract.
One request raised by the City of Ontario, is to limit the starting hour of construction to 7 a.m.,
instead of Rancho Cucamonga's usual 6:30 a.m., to reduce nuisance noise in the morning. The
Ontario residents most exposed to the potential construction noise are on the south side of Fourth
Street, at least 100 feet, from the tract boundary. Staff does not believe the ¼-hour grace period
will significantly affect the area's ambient noise levels given that rush hour traffic should begin
flowing along Fourth Street by 6:30 a.m. If the Commission agrees with Ontario, it would be
appropriate to add this condition to the tentative tract's Resolution of Approval for City Council.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property
owners within 500 feet of the project site.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council the
approval of the land use amendments which change the land use to Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Tract 15727 to the City Council. If the land use
amendments have not been recommended for approval, then the Planning Commission should not
act on the tentative tract application.
BB:AW/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization
Exhibit "B" - Tentative Tract Map
Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit 'E" Design Review Committee Minutes of July 2, 1996
Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact
Report (previously distributed)
Resolution Recommending Approval of Tentative Tract 15727
/
l
<
xl
!~i...
o.
Z~
n~
Z
i'
7:10 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW COMM. ENTS
Alan Warren July 2, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAl'. ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 CUCAMONGA
COR.N'ERPOINTE 1 ,LC - A proposed residential subdivision of 342 lots and a neighborhood park on 82
acres of land to be developed to the Low-Medium (4-8 dwelling units per acre) Residential Development
District standards, generally located north of Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue, south of Sixth Street
and west of Hellman Avenue presently within Subarea 16, Industrial Park District of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan.- APNs: 2/0-060-002, 011,013, 026, 032, 033. Related Files: Environmental Impact
Report Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation, General Plan Amendment No. 95-03A,
Industrial Specific Plan Amendment No. 95-04, Development District Amendment No. 95-02.
Design Parameters:
The approximately 82-acre site is situated between Fourth and Sixth Streets in the middle of the 153 acres
of Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan CISP). Subarea 16 gently slops southward at less than
2 percent gradient. The site primarily consists of fallow fields of armual grasses and forbs and vineyards
that are in decline. In addition to the fields and vineyards, Subarea 16 contains eight
residences/farmsteads. Remnants of Eucalyptus windrows dot the area, as well as specimen trees
associated with the existing residential landscaping.
Residential development is not now authorized in Subarea 16, except for the legal non-conforming
farmsteads developed before the adoption of the ISP. With the Tentative Tract application, Cucamonga
Comerpointe LLC and Griffin Industries are processing the required General Plan, ISP and Development
District Amendments needed to authorize this project. The Design Review will focus only on the tract
design with the requested Development District Low-Medium standards. Land use issues will only be
discussed as they may relate to development standards between different districts. The applicants have
been advised that u/timate approval of the tract is dependent on adoption of the land use changes and that
any approval of the tract design does not infer approval of the land use change.
The tract design generally conforms to the Low-Medium District standards with a density range slightly
more than four units to the acre. No product types are being provided at this time.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project:
Tract Lavout: The neighborhood will take access off Fourth and Sixth Streets by a north/south
central spine street. This street, while designed to local standards, is intended to function as a
collector. Staff believes the layout is generally acceptable. However, Engineering recommends that
only side-on lots be allowed along the "A" Street in order to limit the amount of area to be
maintained by the landscape maintenance district. Lots 335 through 342 back-on to the street and
221 and 226 effectively back on. Significant alteration to the layout would be required in this area
to provide side-on lots.
DRC COMMENTS
'IT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPO1NTE LLC
July 2, 1996
Page 2
T.and Use Relationships: The developer's land use applications propose to change only the
properties encompassed within the tract. City staff has expanded the application to include land use
master planning of the entire Subarea 16 area (out parcels) in order to provide the Planning
Commission and City Council with an area wide comprehensive view. For the properties off
Archibald Avenue, the land use options include residential, commercial, office and the existing
industrial park. The EIR will include mitigation measures requiring extended setbacks for those lots
abutting industrial land. The lots along the east property line have depths greater than normal to
accommodate the recommended setback· Lots 31, 35, 36, 45, 46, 55, 56, 56, 66, 187, and 188,
however, side-on to the industrial land. Staff recommends these lots be reconfigured to back-on to
the tract boundary to provide a greater structural setback.
Park: As part of the tract project, a 5-acre park is planned along the Sixth Street frontage. The park
has not gone through the City's program development process, but staff believes the proposed
location (as provided in the General Plan) and access is acceptable to serve the area. Any comments
concerning its location and access will be forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Secondary. Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee
will discuss the following secondary design issues:
This section should list more detailed comments relative to site plan, architecture, landscaping, and
grading.
walls: Discussion of a hierarchy of perimeter and side lot line walls/fences should be discussed.
Should the rear lot lines off the park be provided with a wall or wrought iron fence.'? What type of
walls or fences should be called out for along "A" Street?
The EIR suggests that sound barriers (subject to a final noise study) may be needed along Fourth
Street, and the western and eastern tract boundaries. The Committee should discuss design concerns
of a combination sound attenuation wall and berm of 8-feet or higher (ie., landscaping, materials,
etc.).
Landscaping: The conceptual Landscape Plan has not be reviewed by Engineering staff but is
presented for the Committees consideration. Ifapproved by the Committee, any significant changes
after complete staff review will be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission.
Grading: A significant amount of fill is being proposed, more than 5 feet in places (along Fourth
St.). Also, the drainage along the north property lines (interior) does not seem able to meet the 2
percent minimum gradient. It would appear that drainage facilities will be needed at each cubde-sad
to collect drainage from the properties to the north. A revised Grading Plan needs to be submitted
to the Grading Committee that reduces the amount of fill along Fourth Street and solves the north
property line drainage problems. __'7~- C7' 2,
DRC CON'LMENTS
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
July 2, 1996
Page 3
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
A minimum of 5 feet should be provided between the back of sidewalk and block walls along the
streets to allow sufficient room for landscaping.
Staff Recommendations:
It is recommended that the~roject be approved by the Committee with any outstanding items included as
Conditions of Approval for the Subdivision Map. Any tract approval is subject to approval of the
accompanying General Plan and Development District amendments by the Planning Commission and City
Council.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner:
Alan Warren
The Committee recommended approval of the appligation subject to the following conditions:
1. Pedestrian access is to be provided from the central spine street to the adjacent cul-de-sacs.
o
The lots that side-on to the northeast out parcels shall have a minimum width of 75 feet and a minimum
sideyard structural setback from the out parcels of 30 feet with RV parking accommodation. Noise
attenuation features will be included in the house walls facing the out parcels to ensure interior ambient
noise levels required by the Development Code.
The Committee recommends that the landscaping within the central spine street be maintained by the
Landscape Maintenance District. The conceptual Landscape Plan should be revised to incorporate more
cost efficient design (drought resistant species, hardscape, etc.).
4. Planting should be provided along the west side of the Sixth Street entry along the central spine street
(at the initial street development) similar to that provided on the east side of the street.
5. A master plan of walls and fences, that incorporates the latest City policies, shall be submitted for
Planning Commission review.
6. Grading Committee approval of the conceptual Grading Plan is required prior to Planning Commission
Review.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-67
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15727, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF
342 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ON 82 ACRES
OF LAND WITH AN APPLICATION FOR REZON. IN.G TO THE LOW MEDIUM
RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) DISTRICT, LOCATED
AT THE INTERSECTION OF FOURTH STREET AND THE CUCAMONGA
CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, BORDERED BY SIXTH STREET ON
THE NORTH, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, AND 33.
A. Recitals.
1. CucamoT~ga Comerpointe LLC has filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract
Map No. 15727, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on the
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application and associated applications for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04.
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 9, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property generally located at the intersection of Fourth
Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, bordered by Sixth Street on the north with
a street frontage of 625 feet on Sixth Street and 1,835 feet on Fourth Street and a lot depth of 2,565
feet and is presently unimproved; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family
residential, the property to the south consists of apartments and open space flood control facilities,
the property to the east is primarily vacant and underdeveloped and designated for industrial park
uses, and the property to the west is largely underdeveloped; and
c. The project, together with the conditions of approval, will comply with all applicable
standards of the Development Code; and
d. The application proposes development at 4.68 dwelling units per acre, which is
within the unit density range of the requested Development District; and
Exhibit "D-2"
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-67
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 2
e. The project is an in-fill piece with single family residential development to the north
at similar density ranges and; hence, is a logical addition to the neighborhood.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific ~nding.~ of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code, and
any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the concurrent
General Plan Amendment and industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment under consideration by the
City, and _
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by the
public at large. now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
g. This application would not be materially injurious or detrimenial to the adiacent
properties and an Environmental Impact Report, has been prepared and. concurrently with this
application by separate Resolution, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2. and 3 above. this
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to each and
every condition set forth below and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Plannina Division
1)
All applicable Mitigation Measures listed in Table 11-1 of the "Industrial
Area Specific Plan Subarea 15 Redesignation Environmental Impact
Report," as certified by the City Council, shall be completed as
described in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. The mitigation
measures include, but are not necessarily limited to the following items
listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "A"):
T-l, AQ-1, AQ-2, N-1, N-2, SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, SW-4, LU-1,
LU-2, LU-3, LU-4, LU-5, P-l, FP-1, S-1, W-1, SD-1, SD-2, SD-3,
SD-4, and CR-1.
2)
A Master Plan of Walls and Phasing Plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Planning Commission prior to the recordation of the
final tract map.
3)
Drainage easements provided on Lots 15.35, 45, 55.55, and 227
through 230 shall be improved as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-67
"1'1' 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPO1NTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 3
4)
5)
6)
7)
a)
The drainage easement at the end of "F" Street shall be totally on
Lot 35, the drainage easement at the end of "H" Circle shall be
totally on Lot 45, the drainage easement at the end of 'T' Circle
shall be totally on Lot 55, and the dr~iF~age easement at the end
of "J" Circle shall be totally on Lot 65.
b)
The drainage easements on Lots 16, 35, 45, 55, 65. 227, 228,
229, and 230 shall be improved with irrigation systems and
extensive plantings, the continuous length of the easements, prior
to the final inspection on each lot and subject to City Planner
approval.
c)'
Lots 16, 227, 228, 229, and 230 shall be improved with 6-foot
high property line walls adjacent to each drainage easement from
the rear property line to a point in alignment with the front house
wall nearest the property line, and with an 18-inch high property
line wall from the front property line to the beginning of the 6ofoot
property line wall, All walls shall comply with an approved Master
Plan of Walls, subject to Planning Commission approval, and
installed prior to final inspection on each lot.
d)
Mini sumps shall be provided along the northerly extent of the cul-
de-sacs (within a right-of-entry easement of the northern
properties) at Circles "J," "1," and "H" and "F" Street (between
Lots 35 and 36, 45 and 46, 55 and 56, and 65 and 66), and the
northerly extent of "R" Street (rear of Lots 227, 228, 229, and
230).
Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in all public right of way
and landscape easement areas along Fourth Street, Sixth Street, and
"A" Street within the tract in compliance with a Conceptual Landscape
Plan to be approved by the Planning Commission and construction
plans approved plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City
Planner. Installation shall be completed consistent with a phasing plan
approved by the Planning Commission. Landscaping shall be included
along the future parkway area on the west side of "A" Street, between
Sixth Street and Lot 227.
Where rear lot drainage to a public facility can be achieved along "A"
Street, the lot should be lowered with a rear lot grade break and
depressing the pad the maximum amount possible below the street
fronting the lot.
Lots 35, 36, 45, 46, 55, 56, 85, and 56 shall have a minimum width of
75 feet and a minimum side yard structural setback from the out parcels
to the northeast of 30 feet with RV parking accommodations. Noise
attenuation features will be included in the house walls facing the out
parcels to ensure interior ambient noise levels required by the
Development Code.
Pedestrian access is to be provided from "A" Street to the adjacent culo
de-sacs.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-67
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 4
2)
3)
4)
5)
8)
A disclosure statement shall be incorporated as a deed restriction on
all' residential lots informing future owners of the industrial zoned land
to the east of the tract on both sides of Archibald Avenue,
e)
The applicant shall fully mitigate the proj~:t's school facilities impacts
by entering into a mitigation agreement with the Cucamonga School
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Engineerincl Division
1)
Install ultimate street improvements on the north side of Fourth Street
from Archibald Avenue to Cucamonga Creek Channel including curb
and_ gutter. sidewalk, street lights, a bus bay west of the existing entry
monument, the intersection curb return. relocation of the most southerly
catch basin on Archibald, and any traffic signal upgrades. Off site street
trees may be deferred until development of the adjacent property. The
developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost
of permanent off site improvements from future development of the
adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit for said
reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public improvements
being accepted by the City, all fights of the developer to reimbursement
shall terminate.
VV~den the west leg of the Fourth Street/Archibald Avenue intersection
to accept three westbound through lanes from the Major Divided
Arterial section east of Archibald Avenue. Transition to a Major Arterial
width (2 westbound lanes, single left turn lane) a sufficient distance
west of the intersection, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Relocate up to eight 66 KV power poles as needed to accommodate
the Fourth Street/Archibald Avenue intersection widening and lane
drop.
The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical.
except for the 66 KV electrical) on the project side of Fourth Street shall
be undergrounded from the first pole on the east side of Archibald
Avenue to the first pole on the west side of the Cucamonga Creek
Channel. prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy,
whichever occurs first. All services crossing Fourlh Street shall be
undergrounded at the same time.
Install full frontage improvements along Sixth Street, from the east tract
boundary to the west side of "A" Street. Provide a cross gutter across
"A" Street and a temporary AC curb return on the west side, within the
existing fight-of-way. W~den the south side of Sixth Street, as needed,
west of "A'" Street. install A.C. herre, and reconstruct affected drive
approaches to contain street flows, as determined by the final drainage
study. Extend the widened section and berm from "A" Street to
Hellman Avenue. Transition to existing pavement east of the east tract
boundary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer may
request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent
off-site improvements from future development of the adjacent property.
If the developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-57
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1995
Page 5
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all
rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecommunicafions and electrical, except for
the 66 KV electrical) on the opposite side of Sixth Street shall be paid
to the City pdor to approval of the building permit issuance for the 104th
house or any phase that includes that house. The fee shall be one-half
the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project frontage.
Unnecessary power poles on the south side of Sixth Street shall be
removed.
Ins_tall "A" Street full width, including sidewalk and street lights, from
Fourth Street to Sixth Street, with Phase I development. Sidewalks
along the park frontage shall be curb adjacent. The developer may
request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent
improvements west of the centerline on "A" Street and north of Lot 227,
from future development of the adjacent property. If the developer fails
to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the
public improvements being accepted by the City. all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
Install traffic signals at Fourth Street and "A" Street and at Sixth Street
and "A"' Street. The traffic signal at Fourth Street shall be operational
prior to occupancy of the 100th unit. The traffic signal at Sixth Street
shall be operational prior to occupancy of the 150th unit or opening of
the park, whichever occurs first.
Each development phase shall have two points of access and no
temporary "dead end" streets shall be longer than 600 feet.
Prepare a final drainage study which addresses the following, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer:
a)
Revise the Master Plan of Storm Drains to reflect the new land
uses resulting from the General Plan Amendment. Identify all
connections to Cucamonga Creek Channel which may be
required upon full development of Subarea 16.
b)
Substantiate that the existing facilities in Fourth Street can
accommodate all flows reaching them in the ultimate (developed)
condition and that Fourth Street is not adversely impacted by the
lack of a storm drain lateral to pick up the sump east of "A" Street.
Determine the size of RCP needed to replace existing CMP.
c)
Provide a section through the flow line high point in "A" Street
south of Sixth Street, to determine whether any Q100 flows will go
south in "A" Street.
d)
Provide hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. On site storm
drains shall be sized to accommodate all tributary areas in the
ultimate (developed) condition.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-67
'IT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 6
11)
12)
15)
e)
Revise the preliminary drainage study to reflect the "P" Street
catch basin between nodes 15 and 16. Also include pages 8 and
9 missing from the printout for Catchment Area C.
Determine the width of the surface o(/;r~low easement needed on
Lot 16 to convey Q100 flows for the area tributary to the sump at
the BIF knuckle.
Construct all master plan and local storm drains within the tract
boundaries and/or Fourth Street, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the
cost of permanent master plan facilities, as determined by the final
draLnage study, and the developer shall be eligible for reimbursement
of any costs in excess of fees, in accordance with City policy. The
developer may also request a reimbursement agreement against future
development for oversizing local facilities. If the developer fails to
submit for said reimbursement agreements within 6 months of the
public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminate. Eliminate cross gutters
where storm drains are available and install catch basins upstream of
intersections.
Replace the existing CMP in Fourth Street, between Archibald Avenue
and "A" Street, with appropriately sized RCP. Reconstruct both catch
basins as determined by the final drainage study and install energy
dissipation devices at the pipe outlet on the south side of Fourth Street.
The surface oven'low drainage easement on lot 16 shall be graded to
convey Q100 oveffows in the even[ of blockage in a sump catch basin
and provisions shall be made for overflows to pass through any walls
placed across the easement. Grade lots 15 and 16, adjacent to the
surface overflow drainage easement, to drain to Fourth Street through
improved devices. Also design lots A, B, C, D and E to convey su~ace
oven'lows.
Landscape Maintenance District plans shall incorporate cost efficient,
low maintenance designs, including drought resistant species,
substantial areas of rockscape, etc., to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The maximum slope within publicly maintained landscape
areas shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a 1-foot flat area behind the
sidewalk shall be provided. Slope widths should be minimized through
the use of 30-inch maximum height free standing retaining wails and up
to 4 feet of retaining beneath perimeter walls. Low maintenance wall
treatments should be used. Planting areas for shrubs should have a
minimum width of 3 feet, clear of screen and/or retaining wall footings.
Trees will require wider planting areas, as determined by the City
Engineer.
A parkway beautification master plan. including sections reflecting tree
clearances required by Southern California Edison, shall be developed
for Fourth Street which expands upon the existing designated street
trees.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 96-67
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
October 9, 1996
Page 7
Interim facilities to drain the north property line will not be publicly
maintained. They shall be located on individual lots and there shall be
no public drainage easements. Private cross lot drainage easements
shall be provided as required by, and the design of the facilities shall be
approved by, the Building Official.
17)
Rear lot drainage to "A" Street, through improved devices including
undersidewalk drains, will be allowed wherever reduction in the width
of publicly maintained landscape easements can be achieved.
Install all Landscape Maintenance District irrigation and landscaping as
approved by review of landscaping master plan and project phasing by
th_e Planning Commission.
The Park on lot G shall be installed prior to occupancy of 50 percent of
the units or prior to building permit issuance for 70 percent of the units,
whichever occurs first. The park design, including grading, shall be
approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to final map
approval. Parcels provided for park development shall be a minimum
of 5 acres, based on net yield for useable park open space. All
dedicated park lands are to be located on non-restricted developable,
unencumbered lands. This includes, but is not limited to: clear title, no
easements, no seismic faults, no grades greater than 10 percent and
free from flood hazard.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1996.
PLANNIN tvn',AISSION ' THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
· '~L,,Barker, Chair n
I, Brad Bullet. Secretary of the Planning Commission for 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 9th day of October 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS. MCNIEL. TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CON DITIONS
PROJECT#:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
TENTATIVE TRACT 15727
A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 342 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
FOURTH STREET & CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time Limits completion Date
Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15727 is granted subject to the approval of General Plan
Amendment 95-03A. Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04. & Development District
Amendment 95-02.
The developer shall commence, participate in. and consummate or cause to be commenced,
participated in, or consummated. a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire
station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed. and built to all
specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's
property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with
its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and
regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first,
the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However.
if any school district has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant
shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such
existing District prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
5C - 3r=6
Site
1.
Project No.
prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school
districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts
as a result of this project.
Pdor to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water distdct
within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of
permits in the case of all other residential projects.
Development
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans. architectural elevations. exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of
appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's.
Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling
unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy
system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision
which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits,
whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation,
5727
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
! /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC -3r-~5
2
Project No.
10.
structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to
Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
Trip Reduction
Telecommuting center shall be provided for single-family development of 500 or more units or
contribute toward the development of one in an amount satisfactory to the City Council.
2. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided.
Landscaping
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1-cjallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be pleated in staggered
clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
TT 15727
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
I /
SC -3r~6
Proiect No,
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
Environmental
A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, vedfy the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval pdor to the issuance of
building permits.
'iT 15727
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
G. Site Development
The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code. Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code. National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes.
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact
the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
H. Grading
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Dedication and Vehicular Access
Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets,
community trails. public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees. traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC - ~
Project No. TT 15727
Completion Date
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
,
Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
50-60 total feet on Fourth Street
44 total feet on Sixth Street
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for
approved openings: Fourth & Sixth Streets.
/ /
Private drainage e~sements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or
noted on the final map.
/ /
All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the
final map.
/ /
Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along the bus bay on Fourth Street, to provide
a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. Curb adjacent sidewalk shall be used
along the bus bay.
/ /
,
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the
developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such
time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained
by the developer, at developers cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior
to commencement of the appraisal.
/ /
Street Improvements
All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, pasees, landscaped
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
/ /
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
/ /
Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Ligr~ts Trees Trail Island Trail
Fourth Street ,r V' c ,/ ,/ e f
Sixth Street v' Z,b g v' Z'
SC - 'tt6
Proiect No. TT 15727
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall
be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided
for this item. (e) Class II Bike Lane in street. (f) Bus bay per Standard 119, west of entry
monument on Fourth Street. (g) Sixth Street sidewalk along Park frontage shall be curb adjacent.
Improvement Plans and Construction:
Completion Date
ao
Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles. and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
/ /
Prior to any'work being performed in public right-of-way. fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
Co
Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
/ /
Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
/ /
Notes:
( 1 ) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2)
Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
/ /
Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving. which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
I
/
/
/ /
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets. lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
Proiect No. l'T 15727
Cornpletion Date
Public Maintenance Areas
A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Fourth Street and "A" Street. south of the north property lines for Lots 196 and 227. and
Lots A. B. C. D. E. and F.
/ /
A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
/ /
All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until acc_epted by the City.
/ /
Drainage and Flood Control
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
A permit from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District and the Army Corps of Engineers
is required for work within their rights-of-way.
/ /
Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
/ /
Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in
a sump catch basin on the public street.
/ /
Utilities
Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas.
electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCVVD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
N. General Requirements and Approvals
Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Southern
California Edison and the City of Ontario.
,
A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation. prior to final map approval or prior to building.
permit issuance if no map is involved.
/ /
Project No. l'F 15727
Completion Date
Prior to ~nalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed
beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
O. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute.
ao
A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
bo
For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed
and operable prior to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the
Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways.
X Other: See Ordinance No. 22 rec~ardino cul-de-sacs. lenclths. and turnaround.
7. Plan check fees in'the amount of SO have been paid. An additional S 125.00 shall be paid:
X Prior to final plan approval.
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems,
alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC. UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC -
8
PUBLIC TESTIMONY APPENDIX
Planning Commission Minutes,
(Exhibit "E-1 ")
October 9,
1996
Written Corresondence not included
Commission Reports
(Exhibits "E-2 throught "E-8")
in
Planning
Exhibit "E"
Chairman Barker asked staff to determine the impact of the FCC rulings on homeowner association
regulations and/or amateur antennas, both receiving and transmitting. He then agreed to continue
these items until November 13, 1996.
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:06 p.m. to 8:18 p.m.
H. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT (EIR) - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A public hearing on a draft
Final EIR prepared for General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04, Development District Amendment 95-02, and Tentative Tract 15727 to
authorize the development of 351 single family dwelling units and a neighborhood park by the
reclassification of approximately 82 acres from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre), and the consideration by the City of alternative land use and zoning
designations of ®ffice, Commercial, Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), and
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) for the remaining 60 acres of land within the area
bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south,
and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west. APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 08,
10, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26., 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 39.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-03A
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the General Plan Land Use
designation from Industrial Park to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 77
acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, and the City will also consider an alternative
designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18,
19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Park designation to
alternative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald
Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga
Creek on the west as follows:
1. For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth street and
Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel the City will consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05,
06, and 39.
2. For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue
on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will consider Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre),
Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, and Office as alternative land uses.
APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
J. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to remove 82 acres of land at the
intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by
Sixth Street on the north, from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the
land to Development Code Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre).
APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
Exhibit "E- 1"
Planning Commission Minutes
-6- October 9, 1996
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
Subarea 16 to alternative land uses and amending development standards for the remaining
land bounded by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the
south, and Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
Removing approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth Street
and Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel from the Industrial Area Specific Plan for the purposes of rezoning the land to
Development Code Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per~cre) as alterfiative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06,
and 39.
Removing approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald
Avenue on the east and Fourth Street on the south from the Industrial Area Specific Plan
for the purpose of considering Development Code Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre), Commercial, Neighborhood
Commercial, and Office as alternative land uses· APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31,
and 34.
3. Consider changing the development standards and land use activities for Subarea 16 of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 95-02 -
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to amend the Development District Map
designation from Industrial Area Specific Plan to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units
per acre) for 82 acres of land at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga Creek
Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north, and the City will also consider an
altemative designation of Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre). APN: 210-062-02, 11,
13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
With this application the City will also consider amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan
designation to altemative land uses for the remaining land bounded by Sixth Street on the north,
Archibald Avenue on the east, Fourth Street on the south, and Hellman Avenue and the
Cucamonga Creek on the west as follows:
For approximately 15 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Sixth street and
Hellman Avenue and bordered on the west by the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel the City will consider Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) or Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) as alternative land uses. APN: 210-062-05, 06,
and 39.
For approximately 45 acres of land bordered by Sixth Street on the north, Archibald Avenue
on the east, and Fourth Street on the south the City will consider Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre), Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre),
Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial and Office as alternative land uses.
APN: 210-062-08, 10, 11, 13, 28, 31, and 34.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15727 CUCAMONGA
CORNERPOINTE LLC - A total residential development of 342 single family lots and a 5 acre
neighborhood park on a total of 82 acres on land to be rezoned to the Low Medium Residential
(4-8 dwelling units per acre), located at the intersection of Fourth Street and the Cucamonga
Creek Flood Control Channel bordered by Sixth Street on the north. APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13,
17, 18, 19, 26, 32, and 33.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7-
October 9, 1996
7oTM
Commissioner Bethel announced that he had met with the applicants, Mr. Strickland and Mr. Fowter,
who gave him a presentation of the project.
Commissioners McNiel, Tolstoy, and Macias and Chairman Barker acknowledged they had also
listened to presentations from the applicant.
Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that staff had also placed
a proposed resolution before the Commissioners for their consideration recommending that the City
Council certify the EIR. He introduced Geoff Reilly of Envicom Corporation and stated Envicom had
prepared the Environmental Impact Report." '
Geoff Reilly, Envicom Corporation, 28328 Agoura Road, Agoura Hills, gave a brief overview of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the EIR process.
Mr. Warren reported that six letters had been received following preparation of the staff report,
including four from residents opposed to the zone change, citing concerns about airport noise,
potential traffic/circulation problems, loss of vineyards, air quality, impacts on fire and police
protection, flooding, water supply and pressure, solid waste, and impacts on schools. He indicated
that one letter from a property owner in the affected area expressed no opposition to the proposed
zone change but requested that his 18 acres at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Archibald
Avenue be designated as Commercial. He noted that the sixth letter was from the School District
and stated that the District had just been informed about the project on October 7, 1996, and had
not had adequate time to review the documentation. He observed the District does not feel the EIR
adequately addresses school impacts and requested that the City add a condition requiring the
developer to enter into a mitigation agreement with the School District, deny the project, or continue
the matter until the schools impact issue is resolved. Mr. Warren pointed out that the environmental
consultant had contacted the School Distdct in November 1995 and included the comments received
from the Distdct in the EIR documentation. He said the Draft EIR was also forwarded to the School
District in July 1996 and the District did not provide any comments during the 45-day review period.
He suggested that the Commission could recommend approval of the project if the applicant
indicates a willingness to agree to the District's request to add a condition requiring a mitigation
agreement with the School District.
Chairman Barker requested an explanation of the obligation and position of the City with respect to
possible school impacts.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated that School Districts must be contacted during the
preparation of an EIR to determine the impacts upon the provision of classrooms and the ability to
provide schooling. He noted that the EIR indicates this School District has no impact because the
School District had not advised the consultant that there would be any impacts. He observed that
the District's letter presented earlier today has now indicated the District feels it will not be able to
provide for schooling based on the anticipated impacts of this development. He said the impacts
must be addressed in an attempt to mitigate them and that had not as yet been done.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Bruce Stdckland, Griffin Industries, 24005 Ventura Boulevard, Calabasas, stated they had originally
considered requesting smaller residential lots but had changed their minds and decided that it would
be better to provide a more standard development. He commented that the City has high
development standards and he thanked staff for its help in developing a plan for meeting the
standards. He felt their proposal will have less of an impact on surrounding areas than would
development under the original zoning. He noted the request is for lots varying in size from a
minimum 5,500 square feet with an average lot size of almost 7,000 square feet, providing a great
variety to the project. He commented they had added additional landscaping along Fourth Street.
He noted the existing General Plan has a floating park designation and he felt their proposed park
Planning Commission Minutes
October 9, 1996
location will serve both the new development and the existing residences. He observed that there
are mitigations in the EIR regarding the school impacts requiring the normal $1.19 per square foot
plus $2,000. He said he had spoken with School Distdct representatives today and he agreed to the
District's recommendation that a condition be added that a mitigation agreement be in place prior
to issuance of building permits. He showed a possible plan for the 15 acres to the west of their
property and he felt that the 40 acre parcel at the corner of Sixth and Archibald is large enough so
that it could be developed with sufficient access points. He stated they had held two resident
meetings and a concem had been raised regarding adequacy of Police protection. He remarked that
Dan Watters of the Police Department had advised that five new officers have been hired. He
observed that Rancho Cucamonga has a Iov,2humber of officers per 1,000 population but it is also
ranked as the seventh lowest in crime rate in the country for cities over 100,000 population. He
stated that Mr. Waters had indicated there is a large number of reserve officers who were not
reflected in the EIR and that their project would require less than one officer. Mr. Stickland
requested that perimeter walls along "A" Street be constructed on a phased bases as adjacent
homes are constructed instead of being required pdor to final release of any buildings. He requested
that landscaping and walls relating to pdvate drainage easements be installed prior to final inspection
rather than prior to issuance of building permits. He asked that the in-lieu fee for undergrounding
of overhead lines on Sixth Street be postponed from being required pdor to approval of the Final Map
to prior to recording of the Final Map for lots 179 through 196 or commencement of the park
construction, whichever occurs first. He said the warrants do not exist for a traffic signal at the
intersection of Sixth and "A" Streets and he requested that the requirement be deleted and that
actual cost of signals on Fourth Street and/or Sixth Street (if required) be a credit against the per lot
traffic fee. He asked that Engineering Condition No. 14.a and b be clarified to indicate that distances
are from face of curb as shown on the landscape exhibits. He requested that the Engineering
Condition No. 18 be modified to allow landscaping in the Landscape Maintenance District areas to
be installed on a phased basis as adjacent homes are constructed. He also stated that the Fire
Prevention Unit had indicated Standard Condition 0.2 should be changed to indicate the fire flow
require is 1,000 gallons per minute instead of 3,500.
Commissioner McNiel did not recall having seen a phasing plan.
Mr. Strickland responded that they plan six phases moving progressively from south west, to south
east, to middle west. to middle east, to north west, to north east.
Commissioner McNiel observed that phasing plans are typically reviewed and approved by the
Commission.
Brad Buller, City Planner, confirmed that it is customary and suggested the Commission could add
such a condition to the tentative tract resolution.
Commissioner Macias asked for confirmation from the applicant that they are willing to forgo building
permits until they have satisfied the School District.
Mr. Strickland replied affirmatively.
Commissioner Macias asked if the School District has a master plan for schools at capacity.
Mr. Strickland responded that most school districts do. He suggested leaving the matter to be
worked out by the developer and School District.
Commissioner Macias complimented Mr. Strickland on his desire to solve the problem.
The following residents spoke in opposition to the project.
Emma L. Hackerr, 9645 Edelweiss Street, Rancho Cucamonga
Melanie Henderson, 1303 North Del Rio Way, Ontario
Planning Commission Minutes
-9-
October 9, 1996
Carla Florance, 9580 Meadow Street, Rancho Cucamonga
Nisha Kelly 90590 Meadow Street, Rancho Cucamonga
They raised concerns about crowding a large number of people into a development surrounded by
walls, impact on schools, noise generated by Ontario Airport and the extra noise that will be
generated by the airport expansion, increased traffic at Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street,
increased litter and pollution, current flooding on Fourth Street, drainage, impact on serenity of the
existing neighborhood, decreased water pressure to existing homes, a soft housing market, pollution
during construction, possibility of the park being a haven for nefarious activities including dealing
drugs, and lack of proper ingress/egress for tl:i~ number of'flomes being proposed. One student at
Chaffey High School indicated there have been dots at school because of the overcrowding and that
her bus stop had to be moved because of violence in the area. It was requested that the zoning
remain as it is and a comment was made that the area is available for light industrial uses which
would bdng needed jobs. It was felt the zoning should remain as is because of the expansion of the
airport.
Jeffrey DeBerard, P. O. Box 1757, Upland, stated that he was representing his father who owns 18
acres at the southwest corner of Sixth Street and Archibald Avenue. He said they did not oppose
the applicant's request. He felt commercial uses would be compatible with the residential uses and
he thought the proposed 2- to 5-acre neighborhood commercial center at the southwest corner of
Sixth Street and Archibald Avenue would be too small. He stated that a supermarket typically takes
7 to 8 acres. He requested that his fathers parcel be zoned for commercial or left under its current
zoning, which is Industrial Park.
Commissioner McNiel asked what basis there is to zone the 18 acres as commercial.
Mr. DeBerard stated that the land is currently zoned for Industrial Park and Option 3 of Figure 8-2
in the EIR shows the parcel as being designated commercial.
Commissioner McNiel pointed out that four alternatives were considered.
Mr. Warren stated that alternatives were merely developed to consider the impacts.
Mr. DeBerard felt an office designation on Archibald Avenue is not viable. He said they wanted their
property to remain Industrial Park or changed to commercial, but not designated as residential.
Robed Biaesi, Frito Lay, 9535 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they oppose the
zoning because he felt that Frito Lay would not be as compatible with residential uses as it would
be to other manufacturing. He pointed out that Frito Lay is a 24-hour operation and has a lot of
traffic both day and night, which he feared may become an issue if there are nearby residences. He
also feared there may be complaints about odors. He said they are poised for growth.
Jim Frost, City Treasurer, 12996 Victoria Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the school issue must
be addressed and he thought the traffic signals should be required at Sixth and "A" Streets. He felt
the landscaping should go in initially in order to give it time to mature. Mr. Frost stated he had been
a member of the City's first planning body before the Planning Commission was established, worked
on the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and was also on the General Plan Advisory Committee, which
spent hours discussing this corner of the City. He felt the industrial designation for this area is
correct. He stated the vadous committees had discussed other alternatives. He observed that the
staff report indicated the industrial designation provides the highest annual net fiscal impact to the
City. He felt the apartments which currently exist on the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and
Fourth Street will not be there within 30 years and the uses will change over time. He thought the
zoning should remain as industrial or the entire corridor along Fourth Street should be considered.
He thought hospitality should also be considered because of the proximity to Ontario Airport. He felt
money should be budgeted for a more comprehensive study of the area.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
October 9, 1996
Mr. Strickland felt the project will produce substantially less traffic than would be generated by
leaving the area industnal. He stated the area is outside of the area of sound conflicts with Ontario
Airport. He believed there is currently a market for housing in the area. He thought the water
pressure to surrounding residences will improve once the project installs a line. He observed there
is housing on three sides and felt they can strike a balance between the industrial and residential
uses. He commented that the Fdto Lay trucks were considered in the EIR and said there have been
no complaints regarding odors. He suggested that deed restrictions could be used to be sure buyers
understand the property to the east is industrial. He requested approval.
As there was no further testimony, Chairman'Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy remarked he was a member of the first Planning Commission in the City and
one of their dilemmas had been to determine what would happen to this property. He said much
time was spent discussing the area and they had been bothered because the County had allowed
a housing tract south of Sixth Street, which meant there was an island of residential with no parks
or commercial areas to meet the needs of those residents. He said it was thought that adding some
commercial zoning might address some of the problems and the area was therefore designated as
industrial park. He acknowledged that things change over the years. He felt a positive aspect of the
proposal would be to allow a park for the existing residents. He did not think there are enough
residents already there or being added to support commercial; therefore, the shopping tax dollars
are, and will continue to be, lost to Ontario. He observed that the proposal leaves a large area at
the southwest corner of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street as Industrial Park along with a narrow
silver of land south of that to Fourth Street. He questioned if the narrow parcel will be deep enough
for a viable industrial park project. He thought that locating a 5-acre commercial center at the
southwest comer of Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street may disrupt a logical function along Archibald
and cause pressure for changing that area to retail trade. He observed there will be increased
demand for police and fire services and noted such services are expensive. He felt the proposal will
create a larger residential island away from the remainder of residential uses in the City and he
questioned if the residents will get the coverage they deserve in the middle of an industrial park area.
Commissioner McNiel observed that this is not the only area of the City where a pocket of residential
development exists. He thought the City fathers had done a marvelous job. He was troubled that
if the project is not approved, there will still be a small pocket of residential development to the north
with needs which are still not going to be met. He thought the additional residential area seems
more cohesive than what currently exists. He felt residential development will have a much lower
impact than any other use and he indicated he was leaning toward residential.
Commissioner Macias remarked that he is in the airport business. He felt expansion of Ontario
Airport provides an intriguing opportunity but observed the expansion will not occur overnight. He
commented that the expansion of the airport at El Toro will also impact the area because the two
airports compete. He thought a housing development will present the lowest impact threshold of any
other use. He felt other uses would generate more traffic and worse air quality particulate pollution.
He questioned how long the area would remain undeveloped if this project is not approved. He felt
the overriding considerations heavily outweigh the impacts.
Commissioner Bethel responded to the overcrowding of schools, and said that everyone who builds
houses pays a fee to the schools and pays property taxes to support the schools and he noted that
if a Mello-Roos is formed, they have to pay again. He felt this is unfair to new home buyers and
school funding should change because the entire community should is responsible. He thought the
School District should not have waited until the last minute to contact the City with objections.
Chairman Barker agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding the small silver of industrial park to
remain along Archibald Avenue north of Fourth Street. He felt that the applicant is one of the most
ethical and professional developers to have applied in the City. He agreed with the concerns raised
by Fdto Lay. He stated he understood the concept of impact threshold, but he was not confident that
Planning Commission Minutes -11-
October 9, 1996
the costs of services will be met by the people moving in. Regarding the use of property taxes, he
pointed out that the passage of Proposition 13 left the City with only a few cents from every dollar
collected. He was not comfortable the proposed use is the best one and said he would have to be
convinced that the proposed use is better than what currently exists. He felt it would be better to
leave the property undeveloped than to place residential in this area as he is not comfortable with
putting houses in the area.
Mr. Buller stated that the first action of the Commission should be on the EIR. He stated that staff
had placed a proposed resolution before the Commissioners for their consideration indicating that
the Commission has reviewed the EIR and it'8ontains enough facts for the Commission to make a
knowledgeable decision on the project. He stated that the resolution recommends that the City
Council certify the EIR. He stated the school impact issue would have to be added within the
mitigation monitoring program.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Bethel, to adopt the resolution recommending that the City
Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report with a modification to require the developer
to enter into an agreement with the Cucamonga School District regarding school impacts. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL
TOLSTOY
NONE - carried
Mr. Hanson remarked that the Planning Commission had not certified the EIR, but rather
recommended the action to the City Council and the City Council will hold a public hearing regarding
the EIR.
Mr. Buller noted that was true for all of the items regarding this project; that all would be forwarded
to the City Council for final action.
Mr. Warren indicated that all members of the audience who had been notified regarding tonight's
meeting would receive notification regarding the meeting to be held before City Council.
Commissioner Bethel asked for confirmation that the part which is not being recommended for
residential would be left as industrial park.
Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct.
Chairman Barker asked how deep the parcel is.
Mr. Warren stated the southern portion is approximately 300 feet deep while the northern portion is
at least 1,200 feet deep.
Mr. Buller stated the applicant had provided several possible scenarios on how the project could be
developed and staff felt comfortable there is sufficient depth to create a business center that would
work, so that the property would not have to be developed as strip commercial. He said the ultimate
development would depend upon the Planning Commission actions at the time development is
proposed.
Commissioner Tolstoy felt an applicant will approach the City for variances in order to build.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution recommending approval
of General Plan Amendment 95-03A changing the land use to Low Medium Residential. Motion
carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
October 9, 1996
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
BETHEL. MACIAS, MCNIEL
BARKER, TOLSTOY
NONE - carried
Mr. Bethel felt that the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment and Development District
Amendment would then be simple housekeeping matters to make things consistent with the General
Plan Amendment just recommended for approval.
Mr. Buller confirmed that was correct.
Chairman Barker agreed that if the General
amendments should also be approved.
Plan Amendment is approved, then the other
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, to adopt the resolution recommending approval
of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04 removing 97 acres from the industrial Area
Specific Plan and amending development standards for Subarea 16. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL
NOES: TOLSTOY
ABSENT: NONE - carried
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Bethel, to adopt the resolution recommending approval of
Development District Amendment 95-02 changing the map to Low Medium Residential. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL
TOLSTOY
NONE - carried
Chairman Barker indicated he had voted in favor of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment and
the Development District Amendment because the General Plan Amendment had already been
recommended for approval and he felt they need to be consistent. He questioned if the
Commissioners were agreeable with the applicant's request that perimeter walls along "A" Street be
constructed on a phased basis as adjacent homes are constructed.
Mr. Buller suggested having the applicant prepare a phasing plan for all walls and landscaping to be
approved by the Commission prior to recordation of the final tract map.
The Commissioners concurred that would be acceptable.
Chairman Barker asked if staff had any concems regarding the applicant's request to tie landscaping
and walls relating to the drainage easements to final inspection rather than release of building
permits.
Mr. Buller agreed that would be acceptable.
Chairman Barker noted the applicant's next request for modification was to require the in-lieu fee for
undergrounding of the overhead lines on Sixth Street to be paid pdor to the recording of the final map
for Lots 179-196 or commencement of the park construction.
Mr. Buller noted that the lots identified are the lots along the southern border of the park.
Commissioner McNiel did not wish to tie it to specific lots because construction phasing may change.
He recommended it be tied to completion of 25 to 30 percent of the units.
Planning Commission Minutes
-13-
October 9, 1996
Commissioner Tolstoy suggested 30 percent.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, commented that it would be easier for staff to control if it were
tied to issuance of building permits rather than certificates of occupancy.
The Commissioners concurred that it should be tied to the issuance of building permits for the 104th
house or any phase that includes that house.
Chairman Barker noted that the applicant requested that they not be required to install a traffic signal
at Sixth and "A" Streets and that they be cr~'dited for the'actual cost of signal against the normal
transportation fee.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked for staff's comments regarding the request.
Mr. James observed that the EIR indicated $2.4 million dollars would have been contributed to
transportation fees if the project were developed under current zoning and that will be reduced to
$2 million dollars with the revised zoning. He said staff therefore recommended that the signals to
be installed would net get transportation fee credit.
Commissioner Bethel asked if the fee would be less because of the formula or because it would be
less impact.
Mr. James replied it is less because of the formula which is based on impact.
Commissioner Bethel noted it is less impact; therefore, he did not think that was a valid argument.
Chairman Barker thought the same number of signals will have to be installed.
Commissioner Bethel said that he felt both signals should be installed if Engineering staff feels both
are necessary, but his concern was whether the costs should be applied toward the traffic fees.
Mr. James indicated that traffic fees are collected for signals located in more regional locations,
whereas the traffic signals on Fourth and "A" Street and Sixth and "A" Street are needed to serve
this development, not Fourth or Sixth Streets in general.
Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing.
Mr. Strickland stated that warrants do not require a traffic signal at Sixth and "A" Streets and he
suggested a compromise that they put in the signal but use the cost as a credit against the
transportation fee. He agreed it would be nice to have the signal because it would serve the park.
Chairman Barker again closed the hearing.
Commissioner McNiel felt the traffic signal on Sixth Street is a must because of the park. He agreed
with staff that there should not be a credit against transportation fees because the City will be
collecting approximately $400 thousand less with the zone change and the City needs the money
for signals elsewhere in the City.
Commissioner Bethel felt it is unfair to make the developer responsible for other areas in the City.
Commissioner McNiel said everyone is responsible.
Commissioners Tolstoy and Macias agreed that signals should be placed at the intersections of
Fourth and "A" Streets and Sixth and "A" Streets and there should be no transportation fee credit.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
October 9, 1996
Chairman Barker remarked that the applicant had requested that Engineering Condition No. 14.a and
b be clarified to indicate that distances are from face of curb.
Mr. James suggested modifying the condition by deleting paragraphs a and b, as the landscape plan
is to be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and the matter could be resolved at that
time.
Chairman Barker noted that the applicant requested that Engineering Condition No. 18 be modified
to allow landscaping in the Landscape Maintenance District areas to be installed on a phased basis
as adjacent homes are constructed. He fe'lf this was a '~imilar situation to the walls, in that the
developer should submit a phasing plan for the Commission's approval.
Commissioner McNiel was not opposed to reviewing the landscaping with the phasing plan but
indicated that he felt Fourth and "A" Streets should be fully landscaped with the beginning of the
project. He felt the side streets could be handled differently. He said he did not want stubbed out
half-streets.
Commissioner Tolstey confirmed that has been Commission policy.
Mr. Warren indicated staff would verify with Fire that Standard Condition 0.2 should be changed to
indicate the fire flow requirement is 1,000 gallons per minute.
Mr. Buller remarked that members of the audience had asked about the dust control issue and he
pointed out a standard condition calls for an erosion and dust control plan. He also recognized the
concerns raised by Frito Lay. He reported that previously the City has required developers to
disclose to home buyers that certain businesses or conditions exist in the neighborhood. He said
it is used for homes near the rock crusher, the freeway, etc., and he suggested the Commission may
wish to add such a condition.
Mr. Hanson indicated the developer had suggested using a deed restriction so that subsequent
buyers would also be aware.
The Commissioners agreed that would be important.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had a difficult time with the project for the reasons he stated earlier
and he was sorry that the Commission voted to approve the plan amendments to allow the project.
He indicated he would like to make a motion to recommend the Tentative Tract be approved
because he does think it is a good project. He said his objections are with the disruption of the
industrial park, but if residential is to be permitted, then he felt this is a good project.
Chairman Barker stated that he also does not favor housing in the area, but he would prefer this
development, if it is to be residential.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution recommending approval
of Tentative Tract 15727 with modifications to provide for a mitigation agreement with the
Cucamonga School District prior to issuance of building permits, submission of a phasing plan for
walls and landscaping to be approved by the Planning Commission, installation of private drainage
easement landscaping and walls pdor to final inspection of adjacent houses, collection of the in-lieu
undergrounding fee for Sixth Street pdor to building permit issuance for the 104th house, and a deed
restriction on all residential lots informing future owners of the industrial zoned land to the east of
the tract. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE - carried
Planning Commission Minutes
-15-
October 9, 1996
Mr. Buller reiterated that there will be another hearing before the City Council for final action on the
project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
M. COMMERCIAL ~ND USE STUDY DISCUSSION - (No repo~)
Chairman Barker felt the matter should be continued.
Brad Buller, Ci~ Pla~er, suggested that the Commission may wish to tour on Wednesday, October
30, bemuse there were too many conflicts on Commissioners' calendars to schedule the tour on a
Saturday as originally proposed. He suggested the Commission begin discussions at a workshop
following the October 23 meeting with the tour to follow on October 30.
The Commissioners agreed to schedule a wo~shop on October 23 and a tour on October 30, 1996.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 5-0, to adjourn.
11:10 p.m. -The Planning Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
October 9, 1996
October 2, !996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCA>fONGA
COMMUNiT'f DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ..NO. 95-03A
Dear Mr. Warren,
As the date approaches for the public hearing on the
above matter I would like the planning commission to
consider a few more items before reaching its decision.
Having lived here since !949 i can tell you that the
overhead air traffic has increased tremendously. Everything,
but not limited to; circling jumbo jets, cargo planes
(heading n6rthwest), private aircraft, all types of
helicopters etc. Then it gets worse in the winter when air
traffic is re-routed due to the Santa Ana winds affecting
the landing pattern. Feel free to come down so you can
experience the noise for yourselves.
