HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-055 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 08-055
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO
WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT,AND ADOPTING FINDINGS
OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT,AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2006-00635, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
MAP FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MIXED USE FOR 17
ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN CENTER AVENUE AND
HERMOSA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 11, 13, AND 14
A. RECITALS.
1. Rancho Workforce Housing filed an application for General Plan Amendment
DRC2006-00635 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject General Plan Amendment is referred to as 'the
application."
2. On January 23, 2008, and continued to February 13, 2008, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the application and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-
04 recommending approval by the City Council.
3. On March 5, 2008, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW,THEREFORE,it is herebyfound,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 March 5, 2008, including written and oral
staff reports,together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds
as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 17 acres of land, basically a
rectangular configuration, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard
between Center Avenue and Hermosa Avenue, and is presently improved
with existing commercial (The Whole Enchilada, Espinoza Tire, Route 66
Memories, Twins Club, Shop & Go) and residential (single-family and
apartment) land uses, agricultural uses, and vacant land. Said property is
currently designated as General Commercial; and
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 2 of 32
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low Residential
and is developed with existing single-family residences; the property to the
west is designated General Commercial and Low Residential and is
developed with existing commercial and residential uses; the property to the
east is designated General Commercial and Industrial Park and is developed
with an automotive service station and industrial uses; and the property to
the south is designated General Commercial and is developed with
restaurant, day care, and office uses.
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 the related development; and
d. This Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use
Element; and
e. This Amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the
adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the
environment, nor the surrounding properties.
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 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 the proposed project master plan complies with
current development code standards regulating building setback, building
height, parking and landscaping; and
b. That the proposed Amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties, the proposed project was
designed to be sensitive to existing adjacent land uses, and the project
Environmental Impact Report was prepared to address and mitigate potential
environmental impacts; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. The City Council makes the following findings under the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act:
a. Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State Guidelines for Implementation of
CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq. (the"Guidelines"),
the City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study') for the
Project. The Initial Study concluded that there was substantial evidence that
the Project might have a significant environmental impact on several
specifically identified resources, including air quality, noise, and traffic.
Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15064 and 15081, and based upon
information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 3 of 32
an environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Rancho Workforce Housing
Project. On October 1, 2007, the City prepared and sent a Notice of
Preparation of the EIR to responsible, trustee, and other interested agencies
and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a) for a 30-day
review period. The City circulated the Draft EIR to the public and other
interested parties for a 45-day review period from November 15, 2007
through December 31, 2007, consistent with the 45-day public comment
period required by Guidelines Section 15087(c) and 15105. During this
public comment period, the City received six (6) written comment letters
regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The City also received an
additional two (2) letters after the 45-day review period, for a total of eight(8)
written comment letters. The City prepared written responses to all the
comment letters received on the Draft EIR in accordance with Public
Resources Code §21092.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.
b. The City Council is the decision-making body for General Plan Amendment
DRC2006-00635 and Development District Amendment DRC2006-00634 for
the Rancho Workforce Housing Project. For purposes of making its
recommendations on these applications, the City Council has received and
reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Rancho
Workforce Housing Project along with the oral and written testimony received
thereon during the hearing prior to any action on the Project. Based on that
review, the City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR was completed
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
§21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the Guidelines and that it adequately
addresses the impacts and provides for appropriate mitigation measures for
General Plan Amendment DRC2006-0635, the Development District
Amendment DRC2006-00634, and Development Review DRC2006-00633,
and all other approvals necessary to carry out the Rancho Workforce
Housing Project. The City Council further finds that that the modifications to
the FEIR that have been made since circulation of the DEIR, do not
constitute the addition of new significant information to the FEIR within the
meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
c. The City Council finds that based on the FEIR, additional public comments,
and the written and oral staff report, and Exhibit A to this Resolution, that the
Project will not cause significant environmental impacts except with respect
to interior noise level impacts, short-term construction noise impacts, long-
term operational noise impacts,cumulative noise impacts, and traffic impacts
with regard to opening year 2009 with commercial conditions, residential
conditions, and entire project(commercial and residential) conditions. With
respect to all of these potentially significant impacted areas and resources,
the FEIR identifies feasible mitigation measures for each impact that reduce
the level of impact to less than significant.
d. In response to each significant impact identified in the FEIR, and listed in
Section 4.b. of this Resolution, changes or alterations are hereby required in,
or incorporated into the Project, which avoid the impacts identified. The
specific changes and alterations required are contained in Appendix F of the
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 4 of 32
FEIR, which are hereby incorporated herein by reference. The mitigation
measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, contained in
Appendix F of the FEIR, avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant
impacts of the Project as explained in Exhibit A to this Resolution. The City
Council finds that the mitigation measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program
will avoid or mitigate all significant environmental effects of the Project.
e. The City Council finds that the FEIR describes a reasonable range of
alternatives to the Project that might fulfill the basic objectives of the Project.
These alternatives include the required no project alternative, the reduced
intensity alternative, the all residential portion of the project alternative, and
the off-site location alternative. For the reasons explained in Exhibit A, the
alternatives identified in the FEIR are not feasible because they would not
achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much
lesser degree, and therefore leave unaddressed significant social and
economic goals the Project was designed to achieve, and are thus infeasible
due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible
because they would not eliminate the significant adverse environmental
impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth
herein,the City Council finds that each of the alternatives is determined to be
infeasible.
f. The City Council further finds that the Mitigation Monitoring Program has
been completed in compliance with CECA. The Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt each of the mitigation
measures set forth in the FEIR and incorporate those measures into the
Project. The Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council
adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program" contained in Appendix F of the
FEIR and incorporated herein by reference. The Mitigation Monitoring
Program will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures
and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project
approval.
g. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the Mitigation Monitoring Program
and all other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the City Council's decision is based is the Planning Director of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for public review in
the Planning Department of the City of Rancho Cucamonga located at 10500
Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909)
477-2750.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4
above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2006-
00635, including Exhibits B and C and in accordance with the condition listed
below:
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 5 of 32
Planning Department
1) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense any
action brought against the City; its agents, officers, or
employees, because of the issuance of such approval, or in
the alternative, to relinquish such approval. The applicant
shall reimburse the City, its agents, officers, oremployees,for
any Court costs and attorney's fees which the City, its agents,
officers, or employees may be required by a court to pay as a
result of such action. The City may, at its sole discretion,
participate at its own expense in the defense of any such
action but such participation shall not relieve applicant of his
obligations under this condition.
6. The Secretary to this Council shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Please see the following page
for formal adoption,certification and signatures
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 6 of 32
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 51h day of March 2008.
