Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-148 - ResolutionsRESOLUTION NO. 96-148 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 AMENDMENT 95-05 (SUBAREA12) WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF Ae Recitals. 1. There has been presented to the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, in conjunction with the Council's consideration of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-05, a Final Environmental Impact Report. 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 Warehouse-style Retail Merchandise Center (State Clearinghouse No. 96041054) together with the Findings of Fact in Support of Findings for Significant Environmental Effects on the Project and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached as Exhibit A, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto as Exhibit B, and including written comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report and written responses thereto and testimony presented during hearings on the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment insofar as that testimony pertained to the environmental matters. 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. The public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Report was duly and lawfully closed on August 25, 1996, following due notice to the public and all applicable public agencies. On September 25, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report and concluded said hearing on that date. On November 6, 1996, the City Council 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. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. Resolution No. 96-148 Page 2 B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: This City Council does certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-05 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 City Council certifies that it has considered the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report in considering the approval Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-05; and Hereby adopts (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: 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. ii) 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. iii) 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. iv) Potential mitigation measures 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 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 3 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. v) 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. vi) 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. 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. Resolution No. 96-148 Page 4 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of November, 1996. Alexander, Biane, Curatalo, Gutierrez, Williams None None ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 6th day of November, 1996. Executed this 7th day November, 1996, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk Resolution No. 96-148 Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ~ PROJECT AND STATE~MENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the 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: ao Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Became the Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center environmental impact report (EIR) identified significant effects that may occur as a result of the project, and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby adopts these findings as part of the approval of the Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center project and related applications. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared an EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines requirements. An EIR was subject to review and approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga d, t - City Council. At a public hearing held on/xJ0t/~'"l~Lz~, theq~was certified as adequate in accordance with CEQA procedures. In adopting this Slatemerit of Findings of Fact, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council approves the Warehouse-style Merchandising Center project. All subsequent IASP amendments, subdivision parcel maps, master plans, conditional use permits, building permits, grading permits, mitigation implementation, and regulatory agreements will be reviewed based on the documentation in the EIR and the previously prepared Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (April 1996). W3~/00180013.Fllq I EXHIBIT "A" Resolution No. 96-148 Page 6 MITIGATF..D ADVF..R,gi~. IMPACTS The potential significant adverse impacts that will be mitigated are listed below. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds that these potential adverse impacts will be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of recommended mitigation measures. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Sill~ifie~nt lnlpnct Implementation of Phase I would generate approximately 16,210 average daily trips and 1,510 p.m. peak hour trips. Implementation of Phase II would generate approximately 15,546 average daily trips and 1,459 p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed project (Phases I and II) would generate approximately 31,756 average daily trips and 2,969 p.m. peak hour trips. In the interim year 1997, the implementation of Phase I would not result in the exceedance of the level of service at adjacent intersections (i.e., LOS E). The implementation of the proposed project (Phases I and II) would significantly contribute to a cumulative exceedance of LOS E in the year 2015 at the following intersections: Milliken Avenue/Fourth Street Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Factn in ~lp~ort of Findiqk~ The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project: Under the development of Phases I and II in the year 2015, the following improvements to intersections are recommended as mitigation measures to achieve LOS E or better. The proposed project shall contribute on a fair share basis to the construction of circulation improvements identified as necessary at the lime of issuance of building permits. Fair share allocations and payment of lraffic fees shall be consistent with the provisions of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (Ordinance No. 445). Milliken Avenue/Fourth Street Milliken Avenue/Fourth Street is forecast to operate at LOS F conditions in the year 2015 condition with fi~e p~ project. This condition is a function of the large volume of northbound movements, in particular the high volume of p.m. WIB/00180013.FIN 2 NOISE Resolution No. 96-148 Page 7 peak hour northbound through and right turn movements. To reduce the cumulative ~affic impact at this intersection to a level that is considered less than significant, modifications to the traffic signal phasing to allow for a dedicated nor~bound right turn phase during the eastbound and westbound left turn phases is recommended. Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard is forecast to operate at LOS F conditions in the 2015 condition with and without the proposed project. This condition is a function of the critical movement txaffic volumes, in particular the high volume of p.m. peak hour eastbound through movements and the two eastbound through lanes. The existing pavement width can accommodate an additional eastbound ttu'ough lane with striping modifications and signage changes. To reduce the cumulative traffic impact at this intersection to a level that is considered less than significant, a third eastbound through lane is recommended. Siglaifieant lnli~act The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set development standards within its Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) area. The project site is located within this IASP area, therefore, the Industrial Performance Standards (IPS) apply to ohsitc developments. The project site is designated as Class B. Noise standards for Class B industrial area indicates that the maximum allowable noise level of any use shall not exceed 75 dBA Ldn as measured at the lot line of the lot containing the use. Noise caused by motor vehicles and trains are exempted from this standard. Commercial land uses within the project site may be exposed to noise levels of greater than 75 dBA Ldn from stationary sources associated with the proposed commercial uses (i.e., automotive service and repair uses). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Factn in Stkoport of Findin.on The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by viram of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project: Proposed onsite land uses that have the potential to result in generation of noise levels of greater than 75 dBA Ldn on adjacent properties are required to shield the stationary noise sources so that noise levels on adjacent properties do not exceed 75 dBA Ldn. WJ!~/00180013.FI~ 3 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 8 Shielding could be provided by the utilization of sound barrier walls or structures acting as effective sound barrier. Sil~ificant ln~0aet According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Noise Elemem, the standard for active outdoor uses is 70 dBA Ldn. The proposed project could include active outdoor activities (i.e., outdoor eating at restaurants). The proposed project uses may be exposed to noise levels that exceed 70 dBA Ldn and, therefore, could experience significant noise impacts. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. Fact~ in Sup0ort of Findi~l$s The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project: All active outdoor use areas associated with the proposed commercial uses shall be located in areas exposed to noise levels of 70 dBA Ldn or less from vehicular and stationary noise sources. Any active outdoor uses on the project site that are located in areas exposed to noise levels of greater than 70 dBA Ldn are required to be shielded from the dominant noise source, by using sound barrier walls or structures acting as effective sound barriers, to insure conformance with the City's noise standard. SIGNIIrlCANT UNAVOmARLF. AI~V!~!~ IMPACTS The potential significam unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Warehouse- style Retail Merchandising Center project are listed below. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds that these potential significant adverse impacts would be reduced with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures; however, the impacl~ cannot be reduced to a level less than significant. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council is adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration per Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. TRAFFIC AND CIRCUlaTION Sigpifiennt l~q0~et The proposed project (Phases I and ID would significantly contribute to the cumulative exceedance of LOS E in the year 2015 at the following freeway segments. WJB/00180013.FIN 4 Southbound 1-15 between Jurupa Avenue and 1-10 Southbound I-15 between SR-60 and Jurupa Avenue Resolution No. 96-148 Page 9 Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. Facts in SuDport of Findi~ To reduce the impacts on these two freeway segments to a level that is considered less than significant, these two freeway segments would need to be improved from 4 to 5 lanes. The addition of one lane to both freeway segments are not considered feasible for individual property owners to consreact because there are no implementation mechanisms for an individual property. owner to implement an additional lane on a freeway. Furthermore, the addition of lanes on freeway segments are beyond the local (municipal) authority to implement. Sifnificnnt l~nct During construction activities associated with Phase I and Phase II of the proposed project, approximately 871 pounds and 739 pounds of PM10 per day, respectively, would be generated during grading activities. Fugitive PM10 emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) threshold of 150 pounds per day, and would, therefore, be considered significant. Exhaust emissions from construction equipment and vehicles during consauction activities would result in approximately 138 pounds of NOx per day which would exceed the SCAQMI) threshold of 55 pounds per day for NOx. Findirlg~ Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. Factq in SuoI~ort of Findi~lg~ Implementation of the following mitigation measure will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. Except for the No Project/No Development Alternative, the project alternatives analyzed in the EIR would not avoid the significant and unavoidable adverse air quality impacts WlB/00180013.FIN 5 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 10 during construction activities. These alternatives would result in the same air quality impacts during construction compared to the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives of the proposed