Rancho Cucamonga should not have to deal with the same
noise Drob!ems that Ontario had to solve a few years back.
The complaints that came from private residences (not from
office or industrial buildings) resulted in Ontario having
to spend a lot of money to make residents accept the noise.
We would not put homes at 4th & Milliken, or 4th & Haven-
So why would we build homes at 4th g Archibald?
I feel that the simo!e answer to this amendment problem
boils down to two questions;
!. Would you Dersona!!y buy a house here to live
and raise your family? i believe your answer
wcu!d be no.
2. Would you Dersona!!y locate your office or business
here? i believe your answer would be yes. with the
high volume of traffic and its proximity to the new
airport terminal, it would be the perfect spot.
Sincerely ,
George T. Assanel!
Lucas Ranch Complex
95i0 Archibald Ave.
Cucamonga, CA 91730
RECEIVED
co; Councilmember james V. Curato!o
Councilmember Paul A. Biane
Exhibit "E-2"
city oi ,qanc~,o Cucam. onga · ptanning Division
.,~{Z,u_,,'~f..,u. "
C/!7 oi fienc~o Cucemonge
Planning Division
~ ~ '~-~ ~ ~, ~ ._ ~...
,.. ,. . . -~--- . , ' _ ~ ........ ~ _ -
Exhibit "E-3""
,/~ .
October 8, 1996
RECEIVED
OCT 8 1996
Planning DiviSion
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807-10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Concerns and Questions -
Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan
Subarea 16 Redesignation EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 95112019
Dear City Planners:
I am opposed to the zone change as proposed. I concur with the issues and
concerns raised by the concerned citizens of Rancho Cucamonga in Carla
Florance's letter to Alan Warren, Associate Planner, dated August 30,
1996.
I believe that the E.I.R. documents enough negative impact on traffic/
circulation, air quality, noise, fire protection, police protection, schools,
water supply, sewage, solid waste, storm drainage and cultural resources
to warrant a denial of the zone change by the planners of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
I am not convinced that our city is prepared at this time to deal with the
negative impacts that appear to be inevitable if this zone change is
granted.
I am sure that Griffin Industries takes great pride in their projects. I
don't think that the Griffin project in itself is the issue. Whatever quality
housing may or may not ultimately be built if this zone change is granted,
is not our biggest problem. I feel that our city planners will be involved
from the inception to the completion of the project to monitor for an.
acceptable quality of housing. I am deeply concerned about what happens
after Griffin has completed its work. Griffin would not embark on a
Exhibit "E-4"
project like this, I am sure, without parameters of profit and loss well
defined/secured/protected. The City of Rancho Cucamonga must do the
same, please, for the rest of us.
We keep hearing from proponents of the zone change that we don't have a
choice, that land owners can do whatever they want with their property
and that no others have shown any interest in doing anything on this land
so this is what's going to be done whether we like it or not. And, "...for
heck sake, wouldn't you rather have a residential area that a factory...?"
As I understand it, landowner's can't "...do whatever they want...", that
city planners and the public do have a say, and that the choices aren't just
between having_ a factory or houses/townhouses/apartments, or for
mandating that "something has to be done with that property right now!"
The E.I.R. certainly makes the case, from my point of view, that if anything
at all is done right now, much re-examination of options must be done.
Griffin Industries, as thoughtful as they may be, will have little interest
in staying around and running the Cornerpointe the way Disney manages
Celebration, Florida. The E.I.R. contains the data which shows that our
city is not equipped at this time to deal with all the negative impacts that
would be generated by granting this proposed zone change.
I think that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is to be commended for much of
what's being accomplished: our Civic Center, the Epicenter, the
commercial buildings and landscaping on Haven and Milliken... But I think
our city may be missing a terrific opportunity in this part of Rancho
Cucamonga. We are the Gateway to Rancho Cucamonga and the Ontario
International Airport! There are going to be many visitors coming our
way--not just up Haven or Milliken. There is so much potential here--net
just to preserve our cultural and historical heritage (as outlined in the
E.I.R.-although their "plan for preservation" is ludicrous), but to showcase
the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the whole area. Rancho Cucamonga is
not just what's above Foothill Blvd. or up Haven Ave. We have an
opportunity to present Rancho Cucamonga to the world's visitors by
preserving some of the vineyards on the property, the Lucas Ranch
Complex and some of the out buildings. Historic buildings from other
parts of Rancho Cucamonga could be moved to the Gateway
Historical/Cultural Complex.
I envision a wonderful combination of preservation and commerce. We
could have a visitor's center to compliment the historical/cultural
components of the area. Architecturally valid commercial space could be
added responsibly that would encourage our area's professionals--
architects, attorneys, computer software engineers, multimedia
specialists, city planners...to locate their offic.e_s here (much more
convenient for those with out-of-area/national/international clients)_
Those professionals who benefit and search for an easy-access-to-the-
airport location.
One could envision the ultimate use of the property with players who may
or may not yet be involved who can bring this plan to fruition. It's my
understanding t_'nat the city planners and concerned parties often have the
opportunity to bring new participants into a project. Again, I am not
impugning the motives of Griffin Industries nor the quality of their
projects. Nor do I think that the City of Rancho Cucamonga would not be
involved in the initial phases of the project, to ensure acceptable
quality/practices. But developers move on, city planners have new
projects. Now is the time to make sure that it's right, that irreversible
mistakes aren't made.
Reality warrants a deep concern with what will be the problems and
negative impact of the project--specifically the zone change to low-
medium density housing. These problems will be with us on an ongoing
basis. The City of Rancho Cucamonga does not seem to have any control
over absentee speculator/landlords who are benefiting from programs
meant to help those truly in need, who show no interest in maintaining
their properties. We are afraid that a zone change in our area will result
in more absentee/speculator landlords with no interest in maintaining
their properties, rather than those hcping to buy their first home who take
great pride in their homes and that accomplishment. Are those potential
home owners going to choose to buy in this project?
Rancho Cucamonga does not appear to have the resources at this time to
enforce quality of life regulations, while it does have the
interest/regulations to enforce the maintenance and beautification of its
commercial properties.
The City formulated a Master Plan in 1982 that we would hope and assume
addressed what is best for the residents who already live in this area, as
well as the City of Rancho Cucamonga in general. I ask you to consider
with care this request for a zone change.
Again, the E.I.R. contains all the information one needs to conclude that a
zone change to low-to-medium density housing would have a continuing
negative impact on the residents of the area, .causing an ongoing
instability of services and quality of life; with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga losing the true, positive potential of the Gateway to Rancho
Cucamonga and the Ontario International Airport. A zone change to low-
to-medium density housing is not in the enlightened self-interest of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga or its residents.
Sincerely,
t 1. 7',J ;
Dorothy !. Nielsen
9564 Meadow St.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
91730
ROBERT H. DeBERARD R E C E ! V E D
October 8, 1996
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
R~ncho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: DeBerard Home Ranch, South-west corner
Archibald, Rancho Cucamonga.
of
OCT 9 T996
C,i~y of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
Sixth Street and
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
During the course of reviewing the documentation provided with the zone
change materials certain inaccuracies were noted relative to the
DeBerard family and that portion of the study area that has been the
DeBerard home place since approximately t902. When originally developed
by W.H. DeBerard-in 1902 the property at the scuth west corner of Sixth
Street and Archibald Avenue was planted to peaches and grapes.
In addition to the eighteen acres located on the south west corner of
Sixth and Archibald the DeBerard family has owned and farmed properties
on the north east corner of Fourth and Vineyard including the land
currently occupied by the Stater Brothers center and the Daily Bulletin;
the Vineyard Freeway Center property on the south side of Fourth Street
at Baker in Ontario, as well as others in the West End. Robert DeBerard
and his son Jeff continue to farm, currently tending in excess of two
hundred acres of vineyards in the valley-
The DeBerard family will not oppose the proposed master D!an change to
residential use for the bulk of the property comprising the project
area. The family does feel strongly however that the frontages om both
Fourth Street and Archibald including the entire eighteen acres
comprising the DeBerard home place, be master planned for commercial
use.
The inclusion of commercial zoning as suggested in Option 3 of Figure 8-
2 of the Draft EiR for the project area provides many benefits no the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and its residents. First, the inclusion of the
commercial aYeas takes advantage of the commercial benefit provided by
high traffic flows on both Archibald and Fourth as well as the
significant traffic flows on Sixth Street. Second, it provides a buffer
to the residential lots from ~he significant noise, air pollution and
other impacts of the large traffic flows found on Archibald and Fourth
SEreet. Finally, the commercial usa is ccmpatib!e with other retail
commercial, industrial/commercial, and office uses that already exist on
both Archibald Ave. and Fourth Street. The family is of ~he o?inion
however that Office uses on Archibald will be significantly and
negatively impacted by the preponderance of excellent office product on
nearby Haven Avenue. Our r~commendation wouldbe that commercial zoning
when approved not be limited to office product.
very truly ~urs,
· '// '/; " / e r d /
C,Nobert H. D _S. ra
~,e_-zrey R. DeBerard
P.O. Box 1757, Upland, California 91785
Exhibit "E-5"
Board of Trustees
Evelyn L. Branson
Robert S. DeMallie. Jr.
Elsie P. Millet
David J. Ortega
Julian Pdncon
Teaching in the Present,
8776 Archibald Avenue. Rancho Cucamonga. California 917304698
(909) 987-8942 / FAX (909) 980-3628
A dministradon
John T. Aycock
Su?erixu~-~em
Karen Willett
~.siness.?ers,~m,'~l
Claudia Maidenberg
~ucatiotul Services
Focusing on the Future.t
October 9, 1996
RECEIVED
OCT 9 1996
City ot Rancho Cucamonga
planning Division
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
City ofRancho Cucamonga i.'-r~i::-~.:.~-~'~ ,~'j-.i-i.-,~ . -
10500 Civic Center Drive -' -. --=- - ,-. .....~..--"-'.:. -
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 :
.c~.~, .~ ~ ....
· . ..-...= ..~.
· :":': ';i.o-'h .,.*..;: ,i.~ ~ -., '. ,e.,--.--~ h. ~... -
Dear Chairman and MemberS,
. r-~ , '.-.
- ..._.. : ~ .....
On behalf oftli'Cucamonga S~hooi District Board of Trustees and Superintendent, John
Aycock, I am submitting comments regarding Agendi'Ite~ H, I,"'j,'K;:'and L all of which relate
to the CUCAMONGA CORNFRPOINTF. I ,I.C Project located West of Archibald Avenue. Fast
of Hellman Avenue. North of 4th Street and South of 6th Street, (GPA 95-03A. ISPA 95--04.
DDA 95-02. Tentative Tract 15727) and respectfully request that this letter be entered into the
record for such public hearing.
D c has not
The Cuir. amon~a School' is~ t been given adequate time ~'meet with
representatives of Griffin Lndustries, Inc. to discuss the District's issues and concerns related to
the physical impact of.~ii'proje~i bn the District's facil~es. Mr. Jake Faller, representing
Griffin Industries, Inc., contacted tic. District on Monc~y, tSi:tober 7, 1996 to inform the
Administratiiin~that ttiii1'&rii"~'~,fi'~""t~iroject' was scheduled f~jt: Public Hearing 6n October 9,
1996. Moreover, we have not be_~n given an opportuni~to' review any environmental
documentat'{iii~egardi~"the project. 2): -.:-L: '
The impact of the proposed project on the District and its facilities will be.:.s,.ignificant.
All four of th~ District'~hbols~' currently at'~irtium capa'~if~?'The-275 ~lementary school
age children expecid to be g~'/i~?~'l~ "the'project will ?~quire additi~'rfal housing at both the
elementayy.._..__.a~.d middle icl{~ol levels. ' "' [,..L.,_~ ....
The "Cornerpointe Project" is currently located in THE ONTARIO CENTER SCHOOL
CTOCS) attendance area. Based on the anticipated number of K-5 students from the project,
approximately 183, that site will require the construction of a minimum of six (6) additional
Exhibit "E-6"
Page Two
Letter: Planning Commission
October 9, 1996
classrooms. As of'today, each room in TO CS is fully occupied. Even if the District were to
alter the attendance area where the project is located, both of the District's other elementary
schools, Los Amigos and Cucamonga, are already at full capacity.
The Rancho Cucamonga Middle School, serving 6-81h grade students, will receive
approximately ninety-two (92) additional students from the development. Accordingly, the
school will need to construct a minimum of three (3) new classrooms to adequately house the
students. There are, as of today, no vacant classrooms in the Middle School. In addition, the
Rancho Cucamonga Middle School has 'special needs' such as science laboratories with limited
capacities, physical education locker rooms with limited capacities, adequate seating facilities for
lunch service, adequate seating for multi-purpose/auditorium purposes, to name but a few.
The impacts from the project cannot be mitigated by the fees currently assessed by the
District. However, since the project involves a legislative act (i.e. a zone change, general plan
amendment, and specific plan), the limitations set forth in the statutory school fee legislation
(Govt. Code Sections 53080 et seq & 65995 et sea.) do not apply. [William S. Hart Union High
School District v. Regional Planning Commission, 277 Cal. Rptr. 645]. Accordingly, the City
can require mitigation in excess of statutory school fees. The proposed mitigation conditions for
school facility impacts do not mitigate the impacts to a level of insignificance as required by law.
The proposed mitigation condition is not adequate since it is indefinite, uncertain and speculative.
Moreover, it is not permissible to defer the development and implementation of a mitigation
measure until after project approval.
The EIR fails to adequately discuss alternatives such as non-student generating housing
and phased development. The project will also have significant adverse impacts upon traffic and
circulation as well as health and safety related environmental impacts (such as fire, safety and
transmittable diseases) from overcrowded classrooms.
As discussed above, the project will have significant adverse physical impacts upon the
environment which the City has failed to adequately mitigate.
All of the above mentioned issues and concerns must be discussed and fully mitigated
prior to approval of the project and the EIR.
It is our understanding that the General Plan in Rancho Cucamonga requires that public
infrastructure be in place before residential developments are allowed to proceed. The project,
as currently planned, is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. Under State law, the project
must be consistent with the City's General Plan and until the mitigation measures are adopted to
fully mitigate school facility impacts, this project will remain inconsistent with the City's
General Plan.
Page Three
Letter: Planning Commission
October 9, 1996
In order to fully mitigate the school facility impacts from the project, the District requests
that the EIR be revised to include a mitigation condition requiring that the developer fully
mitigate the project's school facilities impact by entering into a mitigation agreement with the
District prior to issuance of building permits. Absent this mitigation measure, the City is
required by law to deny approval for the project. In the alternative, the District requests the
continuance of the-hearing on this matter.
Sincerel~ _
~en L. Willett, Administrator
Business/Personnel Services
CC:
Board of Trustees
John T. Aycock, Superintendent
Mr. Kenneth Levy, Esq., and Mr. Thomas Kovacich, Esq.,
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo
Larry Henderson, Principal Planner
October 9, 1996
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
RE: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16
Redesign~tion--Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Planning Director and Board Members:
In response to the Draft EIR for the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea
16 Redesignation, I would like to offer the following response which will
explain why I am opposed to the land use redesignation from light industrial
to low-medium density residential.
The EIR indicates that there will be significant traffic/circulation problems
primarily at the intersections of 4th and Vineyard and 4th and Archibald at
buildout. There will be right-of-way issues that will effect proposed street
improvements that may not be mitigable. Traffic will wait longer at inter-
sections and freeway egress will be slower thus increasing travel time.
On site and surrounding air quality during and after the construction phase
will adversely impact the area. Carbon monoxide (CO) emission levels and
fine particulate matter (PMtO) will exceed both federal and state air quality
standards. Ambient air wil be compromised because of toxic vehicle emissions
during construction. The construction phase "can be expected to occur
periodically over the next couple decades, or continually over the next 5-7
years" (p.5.3-8). There is also an indication that the jobs-to-housing ratio
is somewhat "jobs poor" (p.5.3-12) for the City's balance.
The possibility of an 8 foot sound barrier wall at the entrance or gateway
to the city of Rancho Cucamonga to help mitigate airport, street, and freeway
noise pollution as well as a 91· foot cellular transmission tower strongly
suggest that a potential residential buyer may go elsewhere.
Fire and police protection response time is already 19 minutes when dispatching
from the station. Cucamonga Cornerpointe (the project) is located in Beat 2
which now has the highest crime volume and there is no indication that any
more officers will be hired. Further, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Exhibit "E-7"
October 9, 1996
Planning Director and Board Members
Page 2
recommends that the City is currently understaffed when comparing officer
to resident ratios.
I agree that our schools are functioning and operating at capacity levels
and that there are no plans to build new schools. The project will bring
hundreds of new students to the districts which will further impact our
schools and compromise their education. The City is in a "rapid growth"
mode (p.5.7-1T but introducing a Mello-Roos District will deter potential
buyers by imposing a tax hardship or bring a decline in home sales.
During drought years contracted water delivery to the project site may be
decreased thus limiting or restricting existing or project water usage.
Chino's Treatment Plant No. 4 is scheduled for completion in 1998, until
then excess burden will be placed elsewhere for processing reclaimed water.
I am concerned that water pressure during and after the project construction
will be adversely effected.
Milliken Landfill is scheduled to close in 1996 and Mid-Valley and Colton
Landfill are scheduled for closure in 1999/2000 because of capacity limits.
These closures and the lack of feasible landfill sites in the area is a
serious problem that is not adequately addressed in the EIR.
Flooding in the project area has been a serious problem in the past. Storm-
water pollution and onsite flooding can significantly effect the southwesterly
flow of runoff rainwater. Fourth Street at Archibald, Hellman, and Vineyard
will be adversely effected by flooding caused by lack of water absorption
and will cause and compound traffic and circulation problems.
Lastly, the EIR suggests that the vineyards and homes on the buildout site
be photographed and documented and sent to the library for future reference.
Rancho Cucamonga has an opportunity to preserve a bit of history and maintain
a current cultural perspective and preserve city heritage. The grape
vineyards are active, alive, and a part of the environment that should not
be altered. If all the vineyards in the City are plowed under and bulldozed
away the City will have to reconsider their grape logo on their stationery
and possibly rename The Grape Harvest Festival...you must think the
vineyards are important.
Sincerely,
Carla Florance
9580 Meadow Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
(909) 989-3262
91730
October 3 I, 1996 c'/~ ~;~'0 ~'e //,,,~,~
Alan Warren, AICP
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
SUBJECT: SUBARIi_A 16 REDESIGNATION EIR (SCH #95112019)
Dear Mr. Warren:
Thank you for the timely response to the City of Ontario's comments. In reviewing the responses,
however, it appears some confusion remains. In addressing our letter of August 26, 1996, the
consultant quite correctly identified that DR 95-09 (a 254,607 square foot warehouse addition for
Ffito Lay) was included in Table 4.1 (List of Related Projects). There is no disputing that item. The
project referenced in our letter was a second application, DR 95-25 as we now know, that was
approved for the site. The application was approved for a 44,820 square foot manufacturing addition
for Ffito Lay.
Again, thank you for your attention to this matter and its inclusion in the final Environmental Impact
Report for the project.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or Scott Murphy at (909) 391-2506.
Sincerely,
ONTARIO PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~Ja~es A. Ragsdale, AICP
Principal Planner
'JR:
Exhibit "E-8"
CITY COUNCIL
RESOL UTIONS/ORDINANCES
Resolution Approving EIR Certification,
Statement of Overriding Considerations,
Mitigation Monitoring Program
(Exhibit "F-1 ")
Resolution Approving General Plan Amendment 95-03A
(Exhibit "F-2")
Ordinance Approving
Development District Amendment 95-02
(Exhibit "F-3")
Ordinance Approving
Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 95-04
(Exhibit "F-4")
Resolution Approving Tentative Tract Map 15727
(Exhibit "F-5")
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN SUBAREA 16 REDESIGNATION WITH A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals
1. There has been presented to this City Council, in conjunction with the Council's
consideration of the recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Development
District Amendment 9_5-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, and Tentative Tract
15727, a Final Environmental Impact Report.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report referred to in this Resolution consists of that
document dated July 1996, entitled "Draft Environmental Impact Report Industrial Area Specific
Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation" together with the draft Final Environmental Impact Report dated
October 1996, including written comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report and written
responses thereto submitted by staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and testimony presented
during hearings on the recommended approval of the said General Plan, Development District, and
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendments and Tentative Tract 15727 insofar as that testimony
pertained to the environmental matters, as well as the revised executive summary, including
revisions to the mitigation measures, as well as the mitigation monitoring plan. Hereinafter, the
above referenced documents will be referred to as the "Final Environmental Impact Report." The
entirety of the Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby incorporated in this Resolution by this
reference.
3. The public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Report was duly and
lawfully closed on September 3, 1996, following due notice to the public and all applicable public
agencies.
4. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report and concluded
said hearing on that date, and recommended that the City Council certify the draft Final
Environmental Impact Report and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
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 City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1, This City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga takes the following action with
respect to the Final Environmental Impact Report:
a. Certifies that a Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for General
Plan Amendment 95-03A, Development District Amendment 95-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04, and Tentative Tract 15727 in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Califomia Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") with
State and City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 2
Further, that the City Council certifies that it has considered the contents of the Final Environmental
Impact Report in considering the approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A, Development
District Amendment 95-02, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, and Tentative Tract
15727;
b. Hereby adopts: (1) the Statement of Findings (EI R) and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached hereto as Attachment A, and (2) the Mitigation Monitoring Program,
attached hereto as Attachment B, based upon the following findings:
1 ) The facts and findings set forth in the Statement of Findings (EIR) Statement
of Overriding Considerations are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and
the Final Environmental Impact Report.
2) -The Final Environmental Impact report has identified all significant
environmental effects of the project; there are no known potentially significant environmental
impacts not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
3) Although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant
environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can
feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of
mitigation measures on the project. These mitigation measures are attached hereto as part of the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and incorporated herein by this reference.
4) Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into
the project (including the "no-project" altemative) were determined to be infeasible based upon the
considerations set forth in the Statement of Findings (EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact
Report and other substantial evidence in the administrative record. The cumulative impacts of the
project in relation to other projects in the area have been considered, and, except with respect to
those unavoidable impacts described in the Statement of Findings (EIR), mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project to reduce such impacts to insignificant levels.
5) The unavoidable significant impacts of the project that have not been
reduced to a level of insignificance, as identified in the Statement of Findings (EIR) and the Final
Environmental Impact Report, have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition
of mitigation measures. The remaining unavoidable significant impacts are outweighed by the
economic, social, technological, legal, and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
6) The Final Environmental Impact Report has described a reasonable range
of alternatives to the project (including the "project" alternative), even though these alternatives
might impede the attainment of project objectives and might create other significant economic,
social, legal, technological, or environmental impacts. A good faith effort was made to incorporate
alternatives in the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and reasonable
alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final Environmental Impact Report and
the ultimate decisions on the project.
c. Pursuant to provisions of the Califomia Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b),
this application shall not be operative, vested, or final, nor will building permits be issued or a map
recorded, until (1) the Notice of Determination (NOD) regarding the associated environmental
action is filed and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San
Bernardino; and (2) any and all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game
Code Section 711.4, together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of
the County of San Bernardino.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
EIR - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 3
In the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant
to the 'provisions of the California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder,
except for payment of any required handling charge for filing a Certificate of Fee Exemption, this
condition shall be deemed null and void.
2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS
FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROJECT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
This Statement of Findings of Fact has been prepared for the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial
Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga prepared
an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR was
subject to the review and approval by the Ranch Cucamono~a Planning Commission and City
Council, and was certified as adequate by the City Council on November 20, I996.
il. DESCR1P:I'ION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project site is located in the southwestern por'don of the City of Rancho Cucamonga in San
Bernardino County. Known as Subarea 16 of the City's Industrial Area Specific Plan, the
project site is 142 gross acres in size, and is bounded by Sixth Street to the north, Archibald
Avenue to the east, Fourth Street to the south, and Cucamonga Creek Channel and Hellman
Avenue to the west. The proposed project consists of two components. The first component
involves the redesignation of 91 acres of the subarea f~om Indust:rial Park to Low-~fedium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre)· Because the City is concerned about potential land
use compatibili.ty problems, the impacts associated with future industrial park development
on the remainder of the subarea is also evaluated as part of this project component. The second
project component is a proposed 342 single fam. i/y dwelling u.nit subdivision on 77 ac~es of the
proposed redesignation area.
