HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-75 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 04-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR TRACY
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS,AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF,AS
TO TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT14749, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
OF 168.77 ACRES INTO 269 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT,
LOCATED NORTH OF THE SCE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND
EAST AVENUE ; AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ADOPT THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, ADOPT A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND MAKE FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION, GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT, ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO—APN: 0225-083-05,
06, 07, 10, 22, 23, 25, AND 26, AND 0225-084-02.
A. Recitals.
1. Traigh Pacific filed an application for the approval of Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT14749, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Tentative Tract Map request is referred to as "the application."
2. Traigh Pacific also filed applications for Annexation DRC2003-01051, General Plan
Amendment DRC2003-00410, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, and
Development Agreement DRC2003-00411, which are related to Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749.
Collectively, these applications are referred to as the "Project."
3. The Planning Commission is the final decision makeron Tentative Map SUBTT13749,
subject to appeal to the City Council, whereas the Planning Commission's role as to the remaining
applications is advisory to the City Council,which must make the final decision on those applications.
4. The City analyzed the Project's potential impacts on the environment in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and
the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) promulgated
with respect thereto.
5. The City prepared an Initial Environmental Study (the "Initial Study') for the Project
pursuant to Section 15063 of the Guidelines.
6. The Initial Study concluded that there was evidence that the Project might have a
significant environmental impact on several specifically identified resources, including air quality and
biological resources.
7. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the
preparation of an environmental impact report (the "EIR") for the Project in accordance with the
provisions of Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081. The City prepared and issued a Notice of
Preparation of the EIR on August 11, 2003.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-75
CERTIFY EIR, ADOPT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
ADOPT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS—TRAIGH PACIFIC
June 9, 2004
Page 2
8. The City sent the Notice of Preparation to the State Clearinghouse in the Office of
Planning and Research for the State of California (the"State Clearinghouse")and to other interested
agencies and groups in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a).
9. In accordance with Guidelines Section 15083,the Planning Commission conducted a
duly noticed public scoping session concerning the EIR on October 22, 2003, to provide an
introduction to the Project and CEQA process and to afford an opportunity for the public and
interested agencies to comment on the issues to be analyzed in the EIR.
10. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "DEIR"), together with those certain
technical appendices(the"Appendices")was completed on December 4,2003(State Clearinghouse
No. 2003081085).
11. The City circulated the DEIR and the Appendices to the public, the State
Clearinghouse, and other interested persons for a 45-day public review and comment period from
December 5, 2003, through January 28, 2004.
12. The City received seven written comments in response to the DEIR.
13. The City prepared written responses to all comments and made revisions and
additions to the DEIR in response to the comments.
14. The City completed the responses to comments on the DEIR and preliminary
revisions to the DEIR in April 2004, and distributed those responses to commenting agencies and to
the public. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final
Environmental Impact Report("FEIR"), as have the appendices to the Draft EIR. Those documents
together comprise the Final EIR. The Final EIR was distributed in accordance with the provisions of
Public Resources Code section 21092.5, and at least ten (10) days prior to any Planning
Commission consideration of the FEIR.
15. On the 9th day of June 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the FEIR, at which time all interested parties
were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the FEIR.
16. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A of this Resolution, are true and correct.
2. Each finding herein is based upon the substantial evidence in the administrative
record of proceedings before the Planning Commission, including testimony at the public hearing on
June 9, 2004, the Final EIR, and written and oral staff reports.
3. Based upon the Initial Study and the record before the Planning Commission, the
Planning Commission finds that the Project would not cause significant environmental impacts in the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-75
CERTIFY EIR, ADOPT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
ADOPT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS —TRAIGH PACIFIC
June 9, 2004
Page 3
areas of Land Use, Population and Housing, Energy and Mineral Resources, Agriculture, and
Recreation. Explanations for why the Planning Commission determined that the Project will have no
impact or will cause a less than significant impact to the foregoing resources are contained in the
"Findings Related to the Tracy Development Project and Environmental Impact Report in Compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)" set forth in Exhibit"A," attached hereto, and
incorporated herein by this reference.