project. The following SCAQMD mitigation measures are recommended to be incorporated into the proposed project. These measures can reduce emissions associated with new development. The majority of these measures are oriented toward more detailed levels of planning than is associated with the Specific Plan amendment. The feasibility and appropriateness of each measure can best be determined at more detailed levels of planning (i.e., Development/Design Review) for the proposed project. As such, the following measures are recommended for future levels of project implementation, but only as determined to be feasible and appropriate at that time. To reduce particulate emissions from paved and unpaved roads, the construction activities, the project applicant shall: · Use low-emission alternative fuel (i.e., methanol. butane, or propane) as practicable in mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractor, scraper, dozer). · Develop a trip reduction plan to achieve 1.5 AVR for construction employees. · Comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 concerning implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite. · Employ construction activity management techniques, such as extending the construction period, reducing the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously, increasing the distance between emission sources, reducing or changing the hours of construction, and scheduling activity during off-peak hours. · Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. · Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. · Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them adequately tuned. · Use low-sulfur fuel for stationary consauction equipment. · Use existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. · Use low-emission onsite equipment (e.g., methanol-, propane-, or butane-powered internal combustion engines) instead of diesel or gasoline. Implementation of the above measure will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the potential significant air quality impact. The remaining unavoidable adverse impact is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. WIB/00180013.FIN Resolution No. 96-148 Page 11 Significarlt !~3t0act Op~ational emissions (stationary and mobile) in the year 1997, that are associated with Phase I of the proposed project and in the future (year 2015) that are associated with Phases I and II of the proposed project, would exceed SCQAMD significance thresholds for CO, NOx, and ROC. Findin~f~ Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. Facts in Su01~ort of Findirlg~ Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. The implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative and the No Project/Development as Allowed by IASP Alternative would result in significantly less operational emissions compared to the proposed project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not increase operational emissions. The No Project/Development as Allowed by IASP Alternative would increase operational emissions; however, this increase would not be significant in the future year 2015. Assuming a s'unilar amount of development in the year 1997 as the proposed project, this alternative would result in less operational emissions compared to the proposed project; however, these emissions would still be significant in the interim year 1997. Both of these project alternatives were rejected from further consideration because they did not meet the objectives of the proposed project. The Alternative Site would result in the same operational emission impacts compared to the proposed project. The following SCAQMD mitigation measures are recommended to be incorporated into the proposed project. These measures can reduce emissions associated with new development. The majority of these measures are oriented toward project construction or at least more detailed levels of planning than is associated with the Specific Plan amendment. The feasibility and appropriateness of each measure can best be determined at more derailed levels of planning (i.e., Development/Design Review) for the proposed project. As such, the following measures are recommended for future levels of project implementation, but only as determined to be feasible and appropriate at that time. To reduce automobile emissions by reducing the number of vehicles driven to a work site on a daily basis and through raffle flow improvements, the project applicant shall: Develop a a'ansportation demand management (TDM) program that complies with the TDM Ordinance adopill by the City. The TDM program shall include an itemization of the TDM measure. In developing the TDM program, the project developer shall give consideration to the following TDM measures, as applicable. WIB/00180013.Fllq 7 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 12 Provide preferential parking to high-occupancy vehicles. Configure parking to minimize traffic interference. Minimize obsla'uction of though-traffic lanes. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. Schedule goods movements for off-peak hours. To reduce stationary emissions of operation-related activities, the project applicant shall: · Require development practices that maximize energy conservation as a prerequisite to permit approval. · Improve the thermal integrity of buildings, and reduce the thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. · Introduce window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods. · Introduce energy-efficient heating and cooling appliances, such as water heaters, cooicing equipment, refrigerators, air conditioners, furnaces, and boiler units. · Use devices that minimize the combustion of fossil fuels. · Capture waste heat and re-employ it in nonresidential buildings. · Landscape building and median landscape areas with native drought-resistant species, as appropriate, to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. Implementation of the above measure will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the potential significant air quality impact. The remaining unavoidable adverse impact is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. Significant Inli~net Localized CO emissions (i.e., "hot spots") associated with the proposed project at the Fourth Street/I-15 Southbound ramps intersection would exceed the state and federal 8-hour sate and federal CO standard in the year 1997; however, due to lower emission factors, the project would not exceed any standards