III. FINDINGS OF FACTS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) PubLic Resources Code Section 21081, and
the State CEQA GuideLines Section 15091 provide that:
"No pubLic agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact
report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the envLronme-~t
that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the pubLic agency makes one or
more of the following findings:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects
identified in the EIR.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives idenl/fied in the EIR."
After reviewing the Final EIR and the pubLic record on the project, the City of Rancho
Cucamonga hereby makes Lhe findings in Section W, V, and VI regarding the significant effects
of the proposed proiect pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
IV. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGAI3LE
TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
LAND USE IMPACTS
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of 91 acres of industrial
park designated land from Subarea 16 of the CiW's Industrial .Area Specific Plan, and its
redesignation for low-medium density residential use. The proposed redesignation is
somewhat inconsistent with the City's General Plan policy which calls for industrial park
uses along Fourth Street. The proposed development is also inconsistent with the adopted
Master Plan for the area which calls for different phasing, access and drainage
improvements than currently proposed.
Although the industrial park uses would be restricted through implementation of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan's performance standards, it is probable that some nuisance
noise, odor or Lighting would impact the proposed adjacent residences beyond the proposed
setback and require attention by City code enforcement.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required i_n, or incorporated into,. the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of irusig-nificance through
implementation of the following required mitigation measures:
[LU-1] The City, shall adopt land tL~e amendments and development standards for
Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan which will supercede the
provisions contained in the adopted Master Plan for Subarea 16. The
citywide blaster Plan of Storm Drams shall also be revised to reflect the
currently proposed development. These administrative actions shall take
place prior to final tract map approval of the Cucamonga Comerpointe
project.
[LU-2] The City should modify, the List of Subarea 16's permitted and conditional
uses to exclude or limit more noxious ones. This modification shall cx'cur prior
to Final Tract Map approval of the Cucamonga Cornerpointe project.
[LU-3] Future industrial development within Subarea 16 shah be subject to the
following buildIng limitations:
· Height Limitation: 25 feet within 100 feet of abutting residential
development.
· Rear Property Line Building Setback: 45 feet when abut*dug residential
development.
· No loading doors/facilities, outdoor activities/storage nor mechanical
equipment shall be located beyond the rear wall of the subject..
industrial building.
[LU-4] For the lots within the Cucamong-a Cornerpointe subdivision which abut the
remaining industrial park portion of the subarea, the following features
shall be included in order to reduce future residents' perception of neighboring
industrial park activities:
[LU-SI
a. An eight-foot slurno block wall shall be constructed along the common
property, line which separates the residential and industrial park
lands of the subarea. The base of the wall shall be planted with a 16-
foot wide buffer of evergTeen vines and dense everg'ree_n trees (eight feet
of landscaping on each side of the property line wall).
b. Homes on lots whose backyards abut the industrial park shall be set
back 60 feet from the commc~n property. line. Homes on lots whose
sideyards abut the industrial park shall be set back 30 feet from the
cornmen property Line with additional wall and window insulation to
ensure interior noise levels to 45dB CN'EL.
c. Minimize the number of wiztdows which look onto the industrial park.
Widows which do look onto the industrial park shall be double-
paned.
..The CC&Rs for the Cucamonga Comerpointe resfdential development shall
disclose the presence of the adjacent industrial park and, to the extent
feasible, describe the potential nuisances which might be generated by the
industrial park.
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Development of Subarea 16 with residential and industrial park uses would increase the
daily generation of pollutants in both the short-term and the long-term. SigrtLficant long
term air pollutax~t emissions would be generated by vehicular trips going to and from the
subarea, and, indLrectly, as a result of the use of electricity and natural gas in machines and
appliances.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Fact in Support of the Finding
The potentially sigrtfficant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
[AQ-2] ALl development with. m the subarea shall be subject to applicable provisions
of the City's adopted trip reduction ordinances (Ordinance No. 522 and 523,
Adopted April 6, 1994) as follows:
Industrial Park Develovment
a. Office parks with 1,000 employees or more shall provide onsite video
conference facilities.
b. Industrial development over 325,000 square feet in size shall provide a
minimum of one shower facility accessible to both men and women for
persons waking or bicycling to work.
c. Bicycle storage facilities at the rate of one rack or locker per 30 spaces
(mum of a three-bLke rack) shall be provided within all
development and related to planned and existing bicycle trails in
accordance with the Development Code Requirements.
d. Off-street par!ring dose to the building shall be provided for
office/industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking
area as desig-nated for use by car pools and vanpools.
e. Convenient pedestrian circulation shall be provided throughout all
projects to connect public streets, parking areas and public transit
facilities with buildings and pedestrian open spaces.
Residential Development
f. Cucamonga ComerpoLnte's roadway improvements to Fourth Street
shall include a bus turnout.
g. Single-family development of 500 or more units shall provide a
telecommuling center or contribute toward development of one in an
amount satisfactory to the City Council.
FIRE PROTECTION IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would result in a considerable increase in demands
for the various fire protection, suppression, and emergency medical services provided by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fh'e Protection District. The potential need for relocation of Fire Station
-~_ to me~t this demand would not be adequately covered by revenues generated through
standard property taxes.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Suppor~ of the Fincling
The potentially sig'nificant effects will be reduced to a level
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
of insignificance through
All property within the present boundaries of Subarea 16 shall be annexed
into MeLlo Roos District 85-1 in order to assist in fund~g Fire Station ~-'s
relocation and/or the hiring of additional personnel. Annexation of the
subarea shall be completed prior to recordation of Cucamonga Comerpointe's
Final Tract Map. Subarea landowners shall each conminute their pro-rata
share of the acLministrative costs of annexation.
POLICE PROTECTION IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would result in additional residents, employees,
pedestrians, and vehicular traffic in the project area, which would increase the existing
demands for the various law en/orcement and protection services provided by the San
Bemardino Cou.n,ty Sherfff's Depa~.,Lent. This impact is considered to be cumulativeIv
sign'LLficant in that the need for additional officers may ultimately result in the need for new
or expanded police facilities.
FindLug
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substan~ally lessen the signfficant environmental effect identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially sig'nifica_nt effects will be reduced ~o a level of insignificance through
implementat-ion of the following mitigation measure:
[P4l
ALl development in the subarea shall include the following design features to
reduce the potential for criminal activity,:
a. Street and night lighting should be provided on the project site to aid
crime prevention and enforcement efforts. Lighting standards should
meet or exceed existing City standards.
b. Landscaping should be designed so as to not conceal potential criminal
activities near windows or doors.
c. ALl garages should be enclosed.
d. The use of louvered windows should be prohibited.
SCHOOL IMPACTS
Development of the residential portions of the subarea would result in the generation of new
students that would at-tend schools administered by the Cucamonga School District and the
Charley Joint Union High School District. Additional students may also be generated from
future employees of the proposed industrial park. Because both of the two school districts
have indicated that the existing erkrollment levels are at or near maximum capacity, the
proposed proiect's impact to schools is considered to be potentially significant.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen significant envLronmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[S-1] Each residential development within General Plan Area 95-03A shah be
conditioned to participate in the CJ'USHD's CFD No. 2, and shall negotiate
and enter an agreement with the CSD for school impact mitigation prior to
issuance of building permits.
WATER SUPPLY IMPACTS
The Cucaxnonga County Water District has indicated that the ex,ist~g mank Lines that serve
the site can not adequately accommodate the project's future water demands without a
significant decline in water pressure. Although the project applicants would be required to
pay Water Development Fees to the District, these fees would not be sufficient to reduce the
potentially significant impacts relative to existing water distribution facilities to less than
significant levels.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or Lncorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insig-nfficance through
Lmplementation of the following mit-/gation measure:
[~V-1] In addition to paying connection fees and instaLLing all required waterlines on
the project site, the Cucaznonga Comerpointe or the first major development
of the area shall construct a 12" water main in Fourth Street between
Cucaznonga Creek Channel and Archibald Avenue. If Cucamonga
CornerlDointe is the first major development of the site, then the 12" water
main shall be installed prior to final inspection approval. If the industrial
buildings are the first major development of the site, then the 12" water main
shall be installed prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. Because other
development within the subarea will also be dependent upon this water
main, a refund a~eement shall be established with the Cucamonga County
_~Vater District in which each development within the project site shall
provide a pro-rata funding, based u?on the completion of residential units of
each particular development.
STORM DRAINAGE IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would increase the amount of impermeable
surfaces and reduce the time of concentration, thereby increasing the peak stormwater
runoff potential from the project site. Because drainage facilities have not been identified
for the Blessent and Cook properties, stormwater runoff impacts from these two areas of the
site are considered to be potentially significant. In addition, the Cucamonga Comerpointe
system does not appear to provide for stormwater runoff from future industrial park
development within the Cucamonga Channel tributary area.
With regard to potential flooding impacts, future development on the westerly portion of the
Bitssent property, and the northwesterly portion oi the Cook property may be significantly
affected by the Hellman Avenue flood hazard area. Development of the subarea may also
generate potentially significant water quality, impacts because of the name of the land uses
and the considerable area of impermeable surfaces which would be cons~a-ucted on the project
site.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the sigrd.ficant environme.~tal effects identified in the EIR.
Facts i.n Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level
implementation of the folJowLng mitigation me~ures:
[SD-1]
of insignificance through
In order to avoid the potential sheet flow flooding that would be generated
from Sixth Street, building pads proposed along SLxth Street shall be raised
in accordance with Ordinance 54.5. In addition, it is the City's policy that
storm drams be installed whenever: 25-year storm runoff exceeds the
capacity of a street (curb-to-curb); a 100-year storm runoff overflows the
street right-of-way; or street lanes are not kept "dry," during a 10-year storm.
These criteria will determine if a storm drain will be required within Sixth
Street.
[SD-2]
/SD-3]
[SD4I
In order to avoid the impacts of ~e existing ICE) year flood zone along
Hellman Avenue, development on the Cook and Blesl-ent properties which
would be located within the flood zone shall either be responsible for the
construction of the master pIarmed storm drain in HelLman Avenue, or the
raising up of the building pads by 3 to 4 feet within that flood zone, in
accordance with Ordinance 545. More precise hydrology calculations would
be required to pinpoint the "safe' finished elevations of these sites.
If the raising of building pads is implemented, flooding would continue to
occur along HeLLman Avenue and at any project ingress/egress locations. As
such, erosion control measures would have to be incorporated into the fill
slope of the raised building pads.
In order to avoid internal flooding problems within Subarea I6 as the area
develops, a revised master drainage plan should be prepared prior to ~he
_City preparing conditions of'approval for the Cucamonga Comerpointe
project. This report must identify the size and locations of all on.site storm
drains, demonstrate that these storm drains can adequately accommodate
runoff from "upstream" areas within Subarea 16 and specify, the locations of
proposed points of discharge within either the Archibald Avenue or
Cucamonga Channel tributary areas. In order to ensure that the projecVs
future runoff into Cucamonga Creek Channel can be adequately
accommodated, the Ax'mv Corps of Engineers shall be consulted, and if
necessary, the impermea/:fie surface areas within the project site shall be
reduced. In addition, a preLinlinary drainage plan for the project shall be
submitted and all storm drain designs shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to final map approval.
To minimize the pollution of stormwater runoff, a stormwater pollution
prevention plan (SWPPP), identifying best management practices for use both
during construction and operation of all proposed residential development
shall be developed prior to Cucamonga Comerpointe final tract map
approval, in accordance with Regional Water QuaLity Control Board
requirements.
A master S~VPPP for non-residential land uses shall be developed prior to
construction of such uses. The SW'PPP for the non-residential land uses shall
require the construction and monitoring of more comprehensive pollution
control facilities, both in terms of number and in effectiveness, for removing a
variety of potential pollutants. Such facilities should include, but are not
limited to, subsurface sedLmentation and filtration structures to treat "first
flush" runoffs. In addition, the plan must include provisions for a
coordinated, periodic sweeping program for all paved surfaces which
includes the application and vacuuming of approved detergents for
hydrocarbon removal, and an approved disposal program. In addition, the
5WPPP must demonstrate how runoff from the industrial portion of the
proiect will be prevented from discharging onto the residential area, such as
through the construction of betms.
CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed may ultimately result in the demolition of the
historic Lucas Ranch Complex. Because the Lucas Ranch Complex is eligible for a local
landmark designation as well as the National Register of Historic Places, the proposed
project's impacts to cultural resources are considered to be potentially significant.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
The potentially significant effects will be reduced to a level of insignificance through
implementation of the following mitigation measure:
[CR-1] Pursuant to the commurdty design element of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's
General Plan, all new development within the subarea should incorporate
historic themes.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CAN NOT BE
REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
T RAFFIC/CIRCULATION IMPACTS
By Year 2001, the peak hour Prips from Subarea 16 would cause significant impacts at the
intersection of Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street. By Year 2015, Subarea 16 traffic would
significantly impact two intersections: Vineyard Avenue/Fourth Street, and Archibald
Avenue/Fourth Street. In addition, the intersections of Hellman Avenue/Fourth Street and
Hellman Avenue/Sixth Street will be significantly impacted unless they are signalized.
Although, in theory, roadway improvements are available to reduce significant impacts,
there may be insufficient right-of-way available to accommodate these improvements, and
thus, significant traffic impacts may b'e unavoidable at certain locations.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen Lhe significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will substantially reduce but not
completely mitigate the significant effects:
Each development in Subarea 16, inducting the Cucamonga ComerpoLnte
subdivision, shall be responsible for mitigating traffic impacts by
contributing its pro-rata share of the list of improvements shown below,
accordance with the City's polldes regarding traffic impact fees and traffic
mitigations. Each development shall coordinate with the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Eng4neering Department to determine whether the Citv's
required traffic impact fees are sufficient to cover the development's pro-r~ta
share of these improvements.
Year 2001
Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street * Add one eastbound Left-turn lane
* Add one westbound Through lane
* Add one southbound Right-turn lane
Add one northbound Through lane
The above improvements are already planned by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. This wLLl increase the number of existi.ng Lburough lanes from two
to three westbound and two to three northbound.
HeLlman Avenue/Fourth Street · Signalize intersection
Hellman Avenue/SL×th Street
· Signalize intersection (optional)
Year 2015
Vineyard Avenue/Fourth Street
· Add one northbound Through lane
This will increase the nuznber of existing through lanes from t~vo to three in
the northbound alLreckon.
Archibald Avenue/Fourth Street · Add one eastbound Left turn lane (by 2001)
· Add one eastbound Through lane
· Add one westbound Titrough lane (by 2001)
· Add one northbound Right-turn lane
· Add one northbound Through lane (by 2001)
· Add one southbound Right turn lane ('by 2001)
· Add one southbound Through lane
· Upgrade existing intersection sig-nal
This will increase the number of existing tb. rough lanes from two to three
eastbound, two to three westbound, two to three nortt-ubound, and two to three
_southbound.
HeLLman Avenue/Fourth Street
· Sig-n~liTe intersection (by 2001)
HelLman Avenue/SLxth Street
· Signalize intersection
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Development of Subarea 16 with residential and industrial park uses would increase the
daily generation of pollutants in both the short-term and the long-term. In the short term,
,typical construction activities could generate on the order of 69.7 pounds of carbon monoxide,
8.7 pounds of reactlye organic gases, 77.4 pounds of nitrogen oxides, 8.9 pounds of su. lhz oxides
and 1,575.5 pounds of fine particulate matter each day. Should the entire subarea be
developed more or less simultaneously, the dally construction emissions would be higher. I f
the site is developed in a mon~ piecemeal fashion, then daily emissions would be lower, but
they would CL'Vd.r Over a greater time period. In addition, the subarea's contribution to
cumulative increases in carbon monoxide "hotspot" concentrations is considered to be
sigrufficant.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been reqtzi.red in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the sigrd. ficant envizorua'tental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Ending
Lmplementation of the following mitigation measures will substantially reduce but not
completely mitigate the sigr~Lficant effects:
[AQ-1] Dust generated by the development activities shall be retained onsite and
kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures Listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or tzansportation of
cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. ~g construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a mirtLmum, this would include wetting down such
[AQ-2]
areas in the later morning and after work is completed for the day, and
whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the
entire area of disturbed soft shaft be treated immediately by watering,
revegetating, or spreading soil binders to prevent wind' pickup of the
soil until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust
generation will not occur.
d. Soil stockpried for more than two days shaI1 be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials and/or construction
debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
.~dl development within the subarea shall be subject to applicable provisions
of the City's adopted trip reduction ordinances (Ordinance No. 522 and 523,
' Adopted April 6, 1994) as follows:
Lndust'rial Park Development
a. Office parks with 1,000 employees or more shall provide onsite video
conference facilities.
b. Industrial development over 325,000 square feet in size shall provide a
minimum of one shower facility accessible to both men and women for
persons waking or bicyding to work
c. Bicycle storage facilities at the rate of one rack or locker per 30 spaces
(minimum of a three-bike rack) shah be provided within all
development and related to planned and eating bicycle trails in
accordance with the Development Code Requirements.
d. Off-street parking dose to the building shah be provided for
office/industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking
area as designated for use by car pools and vanpools.
e. Convenient pedestrian circulation shah be provided throughout all
projects to connect public streets, parking areas and public transit
facilities with buildings and pedestrian open spaces.
Residential Development
f. Cucamonga Cornerpointe's roadway improvements to Fourth Street
shall include a bus turnout.
g. Single-family development of 500 or more units shah provide a
telecom.muting center or contribute toward development of one in an
amount satisfactory to the City, Council
NOISE IMPACTS
Development of the subarea as proposed would increase the number of vehicular trips which
ufiliTe the roadways adiacent to the site and, as such, incrementally increase the amount of
traffic noise generated on the local roadways. A/though development of the subarea would
not result in an audible increase, subarea traffic in combination with cumulative project
traffic would cause an audible increase which cannot be avoided.
Because the project site is currently exposed to unacceptable ambient
development of the proposed residential u_~es would result in exposure
populations ~o unacceptable arabfen[ noise levels.
noise levels,
of additional
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required i,n, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the sigTdficant environmental effects identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of the Finding
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will substantially reduce but not
completely mitigate the sig'nLficant effects:
[N-I]
Pursuant to Section 17.02.120 of the City Development Code, grading and
other construction activities which involve the use of heavy, equipment s ha i1
"be restricted to Monday through Saturday 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., excluding
holidays.
[N-2I
Applicants for residential development within the subarea shall have an
acoustical engineer conduct and submit a final noise study at the time of
submittal of plans for building permits on homes which wLll border Fourt~h
Street, Sixth Street and Hellman Avenue. The final noise study shall verify
ex.lsting and future noise ambient noise levels based upQn field measurements
taken after the ramps Iraking Archibald Avenue and Interstate 10 are open.
Based up<m the updated noise characterization, the study will ~s how
outdoor levels at the homes can be attenuated to less than 65 dB CNEL,
identify the building materials and construction techniques to be util/yed to
reduce indoor noise levels to 45 dB CN'EL, and veri.fv the adequacy of
mitigation measures included in the building plans. Any proposed scnJnd
barriers shall be designed in a manner which is acceptable to the City. The
building plans will be checked for conformance with mitigation measures
contained in the final noise study and conditions of approval.
SOLID WASTE IMPACTS
FuLl development of the subarea would result in the long-term daily generation of additional
solid waste. The amount of solid waste from the proposed project would be less than what is
expected Lf the entire subarea was developed under its curnmt industrial park designation.
However, given the extremely limited amount of available capacity at both the Milliken
and Mid-Valley landfills, the proposed project is anticipated to result in a cumulativeIv
signfficant contribution to the regional solid waste disposal crisis.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid
or substantially lessen the significant envizorunental effects identified in the EIR.
I2
Facts in Support of the Finding
Lmplementation of the following mitigation
mitigate the sig-nificant effects:
[S~V-1]
[SW-2I
[SW-31
measures wou/d reduce but not completely
Recyclable waste materials generated during construction of any development
within the subarea shah be separated out so as to facilitate the recycling of
these materials by the contacted trash hauleL
City maintenance of the public park shall include the recycling of green
wastes and the use of cornposted materials.
All proposed dwelling units in the subarea shall be designed with adequate
indoor/outdoor storage space to facilitate the separation and recycling of
recyclable materials.
Each industrial park development shall participate in the citDvide' non-
residential recycling proyam, at the time it becomes available through
private, contracted haulers.
VI. FINDING5 REGARDING AI-TERNATIVE5 TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA GuideLLnes requ.Cres that EITCs describe a "range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which could feasiblv
attain the basic objectives of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the
alternatives." Four alternatives to the proposed project were identified: 1) No Project
Alternative; 2) Low-~Iedium Residential Alternative; 3) Low-Mediu.m
Residential/Commercial/Office; and 4) Low-,.MecLium Residential/Office. These four
alternatives are described below.
Alternative 1: "No Project"
There are two scenarios which are both deft. ned as the "No Project" Alternative. The first
scenario is the literal interpretation of the "no project," which means maintaining the
project site as it exists today (Alternative 1A). Because the first scenario typically is not a
feasible alternative, a second "no project" scenario was also identified. The second scenario
assumes that the project site would be developed as currently permitted under the City's
zoning and general plan designations for the site (Alternative 1B). Alternative 1B consists
of 2,390,180 square feet of industrial park buLlclings and a five-acre public park.
Alternative IA: No Build
Because the No Build Alternative would not permit any additional development, it
would result in the least amount of impacts compared to the proposed project and the
other alternatives. However, this alternative would not meet the objectives of the
proposed project and would not provide the same amount of benefits as the project (i.e.,
park site, irffrastructure improvements, jobs, revenue to the City, etc.).
Alternative 1B: Currentlu Permitted Buildout
Alternative 1B would generate more vehicle ta-ips than the proposed project, resulting in
greater impacts relative to traffic/circulation, air quality, and noise. This industrial
park alternative would also generate more sewage and refuse than the proposed project,
resul6.ng in greater sewage and solid waste impacts. In addition, Alternative 1B would
requ.Lre a greater amount of impervious sudaces than the proposed project; this would
result in more surface nanoff than the project. Because this alternative involves more
Lndustr~al square footage than the project, it has the potential to generate greater
stormwater pollution impacts because there would be a greater potential that hazardous
materials would be used. Although Alternative 1B would generate more jobs than the
proposed project, it would not meet all of the objectives of the project.
Alternative 2: Low-Medium Residential Throughout
Under tl-Lis alternative, the entirety of Subarea 16 would be removed 6rorn the Industrial
.-~rea Specific Plan and redesignated for Low-..Medium Residential (4 to 8 dweLLing u_n.its per
acre). The exception would be the public park designation which is currently designated on
the general Plan Land Use Map and which is currently proposed as part of the Cucamonga
Cornerpointe development. The maximum number of dweLLing ~trdts anticipated under this
alternative would be 1,036.
Although Alternative 2 would result in less land use compatibility impacts than the
proposed project, the policy inconsistencies are considered to be somewhat greater than th, e
project because there is no retention of any lands for industrial uses, and because the
inconsistency. with SCAG's growth projections would be even greater. In terms of noise
compa~bility, this alternative is considered to be worse than the proposed project because,
14
by resulting in substantially more dwellLng units than the proposed project, it could expose a
Beater number of sensitive receptors to existing unacceptable ambient noise levels than the
proposed project.
It is also expected that demands for police protection would be greater under this
alternative than that of ,~he proposed project. This is because residential uses generate
more calls for service than Lndustrial uses. In addition, Alternative 2 would generate an
estimated 1,019 students, resuliing in greater impacts to schoob than the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would also generate greater water supply impacts than the proposed project·
Although Alternative 2 has been identified as the "Environmentally Superior
Alternative," it would not provide as many iobs or revenue to the City as the proposed
project and would not meet all of the project obiectives.
Alternative 3: Low-Medium Residential/Commercial/Office
Under this alternative, the western portion of the subarea, including the Cucamonga
Cornerpointe site and the Cook and Blessent properties, would be withdrawn from the
Industrial Area Specific Plan and would be redesignated for Low-N/edium Residential ~e
with a five-acre public park. Therefore, the residential buildout of this alternative would
be the same as the proposed project. The remaining 46 acres of the subarea would also be
withdrawn from the Industrial Area Specffic Plan and redesignated. Up to 16 acres of the
site would be redesig-nated for commercial use and 30 acres would be redesignated for office
use. The anticipated, non-residential buildout of this alternative is approximately 217,800
square feet of commercial space and 553,340 square feet of office space.