AYES: Gutierrez, Kurth, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
Donald J. Kurth, M.D., Mayor
ATTEST:
ebra J. d ms, 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 5`h day of March 2008.
Executed this 6`h day of March 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Debra J. Adm , CMC, City Clerk
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 7 of 32
EXHIBIT A
TO RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUINCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 08---
Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
I. Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the
"Guidelines") 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 will occur if a 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 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.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed
Rancho Workforce Housing Project. These findings are based upon evidence presented in the
record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the FEIR and all of its contents, the
Comments and Responses to Comments on the FEIR, and staff and consultants' reports
presented to the City Council.
II. Project Objectives
As set forth in the FEIR, the objectives of the project (the "Project Objectives") are as
follows:
A. Locate development in infill and redevelopment areas that will minimize any
potential environmental impacts;
B. Provide residential development that is attainable for low and moderate income
segments of the community;
C. More fully utilize the availability of existing public improvements, thereby
providing maximum benefit to the general public;
D. Augment the City's economic base by increasing tax-generating retail uses within
the City; and
11231-0001V1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 8 of 32
E. Promote balanced, efficient development that is functional, safe, attractive, and
convenient to users, and ,which will strengthen the local economy.
III. Effects Not Studied in the EIR and Found to Be Insignificant
The City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted an Initial study to determine significant
effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation, certain impacts of the Project were found
to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or
the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas
were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study, and were not
analyzed in the Draft EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Agricultural Resources; (C) Biological Resources,
with the exception of those potential impacts noted in Section 4 below; (D) Cultural Resources,
with the exception of those potential impacts noted in Section 4 below; (E) Geology and Soils;
(F) Hazardous and Hazardous Materials; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality, with the exception of
those potential impacts noted in Section 4 below; (H) Land Use and Planning; (1) Mineral
Resources; (J) Population and Housing; (K) Public Services; (L) Recreation; and (M) Utilities.
IV. Effects Not Studied in the EIR and Found to Be Less Than Significant, and Will
Remain Insignificant Through Mitigation
A general biological resources assessment/field study was conducted as part of the
Initial Study to aid in the determination that the following issue areas would result in a less than
significant impact. . However, there still remains the potential for a significant impact to result to
the following issue areas. As a result, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
Project to ensure any potential impact remains less than significant.
A. Biological Resources
1. Burrowing Owl
The Project site is located in an urbanized area and has been previously used for
agricultural purposes. Because of this, there is a lack of suitable habitat on the Project site and
no probability for the occurrence of any sensitive species except with regard to the burrowing
owl. Although the probability of the occurrence of the burrowing owl is low, the EIR has
identified a mitigation measure to ensure any potential impact remains less than significant.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
13I0-1: A precondition survey for the burrowing owl is required to confirm
presence or absence of the species on the proposed project site. The pre-construction survey
for the burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the commencement of grading
activities. If it is determined that the project site is occupied by this species, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 shall apply. Conversely, if the project site is not occupied, Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 shall not be required.
2
1123 1-000 1\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 9 of 32
BIO-2: Any western burrowing owls identified on site shall be relocated
prior to the commencement of grading activities. The relocation of any specimen shall be
conducted per applicable California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) procedures. Relocation of on-site burrowing owls shall not
be permitted during the nesting season for this species. .
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Currently, the northwest and center portions of the proposed project site
provide marginally suitable habitat for the burrowing owl. Although a Field Study was conducted
as part of the Initial Study, a pre-construction survey for the owl is required to confirm the
presence or absence of the owl from the site to avoid impacts to any owl(s). Vegetation in these
areas is low to moderate in height and interspersed with debris piles, thus providing a potential
for owl occupancy. Vegetation within the northeastern portion consists of remnant vineyards,
overgrown with ruderal vegetation. This portion of the project site would provide marginally
suitable habitat as well, should conditions change (i.e., with vegetation removal). The burrowing
owl is a mobile species; therefore, a pre-construction survey is required to ensure no impact to
burrowing owls that may occupy the proposed project site. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measures BI0-1 and BIO-2 impacts related to this issue would be reduced to less .- .
than significant.
2. Raptors
The Project site contains a few large ornamental trees which could be suitable
roosting or nesting trees for raptors. During the field survey conducted as part of the biological
resources assessment conducted as part of the Initial Study, no nest for raptors were observed.
However, because raptors are mobile and there is the possibility that nests may have been
established during the period since the Initial Study, there is the potential for a significant
impact. With the incorporation of the mitigation measure articulated below, any impact will be
reduced to less than significant levels.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels`.
13I0-3: Any large trees on site shall be removed between September 1
and January 31, outside of the typical nesting season for raptors. If vegetation removal is to
take place during the breeding/nesting season (i.e., February 1 through August 31), then pre-
construction nest surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that active nests
are protected. The last survey day shall be scheduled three days prior to the start of
construction work. If nesting birds are found, a qualified biologist shall be consulted regarding
the relocation or extent of the buffer area around those nesting areas.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Because any raptor nests in the trees located on the project site may
have been established after the Initial Study field survey, there is the potential for a significant
impact with regard to raptors. However, with the incorporation of the above identified mitigation
3
11231-000IU031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 10 of 32
measure, any impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure
specifies the pre-construction nest surveys shall be conducted, and that removal of trees shall
be limited to the period outside the nesting season for raptors. Further, the mitigation measure
requires that a qualified biologist be contacted if raptornests or nesting birds are located.
These measures will ensure a less than significant impact.
B. Cultural Resources
1. Archeological Resources
There are no known archeological sites or resources recorded on the Project
site. Further, through compliance with Senate Bill 18 which requires notification of the Project to
potentially affected Native American Tribes, only one Tribe responded indicating that there was
no knowledge of any specific cultural or sacred resources on the site. Nevertheless, the
potential to uncover an archeological resource may be present.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
CUL-1: In the event a cultural resource is uncovered during the course of
grading or construction of the project, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall
be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by a qualified archeologist
(meeting Secretary of Interior Standards). Any such resource uncovered during the course of
project-related to grading or construction shall be recorded and/or removed per applicable City
and/or State regulations.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Although the site is located in a developed area where significant ground
disturbance has occurred, the potential may still exist to uncover an archeological resource.
With the incorporation of the above identified mitigation measure, any impact to an
archeological resource will be less than significant. Specifically, if any archeological resource is
found, any ground-disturbing activities will be relocated and a qualified archeologist will be
consulted. Further, the archeological resource will be recorded and/or removed per City and
State regulations. This will ensure that any impact is reduced to a less than significant level.
2. Paleontological Resources
The project site is located in an area containing extensive existing development.
