HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-209 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 04-209
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00749, TO CHANGE THE
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW
RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW
RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 63.5
ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY END OF
WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF
COLONBERO ROAD; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 0225-084-04,0226-081-09 AND 10,AND 0226-
082-29.
A. RECITALS.
1. Henderson Creek Properties, LLC (the"Applicant")seeks approval of a series of
actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino
County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan
Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT16324, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also
include the development of 123 single-family housing units on approximately
65.3 acres and designations of flood control, utility corridor, and open space on
approximately 25.1 acres of land. Another 10 acres is also proposed for
annexation and is currently used for a utility easement and for flood control
purposes. The total area to be annexed is approximately 100.4 acres. The
density of the development is approximately 1.9 dwelling units per gross acre.
These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution
as the "Project."
2. The Applicant has submitted the following applications relating to the Project:
Annexation DRC2003-00753, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003-
00749, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00750, Tentative
Tract Map SUBTT16324, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00751
(collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as
the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map
SUBT716324, constitute the matters involving the Project,which are submitted
to the City Council for decision and action.
3. The Applicant's request for General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749 is as
described in the title of this Resolution and depicted on Exhibit A to this
Resolution.
4. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Flood Control/Utility
Corridor and Hillside Residential and is comprised of vacant land,utility corridors,
and scattered single-family residences. The property to the west is designated
Conservation and Flood Control/Utility Corridor and includes Etiwanda Creek
Flood Control basins and conservation area. The property to the east is
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 2 of 15
designated Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) and includes
single-family residential (Sheridan Estates Tract 13564). The property to the
south is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low
Residential and is comprised of vacant land, utility corridors, and one single-
family dwelling, and is the site of the City's proposed 300 acre(Etiwanda Creek)
annexation,which includes a proposed General Plan Amendment from Very Low
Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre)to Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units
per acre)for approximately 80 acres of land.
5. On May 12, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project,and after receipt of public
testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On May 12, 2004, the Planning
Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-58, recommending approval of General
Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749 along with other associated applications.
6. On June 2, 2004,the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")
and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to
be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project. After
the receipt of public testimony, the City Council continued the public hearing on
the Final EIR and the Project to its regularly scheduled meeting of June 16,
2004.
7. On June 16, 2004,the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a continued public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all
interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence
regarding the Final EIR and the Project,and after the receipt of public testimony,
closed the hearing.
8. 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 facts and information contained in the record of this Project,the
City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the
following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA")
(Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.):
a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the
Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project, including certain
technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 2003111057). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 3 of 15
public review and comment period from February 20, 2004, through April 5,
2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses
were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments.
Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final
EIR, as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR and a copy of the Draft
Development Agreement(Appendix K). Those documents,together with the
Draft EIR and Appendices, comprise the Final EIR.
b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA,
and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of
Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines'). By Resolution No.
04-207, the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance
with the requirements of CEQA.
c. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council
and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the
Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project
and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the Project
approvals.
d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent
judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate
mitigation measures for the Project.
e. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall
approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has
been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental
effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings
with respect to each significant effect:
L Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects
thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report.
ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report.
f. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIR, public
comments, public agency comments,and the entire record before it,that the
Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Land Use and
Planning, Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and
Water Quality, Public Health and Safety, Biological Resources, Air Quality,
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 4 of 15
and Public Services. However, changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases,
avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required,
and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each
impact, are contained in the "CEQA Findings"for the Project (Exhibit "F"to
the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report)and are incorporated herein by
reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the
"CEQA Findings", the City Council makes the following additional findings
regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in
this paragraph:
L Land Use and Planning. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan requires a
minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, and the Final EIR indicates that
the Project would be inconsistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,
because some of the proposed residential lots would be less than 20,000
square feet. With the approval of the proposed Specific Plan
Amendment that will change the land use district from Very Low
Residential (0.1 — 2 dwelling units per acre) to Low Residential (2 —4
dwelling units per acre)for the 65.3 acre area designated for residential
development, the Project would then be consistent with the Etiwanda
North Specific Plan. As a result, the Project site may be developed with
lots less than 20,000 square feet. In addition, in order to address the
reduction in lot sizes and the likely effect of lots averaging 18,000 square
feet, with a minimum size of 14,025 square feet, on the ability of those
property owners to own and maintain horses on those lots, a mitigation
measure is being imposed (Mitigation Measure LU-2) to require the
developer to pay an in-lieu fee to the City for the development of an
equestrian center that would serve residents in the area desiring to own
and maintain horses. The Etiwanda North Specific Plan also requires a
particular design and development theme that is consistent with the
character of Old Etiwanda by having access to trails, provisions for views
of the mountains and complying with certain design requirements for
landscaping, walls, fencing, lighting and the community's entry points.