· The land use policy consistency of this alternative is considered to be worse than the
proposed project because not only would the entire site be inconsistent with the adopted
Master Plan, but ~ra/fic and air quality generation would exceed SCAG's growth forecasts.
Under this alternative, the namber of vehicular trips generated by the site would be 81
percent higher than that generated by the proposed project. This suggest that both onsite
and offsite sensitive receptors would experience a greater ambient noise level than
anticipated under the proposed project. The air pollutant emissions would exceed
SCAQN, fD's significance thresholds and are much greater than the emission levels expected
Lmder the proposed buildout of the subarea. In terms of consistency with the AQMiP, this
alternative is considered to be inconsistent because it would generate a higher rate of daily
emissions than anticipated under the site's current industrial park designation.
The demand for police protection under Alternative 3 would be greater than the proposed
project because commercial and office land uses typically generate more calls for service
than industrial uses. In addition, water supply impacts under this alternative would also
be greater than those generated by the project. Although Alternative 3 would generate less
stormwater runoff than the project to the Archibald Avenue drainage area, it would
generate more runoff to the Cucamonga Creek drainage area. This alternative would not
meet all of the objectives of the proposed project.
Alternative 4: Low-Nfediura Residential/Office
Under t~s altema~ve, Line western potdon of Subarea i6, ~cludhng t:ne Cucamonga
ComerpoL,nte site and the Cook and BEessent properties, ~could be withdrawn from the
l. ndus~a/Area Specific Plan and would be redlsighated for Low-Medivzm Residential Use
with a five-acre public park. The maximum residential bui/dout would be the same as the
proposed proiect. The remairdrtg 46 acres of the subarea would also be withdrawn from the
Lndus~iaI Area Specific Plan and would be redesignated for an 858,350-square foot office
building.
The land use policy consistency impacts of Alternative 4 would be greater than that of the
proposed project because this alternative, by not retaining a. nv industrial park lands, would
be completely contrary, to the City's intent in setting aside lands for industrial
development. The air poLlutant emissions under Alternative 4 would exceed SCAQNflD's
sigrd/icance'thresholds and are substantially peater than the emission levels expected
under bidout of the proposed proiect,. Ln addition, the number of vehicular trips generated
by this alternative would be four percent higher than that generated by the proposed
proie~. Trds suggest that both on_site and offsite sensitive receptors would experience a
greater ambient noise level than anticivated ur~der the proposed project. The demand for
police protection is also considered to be slightly greater than what is expected under the
proposed project because calls for service by the office uses are expected to be Feater than
that of the industrial park uses.
Alternative 4 wo~d generate more water supply Lmpacts than the proposed project. Also,
stormwater runoff to the Cucamonga Creek drainage area would be greater than that of the
proposed proiect. Finally, this alternative does not meet all oi the objectives of the
proposed proiect.
VII. STATE,ViENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quai/~' Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines provide
that:
"CEQA requires the decision-makez__to balance the benefits of a proposed project
against its unavoidable adverse ~sks in deterre/:ring whether to approve the
proiect. If the benefits of the proposed proiect outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse impacts may be considered acceptable.
Where the decision of the public ag~ncy allows the occu.c~e~'~ce of significant effects
which are identified in the final EIR but are not at least substantially mitigated,
the agency, shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on
the final EIR and/or other irfformation in the record. This statement may be
necessar'v if-the agency a!sl o makes a iinding under Section 15091(a)(2) or (a)(3).
.Lf any agency, makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should
be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the
Notice of Determanation." (Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines.)
Project benefits are defined as those improvements or gains to the communib~ that would not
occur without ie proposed project.
1. Impacts from Proposed Project
As stated in Section V, the proposed project would result in significant unavoidable
impacts relative to traffic/circulation, air quality, noise, and solid waste.
Project Benefits
The City of Rand-to Cucamong-a finds that the following substantial enviroru:nental
benefits will cccur as a result of approval of General Plan .A. me. ndment 95-03A, and
assodated Development Dis~,ct Amendme'tt 95-02, indus,.,--ial .Area Specific Plan
.4znend.ment 95-434, and Tentat/re Tract 15727:
Tentative Tract 15727, an 82-acre, 3-~2 lot subdivision will provide an added
beneficial residential dnaracter to the eyisting single family neighborhood
north of SL×th 5~eet. The inclusion of a five-acre neighborhood park as a part
of the tract project will vrovide recreational activity potential in a residential
neighborhood where 5.~de presently exists.
AppLicants for development wLL1 be required to mitigate all onsite impacts and
specified of/site imvac~s through installation of frontage improvements
consistent with the Ciw of Rand'~o Cucamonga General Plan's Circulation
Element, as well as conz;.bute to the City's Ne~cus Fee Program for offsite
impacts.
Project appLicants shall be conciitioned to participate in City waste
m/nimization programs to reduce the flow of municival solid waste to land fills.
Project applicants shall be conditioned to provide me~ods to facilitate the
recycling of solid waste material by contact trash haulers.
The land use amencLm_,""~.ts, whLle redesignating a tota~ of 92 acres for
residential devetopmen.L retains a significant portion within Subarea 16 .for
industrial .and comznerdal related activities that will provide a positive cost
benefit to the Cit]~ when ul~natelv developed.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
95-03A, CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM
INDUSTRIAL PARK TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 92 ACRES OF LAND,
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH
STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA
CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamon~la Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for General Plan Amendment
95-03A as described in the title of this Resolution for 77 acres of land, to which the City of Rancho
Cucamonga considered an additional 15 acres of adjacent land. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject General Plan Amendment of 92 acres of land is referred to as "the application."
2. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on this
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application and associated applications for Development District Amendment 95-02 and
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission
concluded the public hearings and recommended approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A
and the associated Development District and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendments to the City
Council.
3. On November 20, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly notice public hearing on the application, and concurrently considered the adequacy of an
Environmental Impac~ Report for the application and associated applications for Development
District Amendment 95-02 and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing on November 20, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 92 acres of land, located on the south
side of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel which is presently vacant and underdeveloped. Said properties are currently designated
as Industrial Park; and
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 95-03A - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 2
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) and developed with a single family neighborhood. Some of the properties
to the west are designated Low-Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are occupied
by an undeveloped construction storage yard. The remaining properties to the west are in the City
of Ontario, designated General Industrial, and are vacant. The properties to the east are
designated Industrial Park and are primarily vacant with remnants of a vineyard. The properties
to the south are in the City of Ontario, designated Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low-
Medium Density Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16
dwelling units per acre) and are developed with drainage facilities and apartments; and
c. The'application is part of a series of applications relating to Tentative Tract 15727
which proposes the development of 342 single family residential units and a 5-acre neighborhood
park; and
d. This application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
e. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
properties
application
f. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and, concurrently with this
by separate Resolution, is recommended to the City Council for certification.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a That the subject properties are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area;
and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will
not result in any internal inconsistences with the General Plan and would not have significantly
greater impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties than would be expected under
the existing land use designation.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Council hereby recommends approval of General Plan Amendment 95-03A to amend the Land Use
Element of the General Plan including the map from Industrial Park to Low-Medium Residential (4-8
dwelling units per acre) for 92 acres of land, located on the south side of Sixth Street, north of
Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek Channel (see Exhibit "A")
and all other applicable maps, tables, charts, and text of the General Plan to provide consistency
with the change.
5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
RESIDENTIAL
__j VERY LOW <2 DU's,'AC
:. '.::::'::."'!LOW 2-4 DU'S/AC
__] LOW- MEDIUM 4-8 DU's/AC
zi?i:!:!:!:!:i:lMEDIUM 8-~4 DU's/AC
!iii!iiiii!ii!iiMEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC
~ HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC
® MASTER PLAN REQUIRED
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
~ COMMERCIAL
;-:::...:.-i COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
- ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMM.
~ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
!::::::5:::: OFFICE
INDUSTRIAL
~ INDUSTRIAL PARK
~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
~ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
] 4th
~ i C~PA
OPEN SPACE ~
L -.~-s HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL
~ OPEN SPACE
::':-::':::-::':~ FLOOD CONTROL/UTILITY CORb.
----- SPECIAL BOULEVARD
PUBLIC FACILITIES
~ ~ ~'EXISTING SCHOOLS
-_ ,hPROPOSED SCHOOLS~
;-~,.-~;-=.~pARKS~
,-==,-.-:-~ (EXISTING PARKS SHOWN 'P')
CIVIC/COMMUNITY
CITY OF R,~.NCFIO::CUCAMONGA
PLANNING
: ...............
Project: 5, F'~ ~'6 - o~A
Title: ~,.~',u~=R,,~L., pL.~AJ
Exhibit: // Date:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT 95°02, CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP
FROM INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, SUBAREA 16, INDUSTRIAL
PARK TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER
ACRE) FOR 97 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN
AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK CHANNEL, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 11, 13,
17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for Development District
Amendment 95-02 as described in the title of this Ordinance for 82 acres of land, to which the City
of Rancho Cucamonga considered an additional 15 acres of adjacent land. Hereinafter in this
Ordinance, the subject Development District Amendment of 97 total acres of land is referred to as
"the application."
2. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on this
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application and associated applications for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission concluded
the public hearings and recommended approval of Development District Amendment 95-02 and
the associated General Plan and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendments to the City Council.
3. On November 20, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly notice public hearing on the application, and concurrently considered the adequacy of an
Environmental Impact Report for the application and associated applications for General Plan
Amendment 95o03A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find,
determine, and ordain as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on October 9, 1996, and to this Council during the above
referenced public hearing on November 20, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 97 acres of land, located on the south
side of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel which is presently vacant and underdeveloped. Said properties are currently zoned as
Industrial Area Specific Plan. Subarea 16, Industrial Park; and
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
DDA 95-02 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 2
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2--4
dwelling units per acre) and developed with a single family neighborhood. Some of the properties
to the west are designated Low-Medium Re~lential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are occupied
by an undeveloped construction storage yard. The remaining properties to the west are in the City
of Ontario, designated General Industrial, and are vacant. The properties to the east are
designated Industrial Park and are primarily vacant with remnants of a vineyard. The properties
to the south are in the City of Ontario, designated Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low-
Medium Density Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16
dwelling units per acre) and are developed with drainage facilities and apartments.; and
c. The_application is part of a series of applications relating to Tentative Tract 15727
which proposes the de_velopment of 342 single family residential units and a 5-acre neighborhood
park; and
d. This application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and Development Code and with related development; and
e. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
f. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and, concurrently with this
application by separate Resolution, certified by the City Council.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a That the subject properties are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area;
and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will
not result in any internal inconsistences with the General Plan and Development Code and would
not have significantly greater impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties than
would be expected under the existing land use designation.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Council hereby approves Development District Amendment 95-02 to change the Development
Districts Map from Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16, Industrial Park to Low-Medium
Residential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) for 97 acres of land, located on the south side of Sixth
Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek Channel
(see attached Exhibit "A").
5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
6. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be
published within fifteen (15) days after is 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.
RE~DENTIAL
VERY LOWz2 DU/AC
LOW 2-4 DU/AC
LOW-MEDIUM 4-S DU/AC
MEDIUM 8-14 DU/AC
MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU/AC
HIGH 24-30 DU/AC
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE
~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL
j"0'15"] OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL
OPEN SPACE
~ HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL
1"0"{'] OPEN SPACE
~ FLOOD CONTROL
l"b"C"l UTILITY CORRIDOR
SPECIFIC PLANS
mmJ~.:.P_',= INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN
FOOTHILL SPECIFIC PLAN
PLANNED COMMUNITIES
""::""0
~"'v.P.,c~ VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY
~ccc_~
~.v,~ TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
MASTER PLAN
SENIOR HOUSING
EQUESTRIAN
DDA A ,
71
~iiiiiiiidl '
Project: DDA ere --o '2.
Title:
Exhibit: A Date:
ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~ ~
A ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 95-04, TO DELETE 97 ACRES OF LAND FROM
SUBAREA 16 OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SIXTH STREET, NORTH OF FOURTH
STREET, AND EAST OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND THE CUCAMONGA
CREEK CHANNEL, AND AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR SUBAREA 16, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF-
APN: 210-062-02, 05, 06, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, AND 39.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamon~a Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04 as described in the title of this Ordinance for 82 acres of land, to which the City
of Rancho Cucamonga considered an additional 15 acres of adjacent land. Heroinafter in this
Ordinance, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment of 97 total acres of land is referred
to as "the application."
2. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on this
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application and associated applications for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and
Development District Amendment 95-02. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission
concluded the public heai'ings and recommended approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment No. 95-04 and the associated General Plan and Development District Amendments
to the City Council.
3. On November 20. 1996. the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly notice public hearing on the application, and concurrently considered the adequacy of an
Environmental Impact Report for the application and associated applications for General Plan
Amendment 95-03A and Development District Amendment 95°02.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby find,
determine. and ordain as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on October 9, 1996, and to this Council during the above
referenced public hearing on November 20, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 97 acres of land, located on the south
side of Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel which is presently vacant and underdeveloped. Said properties are currently zoned as
Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 16, Industrial Park; and
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20.1996
Page 2
b. The properties to the north of the subject site are designated Low Residential (2-4
dwelling units per acre) and developed with a single family neighborhood. Some of the properties
to the west are designated Low-Medium ReSidential (4-8 dwelling units per acre) and are occupied
by an undeveloped construction storage yard. The remaining properties to the west are in the City
of Ontario, designated General Industrial, and are vacant. The properties to the east are
designated Industrial Park and are primarily vacant with remnants of a vineyard. The properties
to the south are in the City of Ontario, designated Proposed Recreation/Open Space/Park, Low-
Medium Density Residential (5.1-11 dwelling units per acre), and Medium Residential (11-16
dwelling units per acre) and are developed with drainage facilities and apartments; and
c. The. application is part of a series of applications relating to Tentative Tract 15727
which proposes the d_evelopment of 342 single family residential units and a 5-acre neighborhood
park; and
d. This application does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan,
Development Code, and Industrial Area Specific Plan and with related development; and
e. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
properties
application
f. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and, concurrently with this
by separate Resolution, certified by the City Council.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a That the subject properties are suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land uses in the surrounding area;
and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and will
not result in any internal inconsistences with the General Plan, Development Code, and Industrial
Area Specific Plan and would not have significantly greater impacts on the environment nor the
surrounding properties than would be expected under the existing land use designation.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Council hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04 deleting
from Subarea 16 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, 97 acres of land located on the south side of
Sixth Street, north of Fourth Street, and east of Hellman Avenue and the Cucamonga Creek
Channel and amending the text, tables, and maps relating to Subarea 16 as follows:
a. Part IV, Subarea 16, Primary Function, shall read as follows:
"This Subarea serves as a transition zone from more intensive
industrial or commercial activities to residential areas in the southwest
corner of the City. As such, new development must be sensitive to the
surroundings with appropriate architecture and site planning to
mitigate potential conflicts. Land uses within the industrial area should
be compatible with surrounding uses north of Sixth Street and along
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 3
follows:
Archibald Avenue to provide for use activities associated with airports
such as tourist commercial. This subarea is located between Sixth
Street and Fourth Street, west of Archibald Avenue and contains
property substantially under?eloped. It lies adjacent to a direct access
to the Ontario International Airport and is located at a gateway to the
City."
Part IV, Subarea 16, Permitted Uses, shall read as follows:
"Administrative and Office
Professional/Design Services
Research Services
LightWholesale, Storage, and Distribution
Building Maintenance Services
Business Supply Retail Sales and Services
Business Support Services
Communication Services
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services
Medical/Health Care Services
Recreation Facilities
Administrative Civic Services"
Part IV, Subarea 16, Conditional Uses, shall read as follows:
"Custom Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing
Automotive Rental/Leasing
Automotive Service Station
Convenience Sales and Services
Entertainment
Fast Food Sales
Food and Beverage Sales
Hotel/Motel
Personal Services
Cultural
Public Assembly
Public Safety and Utility Services
Religious Assembly
Uses listed ("permitted" or "conditionally permitted") in the
Development Code's Neighborhood Commercial District subject to
a 5-acre maximum and site constraints as listed in the Special
Considerations."
Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, second paragraph shall read as
"A revised conceptual Master Plan (revises the master plan of
Development Review File Number 82-18) which outlines access,
circulation, drainage and timing of improvements is required prior to
approval of development plans: All new development must be
consistent with this Master Plan. or the appropriate revisions
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ISPA 95-04 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 4
approved. Neighborhood Commercial uses (listed as "permitted or
"conditionally permitted" in the Development Code) may only be
considered within a 5-acre area at or near the southwest corner of
Archibald Avenue and Sixth Street subject to approval of a master
plan for those uses within a'Farger industrial park project. In the event
of a conflict between whether a use is permitted or conditionally
permitted, the Industrial Park requirement applies. It is not the intent
to allow neighborhood commercial uses to be scattered throughout an
industrial project nor to permit such uses within any existing complex
designed solely for industrial uses."
Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, fifth paragraph shall read as follows:
"Attractive screening of outdoor work, loading, storage areas, and roof
and ground mounted equipment from significant residential and public
right-of-way freeway points of view shall be required."
Part IV, Subarea 16, Special Considerations, new paragraphs shall be added as
follows:
"Building height limit shall be 25 feet within 100 feet of abutting
residentially designated property. No loading doors or facilities may
face, unobstructed, towards any residentially designated property. No
outdoor activities/storage or mechanical equipment shall be located
beyond the rear wall of any building that faces, unobstructed, towards
any residentially designated property or public right of way.
The remaining portion of Subarea 16 at the northwest corner of
Archibald Avenue and Fourth Street. created by adoption of Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, is authorized to have a Fourth
Street single property line frontage of less than 300 feet. No further
reduction of the Fourth Street property line is permitted, except for the
acquisition of public right-of-way."
g. Part III, Table II1-1, shall be amended to reflect the above text changes.
h. Part IV, Subarea 16, Figure IV-18, shall be amended as shown in Exhibit "A."
i. All other applicable maps, tables, charts, and text to provide consistency with the
above changes.
5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
6. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be
published within fifteen (15) days after is passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin,
a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, Califomia, and circulated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
4th
Z
lO
=ubarea 4
,j
:lubarea 5
~', ,,
e':,O e:-
CIRCULATION
TRAILS/ROUTES
120' R.O.W.
0 0 0 0 Pedestrian
Creeks & Channels
100' R.O,W,
88' or less R.O.W.
RAIL SERVICE
l i lit Existing
-++++-i-- Proposed
· · · · Bicycle
3E'~E~ Regional
Mufti-Use
I !
Bridge
I I
Access Points
Special Streetscape/
Landscaping
0 400' 800/ 1600/
Note: Parcel lines and tot configurations
are shown as approximation only.
C'TY OF
PLAN'hiN~!:D~I~ION
IV-94
1The sites shown may not be currerrtly owned nor is the
location site specifr_ The depiction of a s~te is an
hdication of a projected ful~re need that may be
adjusted over time as the City develops.
Project: I
Title:
Exhibit: A Date:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
15727, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 342 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
AND A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ON 82 ACRES OF LAND WITH AN
APPLICATION FOR REZONINGTO THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
(4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) DISTRICT, LOCATED AT THE
INTERSECTION OF FOURTH STREET AND THE CUCAMONGA CREEK
FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, BORDERED BY SIXTH STREET ON THE
NORTH. AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 210-062-02, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 26, 32. AND 33.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamon~a Cornerpointe LLC has filed an application for the approval of Tentative
Tract Map No. 15727, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the
subject Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. Concurrent to the hearing on the
application, the Planning Commission considered the adequacy of an Environmental Impact Report
for the application and associated applications for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04. On October 9, 1996, the Planning Commission concluded
the public hearings and recommended approval of Tentative Tract Map 15727 and the associated
General Plan, Development District and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendments to the City
Council.
3. On November 20, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly notice public hearing on the application, and concurrently considered the adequacy of an
Environmental Impact Report for the application and associated applications for General Plan
Amendment 95-03A, Development District Amendment 95-02, and Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-04.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals. Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on October 9, 1996, and to this Council during the above
referenced public hearing on November 20, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property generally located at the intersection of Fourth
Street and the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, bordered by Sixth Street on the north
with a street frontage of 625 feet on Sixth Street and 1,835 feet on Fourth Street and a lot depth
of 2,565 feet and is presently unimproved; and
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
TI' 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 2
b. The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family
residential, the property to the south consists of apartments and open space flood control facilities,
the property to the east is primarily vacant and underdeveloped and designated for industrial park
uses, and the property to the west is largely'Gnderdeveloped; and
c. The project, together with the conditions of approval, will comply with all applicable
standards of the Development Code; and
d. The application proposes development at 4.68 dwelling units per acre, which is
within the unit density range of the requested Development District; and
e. The-project is an in-fill piece with single family residential development to the north
at similar density ranges and; hence, is a logical addition to the neighborhood.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the tentative tract is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code,
and any applicable specific plans; and
b. The design or improvements of the tentative tract is consistent with the concurrent
General Plan Amendment, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment, and Development District
Amendment under consideration by the City, and
c. The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed; and
d. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental
damage and avoidable injury to humans and wildlife or their habitat; and
e. The tentative tract is not likely to cause serious public health problems; and
f. The design of the tentative tract will not conflict with any easement acquired by
the public at large, now of record, for access through or use of the property within the proposed
subdivision.
g. This application would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties and an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and, concurrently with this
application by separate Resolution, certified by the City Council.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Council hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and
in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planninc~ Division
1)
All applicable Mitigation Measures listed in Table 11-1 of the "Industrial
Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation Environmental Impact
Report," as certified by the City Council, shall be completed as
described in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program. The
mitigation measures include, but are not necessarily limited to the
following items listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit
"A"):
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
'FI' 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 3
2)
3)
4)
5)
T-l, AQ-1, AQ-2, N-l, N-2, SW-1, SW-2, SW-3, SW-4, LU-1,
LUo2, LU-3, LU-4, LU-5, P-l, FP-1, S-1, W-l, SD-1, SD-2, SD-3,
SD-4, and CR-1. --
A Master Plan of Walls and Phasing Plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Planning Commission prior to the recordation of the
final tract map.
Drainage easements provided on Lots 16, 35, 45, 55, 65, and 227
through 230 shall be improved as follows:
a)
The drainage easement at the end of "F" Street shall be totally
'on Lot 35, the drainage easement at the end of "H" Circle shall
be totally on Lot 45, the drainage easement at the end of 'T'
Circle shall be totally on Lot 55, and the drainage easement at
the end of "J" Circle shall be totally on Lot 65.
b)
The drainage easements on Lots 16, 35, 45, 55, 65, 227, 228,
229, and 230 shall be improved with irrigation systems and
extensive planrings, the continuous length of the easements,
prior to the final inspection on each lot and subject to City
Planner approval.
c)
Lots 16, 227, 228, 229, and 230 shall be improved with 6-foot
high property line walls adjacent to each drainage easement
from the rear property line to a point in alignment with the front
house wall nearest the property line, and with an 18-inch high
property line wall from the front property line to the beginning of
the 6-foot property line wall, All walls shall comply with an
approved Master Plan of Walls, subject to Planning Commission
approval, and installed prior to final inspection on each lot.
d)
Mini sumps shall be provided along the northerly extent of the
cul-de-sac_4 (within a right-of-entry easement of the northern
properties) at Circles "J," "1," and "H" and "F" Street (between
Lots 35 and 36, 45 and ,46, 55 and 56, and 65 and 66), and the
northerly extent of "R" Street (rear of Lots 227, 228, 229, and
230).
Landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in all public right of way
and landscape easement areas along Fourth Street, Sixth Street, and
"A" Street within the tract in compliance with a Conceptual Landscape
Plan to be approved by the Planning Commission and construction
plans approved plans to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City
Planner. Installation shall be completed consistent with a phasing plan
approved by the Planning Commission. Landscaping shall be included
along the future parkway area on the west side of "A" Street, between
Sixth Street and Lot 227.
Where rear lot drainage to a public facility can be achieved along "A"
Street, the lot should be lowered with a rear lot grade break and
depressing the pad the maximum amount possible below the street
fronting the lot.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 4
6)
7)
8)
9)
Lots 35, 36, 45, 46, 55, 56, 65, and 66 shall have a minimum width of
75 feet and a minimum side yard structural setback from the out
parcels to the northeast of 30 feet with RV parking accommodations.