The development of the existing roadway, curbs, sidewalks, infrastructure, and nearby
structures would have required a large amount of ground disturbance that would have likely
resulted in the discovery of or destruction of existing paleontological resources. While there
have been no paleontological resources recorded within the City and the project area has
previously been disturbed, the potential to uncover a paleontological resource may still be
present.
a. Findings
4
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 11 of 32
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. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to'less than significant levels:
CUL-2: In the event that paleontological resources are encountered
during construction excavation, the project proponent shall halt excavation in the vicinity of the
discovery and call a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the significance of the find and make
recommendations for further mitigation.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, any potential
impact on paleontological resources will be less than significant. The measure will ensure that
any excavation of the Project site will be halted when paleontological resources are
encountered and that a qualified paleontologist be consulted, thereby ensuring a less than
significant impact.
C. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Structures Other than Residential in 100-year Flood Hazard Area
Because a portion of the Project site is located within a 100-year flood hazard
area, and because a small portion of Hermosa Avenue (adjacent to the Project site) is prone to
flooding, there is the potential for a significant impact to result. However, with the
implementation of the identified mitigation measures, any potential impact will be less than
significant.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the western
approximately five acres, the project applicant shall submit and receive approval from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") a Conditional Letter of Map Revision — Fill
(CLOMR-F) to remove property from the 100-year flood zone map.
HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the western
approximately five acres, the project applicant shall submit to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
supporting evidence of compliance with FEMA CLOMR-F specifications and requirements
including the discussion and analysis of fill material placement, elevation changes, and hydro-
modification impacts.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs) identify areas subject to 100-year flooding. An area along Hermosa
Avenue is shown within the 100-year flood hazard area on the FIRMs. The conceptual plan for
5
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 12 of 32
the western portion of the project site includes commercial, office space, and a restaurant. The
structures associated with the western portion of the project site may fall within the 100-year
flood hazard area. Proper storm.drainage facilities shall be constructed on the project site as
part of the drainage plans to be reviewed and approved by the Building Official and City
Engineer. Implementation of the features and facilities contained in the approved drainage plan
will help to ensure that impacts associated with flooding or redirection of flood water flows are
less than significant. In addition, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and
HYD-2, impacts related to this issue would be reduced to less than significant.
V. Effects Studied in the EIR and Found to Be Insignificant
A. Noise Impacts
Certain noise impacts were studied in the EIR and found to be less than significant.
Specifically, noise construction associated with groundbourne vibration was determined to be
less than significant, as was the potential for the Project to expose people in the Project area to
excessive noise levels based on the proximity to an airport. Further, the Project is not
anticipated to cause excessive off-site traffic noise impacts. Although these noise impacts were
found to be less than significant, other noise impacts, as articulated below, were found to be
significant requiring mitigation.
B. Air Quality Impacts
Certain air quality impacts were studied in the EIR and also found to be less than
significant. Specifically: (1) the proposed Project is consistent with the most recent Air Quality
Management Plan; (2) the Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to
construction emissions, with the exception of fugitive dust articulated below; (3) the Project will
have a less than significant impact with regard to operational emissions; (4) the proposed
Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to exposing sensitive receptors to
pollutant concentrations from architectural coatings; (5) the proposed Project will not impose
short-term health risk impacts on sensitive receptors; and (6) the proposed Project will not
create objectionable odors.
VI. Effects Studied in the EIR But Which Have the Potential to Become Significant,
But Will Remain Insignificant Through Mitigation
A. Air Quality
1. Fugitive Dust Emissions
The proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant impact with regard
to construction related fugitive dust emissions. Nevertheless, to ensure this impact remains less
than significant, mitigation measures have been identified.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
6
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 13 of 32
4.1.1A During project construction the construction contractor shall
implement the following measures to reduce fugitive dust.
(A) Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
(B) All excavating and grading operations shall be
suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph.
(C) All streets shall be swept once per day if visible soil
materials are carried to adjacent streets
(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
(D) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks
and any equipment leaving the site each trip.
(E) All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as
feasible, watered periodically or chemically
stabilized.
(F) The area disturbed by clearing, grading,
earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized at all times.
4.1.1B The construction contractor shall select the construction
equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The
construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all
construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications.
4.1.1C The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel powered
equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible.
4.1.113 The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading
plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog
season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended,
thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment
operating at the same time.
4.1.1 E The construction contractor shall time the construction activities so
as to not interfere with peak-hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes
adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to
existing roadways.
4.1.1F The construction contractor shall support and encourage
ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
7
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 14 of 32
Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and
exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations. Dust generated during
construction varies substantially on a project-by-project basis, depending on the level of activity,
the specific operations, and weather conditions at the time of construction. The project is
required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions.
South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust
be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not
remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition,
SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive
dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403
are summarized below. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the
fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component). Compliance with these rules would
reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The following are the applicable Rule 403
Measures:
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers'
specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for 10 days or more).
• Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to
occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance
with the requirements of California Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114
(freeboard means vertical space between the top of the load and top of
the trailer).
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the
main road.
•Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.
Additional dust suppression measures in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are
included as Mitigation Measures 4.1.1A through 4.1.1E to ensure that impacts remain less
than significant. In sum, through compliance with Rule 402 and 403 as well as the additional
measures incorporated as mitigation measures, this impact will be less than significant.
VII. Effects Studied in the EIR and Found to be Significant, But Reduced to a Level of
Insignificance Through Mitigation
The following impacts were analyzed in the EIR and found to be significant. However,
with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, these impacts will be reduced to a
level of insignificance.
The City Council finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in
the Final EIR (and below) would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level.
A. Noise
1. Interior Noise Levels
8
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 15 of 32
The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that construction of the proposed project
would result in noise levels at the on-site proposed residences exceeding the maximum noise
level allowed.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
4.2.1A Residential units located within 358 feet of the centerline of
Foothill Boulevard shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning
system. Second-story balconies or decks on these units with a line-of-sight to Foothill
Boulevard would require an additional 6-foot-high wall. In addition, any ground-level outdoor
uses, such as patios or park/recreation areas with a line-of-sight to Foothill Boulevard and within
358 feet of the centerline of Foothill Boulevard, shall be equipped with a sound wall or sound
wall/berm combination with an effective height of 8 feet.
4.2.1B Residential units located within 90 feet of the centerline of Center
Avenue shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning system.
4.2.1C For the possible commercial/retail use on the western 5-acre
parcel, delivery truck activity shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.).
4.2.1 D For the possible restaurant use on the western 5-acre parcel,
restaurant deliveries shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.) unless the
proposed on-site residences will be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air
conditioning system.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed residential uses would potentially be exposed to high traffic
noise from Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, mitigation measures are required to ensure that the
sensitive receptor locations are not exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding the City's
standards. Whether or not a specific apartment building is subject to the established mitigation
measures depends on the building's location within the project.