4. Based upon the FEIR and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning
Commission finds that the Project, as mitigated,would not cause significant environmental impacts
in the areas of Earth Resources, Water Resources, Transportation and Circulation, Hazards, Noise,
Public Services, Utilities, and Cultural Resources. Explanations for why the foregoing impacts were
found to be mitigated to a level of less than significant are fully discussed in the"Findings Related to
the Tracy Development Project and Environmental Impact Report in Compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)"set forth in Exhibit "A,"attached hereto, and incorporated herein
by this reference.
5. Based upon the FEIR and the record before the Planning Commission,the Planning
Commission finds that the Project would create significant unavoidable impacts in the impact
categories of Air Quality (short-term pollutants and long-term operational impacts), Biological
Resources, and Aesthetics. These impacts that are not fully mitigated to a level of less than
significant are further described in the "Findings Related to the Tracy Development Project and
Environmental Impact Report in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)"
set forth in Exhibit'A"attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference. The construction-
related significant impacts to Air Quality that would arise from the Project are associated with
construction equipment and grading activities and that would be temporary in nature, while the
operational impacts to Air Quality would be long-term in nature. The long-term impacts to Biological
Resources can be attributed to loss of alluvial fan vegetation. The short-term impacts to Aesthetics
are construction related,whereas the long-term impacts to are associated with transformation of the
existing natural terrain into a developed and planned community.
6. Based upon the FEIR and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning
Commission finds that the Project may produce potentially significant cumulative impacts related to
land use, flood control, water quality, biological resources, hazardous materials, schools, utilities,
and aesthetics. Further, the proposed project does create impacts related to air quality, biological
resources, and aesthetics that are not fully mitigated and so will contribute incrementally to these
cumulatively considerable impacts as well. With the exception of the cumulative impacts listed hen:,
the project's cumulative impacts are not significant. Further explanation for this determination may
be found in the "Findings Related to the Tracy Development Project and Environmental Impact
Report in Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)"set forth in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
7. Section 6.0 of the FEIR describes, and the Planning Commission has fully
considered, a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill the basic objectives of
the Project. These alternatives include"Alternative 6.1 -- No Project-No Development Alternative,"
"Alternative 6.2 -- No Project-Open Space Alternative," "Alternative 6.3 -- Reduced Intensity
Alternative," "Alternative 6.4-- Modified Site Plan Alternative,"and"Alternative 6.5-- Rural Density
Alternative." The Planning Commission further finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate
alternatives into the preparation of the FEIR and that all reasonable alternatives were considered in
the review process of the FEIR.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-75
CERTIFY EIR, ADOPT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
ADOPT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS—TRAIGH PACIFIC
June 9, 2004
Page 4
As set forth in the"Findings,"attached hereto as Exhibit"A,"the alternatives identified in the
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, would 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.
8. Based on the FEIR and the "Findings," attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission finds that implementation of mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and imposed as a condition of the approval of the Project will
substantially mitigate many of the environmental impacts described in paragraph 4 of this section,to
the extent feasible, as described in the"Findings." The Final EIR also identifies significant adverse
impacts that cannot be fully mitigated or avoided, including impacts from short-term and long-term air
quality from construction-related emissions and vehicle trips, cumulative impacts to biological
resources, cumulative impacts to land use(consistency with NEOSHPP), flood control,waterquality
from urban runoff, hazardous material dumping, congestion of evacuation routes, overcrowded
schools, inadequate utilities, and loss of views.
9. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program,attached hereto
as Exhibit "B," and incorporated herein by this reference, 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 Exhibit "A,"
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 long-term impacts on air quality from project emissions,
cumulative impacts related to land use, flood control, water quality from urban runoff, loss of alluvial
fan sage scrub, hazardous material dumping, congestion of evacuation routes,overcrowded schools,
inadequate utilities, and loss of views.