Mitigation Measure LU-1 is being imposed that requires the project
developer to submit a landscape plan that is consistent with the City's
neighborhood Theme Plan as contained in the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan. Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that
any inconsistency of the Project with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan
will be mitigated to a level of less than significant.
ii. Traffic and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed
Project will increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along
arterial streets and intersections. Specifically, the Final EIR found that
Project traffic, together with other anticipated traffic, will likely cause
traffic flow to be deficient by experiencing a Level of Service(LOS)of"E"
or "F" at the intersections of Wardman-Bullock Road (NS) at Wilson
Avenue (EW) and at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Banyan Street (EW).
Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to construct
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 5 of 15
and widen Wardman-Bullock Road along the Project frontage(Mitigation
Measure TC-3), to install a traffic signal at Etiwanda Avenue (NS) and
Banyan Street intersection (Mitigation Measure TC-5), to contribute
developer fees for other traffic improvements(Mitigation Measures TC-1
and TC-5), and to modify signing and striping of certain roadways and
intersections (Mitigation Measures TC-2 and TC-4). The City's "City-
Wide System Fees for Transportation Development" provides for the
payment of fees at the time building permits are issued based on a
formula adopted by the City Council by resolution. That formula provides
for the payment of a fee per dwelling unit of approximately$1,710.03 and
a credit against those fees for certain qualifying traffic improvements that
mitigate the traffic impacts of the Project. The City is required to use
traffic impact fees to fund City-wide and regional roadway and traffic
improvements,and as a consequence,the payment of those fees by the
project developer will contribute to the mitigation of the Project's impacts
to traffic and circulation. Based on these mitigation measures, the City
Council finds that traffic at the study intersections will be reduced so that
those intersections operate at a LOS "D," and that the impacts of the
Project on traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than
significant.
Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on
ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary
source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with
construction activities, such as trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete
mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound
generation. Earthmoving equipment is anticipated to create noise
ranging between 75 to 90 dB(A)at 50 feet from the source. A mitigation
measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors
to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction
activity — 6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no
construction to take place on Sundays or holidays(Mitigation Measure N-
1). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the
shore term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than
significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels at the
facades of homes nearest the Project exit at Wardman-Bullock Road
would experience noise near 60 dB CNEL due to vehicular traffic. The
Final EIR states that if the property owners of the homes fronting on
Wardman-Bullock Road can close their windows and still obtain
adequate ventilation, then the goal of reducing the interior noise to a 45
dB(A) CNEL interior noise level would be achieved. A mitigation
measure will be imposed to require the developer to install air
conditioning units for the residences that front along Wardman-Bullock
Road so as to allow window closure during warm days so as to achieve a
less than significant interior noise level for those homes with the windows
closed (Mitigation Measure N-2). Based on this mitigation measure,the
City Council finds that the potential noise impacts of the Project on
current and future residents will be mitigated to a less than significant
level.
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 6 of 15
iv. Geology and Soils. The Final EIR identifies that development of the
Project will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic
ground shaking due to regional and local faults located in the area.