For residential units within the project site, the implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures would result in the construction of sound walls and mechanical
ventilation. The sound walls would provide a 5 to 7 dBA or more in noise reduction for ground-
floor receptors. With a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for
southern California residential buildings would provide more than 20 dBA in exterior-to-interior
noise reduction with windows closed and 12 dBA with the windows open. However, with
windows open, there is a potential for interior noise on the ground floor units to exceed the 45
dBA Ldp standard (i.e., 63 dBA — 12 dBA = 51 dBA). Therefore, the implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4.2.1A would be required to ensure that windows can remain closed for a
prolonged period of time. Further, with the implementation of all the identified mitigation
measures, noise levels would be reduced to a level that would be consistent with the City's
General Plan noise standards. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue would be mitigated
to level that is considered to be less than significant.
9
11231-0001A1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 16 of 32
2. Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
Construction noise impacts resulting from the proposed Project will be potentially
adverse requiring mitigation.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
4.2.2A The construction contractor shall implement the following
mitigation measures during project construction. Construction will be limited to the hours of 6:30
a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, in accordance with City standards. No
construction activities are permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays.
4.2.213 The project contractor shall place all stationary construction
equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project
site.
4.2.2C The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in
areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and
noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
4.2.211) During all site excavation and grading, the project/ construction
contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Noise levels from demolition, grading, and other construction activities for
the proposed project may range up to 85 dBA Lma,at the closest residential uses to the north of
the project site for very limited times when construction occurs near them. Construction noise
impacts of the proposed project would be potentially adverse.
Typical noise levels range up to 91 dBA Lma, at 50 feet during the noisiest
construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes site excavation and grading,
tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is
earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as
backfillers, dozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment
includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of
construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 to 4
minutes at lower-power settings.
Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of
earthmovers, bulldozers, and water and pickup trucks. Noise typically associated with the use
of construction equipment is estimated between 79 and 89 dBA Lmy, at a distance of 50 feet
from the construction effort for the grading phase. This equipment would be used on site. Each
dozer would generate a maximum of 85 dBA Lma, at 50 feet, and water and pickup trucks would
generate approximately 86 dBA Lma, at 50 feet. Each doubling of the sound sources with equal
10
1123 1-000M 031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 17 of 32
strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction
equipment operates as an individual noise source, the worst-case composite noise level during
this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lma, at a distance of 50 feet from an active
construction area. As these noise sources are point sources, the noise decreases at a rate of 6
dB per doubling of distance.
The nearest residences are located to the north of the project site along
Stafford Street. These residences are approximately 25 feet from the project boundary and may
be subjected to short-term noise reaching 97 dBA Lma, intermittently generated by construction
activities on site. Additionally, demolition of the existing buildings on the western 5-acre parcel
may occur after the project apartments are occupied; however, these will be no closer than the
existing residences. This level of noise is comparable with vehicular traffic noise on Foothill
Boulevard. Construction-related noise impacts of the proposed project would be potentially
adverse; however, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the impact would be
reduced to a less than significant level. To minimize the impact of the construction noise on
residences adjacent to the project area, compliance with the City's Noise Control Ordinance
would be required.
Because Construction of the proposed project would result in noise levels
at the closest, residences exceeding the maximum noise level allowed, the above identified
mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
More specifically, by limiting construction hours, using noise mufflers on' construction
equipment, and placing construction equipment and staging areas away from residential uses,
this significant impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
3. Long Term Operational Noise Impacts
The EIR found that the proposed Project would cause a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels associated with long-term operations of the proposed Project.
This significant impact will be reduced to a less than significant level with the imposition of
mitigation measures.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
4.2.3A For any commercial/retail use located directly adjacent to a
residential use, delivery truck activity shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00
P.M.).
4.2.313 In the event that the on-site residential uses are constructed and
occupied prior to the scheduled demolition of the tire shop, a 6-foot-high wall surrounding the
tire shop will be required in order to reduce impacts on adjacent residential uses to a less than
significant level.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
11
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 18 of 32
Potential long-term stationary noise impacts would be associated
primarily with operations at the on-site commercial uses. These commercial uses would
generate noise from truck delivery, loading/unloading activities, and other activities at the
parking lot. These activities are potential point sources of noise that could affect noise-sensitive
receptors adjacent to the loading areas, such as the proposed residential uses on site.
For example, there is an auto tire shop located on the project site near
the center of the Foothill Boulevard frontage that would project noise to the surrounding
proposed residences. This business is scheduled to be removed; however, it is possible it will
continue operation for some period after the apartment portion of the project is built. Noise
sources from the auto tire shop include customer-generated noises as well as noises associated
with auto services, such as pneumatic drills, hydraulic lifts, and other machinery or equipment
typically used in such operations.
It is anticipated that the closest project residences will be located no less
than 100 feet from the auto service area. Peak noise levels associated with the auto service
activities would range up to BO dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Noise attenuation from a point source will
drop off at 6 dBA per doubling of the distance, resulting in a noise reduction of 6 dBA at 100 feet
from the source. Therefore, the homes 100 feet from these auto service. activities would
experience noise levels up to 74 dBA Lmax. This range of maximum noise levels is lower than
the daytime exterior noise standards of 75 dBA Lmax; however, even with windows closed, it
exceeds the daytime interior noise standards of 45 dBA Lmax. A 6-foot-high concrete masonry
wall surrounding the tire shop would provide a minimum of 6 dBA in noise attenuation to the
nearby residences, thus reducing the daytime interior noise levels to below the standard (80
dBA — 6 dBA — 24 dBA — 6 dBA = 44 dBA). It is assumed that the auto service operations do
not occur after 10:00 p.m.
Further, delivery trucks for the anticipated on-site office/retail/restaurant
uses would result in a maximum noise similar to noise readings from loading and unloading
activities for other projects, which generates a noise level of 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Based on
the site plan, the restaurant will be located in the southwest corner of the site, more than 400
feet from the nearest proposed on-site residence and more than 600 feet from existing
residences to the north. Therefore, with the distance divergence, loading/ unloading noise
would potentially reach up to 57 dBA Lmax at the ground level of the nearest residences to the
east and 53 dBA Lmax at the ground level of the nearest residences to the north. This potential
maximum noise level would not exceed the daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dBA;
however, it would exceed the nighttime exterior 55 dBA L25 standard at the nearest proposed
on-site residence if the noise lasts more than 15 minutes in any hour. Although a typical truck
unloading process takes an average of 15-20 minutes, this maximum noise level occurs in a
much shorter period of time, (i.e., in a few minutes). As long as the maximum noise level occurs
in a time period less than 15 minutes in any hour, a nighttime exterior 60 dBA L17 standard will
not be exceeded. Therefore, noise associated with loading and unloading activities at the
restaurant would not result in noise levels exceeding either the daytime or nighttime exterior
standards at the nearest residences to the north or the east.