10. The Planning Commission finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to the
CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations,
Section 15000, et. seq. (the Guidelines). The Planning Commission also finds that the Final EIR
represents the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
and adequately addresses the impacts of the project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures
for the project. The Planning Commission has also reviewed and considered the contents of the
Final EIR, and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the project and as to whether and
how to approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749.
11. The Planning Commission finds that the additional information provided in the staff
report, in attachments to the staff report, in the comments to the EIR, and presented at the public
hearing, does not represent significant new information so as to require re-circulation of the EIR
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.1.
12. The Planning Commission hereby certifies the Final EIR as being the environmental
document for the Project and for the Planning Commission action in approving Tentative Tract Map
SUBTT14749,which Final EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA,and which facts and findings
set forth herein, and in Exhibit"A"hereto, are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative
record.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-75
CERTIFY EIR, ADOPT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
ADOPT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS—TRAIGH PACIFIC
June 9, 2004
Page 5
13. 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 Planning Commission also hereby adopts the "Mitigation
Monitoring Plan" attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 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 Exhibit "B."
14. Due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the
EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph 7 above, the Planning Commission hereby finds that
any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from short-
term and long-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and project emissions,
cumulative impacts related to land use,flood control, water quality from urban runoff, loss of alluvial
fan sage scrub, hazardous material dumping, congestion of evacuation routes,overcrowded schools,
inadequate utilities, and loss of views, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in
Exhibit 'A" which is incorporated herein by this reference. This determination shall constitute a
statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on the
environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR, in the"Findings,"attached
hereto as Exhibit 'A" and in the record of the Planning Commission's proceedings. The specific
benefits that outweigh the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the project
include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Providing 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;
b. Annexing the project site into the City of Rancho Cucamonga;
C. Integrating the project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods
and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth;
d. Establishing a project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local
transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians;
e. Providing 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. Limiting Impacts to surrounding uses and residents, and to the community
character;
g. Providing backbone public infrastructure(i.e. roads, utilities)to serve project
residents and the surrounding community;
h. Minimizing impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for, various
public service agencies, and
i. Providing quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and 'planned
development that responds to market demands.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 04-75
CERTIFY EIR, ADOPT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM,
ADOPT STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS—TRAIGH PACIFIC
June 9, 2004
Page 6
15. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings
which include, but are not limited to, the staff report for the project, as well as all of the materials that
comprise and support the Final El and support the staff reports concerning the project, are located
in the office of the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. The custodian of these documents is the City Planner of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
16. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b),
this application shall not be operative, vested or final until the Notice of Determination (NOD) is filed
and posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Bernardino and all
required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, together
with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. In
the event this application is determined exempt from such filing fees pursuant to the provisions of the
California Fish and Game Code, or the guidelines promulgated thereunder, condition shall be
deemed null and void.
17. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2004.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Larry McNiel, Vice Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bu ecret
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 9th day of June 2004, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS
1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
Findings Related to the Tracy Development Project and
Environmental Impact Report in Compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
June 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Introduction......................................................................................................................2
II. Project Summary..............................................................................................................2
III. Summary of Findings.......................................................................................................4
IV. Environmental Impacts Not Requiring Mitigation.......................................................4
A. Land Use ................................................................................................................4
B. Population and Housing.........................................................................................6
C. Energy and Mineral Resources ..............................................................................7
D. Agriculture .............................................................................................................8
E. Recreation...............................................................................................................9
V. Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less Than Significant......................9
A. Earth Resources.................................................................................................... 10
B. Water Resources................................................................................................... 15
C. Transportation and Circulation.............................................................................20
D. Hazards.................................................................................................................25
E. Noise.....................................................................................................................29
F. Public Services.....................................................................................................34
G. Utilities.................................................................................................................38
H. Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................43
VI. Environmental Impacts Not Fully Mitigated to a Level of Less Than
Significant.......................................................................................................................46
A. Air Quality............................................................................................................46
B. Biological Resources............................................................................................54
C. Aesthetics.............................................................................................................62
VII. Project Alternatives........................................................................................................65
A. No Project-No Development Alternative.............................................................66
B. No Project-Open Space Alternative.....................................................................66
C. Reduced Intensity Alternative..............................................................................67
D. Modified Site Plan Alternative.............................................................................70
E. Rural Density Alternative.....................................................................................72
F. Comparison of Alternative...................................................................................75
CADocurnents and Settings\john.nelson%L al
Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK30Tinal Tracy
Findings.DOC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
VIII. Growth-Inducing Impacts.............................................................................................77
IX. Unavoidable and Irreversible Impacts.........................................................................78
X. Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations..................................79
A. Legal Requirements..............................................................................................79
B. Project Benefits ....................................................................................................79
XI. Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report.................................................81
A. Findings:...............................................................................................................81
B. Conclusions:.........................................................................................................81
XII. Custodian of Record.......................................................................................................81
C\Documents and Settings\john.nelson\Local
Settings\Ternporary Internet fi1es\0LK30\Fina1 Tracy
Findings.DOC
FACTS, FINDINGS, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
TRACY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
(SCH#2003081085)
I.1 INTRODUCTION
The City Council ("Council') and Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga ("City") in certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") related to the
Tracy Development Project, makes the findings described below and adopts the statement of
overriding considerations presented in Section X. These findings are based on the entire
administrative record on this matter, including the EIR. The EIR was prepared by the City
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
Il. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Tracy Development Project is proposed to consist of a maximum of 269 single-
family residences with a minimum lot size of 8,400 square feet and an average lot size of 11,600
square feet, with a density of approximately 2.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) on 108.9 acres
plus 59.9 acres of conservation lands totaling 168.8 acres. This 168.8 acres of land is bordered
on the west by Etiwanda Avenue, on the east by Etiwanda Creek, and on the north and south by
two Southern California Edison high voltage power line corridors currently within the
jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino ("Project site").
The applicant Traigh-Pacific (d.b.a. Tracy Building Corporation) (the "Applicant") has
filed a request for land use actions necessary for the development of the Tracy Development
Project ("Project'), including the Project Site Annexation DRC2003-01051 into the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410, Etiwanda
North Pacific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and
Development Agreement DRC2003-00411, and other related actions for the Project site,
currently within the jurisdiction of the County of San Bernardino.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code, §
21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the
City is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with general governmental powers
for the Project site after annexation. The City, as lead agency, determined that an EIR should be
prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all potential adverse environmental impacts of
the Project.
The City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a Draft EIR on August 11, 2003 and
circulated the NOP for a period of 30 days, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections
2
15082(a), 15103 and 15375. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the City
solicited comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and
content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory
responsibility, as well as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and
mitigation measures that the responsible agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIR.
Accordingly, approximately nine written statements were received by the City in response to the
NOP, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft
EIR.
A public scoping meeting was held on October 22, 2003 to familiarize the public with the
Project and the environmental review process and receive input as to the scope of the Draft EIR
and issues of community concern. The Draft EIR was completed and released for public review
on or about December 4, 2003, and the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a
Notice of Completion and Availability with the State Office of Planning and Research.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092, the City also provided a Notice of
Completion and Availability to all organizations and individuals who had previously requested
such notice and published the Notice of Completion on December 4, 2003 in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Project area. Copies of the Draft EIR were provided to interested public
agencies, organizations and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR at
the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department counter and the public library, and made
free copies available to the public.
During the 45-day comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments
from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies and others pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines section 15086. All potential significant adverse environmental impacts were
sufficiently analyzed in the Draft EIR. During the official public review period for the Draft
EIR, the City received approximately seven written comments. After production of the Final
EIR, the City received one additional written comment.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided written responses
to comments to all commenting agencies within the statutory time frame. The City prepared the
Final EIR and, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided copies of
the Final EIR to all commenting agencies. The Planning Commission of the City, at its regularly
scheduled public meetings on May 12, 2004, reviewed the Draft EIR and the Final EIR.
As contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its
decision on the Project. All the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the
City's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the EIR, which is sufficiently
detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been
adequately evaluated. The EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes
both the feasible mitigation measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the Project's
potential environmental impacts and a range of feasible alternatives capable of eliminating or
reducing these effects in accordance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's
Local CEQA Guidelines.
3
All of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council and Planning Commission
pursuant to this findings attachment are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it
as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this findings attachment.
Environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR which the City finds are less than significant
and do not require mitigation are described in Section IV. Environmental impacts identified in
the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less
than significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final
EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section V. Environmental impacts identified in the
Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level
of less than significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI. Alternatives to the Project that might
eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section VII.
Prior to taking action, the City Council and Planning Commission have heard, been
presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative
record, including the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it
during all meetings and hearings. The Draft EIR and Final EIR reflect the independent judgment
of the City Councilor Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for purposes of making
decisions on the merits of the Project. No comments made in the public hearings conducted by
the City or any additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new
information requiring recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.5.
IIl. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
At a public hearing assembled on June 9, 2004, the City determined that based on all of
the evidence presented, including the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given
at meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations and
regulatory agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: 1) less
than significant and do not require mitigation; or 2) potentially significant and each of these
impacts will be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level through identified and feasible
mitigation measures; or 3) significant and will be lessened by the identified and feasible
mitigation measures.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project
are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures:
A. Land Use
Physical Division of a Community: Most of the land immediately surrounding the
Project is presently vacant. (Final EIR, p. 13.) As such, there is no community that the Project
4
could physically divide. However, the area in the vicinity of the Project site is experiencing a
slow transition from rural and open space uses to more suburban uses, with the most recent
project proposed immediately south of the site. (Ibid.) The Project is generally compatible with
the suburban-style development that is likely to occur in this area (i.e., 2-3 units/acre). (Final
EIR, p. 16.) The Project is also compatible with existing residential development to the
southwest and south (3+ units/acre). (Final EIR, p. 13.) Since the Project will blend in well with
future development that will occur in the Project area, the Project's development will not
physically divide a community. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to this aspect of
land use, and no mitigation is necessary.
Consistency with Land Use Plans, Policies, or Regulations: Certain portions of the
Project site are currently designated as Very Low Density Residential ("VL") in the land use
plan for the Etiwanda North Specific Plan ("ENSP"). (Final EIR, p. 37.) The VL designation
allows a maximum density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre ("du/ac") with a minimum lot size of
20,000 square feet. (Ibid.) The densities outlined in the Project would be inconsistent with this
density designation as lot sizes are set at a minimum of 8,400 square feet and an overall
residential density of 2.5 du/ac, although its gross density is within the VL designation (1.6
du/ac). (Final EIR, p. 42.) However, concurrent with tentative map approval, and as part of this
Project as defined, a General Plan Amendment and a Specific Plan Amendment are to be
submitted so that densities, and other Project features, are consistent with all applicable City
planning documents. Specifically, the General Plan and the ENSP are to be modified to permit
Low Density (2-4 dwelling units per acre) development for the Project site. As such, the Project,
so defined as to include the proposed amendments, along with and including its park, equestrian
trail, landscaping plan, and other design considerations is consistent with the intent and goals of
the City's General Plan, the ENSP, and the City's Equestrian Overlay Zone. (See Final EIR, pp.
33-45.) Also, the proposed Project is consistent with the policies contained in the Southern
California Association of Governments' Regional Comprehensive Plan and Western Riverside
Sub-Regional Plan policies regarding population growth, housing, and employment forecasts, the
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, the Santa Ana Region Water Quality Control Basin
Plan, the County of San Bernardino's Master Plan for roads, flood control activities, regional
parks and trails, and the Water and Sewer Master Plans for the Cucamonga County Water
District ("CCWD"). (Final EIR, p. 39.) Further, this Project is defined so that prior to recordation
of each phase, or issuance of grading permits for each phase, the Project's developer is to submit
and obtain approval of a landscape plan that demonstrates compliance with the City's
Neighborhood Theme Plan in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Department. This requirement will further ensure that the Project's design remains
consistent with the City's ENSP and land use policies. (Final EIR, p. 45.) In addition, the ENSP
contains a provision that all lots less than 20,000 square feet shall provide an in-lieu contribution
of $1000 per lot for development of an Equestrian Center. The .44 acre equestrian park in the
southeast portion of the Project implements this goal. (Final EIR, p. 42.) Also, the Project is
required to comply with the City's Development Code. (Final EIR, p. 44.)