Mitigation measures are imposed which require the developer to ensure
that all grading plans and grading work are done in compliance with the
geotechnical report for the Project so that soil and slopes are properly
compacted and grading work achieves all seismic requirements
(Mitigation Measure GS-1),that the developer shall submit building plans
which incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical report for
preliminary foundation work, utility trenching, and concrete slabs
(Mitigation Measure GS-2),and that all buildings and structures are built
to Uniform Building Code and/or Structural Engineers Association of
California standards for seismic safety (Mitigation Measure GS-3).
Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the
effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures will be mitigated to
a level that is less than significant.
v. Hydrology and Water Quality. The Final EIR identifies that during
storm events, construction activities (particularly vegetation removal,
grading and excavation), could affect the amounts of sediments and
suspended solid material leaving the site such that water quality
downstream of the site could be affected to a level that was potentially
significant. Vegetation removal and grading would expose the soil to
erosion by wind and rain, and rainfall could carry more sediment off the
disturbed areas and adversely affect water quality downstream. In
addition,during earthwork and construction activities, pollutants that may
be discharged in stormwater include vehicle fluids such as oil, grease
and coolants, asphaltic emulsions associated with asphalt-concrete
paving, paints and solvents,wood products,and metal and metal plated
products. In accordance with the State of California's implementation of
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB), the Project developer will be required to include Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to prevent construction of the Project
from polluting surface waters. Compliance with these permitting
requirements will require the Project developer and construction crews to
comply with a variety of measures,such as limiting clearing and grubbing
areas to the limits of the active construction area, using hay bales and
sand bags to control erosion during the rainy season, using enclosed
storage sheds where possible, utilizing hazardous materials in a manner
that avoids contact with the ground, avoiding the application of certain
materials during periods of rainfall,washing of equipment orvehicles in a
designated place where a sump can be located to collect wash water for
proper disposal, and servicing equipment and vehicles off-site. A
mitigation measure is imposed to require compliance with these
permitting requirements and BMPs (Mitigation Measure HWQ-1). The
City Council finds that with the imposition of this mitigation measure and
after implementation of BMPs set forth in the SWPPP, potentially
significant impacts on water quality from construction activity will be
mitigated to a level of less than significant.
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 7 of 15
vi. Public Health and Safety. The Final EIR identifies that the frequency of
high winds will expose structures and residents to potential damage from
extreme wind conditions. In addition, wildfires on adjacent lands,
including National Forest land and undeveloped properties, could
threaten residential development on the Project site. Specifically, the
Final EIR indicates that Santa Ana winds along the front of the mountains
can reach hurricane force,with winds in the area of the Project detected
at reaching 80 to 100 miles per hour. Damage to roofs,fences,windows
and landscaping is possible in these types of conditions. Three
mitigation measures are imposed to mitigate the impacts of wind hazard
to a less than significant level. Those measures include requirements to
utilize optimum building materials and construction techniques as
required by the Uniform Building Code, to require disclosure of the
potential for high winds in sales documents to prospective homebuyers,
and to comply with other mitigation measures for control of particulate
matter emissions during grading and construction (Mitigation Measures
HS-1, HS-2, HS-3). Compliance with the provisions of the Uniform
Building Code has been demonstrated to result in structures that are
capable of withstanding winds projected for the Project area without
serious damage. With respect to the impacts created by wildfires on
adjacent lands, the City Council is particularly familiar with these risks
after the City and surrounding areas recently experienced the Grand Prix
fire in October 2003. The City Council also understands that the addition
of persons into an area of wildland vegetation increases the number of
ignitions (risk), the growth of brush after a fire increases the intensity of
new fires in the area (hazard), and the addition of homes and amenities
into the same area (value) creates an increased need for fire protection
and fuel modification. Design features have already been incorporated
into the Project to ensure vegetation areas to the north are separated
from residential structures with a trail, a wall and a riprap drainage
channel so as to provide approximately 100 feet of distance between
chaparral vegetation and the homes. All homes will also be constructed
with Class A roofs. Along the western boundary of the site where the
wildfire threat is moderate, a six-foot masonry wall and "firewise"
landscaping between native vegetation and the homes are to be
required. A comprehensive mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure HS-
4) requires a detailed landscape plan/fuel modification plan to contain
requirements for "firewise" vegetation in specific areas, irrigation plans
and specific standards applicable to certain areas of the Project site. In
addition, Mitigation Measure HS-5 requires the installation of residential
fire sprinklers as a component of the construction. The City Council finds
that with the combination of appropriate landscaping, residential fire
sprinklers, the introduction of certain new paved surfaces where none
currently exist, and implementation of the Fuel Modification Plan will
effectively reduce movement of potential fire into the Project area and
thereby mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant.