Standard building construction in southern California would provide 24
dBA or more in noise reduction from exterior to interior with windows and doors closed and 12
dBA or more with windows and doors open. With windows closed, the maximum interior noise
attributable to the restaurant loading/unloading activities would be reduced to 33 dBA Lmax. With
windows open, it would be reduced to 45 dBA Lmax. Thus, only with windows open could the
12
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 19 of 32
nighttime interior noise standard of 40 dBA Lm,, be exceeded. Therefore, the restaurant
deliveries must be restricted to daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
In sum, because the tire shop may operate for a time after the residential
units of the Project are constructed and occupied, Mitigation Measure 4.2.36 will be
implemented to reduce any potential significant impact to a less than significant level. Further
because the maximum interior noise attributable to the retail/office loading/unloading activities
would only be reduced to 41 dBA Lmax at the existing residences to the north (which exceeds the
nighttime interior noise standard of 40 dBA Lm,,), Mitigation Measure 4.2.26 will be
implemented which will require delivery hours to be restricted ensuring the nighttime interior
noise standard will not be exceeded by the operations of the Project.
B. Traffic
1. Opening Year 2009 with Commercial Conditions Traffic and Level of
Service Impacts
The EIR examined traffic impacts at Opening Year 2009 with Commercial
Conditions of the Project and determined that a significant impact will result with regard to
Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
4.3.1A The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of
Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City
begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall
pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a minimum level of service
standard of D. With the addition of the commercial portion of project traffic to the year 2009
baseline scenario, the intersection level of service at the following intersection would result in
less than the minimum service standard:
• Hermosa Avenue/Church Street. The intersection would result in
LOS F conditions in the P.M. peak hour.
As identified above, the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection is
forecast to exceed the satisfactory level of service of D in 2009 with the commercial conditions
of the project. However, in the.2009 without project scenario, the Hermosa Avenue/Church
Street intersection would also operate at LOS F during the P.M. peak hour which is an
unsatisfactory level of service, and at 2007 existing conditions, this P.M. peak hour is at LOS E.
However, because the forecast level of service at this intersection exceeds the minimum service
standard of D in the year 2009 plus commercial scenario, a significant impact will result.
13
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 20 of 32
To ensure that potential impacts to the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street
intersection is reduced to less than significant levels, the above articulated mitigation measure
shall be put in place. With these improvements, the P.M. peak hour LOS level for the Hermosa
Avenue/Church Street intersection operating under 2009 Project with Commercial Conditions
will be reduced to LOS C and will be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance.
2. Opening Year 2009 with Residential Project Conditions Traffic and Level
of Service Impacts
The EIR examined traffic impacts at Opening Year 2009 with Residential
Conditions of the Project and determined that a significant impact will result with regard to
Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
4.3.1 A The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of
Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City
begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall
pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a minimum level of service
standard of D. With the addition of the residential portion of the project traffic to the year 2009
baseline scenario, the intersection levels of service at the following intersection would result in
less than the minimum service standard:
• Hermosa Avenue/Church Street. The intersection would operate
at LOS F conditions in the P.M. peak hour.
However, even without the project (i.e., with just the 2009 baseline), the
above intersection would operate at LOS F during the P.M. peak hour, which is an
unsatisfactory level of service. Further, at existing 2007 conditions, the P.M. peak hour LOS
level is at LOS E. Impacts to this intersection are considered a significant impact of the
proposed project.
To ensure that potential impacts to the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street
intersection is reduced to less than significant levels, the above articulated mitigation measure
shall be put in place. With these improvements, the P.M. peak hour LOS level for the Hermosa
Avenue/Church Street intersection operating under 2009 Project with Residential Conditions will
be reduced to LOS C and will be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance.
3. Opening Year 2009 with Entire Project (Residential and Commercial)
Traffic and Level of Service
14
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 21 of 32
The EIR examined traffic impacts at Opening Year 2009 with Entire Project
(Residential and Commercial) of the Project and determined that a significant impact will result
with regard to Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection.
a. 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. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
4.3.1A The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of
Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City
begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall
pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
With the addition of the entire project (commercial and residential) traffic
to the year 2009 baseline scenario, the level of service at the following intersection would result
in less than the minimum service standard of LOS D:
• Hermosa Avenue/Church Street would operate at LOS F
conditions in the P.M. peak hour.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a minimum level of service
standard of D. The level of service deficiency at the Hermosa Avenue and Church Street
intersection is also forecast to occur in the year 2009 without the project; thus, the project would
not produce the LOS deficiency by itself. Nonetheless, the project does contribute to the level
of service deficiencies, resulting in a significant impact, and mitigation is required.
To ensure that potential impacts to the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street
intersection are reduced to less than significant levels, the above articulated mitigation measure
shall be put in place. With these improvements, the P.M. peak hour LOS level for the Hermosa
Avenue/Church Street intersection operating under 2009 Project with Entire Project Conditions
will be reduced to LOS C and will be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance.
VIII. Project Alternatives
A. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in the EIR.
The City considered a range of reasonable alternatives as more fully discussed in the
EIR. Some of these alternatives were rejected outright and were not analyzed in the EIR
because they would not fulfill the basic project objectives. This range included: (1) No Build
Alternative; (2) the Business Office Alternative; and (3) the Residential Portion of the Project
Alternative.
With regard to the No Build Alternative, no development would take place on the site,
and the project site would be retained in its current condition. The existing tire shop,
residences, strawberry fields, and commercial uses would remain on the property. Disallowing
development of the site, as suggested by this alternative, would impose conditions that conflict
15
11231-0001%1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 22 of 32
with the existing vision of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the site and the project area. The
No Build Alternative does not represent the highest or best use of the site. Furthermore,
retention of the project site in its current condition would not fulfill the primary objectives of the
proposed project and would not provide residential development that is attainable for low and
moderate income segments of the community or augment the City's economic base by
increasing tax-generating retail uses within the City. The substantial economic and land use
benefits derived from the development of the proposed project would be forfeited.
Consequently, the No Build Alternative was rejected from further consideration in the EIR.