in the year 2015. Findin~ Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. WJB/00150013 .FIN 8 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 13 Facts in SUpl~ort of Findin~ ImNementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the impacts would remain significant. The implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative and the No Project/Development as Allowed by IASP Alternative would result in less localized CO emissions compared to the proposed project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not increase localized CO emissions, The No Project/Development as Allowed by IASP Alternative would result in less localized CO emissions compared to the proposed project; however, the No Project/Development as Allowed by IASP Alternative would still result in significant and unavoidable localized CO emissions. Both of these project alternatives were rejected from further consideration because they did not meet the objectives of the proposed project. The Alternative Site would result in the same localized CO emission impacts compared to the proposed project. Develop a transportation demand management (TDM) program that complies with the TDM Ordinance adop~l by the City. The TDM program shall include an itemization of the TDM measures. In developing the TDM program, the project developer shall give consideration to the following TDM measures. These measures are recommended for future levels of project implementation, but only as determined to be feasible and appropriate at that time. · Provide preferential parking to high-occupancy vehicles. · Configure parking to minimize traffic interference. · Minimize obswuction of though-traffic lanes. · Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours. · Schedule goods movements for off-peak hours. Implementation of the above measure will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the potential significant air quality impact. The remaining unavoidable adverse impact is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. Sil~ifirant Inli~act The project site currently contains active grape vineyards. The loss of these active grape vineyards was assumed in the existing IASP and the IASP EIR. Due to the importance of agricultural operations in the region, the IASP EIR considered this loss as significant and unavoidable with the development of the project site. Therefore, the impact on agricultural crops from the development of the proposed project is also considered significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. W.IB/00180013 .FIN 9 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 14 Fac£~ in Suooor~ of Findi~!g~ No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the removal of active grape vineyards from the project site. Except for the No Project Alternative, the alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR could not avoid the significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural land. The No Project Alternative was rejected from further consideration because it did not meet the objectives of the proposed project. Furthermore, the conversion of farmland to urban uses was discussed in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Master Environmental Assessment & General Plan Environmental Impact Report, January 1989. This discussion identified that the area in which the project site is located can most easily support development and will eventually remove large areas of soils that historically supported grape vineyards. However, current market forces such as expanding urban development and the high cost of imported water, have made continued agricultural activities in this area marginally profitable or not profitable. The unavoidable adverse impact on agricultural land is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. w3B/00180013.FIN 10" Resolution No. 96-148 Page 15 ATTACH1VIENT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality. Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determimng whether to approve the project. The City of Rancho Cucamonga proposes to approve the Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center project although unavoidable adverse project impacts to air quality and loss of agricultural land and unavoidable adverse impacts due to the project's contribution to cumulative traffic have been identified in the EIR. Where these adverse impacts are reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures, but not to a level considered less than significant, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds that those impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center project. Further, the alternatives that were identified in the EIR would not provide the project benefits, as summarized below, to the same extent as the proposed project. Therefore, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR and the public record, adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations which have been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this project. 1. Strengthen the economic base of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. Provide commercial employment opportunities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Provide the opportunity for "Big Box" retail commercial uses to be located in visible proximity to the Ontario Mills project, a regional retail center in the City of Ontario. 4. Contribute to a positive jobs/housing balance. w~oo ~ 8oo l 3 .F~ A- 1 Statement of Overriding ConsMerations Resolution No. 96-148 Page 16 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE WAgF.~OU~ RET,~lrL ~CHANDISING CENTER EIR State Clem'inghome Number 9604105~ Submitted to: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Contact: Mild Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 17310 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250 lr~'ine, California 92614 (714) 250-5555 Contact: Michael E. Houlihan, AICP, Senior Project Manager September 1996 F-XHIBIT 1.O 2.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Resolution No. 96-148 Page 17 INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ................................. 1 2.1 Roi~ and Responsibilities ............................... 1 2.2 C.,en~ral Procedures ................................... 