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 8 of 15
vii. Biological Resources. The proposed Project would result in
development of a 65.3 acre area of the site, and the Final EIR indicates
that, prior to the Grand Prix fire of October 2003,that area was previously
covered with upland sage scrub, disturbed annual grassland and a small
area of flat-top buckwheat scrub. Specifically, priorto the Grand Prix fire,
the portion of the site proposed for development had approximately 1.5
acres of disturbed annual grassland, 4.2 acres of disturbed annual
grassland dominated by deerweed, 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub
dominated by white sage, and 4.5 acres of flat-top buckwheat scrub.
The impacts on the annual grassland areas is not considered significant
because of the relatively small area impacted (approximately 1/3 of the
total disturbed annual grassland on the site) and because those areas
had experienced substantial disturbance from prior weed control
measures, and the construction of power line maintenance roads and
other roads that cross the property. With respect to upland sage scrub,
most of that area was dominated by white sage,which is not considered
to be sensitive habitat by the resource agencies that regulate biological
resources. However, the City Council recognizes that the loss of this
plant community for wildlife habitat is important when considering
cumulative impacts on this resource. With respect to the flat-top
buckwheat scrub, this is a common species and an indicator of prior
disturbance to the land. The Final EIR indicates that no sensitive
species of flat-top buckwheat scrub were found on the site and therefore
no impacts were expected to occur. The Final EIR recognizes that much
of the vegetation previously found on the site would likely grow back after
the fire if no development took place. However, the Biological
Assessment not only found no substantial evidence of sensitive plant or
wildlife species on the site, but it also found that due to the area already
being disturbed by dirt roads for power line maintenance, previous
construction activity, commercial harvesting of white sage, and flood
control improvements and activities, development of the site would not
have a significant impact on biological resources. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Project site is within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda
Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program(NEOSHPP),as adopted
by the County of San Bernardino. To implement the goals and purposes
of that Program, a mitigation measure has been imposed to require the
Project developer to acquire and convey to the County, 58 acres of land
within or near the NEOSHPP area that support alluvial fan sage scrub
and/or upland sage scrub(Mitigation Measure BIO-1). This 58 acre area
is intended to accomplish a`one to one"mitigation in acreage for the loss
of the 53.5 acres of Upland sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss
of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species, and the loss of raptor
foraging land. As required by the mitigation measure, the off-site
mitigation land shall be equal to or greater in habitat value than that of
the Project site. The City Council finds that the conveyance into the
NEOSHPP of 58 acres of land by the Project developer would mitigate
this impact to a level that is less than significant.
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 9 of 15
viii. Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create
significant and unavoidable impacts to Air Quality. Specifically,the Final
EIR identifies that emissions from construction related activities are likely
to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District(SCAQMD). These impacts are considered
to be short-term (less than one year) and temporary and can cause
nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of
fugitive dust. One cause of these short-term impacts is blowing dust
resulting from the grading of the site. In addition, the use of diesel
engine equipment during grading and construction along with worker
trips is anticipated to create levels of nitrous oxides (NOx) that are also
above the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Similarly,construction-
related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting)and
off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to create significant levels of
reactive organic gases (ROG)and nitrous oxides (NOx)that will exceed
SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term
air pollution impacts. A comprehensive mitigation measure is imposed
on the Project(Mitigation Measure AQ-1)which will require various dust
control measures, emission control measures and off-site actions.