With regard to the Business Office Alternative, the Business Office Alternative consists
of the development of the project site entirely with office uses. The development of the entire
site with such uses would not provide the varied retail, residential, and service uses associated
with the proposed project. Additionally, the development of office uses would not provide the
additional municipal revenues expected to be generated from the proposed project; nor would it
provide residential development that is attainable for low and moderate income segments of the
community. Thus, this alternative was rejected because it would not provide the basic City
objectives for development of the project site.
Third, the Residential Portion of the Project Alternative would only consist of the
development of 166 apartments that are proposed as part of the project. The office and
commercial portions would not be developed as part of this alternative. The development of a
portion of the site with residential uses would not provide the varied retail and service uses
associated with the proposed project. Similar to the alternative for office uses, the development
of apartments alone would not provide the additional municipal revenues expected to be
generated from the proposed project; nor would it bring new revenue-generating uses in the
City. Additionally, the development of the residential portion alone would fail to achieve the
objectives of the proposed project, in particular including promotion of "balanced, efficient
development that is functional, safe, attractive and convenient to users, and which will
strengthen the local economy," and providing "additional jobs to the local economy." This
alternative was rejected because it would not provide the basic City objectives for development
of the project site.
B. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR.
The EIR however did undertake an analysis of three other potential project alternatives.
These three alternatives were also rejected for the various reasons stated below.
1. No Project, Existing Zoning Alternative
a. Summary of Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes what would reasonably be expected
to occur, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services, in the foreseeable future. The project site is currently zoned Community Commercial
and designated for General Commercial uses. Given the goals and objectives of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga and the continuing trend of infill development in the project area, it is highly
reasonable in the event the proposed project were not approved, that the site would be
developed with some type of commercial use. Within the Commercial zone, uses including
offices, retail commercial, and general services are allowed. With the No Project Alternative,
development of a retail commercial use is assumed at a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 25
percent, allowing up to 185,000 square feet of commercial floor space.
16
11231-0001\I031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 23 of 32
b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
With the No Project, Existing Zoning Alternative, the project site is
assumed to be developed with a commercial use consistent with the City's General Plan and
Zoning. With this alternative, significant unavoidable air quality impacts would occur that do not
occur with the proposed project. In addition, impacts related to aesthetics, traffic, and noise
would be increased over those of the proposed project. The No Project, Existing Zoning
Alternative has been rejected because it would have greater impacts to air quality, noise, and
traffic than the proposed project. In addition this alternative would not meet all of the City's
objectives, which includes the failure of the alternative to "provide residential development that
is attainable for low and moderate income segments of the community."
2. Reduced Intensity Alternative
a. Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with
approximately 75 percent of the residential, commercial, office, and restaurant uses envisioned
under the proposed project. This alternative would result in 125 apartment units, a 3,750-
square foot restaurant, an 18,750-square foot office building, and 12,000 square feet of retail
shops.
b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
With the Reduced Intensity Alternative, visual resource impacts would be
similar. Impacts related to short-term construction-related air quality and noise impacts would
be reduced although similar to those identified with the proposed project. Further, long-term air
quality operational emissions under this alternative would remain less than significant, although
reduced in magnitude. Because of the reduction in vehicle trips achieved under this alternative,
impacts to the operation of local roadways and intersections would be proportionally reduced
from the proposed project. Under this alternative, the proposed project objectives are met,
although to a lesser degree. Reducing the amount of commercial square footage would
decrease the amount of revenue forecast to be generated by the proposed project. This
Reduced Intensity Alternative has been rejected, because it limits employment opportunities by
limiting commercial and office square footage and housing opportunities would be decreased
when compared to the proposed project.
3. All Residential Project Alternative
a. Summary of Alternative
With the All Residential Alternative, development of apartment units
similar to those in the proposed project would occur. This alternative assumes that the existing
restaurant on the southeastern 1.5-acre corner of the project (the Whole Enchilada) would
remain. Residential apartment uses would take place on 15.54 acres of the site and would be
developed at the same density as the proposed project with 15.75 units per acre, resulting in
245 apartment units. This alternative would result in the same removal of all other existing uses
on the property as the proposed project.
b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
17
1123 1-000 1\1031054v 3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 24 of 32
With the All Residential Project Alternative, potential impacts associated
with short-term construction related air quality and noise impacts would remain similar to those
identified with the proposed project. Impacts related to traffic operations would be proportionally
reduced in relation to the reduction in trip generation between the All Residential Project
Alternative and the proposed project. The volume of pollutants emitted during operation of the
project under this alternative would be reduced and would be less than significant. The change
in the vehicle noise achieved under this alternative would not be perceptible. With the reduction
of traffic resulting from the development of the All Residential Project Alternative, air emissions
and noise levels would be correspondingly reduced; however, the significance of air, noise, and
traffic impacts would remain similar to those of the proposed project and would be less than
significant. New housing opportunities would be created with the additional residential
apartments planned for this alternative, however, the absence of retail uses from the project site
would most likely reduce (sales tax) revenue to the City and therefore not meet all project
objectives.
4. Off Site Alternative
a. Summary of Alternative
The Off-Site Location Alternative analyzes the impacts of the proposed
project in a different location. This alternative would be composed of the same intensity and the
same uses in an alternative location. An alternative site would require adequate land, access,
and services, and must be compatible with adjacent uses. The selected location for the off-site
alternative is southeast of the proposed project, at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and
Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This site is currently zoned for industrial park
uses and is approximately 17 acres.
b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
The Off-Site Alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed
project in all impact areas with the exception of Hydrology and Water Quality which would be
reduced. The Off-Site Alternative is not in a redevelopment area and does not meet the City's
objective of locating development in infill and redevelopment areas that will minimize any
potential environmental impacts and therefore has been rejected.
5. Environmentally Superior Alternative
The EIR has identified the Reduced Intensity Alternative as the environmentally
superior alternative. However, because this alternative would meet the project objectives to a
lesser degree than the proposed Project, the alternative has been rejected. More specifically, it
limits employment opportunities by limiting commercial and office square footage and housing
opportunities would be decreased when compared to the proposed project.
C. The Project As Proposed
1. Summary of Project
The Project is described in detail in the EIR.
2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed
is
1123 1-0001\1 03 10540.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 25 of 32
The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts
of the Alternatives described in the EIR and has compared it with those of the proposed Project.
The City Council finds that the various Alternatives are infeasible for various environmental,
economic, technical, social, or other reasons as discussed above. The City Council further finds
that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interests of the
public and achieve the project goals.
More specifically, the proposed Project locates development within the Rancho
Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency project area designated for redevelopment, and as
analyzed in the FEIR, minimizes any potential environmental effects. The proposed Project also
provides 166 apartment units as workforce housing. Further, the proposed Project will make
use of the availability of existing public improvements by locating the Project in a developed
area, thereby providing maximum benefit to the general public. The proposed Project also will
help augment the City's economic base by increasing tax-generating retail uses within the City
with the addition of 16,000 square feet of retail shops, and a 5,000 square foot restaurant.