Noise attenuation features will be included in the house walls facing
the out parcels to ensure interior ambient noise levels required by the
Development Code.
Pedestrian access is to be provided from "A" Street to the adjacent
cul-de-sacs.
A disclosure statement shall be incorporated as a deed restriction on
all residential lots informing future owners of the industrial zoned land
to the east of the tract on both sides of Archibald Avenue.
The applicant shall fully mitigate the project's school facilities impacts
by entering into a mitigation agreement with the Cucamonga School
District prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Engineering Division
1)
2)
3)
4)
Install ultimate street improvements on the north side of Fourth Street
from Archibald Avenue to Cucamonga Creek Channel including curb
and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, a bus bay west of the existing entry
monument, the intersection curb return, relocation of the most
southerly catch basin on Archibald, and any traffic signal upgrades. Off
site street trees may be deferred until development of the adjacent
property. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to
recover the cost of permanent off site improvements from future
development of the adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit
for said reimbursement agreement within 6 months of the public
improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer
to reimbursement shall terminate.
Widen the west leg of the Fourth Street/Archibald Avenue intersection
to accept three westbound through lanes from the Major Divided
Arterial section east of Archibald Avenue. Transition to a Major
Arterial width (2 westbound lanes, single left turn lane) a sufficient
distance west of the intersection, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
Relocate up to eight 66 KV power poles as needed to accommodate
the Fourth Street/Archibald Avenue intersection widening and.lane
drop.
The existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical,
except for the 66 KV electrical) on the project side of Fourth Street
shall be undergrounded from the first pole on the east side of
Archibald Avenue to the first pole on the west side of the Cucamonga
Creek Channel, prior to public improvement acceptance or occupancy,
whichever occurs first. All services crossing Fourth Street shall be
undergrounded at the same time.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 5
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
lo)
Install full frontage improvements along Sixth Street, from the east
tract boundary to the west side of "A" Street. Provide a cross gutter
across "A" Street and a temporary AC curb return on the west side,
within the existing right-of-very. Widen the south side of Sixth Street,
as needed, west of "A" Street, install A.C. berm, and reconstruct
affected drive approaches to contain street flows, as determined by
the final drainage study. Extend the widened section and berm from
"A" Street to Hellman Avenue. Transition to existing pavement east
of the east tract boundary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the
cost of permanent off-site improvements from future development of
the .adjacent property. If the developer fails to submit for said
reimbursement agreement within six months of the public
improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer
to reimbursement shall terminate.
An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical, except
for the 66 KV electrical) on the opposite side of Sixth Street shall be
paid to the City pdor to approval of the building permit issuance for the
104th house or any phase that includes that house. The fee shall be
one-half the City adopted unit amount times the length of the project
frontage. Unnecessary power poles on the south side of Sixth Street
shall be removed.
Install "A" Street full width, including sidewalk and street lights, from
Fourth Street to Sixth Street, with Phase.I development. Sidewalks
along the park frontage shall be curb adjacent. The developer may
request a reimbursement agreement to recover the cost of permanent
improvements west of the centerline on "A" Street and north of Lot
227. from future development of the adjacent property. If the
developer fails to submit for said reimbursement agreement within 6
months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all
rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate.
Install traffic signals at Fourth Street and "A" Street and at Sixth Street
and "A" Street. The traffic signal at Fourth Street shall be operational
prior to occupancy of the 100th unit. The traffic signal at Sixth Street
shall be operational prior to occupancy of the 150th unit or opening of
the park, whichever occurs first.
Each development phase shall have two points of access and no
temporary "dead end" streets shall be longer than 600 feet.
Prepare a final drainage study which addresses the following, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer:
a)
Revise the Master Plan of Storm Drains to reflect the new land
uses resulting from the General Plan Amendment. Identify all
connections to Cucamonga Creek Channel which may be
required upon full development of Subarea 16.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20. 1996
Page 6
11)
12)
13)
14)
b)
Substantiate that the existing facilities in Fourth Street can
accommodate all flows reaching them in the ultimate (developed)
condition and that Fou,rth Street is not adversely impacted by the
lack of a storm drain lateral to pick up the sump east of "A"
Street. Determine the size of RCP needed to replace existing
CMP.
c)
Provide a section through the flow line high point in "A" Street
south of Sixth Street, to determine whether any Q100 flows will
go south in "A" Street.
d)
Provide hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. On site storm
drains shall be sized to accommodate all tributary areas in the
ultimate (developed) condition.
e)
Revise the preliminary drainage study to reflect the "P" Street
catch basin between nodes 15 and 16. Also include pages 8
and 9 missing from the printout for Catchment Area C.
f)
Determine the width of the surface overflow easement needed
on Lot 16 to convey Q100 flows for the area tributary to the
sump at the B/F knuckle.
Construct all master plan and local storm drains within the tract
boundaries and/or Fourth Street, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Standard drainage fees for the site shall be credited to the
cost of permanent master plan facilities, as determined by the final
drainage study, and the developer shall be eligible for reimbursement
of any costs in excess of fees, in accordance with City policy. The
developer may also request a reimbursement agreement against
future development for oversizing local facilities. If the developer fails
to submit for said reimbursement agreements within 6 months of the
public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminate. Eliminate cross gutters
where storm drains are available and install catch basins upstream of
intersections.
Replace the existing CMP in Fourth Street, between Archibald Avenue
and "A" Street, with appropriately sized RCP. Reconstruct both catch
basins as determined by the final drainage study and install energy
dissipation devices at the pipe outlet on the south side of Fourth
Street.
The surface overflow drainage easement on lot 16 shall be graded to
convey Q100 overflows in the event of blockage in a sump catch basin
and provisions shall be made for overflows to pass through any walls
placed across the easement. Grade lots 15 and 16, adjacent to the
surface overflow drainage easement, to drain to Fourth Street through
improved devices. Also design lots A, B, C, D and E to convey
surface overflows.
Landscape Maintenance District plans shall incorporate cost efficient,
low maintenance designs, including drought resistant species,
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
TT 15727 - CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC
November 20, 1996
Page 7
o
substantial areas of rockscape, etc., to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. The maximum slope within publicly maintained landscape
areas shall be 3:1. Where slopes occur, a l-foot fiat area behind the
sidewalk shall be provided. Slope widths should be minimized through
the use of 30-inch maximum height free standing retaining walls and
up to 4 feet of retaining beneath perimeter walls. Low maintenance
wall treatments should be used. Planting areas for shrubs should have
a minimum width of 3 feet, clear of screen and/or retaining wall
footings. Trees will require wider planting areas, as determined by the
City Engineer.
A parkway beautification master plan, including sections reflecting tree
cleai'.~nces required by Southern California Edison, shall be developed
for Fourth Street which expands upon the existing designated street
trees.
Interim facilities to drain the north property line will not be publicly
maintained. They shall be located on individual lots and there shall be
no public drainage easements. Pdvate cross lot drainage easements
shall be provided as required by, and the design of the facilities shall
be approved by, the Building Official.
17)
Rear lot drainage to "A" Street, through improved devices including
undersidewalk drains, will be allowed wherever reduction in the width
of publicly maintained landscape easements can be achieved.
Install all Landscape Maintenance District irrigation and landscaping
as approved by review of landscaping master plan and project phasing
by the Planning Commission.
The Park on lot G shall be installed prior to occupancy of 50 percent
of the units or prior to building permit issuance for 70 percent of the
units, whichever occurs first. The park design, including grading, shall
be approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to final
map approval. Parcels provided for park development shall be a
minimum of 5 acres, based on net yield for useable park open space.
All dedicated park lands are to be located on non-restricted
developable, unencumbered lands. This includes, but is not limited to:
clear title, no easements, no seismic faults, no grades greater than 10
percent and free from flood hazard.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STAN DARD"CON DITIONS
PROJECT#:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
TENTATIVE TRACT 15727
A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 342 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
CUCAMONC_;A CORNERPOINTE LLC
FOURTH STREET & CUCAMONGA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time Limits
Coml~letion Date
1. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not __/__/
issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 15727 is granted subject to the approval of General Plan / /
Amendment 95-03A. Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04, & Development District
Amendment 95-02.
3. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, / /
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire
station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all
specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's
property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in accordance with
its needs. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all applicable laws and
regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer by the time recordation
of the final map occurs.
4. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, __/ /
the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However,
if any school distdct has previously established such a Community Facilities District, the applicant
shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such
existing Distdct prior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits,
whichever comes first. Further. if the affected school district has not formed a Mello-Roos
Community Facilities District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and
SC - 3/96
Site
1.
Project No. TT 15727
Comoletion Date
prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this
condition shall be deemed null and void,
This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school
districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts
as a result of this project.
Pdor to recordation of the final map or prior to the issuance of building permits when no map is
involved. written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district
within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of
permits in the case of all other residential projects.
/ /
Development '
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
/ /
Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions
of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
/ /
Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
/ /
All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for
consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment.
building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be
located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete
or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
/ /
Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with the
adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall not prohibit the keeping the equine
animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity of
appealing to boards of directors of homeowners' associations for amendments to the CC&R's.
Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling
unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy
system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the subdivision
which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits,
whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of shadows by vegetation,
SC -3~96
Project No.
10.
structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to
Development Code Section 17.08,080-G-2.
The developer shall submit a construction access plan and schedule for the development of all
lots for City Planner and City Engineer approval; including, but not limited to, public notice
requirements, special street posting, phone listing for community concerns, hours of construction
activity, dust control measures, and security fencing.
C. Trip Reduction
Telecommuting center shall be provided for single-family development of 500 or more units or
contribute toward the development of one in an amount satisfactory to the City Council.
2. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided.
D. Landscaping
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size
shrub per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigations shall be continuously
maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold
and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be
conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satisfactory condition.
Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per the Development
Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting.
The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
TT 15727
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC -3/96
Project No TT 15727
Comoletion Date
All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
Environmental
A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation
to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if
appropriate, vedfy the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked
for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
Other Agencies
The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead structure for
mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the
overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of
building permits.
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 477-2710, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
G. Site Development
The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact
the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
H. Grading
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Dedication and Vehicular Access
Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all interior public streets,
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees. traffic signal encroachment
and maintenance, and public drainage facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC - 3196
Project No. TT 15727
Completion Date
Private easements for non-public facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be
reserved as shown on the plans and/or tentative map.
Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline):
/ /
50-60 total feet on Fo~frth Street
/ /
/ I
/ /
44 total feet on Sixth Street
3. Corner property line cutoffs shall be dedicated per City Standards.
Vehicular access rights shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets, except for
approved openings: Fourth & Sixth Streets.
Private drainage egsements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or
noted on the final map.
/ /
All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on the
final map.
/ /
Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along the bus bay on Fourth Street, to provide
a minimum of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. Curb adjacent sidewalk shall be used
along the bus bay.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests
necessary tu construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the
developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an
agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such
time as the City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained
by the developer, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior
to commencement of the appraisal.
Street Improvements
All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped
areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards.
Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb and gutter, AC pavement,
drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
Curb & A.C.
Street Name Gutter Pvmt
Fourth Street / / c
Sixth Street / ./,b g
Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
/ / e f
/
SC - 3/96
SC - 3~96
Project No.
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) If so marked, sidewalk shall
be curvilinear per Standard 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided
for this item. (e) Class II Bike Lane in street. (f) Bus bay per Standard 119, west of entry
monument on Fourth Street. (g) Sixth Street sidewalk along Park frontage shall be curb adjacent.
Improvement Plans and Construction:
Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineers Office in addition to any
other permits required.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondan/streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with
adopted policy. On collector or larger streets, lines of sight shall be plotted for all project
intersections, including driveways. Local residential street intersections and commercial or
industrial driveways may have lines of sight plotted as required.
6
'IF 15727
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
/ /
/ /
/ /
K. Public Maintenance Areas
Project No
A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos, easements, trails or other areas s~all be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Fourth Street and "A" Street. south of the north property lines for Lots 196 and 227. and
Lots A. B. C. D. E. and F.
A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
Drainage and Flood Control
A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall
be installed as required by the City Engineer.
A permit from the San Bemardino County Flood Control District and the Army Corps of Engineers
is required for work within their rights-of-way.
Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey overflows in the event of a blockage in
a sump catch basin on the public street.
Utilities
Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water. gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWE) is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
General Requirements and Approvals
Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: Southern
California Edison and the City of Ontario.
A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, pdor to final map approval or pdor to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
'El' 15727
Completion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
I /
/
SC - 3/96
7
Pro)ect No.
3. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed
beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the
approved tentative map.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
O. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Mello Roos Community Facilities District requirements shall apply to this project.
2. Fire flow requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute.
a. A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
b. For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
3. Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed
and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
4. Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the
Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
5. Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
6. Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire Districrs fire lane standards, as noted:
X All roadways.
X Other: See Ordinance No. 22 regarding cul-de-sacs, lengths, and turnaround.
7. Plan check fees in the amount of $C) have been paid. An additional $125.00 shall be paid:
X Prior to final plan approval.
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems,
alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
8. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 UBC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15
TT' 15727
Completion Date
SC - 3~M 8
CITY OF P,.LNCHO CUCAaMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
November 20, 1996
TO.'
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY:
Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH A SPEED
LIMIt' OF 50 ~MPH ON MILLIKEN AVENUE FROM 4TH STREET TO B.&NYAN
STREET, A SPEED LIMIT OF 50 MPH ON BASE LINE ROAD FROM SPRUCE
AVENUE TO THE EAST CITY LIMIT AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 45 MPH ON
ROCHESTER AVENUE FROM BASE LINE ROAD TO BANYAN STREET
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended Section 10.20.020 of the Municipal Code be amended to provide for a speed limit
of 50 mph on Milliken Avenue from 4th Street to Banyan Street, a speed limit of 50 mph on Base
Line Road from Spruce Avenue to the east City limit and a speed limit of 45 mph on Rochester
Avenue from Base Line Road to Banyan Street.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The above listed sections of multi-lane City streets have remained unposted as to speed limits due
to width and relatively light traffic volumes. Last year, Senate Bill 848 eliminated the state
maximum 55 mph speed limit on such unposted streets and established a new maximum of 65 mph.
This new maximum becomes effective January 1, 1997 unless speed limits are established by cities
in accordance with the California Vehicle Code.
Sections 22357 and 22358 of the Vehicle Code allow cities to set speed limits in accordance with
Specific Engineering Surveys in order to more precisely establish the "Reasonable and Prudent"
speed requirements under the basic speed law which would other,.vise apply to unposted streets. This
speed then becomes the basis for enforcement, eliminating the extreme discretion which other.vise
could occur. Such a survey, less than five years old, is particularly important ,.,,'here radar is used
for enforcement. Recent court decisions have rendered arbitrarily set speed limits invalid ',,.'hen
enforcement is by radar.
Surveys as required by the Vehicle Code have been conducted on the above listed sections of City
streets. The surveys involved the determination of the prevailing speed of existing traffic by using
radar, an analysis of the recent accident history and a search for any conditions not apparent to
drivers which would require a reduced speed. The results of the sur,'eys are shown on the artached
,j
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SPEED LIMITS
November 20, 1996
Page 2
summaries and show' the majority, of cars are being driven in conformmace with the recommended
speed limits. California speed law is basecf'6n the legislature's belief that the majority of drivers
respond in a safe and reasonable manner to conditions around them. This is why prevailing speeds
are such an important factor in determining a reasonable speed limit.
The surveys also found no conditions not readily apparent to drivers which would be a factor in
further reducing the speed limit. The safety records of the streets are also very good.
CONCLUSION
A speed limit should be established that would be considered reasonable by most of the drivers on
a street and still provide for effective enforcement. In the absence of high accident rates, a speed
limit such as this should be set at the first 5 mph increment below the speed below which 85% of
the drivers are going. With very few exceptions these are the speed limits proposed in this report.
The proposed limits should provide a fair and effective tool for enforcement considering the
circumstances under which they will be enforced.
Res~u~~f
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:PAR:is
Z Z
" Z
Z Z Z Z Z
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFOI~NIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.20.020 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA CITY CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON
CERTAIN CITY STREETS
Recitals. -
(i) California Vehicle Code Section 22357 provides that this City Council may, by
ordinance, set prima facie speed limits upon an>' portion of any street not a state highway.
(ii) The City Traffic Engineer has conducted an engineering and traffic survey, of certain
streets within the City of Rancho Cucamonga which streets as specified in Part B of this
Ordinance.
(iii) The determinations conceming prima facie speed limits set forth in Part B, belov,',
are based upon the engineering and traffic su~'ey identified in Section A (ii), above.
B. Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUC.&MONGA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I.
Section 10.20.020 hereby is amended to the Rancho Cucamonga Cit)' Code to read, in words
and figures, as follows:
10.20.020 Decrease of State Law Maximum Speed. It is determined by City Council
resolution and upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that the speed
permit-ted by state law is greater than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist
upon such streets, and it is declared the pfima facie speed limit shall be as set forth in this
section on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected
giving notice hereof:
Ordinance
Page 2
Name
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
I1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2I.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Declared Prima Facie
of Street or Portion Affected Speed Limit (NIPHI
Archibald Avenue - Banyan Street to north end 50
Archibald Avenue - 4th Street to Banyan Street 45
Ago,,',' Route - Baker Avenue to Haven Avenue 45
Baker Avenue - 8th Street to Foothill Blvd. 35
Banyan Street from Beryl Street to London Avenue 35
Banyan Street - Haven Avenue to Rochester Avenue 45
Banyan Street from west City limits to Beryl Street 40
Base Line Road - west City limits to Carnelian Street 45
Base Line Road - Carnelian Street to Hermosa Avenue 40
Base Line Road - Hermosa Avenue to Spruce Avenue 45
Base Line Road - Spruce Avenue to east Ci~' limit 50
Beryl Street - Banyan Street to end 45
BeD'l Street - 800' n./o Lemon Avenue to Banyan Street 40
Canistel Avenue - Wilson Avenue to Antietarn Drive 35
Carnelian Street - Vineyard Avenue to end 45
Center Avenue - Foothill Blvd. to Church Street 40
Church Street - Pepper Street to Haven Avenue 40
Church Street - Archibald Avenue to Haven A``'enue 40 '
Church Street - Haven Avenue to Milliken Avenue 45
East Avenue - Base Line Road to Highland Avenue 45
8th Street - Grove Avenue to Haven Avenue 45
Etiwanda Avenue - Foothill Blvd. To 24th Street 45
Fairmont Drive - Highland Avenue to Milliken Avenue 35
Fairmont Drive - Milliken Avenue to Victoria Park Lane 35
Fredricksburg Avenue - Banyan Street to Seven Pines Drive 35
Grove Avenue - 8th Street to Foothill Blvd. 40
Ordinance
Page 3
Name of Street or Portion Aft~cted
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
Declared Prima Facie
Speed Limit (MPH)
Haven Avenue - 4th Street to Hillside Road 45
Hellman Avenue - Foothill Blvd. to Alta Loma Drive 35
Hellman Avenue - 500' n/o Manzanita Drive to Valley View 40
Hellman Avenue - 6th Street to Foothill Bird. 45
Hermosa Avgnue - Base Line Road to Wilson Avenue 45
Hermosa Avenue - Wilson Avenue to Sun Valley Drive 40
Hermosa Avenue - 8th Street to Base Line Road 45
Highland Avenue - Sapphire Street to Carnelian Street 40
Highland Avenue - Amethyst Street to Hermosa Avenue 35
Highland Avenue - Hermosa Avenue to 800' w/o Haven Ave. 45
Hillside Road - Ranch Gate to Amethvst Street 35
Hillside Road - Amethyst Street to Haven Avenue 40
Hillside Road - Haven Avenue to Canistel Avenue 35
Hillviev.' Loop - Vintage Drive to Vintage Drive 30
Kenyon Way - Milliken Avenue to Victoria Park Lane 35
Lark Drive - Kenyon Way to Rochester Avenue 35
Lemon Avenue - Jasper Street to Beryl Street 35
Lemon Avenue - Archibald Avenue to Haven Avenue 40
Lemon Avenue - Haven Avenue to Highland Avenue 40
Manzanita Drive - Hermosa Avenue to Haven Avenue 35
Milliken Avenue - 4th Street to Banyan Street 50
Morning Place/'Vintage Drive - Banyan Street to Milliken Ave. 35
Mountain View Drive - Spruce Avenue to Milliken Avenue 40
Netherlands View Loop - Vintage Drive to Vintage Drive 30
9th Street - Baker Avenue to Archibald Avenue 40
Ordinance
Page 4
Name of Street or Portion Affected
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
Declared Prime Facie
Speed Limit (MPH)
Red Hill Country Club Drive - Foothill Blvd. To Alta Cuesta 35
Rochester Avenue - Foothill Blvd. to Base Line Road 40
Rochester Avenue - Base Line Road to Banyan Street 45
San Bemardino Road - Vineyard Avenue to Archibald Avenue 35
Sapphire Street - Banyan Street to end 45
Sapphire Street - 19th Street to Lemon Avenue 40
7th Street - Hellman Avenue to Archibald Avenue 45
Sierra Crest View Loop - Vintage Drive to Vintage Drive 30
Spruce Avenue - Foothill Blvd. to Base Line Road 40
6th Street - West City limits to Archibald Avenue 45
Summit Avenue - Etiv,'anda Avenue to East Avenue 45
Terrace View Loop - Vintage Drive to Vintage Drive 30
Tetra Vista Parkway - Church Street to Milliken Avenue 40
Victoria Street - Archibald Avenue to Ramone Avenue 35
Victoria Street - Etiwanda Avenue to Route 15 40
Victoria Street - Haven Avenue to Mendocino Place 40
Victoria Park Lane - Fairmont Way to Base Line Road 35
Victoria Windrows Loop (north and south) 35
Vineyard Avenue - Church Street to Base Line Road 40
Vineyard Avenue - 8th Street to Carnelian Avenue 45
Vintage Drive - Milliken Avenue to east end 35
Whirtram Avenue - Etiwanda Avenue to east City limits 40
\\;ilson Avenue - Amethyst Avenue to Haven Avenue 45
Wilson Avenue - Haven Avenue to 200' e/o Canistel Avenue 40
_35,3
Ordinance
Page 5
(Ord. 169 Section I (pan), 1982; Ord. 39 Section 5.1, (1978). Rancho Cucamonga 5/82 124)
(i) Both sixty-five (65) miles per hour and fifty-five (55) miles per hour are speeds which
are more than reasonable or safe; and
(ii) The miles per hour as stated are the prima facie speeds which are most appropriate
facilitate the ~rderly movement of traffic and are speed limits which are reasonable and safe
on said streeti or portions thereof; and
(iii) The miles per hour stated are hereby declared to be the prima facie speed limits on
said streets; and
(iv) The Traffic Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install appropriate signs
upon said streets giving notice of the pfima facie speed limit declared herein.
SECTION 2.
The Citv Clerk shall certif:,.' to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published
as required by law.
SECTION 3.
The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within
fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in The Inland Daily Bulletin. a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Ontario, California. and circulated in the Cit)' of Rancho
Cucamonga.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 18th day of December. I996.
AYES: Alexander, Blanc, Curatalo, Gutierrez, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
William J. Alexander, Mayor
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 20, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City, Mana~eTr_
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
CONSIDERATION OF THE FEEWAY AGREEMENT AND
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTAaNDING FOR PROPOSED ROUTE 30
RECO1VhMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council consider the attached Freeway Agreement and Memorandum
of Understanding as forwarded by the Route 30 Task Force and approve the attached Resolution
authorizing the Mayor's signature.
B A C KG RO UND/ANALYS IS
At its November 12th meeting, the Task Force completed its consideration of a Memorandum of
Understanding and directed it be forwarded to the City Council for consideration along with the
Freeway Agreement. The Freeway Agreement is a basic agreement covering the closing of city
streets, relocation of city streets, construction of frontage roads and other construction affecting city
streets. It also shows locations where streets will be carried over or under the fleeway and where
interchanges will be located. Also covered in general are fight-of-way acquisition, construction
phasing and budgeting, and turning over of existing state highways to the City.
Freeway Agreement
Exhibit "A" of the Freeway Agreement shows specifically the items covered in general by the text.