Included in those measures are requirements to limit the simultaneous
disturbance area to as small an area as is possible, terminate soil
disturbance and accelerate dust control measures when winds exceed
25 miles per hour, stabilize disturbed areas if construction is delayed,
require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off-road equipment, limit idling to 10
minutes for trucks and heavy equipment, encourage carpooling for
construction workers, limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods, park
construction vehicles off traveled roadways, wet down or cover dirt
hauled off-site,wash or sweep access points daily and encourage receipt
of construction materials during non-peak traffic hours. The City Council
finds that with implementation of the recommended measures,
construction emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's
contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized.
However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these
comprehensive mitigation requirements,construction emissions(building
phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROG and NOx, and
therefore, would remain significant after mitigation.
ix. Cumulative Impacts — Air Quality Noise and Public Services. The
Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of
development projects in the vicinity,would likely create cumulative short-
term impacts to air quality during construction. This Project would also
create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality because the
Project would add incremental pollutants to the South Coast Air Basin in
the form of additional vehicle emissions. With respect to noise,the Final
EIR indicates that the Project will create short-term cumulative
construction noise impacts and long-term cumulative noise impacts due
to increased vehicle trips. With respect to public services(schools),state
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 10 of 15
law (Government Code Section 65995 (h)) provides for the payment of
developer fees and deems such payment to be full and complete
mitigation of school impacts. Consequently,as a matter of law,the long-
term cumulative impacts to schools from this and other projects are
deemed to be fully mitigated by the payment of developer fees and the
City is precluded, by law,from imposing additional mitigation to address
these potential impacts. The City Council finds that noise and air quality
impacts associated with increased vehicle trips would remain significant
when combined with existing and anticipated construction projects in the
vicinity of the Project.
g. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that after implementation of
the proposed mitigation measures,the following impacts associated with the
proposed Project would remain significant:air quality(short-term impacts and
short and long-term cumulative impacts)and noise(short-term and long-term
cumulative impacts).
h. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill
basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No
Project-No Development' alternative, and the "Development Under the
Existing Land Use Designation Alternative." Other alternatives that were
considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the
alternative land use alternative. As set forth below,the alternatives identified
in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic
objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and,
therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and
General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus
infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are
infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental
impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternatives is
infeasible. In making this finding, the City Council determines as follows:
i) The objectives of the Project are:
a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and
goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda
North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City
development guidelines;
b) To annex the 90.4 acre Project site and adjacent 10 acre utility
easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga;
c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical,
coordinated growth;
d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional
and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and
pedestrians;
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 11 of 15
e) To provide a system of public/community facilities, including trails,
open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the
Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner;
f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to
serve Project residents and the surrounding community;
g) To minimize impacts to,and generate revenues in excess of costs for
various public service agencies; and
h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and
planned development that responds to market demands.
ii) The"No Project-No Development"Alternative assumes that no new land
uses would be constructed on the Project site and that the site would
remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative is
environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it would not meet the
Project objectives. Specifically, it would not meet the Project's objective
to provide quality housing that would be compatible with existing and
planned development for the area, would not provide a system of
public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas,and would
not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding area
residents. Furthermore, as the subject property is under private
ownership, the elimination of future development within an area
previously approved for residential development would not be legally or
financially feasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected.
iii) The"Development Under the Existing Land Use Designation Alternative'
assumes that the Project site would be developed under the current City
of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan designation(Very Low Residential).
Under this designation,and assuming that the area disturbed by grading
is equal to that of the proposed Project, the minimum lot sizes would be
20,000 square feet and the number of lots that could be developed would
be approximately 90 rather than the 123 as currently proposed. This
reduction in development by approximately 33 dwelling units would result
in lower traffic, air quality, and noise impacts than the proposed Project,
but would not reduce to less than significance the short-term impacts on
air quality from construction-related emissions, cumulative long-term
impacts on air quality from Project emissions and cumulative short and
long-term noise impacts. In addition,this alternative would not meet the
Project objectives to provide quality housing that would be compatible
with existing and planned development for the area,would not provide a
system of public/community facilities, including trails,open space areas,
and would not provide landscaping for Project residents and surrounding
area residents.