Neither San Bernardino County nor the City have adopted a Habitat Conservation Plan
("HCP") or a Natural Community Conservation Plan ("NCCP"). (Final EIR, p. 38.) The County,
however, has previously worked on a San Bernardino Valley Multi-Species HCP that could
potentially include the Project area. (Ibid.) However, it is currently on hold. (Ibid.) Possible
impacts to the potential San Bernardino HCP are only speculative since such a plan does not yet
5
exist. As such, no mitigation is required under CEQA in regard to the Project's potential
inconsistency with this non-existent HCP. Also, in 1992, the County formed the North Etiwanda
Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program to identify existing open space lands having
specific resource value and to provide guidelines to encourage the preservations of these lands.
(Ibid.) Specific resources of value include critical biological habitats, unique plant communities,
riparian areas, wildlife corridor connections, and lands with special scenic, archeological, or
historical value. I( bid.) Lands can also be included that provide connections between resource
areas and help reduce fragmentation of the resources. (Ibid.) This voluntary program also
encourages landowners to use these mechanisms to promote preservation of resource areas.
(Ibid.) Development of the Project would prevent the Project site from being included in this
voluntary program. However, since the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation
Program is a voluntary program, the decision of the Applicant not to participate does not cause
any inconsistency. The Project's impacts to biological resources, and proposed mitigation
measures for such impacts are fully discussed in the EIR. (See Biological Resources below.)
The Project site is presently owned by three landowners; Traigh Pacific, GE and EM
Madrid, and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. (Final EIR, p. 33.) Absent proper
City policies, this situation could have significant impacts if improvements are planned or
required on the property of an owner that withdraws from the Project or is unwilling to abide by
agreements made by the other owners. (Ibid.) However, this Project requires that all mitigation
measures proposed, as specified in these Findings and the Final EIR, are binding upon the
Project developer or any future developer of the Project site. This requirement is consistent with
City policy and State law. As such this is not a potentially significant impact.
B. Population and Housing
The Project site is currently vacant, so the proposed Project will not displace existing
housing or population that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
(Final EIR, p. 46.) The population and housing of the San Bernardino Association of
Governments ("SanBAG") area, including the Project area, are expected to increase by
approximately 60 percent over the next 20 years. I( bid.) Similarly, the population and housing of
the City, including its Sphere of Influence and the Project area, are expected to increase by 45
percent from 2000 to 2020. (Ibid.) This Project, therefore, provides new housing in an area with
a substantial demand for new housing.
At the same time, the Project is expected to generate approximately 831 new City
residents, based on the proposed 269 dwelling units times the current City average household
size figure of 3.147 persons per household (California Department of Finance 2003). (Final EIR,
p. 47.) The projected Project population therefore represents 1.5 percent of the total 58,000 new
people expected in the City of Rancho Cucamonga through 2020, or 0.5 percent of the total City
population by 2020. (Ibid.) Similarly, the Project's housing represents 1.4 percent of the 19,500
new housing expected in the City by 2020, or 0.3 percent of the total City housing. (Ibid.) By
comparison, the Project population represents only 0.08 percent of the projected population and
0.03 percent of the projected housing of the SanBAG region for the same period. (Ibid.) The
Project is expected to result in occupancy of approximately 80 residential units per year for a
little over 3 years, which equals 8.2 percent of the projected housing growth for the City during
6
that time (19,500 units divided by 20 years = 975 units per year City-wide). (Ibid.)The Project is
therefore well within the growth limits of the City and this portion of San Bernardino County.