Shown on the exhibit are the following major features of the project:
A bridge for Sapphire Street
The reconstruction of Jasper Street south of the freeway
The interchange at Carnelian Street
Bridges for Beryl, Hellman and Amethyst Streets
The interchange for Archibald Avenue
The bridge for Hermosa Avenue and the access road to the wedding chapel property
The extension of Alta Loma Drive to continue Highland Avenue to Haven Avenue
The interchange at Haven Avenue
The closure of Lemon Avenue north of Highland Avenue
J
CITY COLrNCIL STAFF REPORT
FREEWAY AGREEMENT .4aND
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTAaND/NG
FOR ROUTE 30
November 20, 1996
Page 2
The closure of Highland Avenue and Fairmont Way between Haven Avenue and Milliken
Avenue
The interchange at MiIliken Avenue
The bridge at Rochester Avenue and reconstruction of the street to carry it under the fleeway
The Day Creek Boulevard interchange
The bridge af Etiwanda Avenue and construction of a frontage road to continue Highland
Avenue to Eagt Avenue
A bridge over the freeway for East Avenue and reconstruction of High/and Avenue in that
area
New streets to provide access to Mulberry Lane
An extension of Chickasaw Road to connect to East Avenue
Between Rochester Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard, a separate agreement will be negotiated with
the County to cover property considerations north of High/and Avenue in that area. High/and
Avenue itself will be continued around the Day Creek Boulevard interchange and that construction
is shown on this exhibit.
Deto u rs
During construction of some bridges and reconstruction of some intersections, there will have to be
closures of several north-south streets. It will be SANBAG policy, with City plan review, that no
adjacent streets be closed at the same time. Most streets requiring bridges (Sapphire, Beryl,
Hellman, Amethyst, Hermosa, Rochester and East) will be closed for the minimum time required
for bridge construction and, in some cases, adjacent intersection work. Streets on each side will
remain open. At Carnelian Street and Archibald Avenue, the City will urge that every possible effort
be made to build by-pass detours. At Haven Avenue a by-pass will be built. At Milliken Avenue
a closure is necessary because insufficient room is available for a by-pass. At Etiwanda Avenue a
by-pass will be provided except during reconstruction of the EtiwandaJ'High/and intersection.
During construction, State Highway (High/and Avenue) traffic will need to be detoured around the
work area at Milliken Avenue and the permanent closure at Fairmont Way and Highland Avenue.
It is important to keep through traffic off of local streets in the Milliken Avenue area. For this
reason, the designers have been directed to establish a state highway detour route along Haven
Avenue, Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard.
Day Creek Boulevard, between Base Line Road and Highland Avenue, must be delivered by the City
by the time the freeway is open, in order to have the Day Creek Boulevard interchange built with
the fleeway project. Construction of Day Creek Boulevard will be proposed for the 1997/98 budget
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
FEEWAY AGREEMENT AND
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR ROUTE 30
November 20, 1996
Page 3
to insure its completion in time for use as a detour also, providing a safe and efficient route for Route
30 traffic.
Memorandum of Understandine
This Freeway Agreement was reviewed by the Task Force at the September 10th meeting, where it
was decided a Memorandum of Understanding would be necessary to cover details concerning the
Task Force which 'were not included in the Freeway Agreement. This Memorandum of
Understanding was l~repared by City Staff and Caltrans and reviewed by the Task Force on
September 23, October 8, November 12 and will be finalized on November 19, 1996. After
considerable discussion of the language of the Memorandum of Understanding, we anticipate the
attached memorandum will be approved by the Task Force for consideration by the Council, along
with the Freeway Agreement.
The Memorandum of Understanding is intended to confirm basic features of the fleeway discussed
between the Task Force, Caltrans and SANBAG over the last two years. The Memorandum of
Understanding is attached for City Council review. Items covered in the Memorandum are as
follows:
Aesthetics
To be reviewed by the City.
Profile Grade Line
The specific locations where the fleeway will be above grade, at-grade and below grade, in
accordance with City, Council Resolution No. 94-143. Further study is specified for the Sapphire
Street area with mitigation measures to be discussed with the City.
3. Interchanges
The locations of the five interchanges and major mitigation measures the Task Force felt should be
called out, in general and specifically, at Archibald Avenue, Milliken Avenue and Carnelian Avenue
areas.
4. Construction Phasing
The statement of the City's concern that no section of the fleeway be opened without developing of
a plan jointly by the City and the State.
5. Sound Walls
2, -7
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
FREEWAY AGREEMENT AND
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR ROUTE 30
November 20, 1996
Page 4
Sound walls to be provided in accordance with federal arTd state requirements, but location and
appearance of the walls to be discussed with the City during design.
6. Landscaping
To be provided by a future project subject to City review and comment.
7. Design Featuris
These items also to be subject to review by the City during design.
Finally, the Memorandum stresses the desire for cooperation between the City, SANBAG and
Caltrans with the goal of providing a cost-effective but acceptable project and stresses timely
reviews and responses by both sides to insure efficient progress of the project.
Conclusion
If the Agreement and MOU are satisfactory, a resolution has been provided for the Council's
approval.
City Engineer
WJO:dlw
Attachments
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ROUTE 30 FREEWAY
I
BETWEEN
CALIFORNIA DEPAR.T~NT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
AND *
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
The intent of this mcmorand.,mn is to confirm basic features of the Route 30 freeway,
which have bccn the subject of detail~i discussion between the City, Calltans, a~t.~d SANBAG,
but arc not part of the freeway agrc.ctncnt. :
1. Aesthetics
All aesthetic aspects of the f~Ceway will be reviewed with the City prior t.;o completion of
project plans.
Profile Grade Line
The overall profile of the freeway will be an engineered line that matches the attachment.
In the area of Sapphire Street! it is understood that Sapphixc Street will bE coxmtructcd *
over the frccway. It is understood the elevation in the Sapphire SWeet ar~a is still subject
to study to determine whctheri the freeway will bc approximately at or p.a~tially depressed
below grade. (Please see att~.~hcd graphic.) Mitigation measures for the:residential
structures in the area will be discussed with the City prior to acquisition ~f property.
lntcrchanR~.
The five interchanges will bcnt Carnelian Street, Archibald Avenue, Haven Avenue,
Millikcn Avenue, and Day Cre~.k Boulevard. Interchanges will bc provided with 1raff'xc
signals and street lighting if v~arranted by State standards. The City will review traffic
warrants at all proposed signal locations.
At Archibald Avenue Caltran~, in cooperation with the City and SANBAG will examine
all feasible methods to allow full access to Archibald Avenue from High!and Avenue
which also meet Caltrans safo~y policies. In the event that a safe method can not be
found that allows thll access, Caltrann, SANBAG, and city staff will consult to develop
possible solutions.
Post-if' Fax Note 7671
i
Fat~ #
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
· i
· ! (Continued)
,
In the vicinity of Milliken Av.~nue, Fairmont Way and Highland Avenue!will be closed.
Details will be worked out in final design.
:
Safety issues at Beryl Park Which is adjacent to the Carnelian off-ramp will be examined
and resolved in design.
Constructiqn Phasing
Callyam and SANBAG are s.w~are of the City's desire for a single phase o.p~ning of the
freeway to traffic. No section.; of the freeway will be open to uaffic without conferring
with the City and jointly devdoping a plan.
Sound Walls
Sound walls will be provided !subject to approved sound wall analysis report~. It is
understood that the sound walls will be constructed in accordanoc with all Fcdcral and
State~requirements. The location of sound walls will be presented to the .City for review
and comment.
Landscaping ' '
Landscaping plans will be deWeloped under a separate projsot and will bd submitted to
the City for review and com.m, ent.
Desilia Features
Draft project plans will be pr6vided to the City at 35 percent.. 65 percentj and 95 pucsnt
revir, vs during the design ptxise of this project for review and comment.
MUUKI'30.GW~
Page 2 of 3
MEMORA~.DUM OF UNDERSTANDING
'l
!, (Continued)
While this Memorandum of ~nderstandinl; speoifies design issues, it is understood
between the :parties that other issues Will develop during the design phase of the iproject. All
parties agree to work cooperatively td solve these issues. The City al;rees to respond m a timely
manner, so as to not interfere with the progres.~ of the project, Caltran.m apee~ toj provide timely
review and fecdbaok to City's comment.
DEPARTM~ENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
S. LISIEWICZ
District Director
i
WILLIAM J. ALEXANDER
Mayor
MO~R'V~.G~M
Psge 3 of 3
TOTAL P.03
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCA~MONGA, CALIFOP~XriA, APPROVI'NG FREEWAY AGREEMENT
AND A MEMORANDUM ~__F UNDERSTANDING PROVIDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF STATE ROUTE 30 THROUGH RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City to encourage an orderly and planned system
of growth throughout the City and its sphere of influence; and
WHEtiEAS, a comprehensive General Plan was adopted to provide for such a system
of growth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council established a Route 30 Ad Hoc Task Force for the
purpose of providing citizen and business input in the investigation and evaluation of, but not limited
to, all economic, environmental, aesthetic and engineering possibilities of the Route 30 Freeway as
it relates to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and to formulate recommendations which shall be
submitted to the City Council for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Route 30 Task Force has discussed the proposed Freeway
A~eement and Memorandum of Understanding in the context of its consideration during the past
two years of the fleeway design and the implications thereof and of its future participation in review
of design features.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucarnonga, California, that said Freeway Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding be
and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Freeway
Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City, of Rancho Cucamonga,
and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
T~.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 20, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
DISCUSSION OF PARKING ISSUE RAISED BY TONY ESPINOSA
As you recall, at the last City Council meeting, Mr. Tony Espinosa approached the City
Council about on-street parking of R.V.s. Currently, parking an R.V. overnight is
illegal in Rancho Cucamonga. Municipal Code Section 10.64.030 prohibits R.V.
parking on the street between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. This ordinance has
been on the books in the City since just after incorporation. The reason for this type
of ordinance is to keep people from living on the streets in an R.V.
The City Council's intent has always been to allow people a reasonable amount of time
to prepare their R.V.s for trips. In 1992, the City Council amended the Code to
increase the amount of time R.V. owners could have their vehicles in their driveways
from 24 hours to 48 hours. This was done in response to concerns of R.V. owners that
they needed more time for loading and unloading. Because of this change in 1992.
the City Council did not adjust the on-street parking portion of the code.
This overnight parking restriction has been implemented in the following way.
First, officers have some discretion in issuing the parking citation. As a rule,
officers are not driving the streets of the City in the early morning hours looking
for R.V.s to cite. Typically, officers will respond to complaints from other residents
regarding R.V. parking or are responding to other calls for service in a
neighborhood when they see the R.V. Since January 1996, 43 citations have been
written for overnight R.V. parking.
Residents who have received these citations can appeal through the Initial
Administrative Review process. This process takes place through the mail. The
guideline that the City has used in reviewing these appeals is to keep within the
intent of the City Council. If a resident can show that they have a place, other than
the street, at which they normally store their R.V.s and if they can show that they
were parking on the street just temporarily, then we dismiss the citation. This year,
15 of these citations have been dismissed.
Parking Issues Raised By Mr. Espinosa
City Council Meeting
November 20, 1996
Page 2
Because there are not a great number of citations issued for this violation and
because R.V. owners have the ability to legally park their R.V.s in their driveway for
loading, the current procedures seem to be working. As always, staff is open to
meeting and discussing a situation with each resident on a case by case basis. The
system is working well without additional administrative procedures, forms, tracking
or staff time required.
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 20, 1996
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
CONSIDERATION OF THE FEEWAY AGREEMENT AND
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR PROPOSED ROUTE 30
Attached herewith are revised copies of the Freeway Agreement, Memorandum of
Understanding and Resolution approving subject documents.
WJO:dlw
Attachments
8-SBd-30-R3.9/RS.7
8-SBd-30-R9.1/Rll.5
In the City of
Rancho Cucamonga between
Upland City Limit and
Route 15 (Except portion in
County of San Bernardino)
FREEWAY AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on this day of
, 19 , by and between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
acting by and through the Department of Transportation (herein
referred to as "STATE"), and the CITY of Rancho Cucamonga (herein
referred to as "CITY"),
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the highway described above has been declared to be
a freeway by Resolution of the California Highway Commission on:
June 25, 1958, Route 30 (old Route 190) between
the west City limit of Upland and Haven Avenue.
November 17, 1954, Route 30 (old Route 190) between
Haven Avenue and Spruce Avenue.
WHEREAS, STATE and COUNTY of San Bernardino have entered
into Freeway Agreements dated March 2, 1959, relating to that
portion of State Highway Route 30 (old Route 190) from the east
City limit of Upland to Haven Avenue and March 18, 1963 relating
to that portion of State Highway Route 30 (old Route 190) between
Haven Avenue and Citrus Avenue.
WHEREAS, a revised plan map for such freeway has been
prepared showing the proposed plan of the STATE as it affects
streets of the CITY; and
WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the parties hereto to
enter into a new Freeway Agreement in accordance with the revised
plan of said freeway;
8-SBd-30-R3.9/R8.7
8-SBd-30-R9.1/Rll. 5
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED:
1. This Agreement supersedes in its entirety said Freeway
Agreement dated March 2, 1959, and; that portion of said Freeway
Agreement dated March 18, 1963 from Haven Avenue to Route 15.
2. CITY agrees and consents to the closing of CITY streets,
relocation of CITY streets, construction of frontage roads and
other local streets, and other construction affecting CITY
streets, all as shown on said plan map attached hereto marked
Exhibit A between Upland City Limit and Route 15 (except portion
in County of San Bernardino) and made a part hereof by this
reference.
3. STATE shall, in construction of the freeway and at
STATE'S expense, make such changes affecting CITY streets in
accordance with the plan map attached hereto marked Exhibit A.
4. STATE and CITY will make a good faith effort to enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding concerning the design and
construction of said Freeway and associated improvements prior to
the approval of the environmental re-evaluation.
5. STATE agrees to acquire all necessary right of way as
may be required for construction, reconstruction, or alteration
of CITY streets, frontage roads, and other local streets, and
CITY hereby authorizes STATE to acquire in its behalf all such
necessary right of way.
6. It is understood between the parties that the right of
way may be acquired in sections or units, and that both as to the
acquisition of right of way and the construction of the freeway
projects, the obligations of STATE hereunder shall be carried out
at such time and for such unit or units of the project as funds
are budgeted and made lawfully available for such expenditures.
7. CITY will accept control and maintenance over each of
the relocated or reconstructed CITY streets, and the frontage
roads, and other STATE constructed local streets on receipt of
written notice to CITY from STATE that the work thereon has been
completed, except for any portion which is adopted by STATE as a
part of the freeway proper. CITY will accept title to the
portions of such streets lying outside the freeway limits, upon
relinquishment by STATE.
8. STATE will build Day Creek Boulevard Interchange if the
CITY builds Day Creek Boulevard as shown on Exhibit A. If CITY
8-SBd-30-R3.9/RS.7
8-SBd-30-R9.1/Rll.5
does not build Day Creek Boulevard, STATE may build Day Creek
Boulevard grade separation (undercrossing) only.
9. This Agreement may be modified at any time by the mutual
consent of the parties hereto, as may become necessary for the
best accomplishment, through STATE and CITY cooperation, of the
whole freeway project for the benefit of the people of the STATE
and of the CITY.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized
officers.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
JAMES W. VAN LOBEN SELS
Director of Transportation
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
By
By
Chief, Office of Project
Planning and Design
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Attorney, CITY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Attorney, STATE
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
ROUTE 30 FRI~EMAY
BETWEEN
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOaTATION ( CALTRANS )
AND
CITY OF RANCXO CUCAMONGA
The intent of this memorandum is to confirm basic features
of the Route 30 freeway, which have been the subject of detailed
discussion between the City, Caltrans and SANBAG, but are
part of the freeway agreement.
Aes;betics
All aesthetic aspects of the freeway will be reviewed with
the City prior to completion of project plans.
2. Profile Grade Line
The overall profile of the freeway will be an engineered
line that matches the attachment.
In the area of Sapphire Street, it is understood that
Sapphire Street will be constructed over the freeway. It is
understood the elevation in the Sapphire Street area is
still subject to study to determine whether the freeway will
be approximately at or partially depressed below grade.
(Please see attached graphic.) Mitigation measures for the
residential structures in the area will be discussed with
the City prior to acquisition of property.
3. Interchanges
The five interchanges will be at Carnelian Street, Archibald
Avenue, Haven Avenue, Mi!liken Avenue and Day Creek
Boulevard. Interchanges will be provided with traffic
signals and street lighting if warranted by State standards.
The City will review traffic warrants at all proposed signal
locations.
At Archibald Avenue, Calftans in cooperation with the City
and SAN~AG, will examine all feasible methods to allow full
access to Archibald Avenue from Highland Avenue which also
meet Calfrats safety policies. In the event that a safe
method can not be found that allows full access, Caltrans,
SANBAG and City staff will consult with nhe goal co reach a
mutually acceptable solution.
in' the vicinity of Millikan Avenue, Fairmont Way and
Highland Avenue will be closed. Details will be worked out
in final design.
Safety issues at Beryl Park, which is adjacent to the
Carnelian Off-ramp, will be examined and resolved in design.
- MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING -
(Continued)
Construction Phasing
Caltrans and SANBAG are aware of the City's desire for a
single-phase opening of the freeway to traffic. No section
of the freeway will be open to traffic without conferring
with the City and jointly developing a plan.
5. Sound Walls
Sound walls will be provided subject to approved sound wall
analysis reports. It is understood that the sound walls
will be constructed in accordance with all Federal and State
requirements. The location of sound walls will be presented
to the City for review and comment.
Landscaping
Landscaping plans will be developed under a separate project
and will be submitted to the City for review and comment.
7. Design Features
Draft project plans will be provided to the City at
35 percent, 65 percent and 95 percent reviews during the
design phase of this project for review and comment.
While'this Memorandum of Understanding specifies design
issues, it is understood between the par~ies that other issues
will develop during the design phase of the project. All parties
agree to work cooperatively to solve these issues. The City
agrees to respond in a timely manner, so as to not interfere with
the progress of the project. Caltrans agrees to provide timely
review and feedback to City's comments.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION':
CITY OF PJ~NCHO CUCAMONGA:
S. LISIEWICZ
District Director
WILLIAM J. ALEXAlVDER
Mayor
PaVe 2 of 2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FREEWAY AGREEMENT
AND A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PROVIDING FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF STATE ROUTE 30 THROUGH RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AND PROVIDING FOR FUTURE PARTICIPATION OF
THE ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE IN CITY FREEWAY REVIEW
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City to encourage an orderly and planned system
of growth throughout.the City and its sphere of influence; and
WHEREAS, a comprehensive General Plan was adopted to provide for such a system
of growth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council established a Route 30 Ad Hoc Task Force for the
purpose of providing citizen and business input in the investigation and evaluation of, but not limited
to, all economic, environmental, aesthetic and engineering possibilities of the Route 30 Freeway as
it relates to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and to formulate recommendations which shall be
submitted to the City Council for its consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Route 30 Task Force has discussed and recommend approval of the
proposed Freeway Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding and expressed their desire to
participate in the future review of design features.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, Califomia, that said Freeway Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding be
and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Freeway
Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the information concerning the Route 30
Freeway will be provided to the Ad Hoc Task Force in accordance with the Mission Statement of
the Task Force.
MISSION STATEMENT
ROUTE 30 TASK FORCE
To provide the opportunity for citizen and business input in
the investigation and evaluation of, but not limited to, all
economic, environmental, aesthetic and engineering possibili-
ties of the Route 30 Freeway as it relates to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, and to formulate recommendations
which shall be submitted to the City Council for their
considered approval.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
By:
SUBJECT:
November 20, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manage/
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Michael D. Long, Supervising Public Works Inspector
SUPPLEMENT TO CONSENT CALENDER ITEM NO. 10 RECOMMENDING
THE 'AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF THE
CONTRACT FOR ARROW ROUTE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AT THE
BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD CROSSING WEST OF
MILLIKEN AVENUE, TO BE FUNDED FROM TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT, ACCOUNT NO. 224637-9522 AND SB-150, ACCOUNT NO.
354637-9522, TO LAIRD CONSTRUCTION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $94,329.04
($85,753.68 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY)
BACKGROUNDANALYSIS
On November 19, 1996, bids were opened for the Arrow Route Street Improvements at the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Crossing west of Milliken Avenue, the lowest responsive
bidder is Laird Construction, with a bid of $85,753.68. Engineering staff has reviewed all bids
received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has
completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of
the bid documents.
Respectfully submitted,
Will~
City Engineer
WJO:ML:dlw
Attachment
J
Z
Z~
~Z
Z
Z
Z
n,'
uJ
L/J
Z
o -
C..)
..I
~O0000000OO00000
~qqqqqqOqq~qqqqq
0~0000~0000
~O0000000000000O~
~qqqqqqq~q~Qqqqq~
~0~000~0~000~0~
~O00OO00~O000OO0
~OOOOO~hO0000OO
E6
-J
~ r,_ ,_
r~ ~
'o 8 c'>a' zc~.~ .
o c~._,_l o
I--
UJ
LI. IW
.J
._1
i,
i,i
~o:~~
~OnWr',
0
/
>'
~J 0~,
UJ
0
Z
Z
0
m~
0
I'--
a,
O000000OO000000OO
~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO~
~000000000000000
~O000000000OOOOO
~OOO00000OOO0000
To: BObL~
From: Jennifer Berry
Brian O'Heir from Ex~ore Holidays ment~ that I wffi be passing through next week with a
gro,op of Australian writers.
We plan to call by on ti'ie 21~" however we cannot nominate aiq exact time- Would you fax me
your address and road directions - I have a fair idea where you're k3cated. It will only be a quict~
visit however I w<xjki like to meet wiffi you - rm a Route 66 aficionado as well ......
My direct fax number is 61 2 9936 2823, I will ordy be in ll",e office for another two days before I
depad forthe US,
jennif~
ORDINANCE NO. ~-5 ~P ]
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADDING A NEW CHAPTER
9.3Z TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANClIO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAl, CODE IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY FOR
SECOND RESPONSES BY POLICE TO PARTIES AND
OTI-IER ASSEMBI,AGES.
The City Council of the City' of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as
follows:
~eetion l. A new Chapter 9.32 hereby is added to Title 9 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, to read, in words and figures, as follows:
"CHAPTER 9.32
"Second Responses by Police to Parties and
Other Assemblagcs-Civil Penalty Imposed.
"9.32.010
9.32.020
Civil penalty tbr second responses by police to parties and
other assemblages.
Penalty constitutes debt.
"9.32.010. Civil l~rmlty for second responses by police to panie.~
and othcr assemblages.
"(A) Notwithstanding any other pro,/ision of this Code, a
civil penalty in the mount orS.. _ hereby is imposed, as
providea heroin, when any mumb~ of tix¢ 'City's police (shcritf,q)
dcpartmcnt respond a second time wit, hin a twenty-four (24) consecutive
hour period to any party or other assemblage of persons within the City if:
"1. The owner an~/or other Malt person in
possession of the premises has, at the time or' the first respon~, be, on
delivered a written notice as hereina~er described or such ~xitten notice has
been posted as authorized herein; and
"2. There is probable cause for police to believe
that a violation of Penal Code § 407, § 415 or § 416 has occurred on the
premises any time after first re~pnnding.
LL~.C,O~ nt!lffl'g',KC 1.3.1B I
"(B) lhc written notice required [o bc provided ~h~l l ~tate
words to the effect that a warning is hereby given that if police respond
again within twenty-tbur (24) ~urs ther~er, a civil penalty in the mnount
of $ shall ~ im~sed upon the owner or other adult ~rson in
charge of the premises.
"(C) If no owner or ad,dr persan in charge of the premises
can be located or idcntilled at the time of the first response, the written
nolice required hercin may be posted in any ¥isibl~; uutduo~' location near
my entrance to the premises, In such event, the owllet and any other adult
person in possession of the premises at the time of the response by police
may bc held jointly liable for the amount of the ci¢il p~nalty as provided
herein.
"9.32 020. Penalty coxLstitutes debt.
"In th4~ cvc-t a civil p~na!ty is imposed as provided herein,
written notice thereof. including a request for payment, shall be given by
First Class mail. postage prepaid, and addressed to the owner and/or other
adult person in possession of the pr~rni.ges at the time of the Volice
responses, and such civil penalty shall constitute a debt recoverable as a debt
due and owing on a written contract, us p~nuittcd by Ctfl;.fornia Govcrmnent
Cede § 36901. In the event the City is required to institute any legal
proceeding to recover such penalty, it slyall be entitled to additionally collect
all costs, including aaon'.sy's fees, incurred as a result there. of. The
imposition of a civil penalty. as provided herein. shall bc in addition to, and
not in lieu of. the imposition of any criminal penalties arising out of',
i,xcider, tal to. the underlying police responses, as may be provided by law."