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 12 of 15
L Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will
avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects
of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and
other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA
Findings"for the Project (Exhibit"F"to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff
Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any
unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the
Project, including short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related
emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality and noise.Therefore,due to
overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in
the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph h above, the City
Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including
the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from short-term impacts on air quality
from construction-related emissions,and cumulative air quality and noise are
acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA
Findings"for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of
overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any
one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified
in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings:
i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and
goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North
Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development
guidelines;
ii) Annexation of the 90.4-acre Project site and adjacent 10.0-acre utility
easement into the City of Rancho Cucamonga;
iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in
logical, coordinated growth;
iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional
and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and
pedestrians;
v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails,open
space areas,and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and
surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner;
vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities)to serve
Project residents and the surrounding community;
vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs
for, various public service agencies;
viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and
planned development that responds to market demands;
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 13 of 15
ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing
Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs;
x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter; and
xi) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by
the Project.
j. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the
environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted
and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The
City Council also hereby adopts the"Mitigation Monitoring Plan"attached as
Exhibit "H" to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project.
The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the
mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a
condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution
and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan.
k. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section
21089(b), the findings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative,
vested or final until 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.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the
above-referenced public hearings on June 2,2004 and June 16,2004,including
written and oral staff reports,together with public testimony, this Council hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The proposed change in density of residential development allowed on the
project site is consistent with neighboring properties, including the City's
proposed 300 acre (Etiwanda Creek) annexation, and is consistent with
General Plan Policy 2.5.2.2, which expresses an intention to apply the Low
Density designation to portions of Etiwanda and into the City's Sphere of