2 WJB/0OI80013.MMP i 1.0 INTROI~UC'rlON Resolution No. 96-148 Page 18 Section 21081.6 to the Public Resources Code requires a lead or respomible agency that approves or cames out a project where an environmental impact report has identified ~igaificant environmental effects to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or requir~ dmng~ to mitigate or avoid significant emh-oc~memal e~'~." The City of Rancho Cucamonga is the lead agency for the Warehouse- style Retail Merchandising Center FIR. A draft environmental impact report has been prepared for this project and addressed potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommended measures to mitigate thes~ impaq. As such, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The project is Iocal~i at the southern ~ry of ~he City of Rancho Cucamonga and is within the exis~g Industrial Area Specific Plan 0ASP). The project site is bounded by Fourth Slreet to the south, on the west by Milliken Avenue, on the north by various induswial park uses, and on the east by Interstate 15 (1-15). The proposed project includes the development of high impact commercial uses. 2.0 PROGRAM MA NAGF. MF. NT The mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) for the Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center EIR will be in place through all phases of project approval. Enforcement of the MMP will be the responsibility of a Project Manager (PlVl). 2.1 ROLES AND RESPONSI~n.rI'IF, S: PROJECT MANAGER The PM is assigned by the Commtmity Development Department Director. The PM assigned to the proposed project will supervise the MMP through all phases of project approval and is responsible for the overall managemere of the MMP. The mitigation measures identified in the MMP fall into two categories: 1. Measures that need to be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits, and 2. Measures that are implemented with subsequent levels of development through conditions of approval. The PM is thoroughly familiar with the project and qualified to determine if an adopted measure is being properly implemented. The PM oversees the MMP and will determine the need for a measure to be modified and ensure the use of a mitigation specialist if technical expertise beyond the PM's is required. If it is found that an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the PM would require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementatioh. The responsibilities of the PM include the following: Appropriate specialists will be retained, as needed, m monitor specific miti~t/on activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the PM. WJB/00180013.MMP I Resolution No. 96-148 Page 19 The PM and/or an assignee will approve, by sigmtare and cla~, ~ completion of each action item that is identified on the Mitigation Monign'ing Matrix. Unanticipaaxi circ,,mm~ce~ may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation mea~ure~. The PM is respomible for approving any such refi~ments or additions. The PM has Ihe authority to stop the work of construction contractors if complianc~ with any ~ of the IMMP i~ not occurring at~r writ~n notification ha., be~n i~x~l. The PM also has authority to hold cmlifical~ of occupancie~ if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The PM ~ ha~ authority to hold the issuan~ of a busine~ iic~me until all mitigation measure~ am implemented. 2.2 GENERAL PROCEDURES ~SNSP Prog~m I)eflnition~ The MMP consists of key program elements. The definitions of these elements are summarized helow. MMP Fil~n Fries are established to document and retain records of the MMP. The file organization is established by the PM according to mitigation measures and project phases. Knvlronment~l Compliance Verification At the completion of construction contracts that are part of the overall development of the project, a verification of environmental compliance is executed by the PM. The verification concludes the construction monitoring process for the con~act. Mitigation Monitoring Program Procedures The policies and procedures for the MMP described herein are intended to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the draft EIR. Table I lists each miligation measure and the implementor, the responsible party for monitoring, and the timing of implementation for each mitigation measure for the proposed project. Table I also provides the PM a verification of compliance for each mitigation measure during each applicable phase of the project. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase. The PM shall initial and date the measure on Table 1. WJB, 00180013.MMP 2 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 20 The. environmental effects of the proposed project are analyzed in the EIR u3 the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed project, in accordance with Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This EIR was prv4mr~ aa:l certified to provide the primary environmental documentalion for three properties located am the project site: l~on Land Company, Investment Olm~,t% and Bixby Ranch Company properties. All three properties included the same proposed amendment to the IASP; however, the three properties wer~ addressed in this Eli{ commensurate with the level and amount of {and planning inforrnatiou. The Mission Land Company property currently has a specific development proposal while the Investment Oilmarts and Bixby Ranch do not. Even though the three properlies are at different levels of planning, the EIR analysis will serve as the primary environmental documeut for the following series of actions for all three properties: IASP amendment, subdivisionJparcei maps, master plans, conditional use permits, building permits, and grading perutits. Where site plans have not been available for the lnvesunent Oltrearis and Bixby Ranch Company properties, the City identified intended uses and maximum square footages that the City feels is appropriate for ~he properties in order to maintain compalibility of uses and intensities within the project area. D~esition of Monitori,~g Forran The MMP file is kept with the City of Rancho Cucamonga during the pre-design, design, consu~uclion, and operational phases of the project. The file will be available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga (Lead Agency) Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 WJB OOI80OI3.MMP 3 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 21 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 22 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 23 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 24 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 25 Resolution No. 96-148 Page 26