See(ion 2. 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 dccbion of any court of competent jurisdiction, or
preemp~ed by legislative enactment. such decision or l~gislatioa; shall not affect the
vaiidit~ of the remaining portion~ of tiffs Ordinance. The City Council of' the City
of Rancho Cu~amonga hercby declares that it would have adopted ~bi~ Ordinance
and cach acelion, subsection, genienee, clause, phra.~e or word thereof. regardless of
the hct ~hat any one or mnre seelions. subsections. sentences, clauses, phrases or
I xR(~ORDCIIP'I9\RC 1.3,1B 2
words might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or prcempted by
subsequent legislation.
Section ~. The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within fifteen days a~cr its passage at least
once in the Ltll~d Valley Dail.v Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Ontario, Calitbrnia, and circulated in the City. of Rancho
Cucamonga, Calitbrnia.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED thi~; ... day of ......
1996.
Mayor
I, DEBBIE ADAMS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cuca. tnonga,
do hereby certify tint the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting
of the City Council of the City ofRancho Cue,cunonga held on the __ day of
._ ,1996, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ...... day o f .... ,
1996, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIl, MEMBERS:
COL~'CIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City ClerkS'City of Rancho Cueamonga
I ~RC'~RtX':flPTg~J1.C 1.3.|
CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE
CITY COUNCIL HEARING
November 20, 1996
I. INTRODUCTION
Mr. Mayor and Honorable Council my name is Bruce Strickand with
Griffin Industries, the managing member of Cornerpointe LLC the
owner of the subject property.
I have a short presentation I would like to make, to review with you
the elements of our proposed project and how it relates to the
surrounding area.
I would also like to review the finding of the Environmental Impact
Report and Financial Impact Study.
As I'm sure you are aware, Rancho Cucamonga has very high
standards and requirements regarding development of this nature
and I would like to thank the City Staff for leading us through the
various processes and keeping us on track. We appreciate the
professional and courteous manner that the entire City Staff used in
dealing with us. We feel that as a result of their cooperation we have
produced a very fine project that meets or exceeds the City's
standards which will be an inhancement to the City.
II. PROJECT REVIEW
(Display the Location Map) As the staff indicated, our project is
located at the northwest corner of 4th Street and Archibald in the
southwest corner of the City.
The city limits between Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario is the
centerline of 4th Street to the center of Cucamonga Creek Flood
Control Channel and then north along the centerline of the channel.
(Display the Zonin~l Map) The surrounding land uses adjacent to
our property on the north along 6th Street is existing single family
homes on approximately 7000 sq. ft. lots.
There is a town home project at about 10 - 12 units per acre located
on the northwest corner of 6th and Hellman with single family homes,
a mobile home project and a small industrial building on either side of
Hellman at 4th Street.
Along 4th Street is open space (detention basins) vacant land zone
for residential at 11 15 units per acre and the existing Daisy
Apartments at the corner of 4th and Archibald. On the east side of
Archibald is the Frito Lay's office, warehouse and processing plant
with an office complex and Edison sub-station to the north of Frito
Lay.
It's important to note that between the 10 Fwy. and 4th Street along
Archibald (which we see as the primary access to our project) is the
Gusti Regional Park on the east, open space on the west and a future
wine theme park, museum and wine cultural center (currently being
developed) on the southeast corner of 4th Street and Archibald.
(Display the Site Plan) As indicated by the staff, we are proposing the
development of 342 single family lots with a average lot area of 6845
square feet. We have proposed three different products with 142 -
5500 sq. ft. lots, 84 - 6000 sq. ft. lots and 116 - 6500 sq. ft. lots.
We are currently planning to build three sets of models ranging in
size from 1400 sq. ft. to 2400 sq. ft. priced from $155,000 to $225,000.
(Show where these different lot sites are located on the Site Plan.)
Our site plan centers around a central north-south street (referred to
as "A " Street in the Staff Report) with streets Iooping to and from this
street.
A five acre park site is located at the southeast corner of "A" Street
and 6th Street which puts in a convenient location to both the existing
residences to the north and our project to the south.
(Display ParkSitePlan) By the way, the City's Parks and
Recreation Commission has approved the park location along with
the general park site concept plan which proposes rest rooms, multi-
purpose / basketball courts, tot lot, parking area and grassed play
field.
(Redisplay Site Plan) As I mentioned, we feel that Archibald Avenue
from the Fwy. to 4th Street then west along 4th Street is the primary
entrance to our project. With this in mind, we have proposed to
enhance the landscaping along 4th Street with a minimum curb to
wall distance of 22 feet up to a maximum of 46 feet. We will continue
this enhanced landscaping on both sides of "A" Street from 4th Street
to 6th Street with curb to wall distance of 15 feet to 35 feet.
The site plan provides for increased set backs along 4th Street and
the industrial property to the east of the residential lots. The
industrial set back along the eastern boundary of the residential area
is a minimum of 60' for the back up lots and 30 feet (with recreational
vehicle storage) on the side on lots.
In addition, we propose an 8 foot high wall along 4th Street to buffer
traffic noise and an 8 foot wall between the lots and industrial
property along the easterly boundary. The conjunction with the wall
adjacent to the industrial property we shall install a solid mass of
trees to act as a visual screen between the two uses. We feel these
measures adequately mitigates the potential conflict between the two
land uses.
One area of concern of the Planning Commission was how the
adjacent areas to our project could be developed.
(Display theAdjacentLotLayout) As you can see the area to the
west can be developed in an acceptable manner. In addition, the area
to the east has adequate access points to provide for the
development of this area.
(Display Industrial Layout) In addition, the Commission asked how
the industrial area at the northwest corner of Archibald and 4th Street
would work. We had Matlock Associates, a local architect, prepare a
conceptual site plan which meets the performance and development
standards of the City. As you can see this area can be developed in
an attractive manner and would further reduce the conflicts between
the two uses.
II. EIR REVIEW
(Display the EIR Comparison) As mentioned by the staff, this site
is currently within the Industrial Specific Plan with an approved
Master Plan of Development and could be built without formal public
hearings or environmental review thru the City Design Review
process.
With this possibility, I have prepared a comparison of the
environmental impact of the existing zoning to the impact of our
proposed project (including Cook & Bless out and the eastern portion
remaining industrial) to demonstrate the difference in the impact of
our propose project vs the current zoning.
Review the Impact Comparison Chart.
II1. FISCAL IMPACT
With relationship to the Fiacal Impact Report prepared by the City's
consultant as ammended to reflect the current sales prices, the
Cornerpointe residential project generates a positive return to .the
City from taxes and fees of approximately $38,000 per year at build
out.
IV. PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONS
We have reviewed the proposed Resolution along with all the
Findings, Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval and agree
and concur with them with the exception of one matter.
Engineering Condition No. 8 of the Tentative Map Resolution requires
the installation of new traffic signals at 4th Street and 6th Street and
modification to the existing traffic signal at 4th and Archibald. While
we agree with the need for these signals, we feel they benefit the City
in general and the cost to provide these signals should be a credit
towards the Traffic Fees.
I think it's important to note that both signals on 4th Street actually
facilitates the flow of traffic on 4th Street which is a benefit to all the
people using 4th Street. In fact, if it weren't for the requirement to
transition from three lanes east of Archibald to two lanes west of
Archibald the modification to this signal would not be required at all.
With regards to the signal at "A" Street and 6th Street our project
doesn't produce the required warrants to justify this signal. It is
really needed to create a crossing for pedestrians on the north side of
6th Street to access the park on the south.
With the above in mind we strongly feel it is appropriate that the City
share in the cost of these signals and respectfully request that the
Council modify Engineering Condition No. 8 to provide for a credit of
these costs (470 per lot) to the Standard Traffic Fees of $1,710 per lot.
V. SUMMARY
In summary, we feel our projects present a well thought-out plan for
the development of this area.
It is a balanced use of this land which provides industrial uses on the
east portion of the site and residential use adjacent to the existing
residents to the north, south and west with far less impacts on the
environment and the existing residents of this area the the existing
authorized uses.
And we respectfully request the Council to adopt and approve the
Resolutions as recommended by the Planning Commission with our
requested modification to Engineering Condition No. 8.
Thank you for allowing me to present our Plan and I will answer any
questions you have.
I would like the opportunity to respond to comments made by others.
City Council Meeting Format
- November 20, 1996 -
Cucamonga Cornerpointe Development Proposal
Presentation
[] Environmental Impact Report
Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation
[] General Plan Amendment 95-03A
[] Development District Amendment 95-02
[] Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04
[] Tentative Tract 15727
Public Hearin.cls
Public Testimony for all Applications
Order of Actions
[] Environmental Impact Report
Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation
[] General Plan Amendment 95-03A
[] Development District Amendment 95-02
[] Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-04
[] Tentative Tract 15727
/
/
7
November 20, 1996
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
RE: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16
Redesignation--Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Attached please find two previous submitted responses to the DEIR
Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation. This letter
will speak to and will critique areas of concern regarding the land
use redesignation from light industrial to low-medium density
residential and emphasize why I am opposed to the subarea 16 land
use zone change.
As indicated in the DEIR there are several areas where the residual
impacts to the land use redesignation of subarea 16 is considered to
be significant. Those areas according to the DEIR Table 1-1 Sun~nary
of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Introduction/Executive
Sun~nary section indicate that a Class I designation has been given
to the areas of Traffic/Circulation, Air Quality, Noise, and Solid
Waste. A Class I designation indicates that even after mitigation
measures they are considered to carry "significant adverse environ-
mental impacts which cannot be feasibly mitigated or avoided" (Intro-
ducation/Executive Sunmnary, Table 1-1). Other areas of concern are
Land Use, Police/Fire Protection, Schools, Water Supply, Storm Drain-
age, and Cultural Resources.
According to the DEIR the redesignation of Subarea 16 will be far reach-
ing because of the many areas listed under the Class I heading and the
significant adverse impacts that are not mitigable or cannot be feasibly
avoided. Therefore, I am opposed to the redesignation from light
industrial to low-medium density residential for Subarea 16.
Sincerely,
Carla Florance
9580 Meadow Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 989-3262
October 9, 1996
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
RE: Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16
Redesignation--Draft Environmental Impact Report
Dear Planning Director and Board Members:
In response to the Draft EIR for the Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea
16 Redesignation, I would like to offer the following response which will
explain why I am opposed to the land use redesignation from light industrial
to low-medium density residential.
The EIR indicates that there will be significant traffic/circulation problems
primarily at the intersections of 4th and Vineyard and 4th and Archibald at
buildout. There will be right-of-way issues that will effect proposed street
improvements that may not be mitigable. Traffic will wait longer at inter-
sections and freeway egress will be slower thus increasing travel time.
Onsite and surrounding air quality during and after the construction phase
will adversely impact the area. Carbon monoxide (CO) emission levels and
fine particulate matter (PMtO) will exceed both federal and state air quality
standards. Ambient air wil be compromised because of toxic vehicle emissions
during construction. The construction phase "can be expected to occur
periodically over the next couple decades, or continually over the next 5-7
years" (p.5.3-8). There is also an indication that the jobs-to-housing ratio
is somewhat "jobs poor" (p.5.3-12) for the City's balance.
The possibility of an 8 foot sound barrier wall at the entrance or gateway
to the city of Rancho Cucamonga to help mitigate airport, street, and freeway
noise pollution as well as a 91 foot cellular transmission tower strongly
suggest that a potential residential buyer may go elsewhere.
Fire and police protection response time is already 19 minutes when dispatching
from the station. Cucamonga Cornerpointe (the project) is located in Beat 2
which now has the highest crime volume and there is no indication that any
more officers will be hired. Further° Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
October 9, 1996
Planning Director and Board Members
Page 2
recommends that the City is currently understaffed when comparing officer
to resident ratios.
I agree that our schools are functioning and operating at capacity levels
and that there are no plans to build new schools. The project will bring
hundreds of new students to the districts which will further impact our
schools and compromise their education. The City is in a "rapid growth"
mode (p.5.7-1) but introducing a Mello-Roos District will deter potential
buyers by imposing a tax hardship or bring a decline in home sales.
During drought years contracted water delivery to the project site may be
decreased thus limiting or restricting existing or project water usage.
Chino's Treatment Plant No. 4 is scheduled for completion in 1998, until
then excess burden will be placed elsewhere for processing reclaimed water.
I am concerned that water pressure during and after the project construction
will be adversely effected.
Milliken Landfill is scheduled to close in 1996 and Mid-Valley and Colton
Landfill are scheduled for closure in 1999/2000 because of capacity limits.
These closures and the lack of feasible landfill sites in the area is a
serious problem that is not adequately addressed in the EIR.
Flooding in the project area has been a serious problem in the past. Storm-
water pollution and onsite flooding can significantly effect the southwesterly
flow of runoff rainwater. Fourth Street at Archibald, Hellman, and Vineyard
will be adversely effected by flooding caused by lack of water absorption
and will cause and compound traffic and circulation problems.
Lastly, the EIR suggests that the vineyards and homes on the buildout site
be photographed and documented and sent to the library for future reference.
Rancho Cucamonga has an opportunity to preserve a bit of history and maintain
a current cultural perspective and preserve city heritage. The grape
vineyards are active, alive, and a part of the environment that should not
be altered. If all the vineyards in the City are plowed under and bulldozed
away the City will have to reconsider their grape logo on their stationery
and possibly rename The Grape Harvest Festival...you must think the
vineyards are important.
Sincerely,
Carla Florance
9580 Meadow Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 989-3262.
August 30, 1996
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91 729
Attention: Alan Warren, Associate Planner
Comments and Concerns
Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan
Subarea 16 Redesignation EIR
State Clearinghouse No. 95112019
Dear Mr. Warren:
This correspondence is in response to the information contained in the above
mentioned Draft Environmental Impact Report which analyzes the potential
environmental impacts associated with the development of Subarea 16 of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga's Industrial Area Specific Plan.
We are concerned with the environmental implications/impacts of the proposed
redesignation as addressed in the above referenced document; as well as
environmental implications/impacts which may not have been adequately addressed
in the above referenced document.
The EIR required descriptions of mitigation measures to reduce significant adverse
impacts reveal that there are impacts which cannot be reduced below significant
levels by the proposed mitigation measures as identified. According to the EIR the
proposed project would generate significant and unavoidable adverse impacts in the
areas of air quality, noise and solid waste.
Although the alternative analysis referenced- and the document- concludes that
lesser impacts would be generated by the proposed project than if the subarea were
to be developed entirely under the current land use designation, we are concerned
that these "beneficial impacts" associated with the land use change as proposed are
far outweighed by the significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that would be
generated.
We are concerned that the conclusions reached in the referenced EIR as to
significant/insignificant environmental implications/impacts on land use,
traffic/circulation, fire protection, police protection, schools, water supply, sewage,
storm drainage and cultural resources may not have analyzed to the extent necessary
those factors which would more accurately reflect the real impacts on the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, its citizen/residents, businesses and visitors.
We are concerned that this Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 16 Redesignation
and the Project as proposed will have both short and long term significant adverse
impact on the City of Rancho Cucamonga, its citizens/residents, businesses and
visitors.
As the Gateway to Rancho Cucamonga and to the Ontario International Airport, the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, its citizen/residents and businesses have a significant
opportunity to follow best practices in its planning and development of this property
and all of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Representing the Concerned Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga,
Carla Florance
9580 Meadow St.
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
989-3262
cc's: Interested Parties and Concerned Citizens of Rancho Cucamonga
cf/dn
L.J
18.4 ac
JL
' i
, .; .i ."
: .! ::.
I
!
I
~ ~cl
!
i
1
6.5 ac-t
L
Source: County AssessoPs Parcel Map a~d Lockman & Associates
Project 5i~e Boundary
Cucamonga Cornerpoin~e Project Boundary
City Boundary
City Considering
Low-Medium Residential Designation
Private Applic.=don for
Low-Medium Residential Designation
L~Envic~m Camore'non
PROJECT COMPONENTS
CORNERPOINTE
3 42 SINGLE-FAMIL Y HOME S
NW Corner o''~ 4th Street and Archibald Avenue
Ciiy o~"~ Rancho Cucamonga
October, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Development Summary and Illustrative Site Plan ............................................1
Location Map .......................................................................................................2
Land Use Map .....................................................................................................3
Aerial Photo with Residential Areas Hi-lited ....................................................4
Subarea 16 and EIR "Project" Components .....................................................5
Conceptual Neighborhood Park Plan ...............................................................6
4th Street and Entry Landscape Plan, plus Typical Wall & Fence Plans .......7
4th Street Section & Typical Streetscape section with Landscaping .............8
Landscape Plan for 'A' Street ............................................................................9
Streetscape Sections and Elevations for 'A' Street ..................................10-11
Landscape Buffer, Typical Rear Lot Section and Elevation ..........................12
Landscape Buffer, Typical CuI-De-Sac Plan and Elevation ..........................13
Conceptual Front Elevation Street Scene plus Plan View .............................14
Enlargements of Conceptual Front Elevations and Plan Views ..............15-18
October, 1996
Development Summary
Residential development:
Public open space:
342 single-family lots
5 acre neighborhood park
Residential area:
Public park:
Total proposed area:
77 acres
5 acres
82 acres
Number of Lots
142
84
116
342 total
Minimum Lot Size
5,500 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
6,500 sq. ft.
Average Lot Size
6,448 sq. ft.
6,932 sq. ft.
7,269 sq. ft.
6,845 sq. ft.
Range of lot sizes:
5,500 to 16,000 sq. ft.
Existing General Plan
designation and zoning:
Proposed General Plan
designation and zoning:
Industrial Park
Medium-Low Residential
(4-8 units per acre)
Proposed gross density
including public park:
Proposed net density
excluding public park:
4.28 units per acre
4.56 units per acre
Cucamonga
CornerPointe
1 r;tc[ I 5 2
('n\ or' ){,H!,'h,, ( tl,.!:~,,r::'! (
Illustrative Site Plan
I)cx ch~pcr
('ucamcm~a ('ornerlmintc I..1..( .
(;riflin Indu~tric~ Inc.
$r~tt
Page 1
O
.J
Arrow Highway
levard /
Holt Boulevard
Foothill Blvd
0
r"
E
r-
z AT & SF Railroad .... ~
City of Rancho Cucamonga
ci;y of
Airport Drive
Page 2 i~
CORNERPOINTE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
LAND USE
MAP
INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIAL
Page 3
PROPERTY B 0 UNDARY
North
.5 MILES ~
II
CORNERPOINTE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ADJACENT
RESIDENTIAL
AREAS
AREAS ZONED FOR
RESIDENTIAL USE
....... PROPERTY BOUNDARY
Noah
0 .25 MILES .5 MILES ~
I
Page 4
CucamonRa Cornerpointe Project:
342 single-family lots on approximately 77 acres
plus a 5 acre Public Park
(4.5 units per acre)
Note:
The Cucamonga Cornerpointe project is a portion of the "project
area" evaluated by the EIR.
The map to the right shows the "EIR Project Area and Components."
m
~>
z
~>
I-n
EIR
-,- Proposed :: ._
,,. Public Parki 18.4 ac I
..:~::::::;: BieSsent: :: 5.0 ac:ii
,~.: :: 10,7ac
~i~ : : .
I
18.7 ac
I
I
I
1.6 acl I
i
I
-_
I
6.4ac
i
i
Project Site Boundary
Cucamonga Cornerpointe Project Bojndary
City Boundary
City Considering
Low-Medium Residential Designation
Private Application for
Low-Medium Residential Designation
Page 5
kP'~Envicom Corporation
PROJECT AREA AND COMPONENTS
Ba~l~ethall / Mullilmrlm~e Cour|
Open 17-era'ration Area
Picnic Tables
Restroom F'acilit.~
I'arkin~ I,ol
Tot Lol
4' Sidewalk
6' IIIock Wall
,/ JL \,
4' Siclcx~alk--
I
6th Street
580'
Conceptual Neighborhood Park Plan
5 Acre,;
So:lie I "=41Y
6' C'hain l,ink .....
Existing C'ham~cl[
'- 6' Block Wall
C
PEDESTRIAN / EQUESTRIAN TRAIL
AI ,()N(i I:1,OOI) C()NTROL CI IANNIil,
Cucamonga
CornerPointe
Tract 15727
City of l~,ancho ('ucamonga, ('aliliwnia
A PARK ELEVATION B PARK SECTION
I,()()KIN(i ACR()SS 6'1'11 STREET FROM 6TII STRE|-:T INTO PARK
Open Space Plan
l)evclopcr
Cucamonga Cornerpointe L.I,.C.
Griffin Industries Inc.
I)alc :.lunc 10. 1996
Page 6
Typical Wood Fence Be Typical Slump Black Wall
Wall and Fence
C, Slump Block Wall W/Cobble Stone Pilaster
D, Slump Block / Split F~e Block Wall
r i
A. v,,,,, Lot Fencing Typl~enl
Typical Drainage Channel
____
C Wdl
Fencing Typicol
Cucamonga
CornerPointe
Tract 15727
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Calilbmia
Streetscape & Lot
Developer
Cucamonga Cornerpointe I..L.C.
Griffin Industries Inc.
DATE: September B, 1996
Page 7
0
scALE:r:4e'-r
TYPICAL STREET SCAPE
SECTION
NO SLOPE
MEANDERING SIDEWALK
BLOCK WALL- 8' HIGH OR HIGHER
i10' MIN_~
PARK~Y +
31' MIN.
L
4TH STREET SECTION
SLOPE
Page 8
6 a6ed
0
q
0
._ I
\.
(1
~1 'fl laqulald.,-~:
· .~uI ~!Jlsnpal
'. )'1" l ~lu!od.b~tLIo. )
Elevation A-A
Cucamonga
CornerPointe
Tract 15727
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Calitbrnia
Streetscape Elevations
Elevations A-A, B-B
Developer
Cucamonga Cornerpointe L.L.C.
Griffin Industries Inc.
Date; September 13, 1996
2_ II_AI~I II
I I Iil II 'f II 'r'
Elevation B-B Page 10
Elevation C-C
Cucamonga
CornerPointe
Tract 15727
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
Streetscape Elevations
Elevations C-C, D-D
Developer
Cucamonga Cornerpointe L.L.C.
Griffin Industries Inc.
Date; September 13,1996
EleVation D-D
Page 11
2' HIGH BERM WITH 6' WALL
ON RESIDENTIAL SIDE
h' 6"_,, 8~
105'-122'
4:1 SLOPE
60' MIN SETBACK
I
10'
8
PARKING
45' MIN SETBACK
TYPICAL REAR LOT SECTION
FROM LOT THROUGH TO INDUSTRIAL PARK
EVERGREEN TREES PLANTED ON
--BLOCK WALL - 8' HIGH WITH
CENTERS TO PROVIDE SOLID SCREEN
2' HIGH BER~I ON RESIDENTIAL SIDE
TYPICAL REAR LOT ELEVATION
LOT TO INDUSTRIAL PARK
Page 12
Cul-de-sac lots
which "side-on" to
adjacent future industrial park area
; I
Extra deep lots
which "back on" to
adjacent future industrial park area
;,, FENCE
t, ,'('-I1~
IZLEVATION l'l~OFll~f:
Typical Landscape Buffer
on cuBde~sac lots adjacent to the future industrial park area
Page 13
, I
-1 i
c-
])IU\ I ;%\'1
LA N DSC_x\ PING
i }RI\
L:*,,N DSGX PING
Cucamonga
CornerPointe
Tract 15727
City of l,',ancho C 'tlca/~]cn~ga, t, 'alift~rn i:l
Conceptual Front Elevation Street Scene
l)cvelopcr
Cucan~onga Cornerpointe L.I,.(L
Griffin Industries Inc.
I)alc lunc IlL 1996
Page 14
DRIVEWAY
~AN 5
Enlargements of
Conceptual Front Elevation Street Scene
Page 15
'RECESSI{D GARAG:~-';' :I' ' SIDF'- ENTRY MOTOR COURjF
tC : -- , -'
~ -~ · '. . ' J PLAN 2
L.
I k
I
Enlargements of
Conceptual Front Elevation Street Scene
Page 16
'DRIVEWAY
F
Enlargements of
Conceptual Front Elevation Street Scene
Page 17