Finally, the proposed Project will be an example of balanced, efficient development that is
functional, safe, attractive, and convenient to residents and other users, and will strengthen the
local economy by the addition of 25,000 square feet of office space, as well as retail and
restaurant uses. For all of these reasons, the City Council has selected the proposed Project.
19
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 26 of 32
GENERAL PLAN -. EXISTING
l 1
J
Q
p LOW RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK
N
W
K
0
O
J LOW RESIDENTIAL
SUBJECT PROPERTY
� �•�t �..a -..,i �_,. INDUSTRIAL PARK
'.; EXfSTING GENERA4COMMERGAL`, >,
GENERAL r i x VI. 4 p.Gu�_"� n r�i + �j Lrl }y� GENERAL
COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL
�I
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL OFFICE
LOW MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
T
N
0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Miles
EXHIBIT B-1
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 27 of 32
GENERAL PLAN - PROPOSED
� 1
J
FQ_
Z
p LOW RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK
N
W
i
O
J - LOW RESIDENTIAL
2
m - INDUSTRIAL PARK
� !
co 1,
D
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL GENERAL
COMMERCIAL
-DBTHI 6
GENERAL
COMMERCIAL OFFICE
LOW MEDIUM LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL
m
T
N
0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Miles
EXHIBIT B-2
� 1 ,
M
X
W TABLE 111-2B
LAND USE PLAN STATISTICAL SUMMARY-NON-RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
CITYAREA SPHERE OF INFLUENCE TOTALS
�^1 Probable- Target
Square Feet Square Feet Square Feet Total
J Square Feet (in Dwelling (in (in Total TO Percent
Land Use Designations Acreage DwellingUnits in thousands' thousands' Acreage Units thousands' thousands' Acreage DUs of Total
w
?.NON-RESIOEf1TIAL I+,+('it.w.T s, ,1'i(i.�yta'Yi'�' r> ?ii.1- rtlY 'S. .e '� 7 ut z -rte _w.s � .,:'4?,(da. .: 7"
Office(.4-1.0 FAR) 128 2,230-5,575 2,230 128 .4
Neighborhood Commercial(.25-.35 167 - 1,819-2,546 1,819 167 .5
FAR
Community Commercial(.25-.35 99; - iJOtO ;402 1;00T >, .3
FAR
General Commercial .25-.35 FAR 528 5,750-8,050 5,750 528 2
Recreation Commercial .25-.35 FAR 9 96-137 98 9 .03
Subtotal 924 jp188817I7L10 _oiag ,92, 3
Mixed.Use .25-1.0 FAR 7,02 74644� ;5T9 6' 2 2 2
Subtotal 7.02X644130157,0 b;407 702 2
Industrial Park(.4-.6 FAR) 657 - 11,448-17,171 11,448 855 3
(Haven Overlay.4-1.0 FAR) 198 3,450-8,625 3,450
General Industrial .5-.6 FAR 2,016 43,908-52,690 43,908 2,016 6
Heavy Industrial .4-.5 FAR 904 15,751-19,689 15,751 904 3
Subtotal 3,775 74,557-98,175 74,557 3,775 12
Oen 5 ace 0-.1 du/ad 491 NA NA NA 2,512 0-158 3,003 158 10
Conservation 86 NA NA 1,262 1,348 4
Flood ControllUtility Corridor 1,705 NA NA 1,928 3,633 11
Subtotal 2,282 - 5,702 7,984 25
CiviclRe ig onal(.4-1.0 FAR 166 - 2,892-7,231 2,892 166 .5
Community College .1-.2 FAR 191 832-1,664 832 191 .6
Elementwy School 1.1-.2 FAR) 169 736-1,472 736 169 .5
High School(.1-.2 FAR) 118 514-1,028 514 1 118 .4
Junior High School .1-.2 FAR 131 571-1,141 571 131 .4
Park 371 NA NA 371 1
Subtotal 1,146 5,545-12,536 5,545 1,146 4
Arterials/Freeway 4,063 NA NA 100 4,163 13
Non-Residential Subtotal 12,892 98,644-159,000 107,407 5,802 18,694 59
GRAND TOTAL T4,600 32,692-67,387 98,644-159,000 107,407 7,152 198-2,924 31,752 55,749 100°-
Range of square footage is the product of probable upper and threshold of intensity range multiplied by the number of acres,and rounded to the whole number. _
Target intensity Is the probable level of development.
'Non-residential FAR Range:lower number Is the probable FAR on average,but in some cases it may be lower. Higher number is the maximum FAR for any specific project-
4 Mixed Use allows both residential and non-residential uses. Table III-1a reflects the residential potential:Table III-1b indicates non-residential potential. .Z1
'Dwelling units,not square footage. Open space is the only non-residential category that permits residential units. Numbers of units are maximum yield based on a target or 62.5%of(fie range. The Open N
Space designation within the City area Is applied only to existing golf courses. Residential potential Is therefore considered zero. O
°-Percentages have been rounded to equal 100. E
O
d �
Z
m O
N '
Co O
O tD
O
W Ln
N U
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 29 of 32
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA GENERAL PLAN
Page 111-30 The Planning Center
RICRA-07.0GIMa¢h 2002 Final GPIGP LU Master Report for
printma.doc October 17,2001
use adjacent arterial highways to move to other portions of
the mixed-use development.
8. Exhibit considerable flexibility in design in achieving
maximum site potential and sensitivity to adjacent uses.
9. Apply CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design) principles to provide both the reality and
perception of public safety.
10. Provide a unique and engaging experience for both
residents and visitors, similar to those often found in older
cities.
Each application of the Mixed-Use designation on the Land
Use Plan has a specific intent. Therefore, the guidance for
each one is tailored to that area. A land use table is provided
for each mixed-use designation to establish the uses to be
permitted and the general area to be devoted to each use.
Flexibility is provided in the ranges to permit combinations of
uses at a variety of overall intensities. Unless otherwise
specified, the most intensive combination is the most
desirable. The ten areas designated for Mixed-Use
development under these provisions of the General Plan are:
1. The Regional Center area, bounded by Foothill Boulevard,
Base Line Road, 1-15 and the Day Creek Flood Control
Channel;
2 A"Town Center" node at the southwest corner of Haven
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard;
3. - The north side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald
and Hellman;
4. The western entrance to the City along Foothill Boulevard
in the area generally know as Bear Gulch;
5. The Terra Vista Mixed Use Area, located along Milliken
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard; and
6. The Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 18, generally
located west of Milliken Avenue, south of the railroad
tracks, north of 4th Street, and east of Utica Avenue
7. The Foothill Boulevard— Cucamonga Channel Area, located at the base of"Red
Hill," located near the Historic Route 66 Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
8. This Historic Alta Loma—Amethyst Site, on the east side of Amethyst Street
between the neighborhood elementary school and the original commercial center.