Influence where the level of services, including roads, shopping and
recreational opportunities, are not sufficient to justify higher densities.
b. The proposed change in land use designation will promote housing
opportunities and help achieve the City's regional share of housing needs.
c. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the
adjacent properties because the land uses and intensities of residential uses
allowed are consistent and compatible with the type of housing and open
space conservation areas abutting the proposed development.
d. The proposed change in designations are also consistent with the provisions
of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which encourages retention of open
space and the extension of the image of Old Etiwanda into this area, with
relatively large lots and opportunities for an equestrian lifestyle.
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 14 of 15
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above,
this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00749.
5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED,AND ADOPTED this 16th day of June 2004.
AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Howdyshell, Kurth, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
William J. Alexan r, Mayor
ATTEST:
Debra J. Adams OMC, 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 16th day of June 2004.
Executed this 17th day of June 2004, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
ADbra hd2a , CM , City Clerk
Resolution No. 04-209
Page 15 of 15
HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION
DRC2003-00749 (GPA)
TwTvvvTwwwvTwvwwvvrrvwwvTvvvvwvTT'wv'vTv�wvTvvvrvwvTvvvTw
r,r,rvTrvr wTTwTwTTTwTTrTTTTTTTTTTwTTTwTTT'PTwTTT'P'TTTwTwTTwwwTTTT wTrTwwTTTTwwww'wwwwTTTvwTTTTwTrT v www rw uwTTTwwTTTTw
rTTUTTTTwwTTrTTTrTTTr vwTwwvTTTVTvvrTwTrvvTTwT r7wTw
l.J.J
LL Try
1}r}r vTTTTTTTTTvvwvvvTTTTTwvwv TvvTTwvTTT wwTT`1TvvT TvvvrvTv�.wvv,, rt
TTTTTTT,P.TTTTwT.wTTTvrw,P.vrg T,TP.v'vvw 7Tv
. ..r wv vrT r
rJ J Tw,Tivv/.T,r�,vjv,TP.wYvjvviv,T,.Tv�.wv�.Tyw.T T,vr.T,T�.w7rv,.TY'I,T� �.Y7'1'7w T7T•T�.TTT•w�.TTT7Tj,T,Ti,TYYTT,T'.T,Ti.TTT,TP.T,Ti.T,vP.T,T�.TTT,v�.T,T,.T,v�.T,vP. Cv�.'C�T7TYTTT
i:iT• vvrrv,TP.TvvgwpTvw,TTTTP.TTvwT TTT,vvP.TTTY'PVTYTYT7wrrTYTwwrvwvvrrwrvvwwTYw7'iiiy!imvP.Tv yT,TP.v w,TP.TVTvw7T
is J:• vrrrTTwTTwTTTTTTVT.rw.�.w.i.TTTTTwXTw.1TTT Trwrwrwr TT,rrTTTTTrTrvTTTr,T v T w T T v T r T T T r v Trw v
i'r4 T�T►wrwrw ii:.rwr.:�i€i`
+}F} rTTT,rrT vT €iii T-r€iiii
L•4 iii!7!!!�:ii:
.`.4 w TTTTTTT f T !iiiiiii!:
r.r. rTTTTrTv
�{:{ rrr7rTrT T
r r} TrrrvrrrT T
r.J.r• r r w
J.J.J J =:
!!
J.r•r•
.L.L•L r.J•J.r '. T
r•r•r. :::.
•L•L•L•L•L•L•L•L•L L � ......
J.J.f.f•f.f•r.r.J.J. ••••••••••••••••
rffJ•.LL••rrfJ•LL.•rrr.•L.rf.L..rr..rr.L..rr.J.rr}r}LL.:i:i!i::_
LJJ {JL.
...r•J.r.J.WLJ. HE.
. �. . . .....:.i!::i:.:r?::i..iv!s.i:.ii[a.!.0:.![u.!.�:m:.:.¢:.:ie.m.i:.:i:in.uui.E:.::i:.::.::e::.:ci:iF:.:.::F:_n:!::E:::!:nF:.•S:.m:.n:.n!n.:.:•icuG•�:im.•i.:•'
.:::•..::!:.::"^i.-_.::i!:•:i:.•iicv!ii:i:.:!
i
•L•L•L• •L•L•L•L•L•L•^i!!!ii�::::i!::Fi�?�ii!iii:i ii!�!!::!=!:::!!!ii!!!!ue:!
J.r.J.f}JY.J.f.f•h ..... ...... ...:..
L•L•L•L•L•L•L•L•L• L•L•L•L•
�•r.hf• J J•ry.f.J.f.J•rY.r.f.fYy.J}1}:}J}f:%}• —
.J•f•f•J{:{:{JM4J{f.$
.J.r.f•ff•J•f.r.r.f.r.f•r. M.r.r.r•
L•L•L.M L{•L•L.L•L•L•L•LK•L•L•L•L•Y
:{:{:{i{:•f.J•%.J.J.i.f.f•J.r.J.f.J.JY .f.f}f}
................
.................
J•r•r.r. .r.r•r• r. . . .
...:..._:::.:...
.................
.L.L.L.L L.L.L.Lf{.L+L�L:L�{:{rL'�{.J{:•S{:{:{:{r{:{J{f{ ..._............
i{�{r{iLf{f{i{rLfLr{14?L.tiJLr{?Lf1.{t\.ti1{?Mf{?{ltil{�{ .......................................................................... ...............
S{�{S{�•}{S•fY.r.S. .r.r.}.r.J.r.r.f.r.r.r.r.f.r.r.f. ::::::::::::��:::::::::::r.:::::::::::::::::::::::_::.................._........_.._..
..................
L.L.L•L.L L.L.L• L.L.L. ..........................._...........................,:::::::....::::[::::::[:::::[[::[: ...............
CITY BOUNDARY
HENDERSON CREEK ANNEXATION
PROPOSED LOW
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN
:r; • CONSERVATION
TTTTT FLOOD CONTROL/ UTILITY CORRIDOR
BE VERY LOW
EXHIBIT A