9. The Haven and Church site, located on the south side of Church Avenue, between
Center and Haven Avenues. Once the location of a San Bernardino County Flood
Control District retention basin, the site was declared surplus because of drainage
improvements within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and became available for
private development.
10. The Foothill Boulevard site, located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard,
between.Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue, south of the residences on
Stafford Street.
EXHIBIT C-2
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 30 of 32
2.5.3.6 Mixed Use (Probable FAR of 0.40 and
Maximum FAR of 1.0)
The purpose of the Mixed-Use designation in the General Plan
is to stimulate and guide development in special opportunity
areas where land use change is desired. Mixed Use
development may occur in two ways: 1) as a combination of
uses in a single development project on a single parcel of
land; or 2) as a combination of uses on multiple parcels within
a specified district of the City. In either case, the intent is to
achieve a complete integration of the uses and their support
functions into a common concept.
The effect of mixed-use development in the ten opportunity
areas in which it is applied is to create special urban places
within the general suburban pattern of single uses somewhat
isolated from each other. While such a mixture would not be
feasible over extensive portions of the City, it can be desirable
within limited, focused areas.
The expectations commonly required of mixed use
developments through site planning, design, and use
configuration is that they:
1. Provide safe and convenient pedestrian movement into
and within the site.
2. Provide uses that are interconnected rather than being
rigidly separated.
3. Include uses that are highly urban in character, with
generally higher intensities of use than in surrounding
areas.
4. Contain usable public open space that is highly accessible
and convenient to residents and visitors.
5. Express a common design theme that may be carried out
by architectural styles, landscaping and lighting treatment,
street improvements and street furniture, or other means of
unifying the development. This does not precluded an
eclectic mix of architectural styles; only that the
development be tied together in its physical form by some
means.
6. Involve a variety of scales and spaces to provide interest
and diversity in the environment being created.
7. Include an integrated circulation system of arterial access,
internal circulation, parking facilities, pedestrian pathways,
bicycle routes, transit stops (where applicable), and related
signage. It is intended that movement within the entire
opportunity area be feasible on site without being forced to
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA GENERAL PLAN
Page 111-30 The Planning Center
P:ICRA-01.00Ma¢h 2002 Final GPIGP LU Master Report for
pdating.doc October 17, 2001
use adjacent arterial highways to move to other portions of
the mixed-use development.
8. Exhibit considerable flexibility in design in achieving
EXHIBIT C-3
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 31 of 32
IR DEVELOPING THE
COMMUNITY
2.5.5.7 Foothill Boulevard-Cucamonga Channel
Site
This 7.24-acre site is significant within Subarea 1 of the
Foothill Boulevard Districts. At the southern base of"Red Hill,"
the site is strategically located near the northwest corner
Historic Route 66 Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
Like other newly designated Mixed Use districts, this site
presents an opportunity to expand commercial office activity,
while providing an opportunity for new multi-family
development in the City. The following table specifies the
uses and range of development that is anticipated to bring
positive aspects to revitalize the area.
TABLE III-10
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD-CUCAMONGA CHANNEL SITE _
_ Land Use Mix I Percent Range Acreage Range
Medium Residential 0%- 100% 0-7.24 acres
(8-14 Dwelling Units Per Acre)'
Office - I 0%-100% 0-724 acres
`This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium-High Residential (14-24
dwelling units per acre)if developed in conjunction with a Senior Housing Overlay District(SHOD)
2.5.5.8 Historic Alta Loma —Amethyst Site
This is a relatively small (3.24 acres), but significant, site within
the historic Alta Loma commercial area. Once the location of
a large citrus packing house, the site, now vacant, is
strategically located on the east side of Amethyst Street
between the neighborhood elementary school and original
commercial center. This vacant parcel presents an
opportunity to bring new activity into the historic town center
either with new commercial office ventures, or with new
multiple family developments, possibly aimed to provide
housing for our growing senior citizen population. The
following table specifies the uses and range of development
that is anticipated to bring positive aspects to revitalize the
area:
TABLE 11I-11
ALTA LOMA AMETHYST MIXED-USE
Land Use Mix %Range Acreage Ran e -
Medium-High Residential 0%-100% 0-3.24 acres
(14-24 dwelling Units per acre)
Office 0%-100% 1 0-3.24 acres
City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Page I11-43
October 17,200 t:IP1.41VN1NGILwryIGENERAL PL MFinal2003 GP LU Marto-
EXHIBITC-4 R`Pan'a""`-"6r
Resolution No. 08-055
Page 32 of 32
2.5.5.9 Haven, and Church Site
This 14.77-acre site is located on the south side of Church
Avenue, between Center and Haven Avenues.-Once the location
of a San Bernardino County Flood Control District retention basin,
the site was declared surplus because of drainage improvements
within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and became available for
private development. The site represents a transition area
between single family residential to the north and west and
industrial/institutional (CVWD Maintenance and Office Facility) to
the south and future Office uses across haven to the east.
The following table specifies the uses and range-of development
that may be permitted on the site.
TABLE Ill-12
HAVEN AND CHURCH—FLOOD CONTROL BASIN
Land Use Mix Percent Range Acreage Range
Medium Residential _ 0%_ 1 - 0—10.95 acres
(8-14 dwelling units per acre)'
Office H.-100% 0—3.36 acres
This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre).
2.5.5.10 Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue
and Center Avenue
This 17-acre site is significant within Subarea 3 of the Foothill
Boulevard Districts. The site is located on the north side of
Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center
Avenue. A Master Plan of the site includes a proposed 10.54
acre 166-unit workforce multi-family housing project, an
existing restaurant at the northwest corner of Foothill and
Center, and a future commercial, office, and restaurant land
use at the northeast corner of Hermosa and Foothill.
The following table specifies the uses and range of
development that may be permitted on the site.
TABLE III-13
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SITE—MIXED USE
Land Use Mix Percent Range Acreage Range
Medium/Medium High Residential' 0%-62% ' 0—10.54 acres
(Up to 20 dwelling units per acre)
Commercial—Retail, office 0%- 100% 0—17 acres
(commercial and professional)and
Restaurant
This Mixed Use site may consist of a mix of Medium to Medium High Residential uses, which may include
Multiple Family Residential land uses of up to 20 dwelling units per acre developed subject to the applicable
density range requirements.