Thus, the Project appropriately contributes to the City and SANBAG's objectives of
meeting housing demands and its impact to population and housing is, therefore, less than
significant. (Ibid.)
C. Enemy and Mineral Resources
In accordance with SMARA, the City's General Plan has developed appropriate strategies
toyaddress the proper placement of mineral resource operations within the City's planning area.
(General Plan, p. N-38) These strategies reflect land use patterns recognizing both the regional
value of existing aggregate resources in the planning area, and balances the projected needs for
such resources against future development. (General Plan, p. IV-39) Aggregate material is
necessary for urban construction and having a local source of this material is advantageous for
builders (General Plan, p. IV-7) However, development of the Project will not substantially
impact the supply of available aggregate mineral resources for the region as a whole. Currently, a
rock crushing plant is located within Day Creek, the only active aggregate operation within the
City's sphere of influence. (General Plan, p. IV-11) The Project will not effect the operation of
this facility. Despite the presence of this facility within the City, the City has recognized that
sand and gravel deposits available for mining operations within the Rancho Cucamonga area are
limited, and will continue to be limited, due to conflicts between urban growth and mining
operations. (General Plan, p. IV-12) Indeed, the General Plan specifically considers the regional
significance of these resources, but concludes that the general existence of aggregate resources
within the City should not preclude development. (General Plan, p. IV-39)
The City's General Plan provisions regarding mineral resources (Section 2.2.1, pages IV-
7 through IV-13 and IV-41) establishes that neither the Project site or the East Etiwanda Creek
contain "regionally significant aggregate resources," and that the Project site does not warrant
any special designation or protection regarding the presence of mineral resources. The Project
site is about a mile southeast of Sector D-16 which comprises a portion of the alluvial fan of Day
Creek. (Final Supp., p. 9.) Data indicates that the majority of the aggregate resources from this
area are concentrated along the larger Deer and Day Creeks, approximately three miles east of
Etiwanda Creek. (Ibid.) In contrast, there are no active or planned mining activities on or near
the Project site. (Final Supp., p. 10.) Instead, the City's General Plan indicates the Project area is
already planned for residential development, and the Project site has existing or planned
residential development adjacent to the west, south, and east across the creek, and major power
lines border the site on the north and south. (Ibid.) It is therefore reasonable to conclude that
development of the Project site would not represent a significant impact to this area's and
region's mineral resources. (Final Supp., p. 10-11.) The City will continue its efforts to establish
the most appropriate boundaries for mineral resource zones within the City, as outlined in the
General Plan. The City is also working to implement these policies in a timely fashion as
indicted in Appendix 6 of the General Plan.
Further, if mineral resource extraction were to be proposed one day for the Etiwanda
creek channel or other adjacent or nearby properties designated by the State and the City as
7
having regionally significant resources, the General Plan provides for a harmonization of
potentially conflicting land uses through the development of special buffering measures.
(General Plan, p. IV-40). All together then, development of the Project will not cause a
significant impact to mineral resources because any possible resources onsite are not designated
as significant by the City, and the Project would not significantly impact future extractions in the
Project area. That being said, although the Project's impact to mineral resources is less than
significant, there is no way to avoid covering over most of the Project site with man-made
surfaces (e.g., streets, turf, etc.). Also, none of the alternatives would preserve a large enough
area of land that could be mined without creating significant impacts on the residential portion of
the Project or nearby existing or future residential areas.
1
Development of the Project will consume non-renewable fossil fuels, mainly in the form
of gasoline and diesel fuel for construction vehicles. (Final EIR, p. 151.) Operation of the Project
will also consume non-renewable fossil fuels, mainly the consumption of natural gas, the
generation of electricity, and vehicle fuels for residents, employees, and Project visitors. (Ibid.)
At build-out, the Project will consume approximately 4,085 kilowatt-hours per day of electricity
and about 58,874 cubic feet per day of natural gas (Ibid., see also Final EIR Section 3.12,
Utilities.). Further, assuming an average consumption of 18 miles per gallon, a total of 3,284
gallons of gasoline will be consumed by the Project on a daily basis. (Final EIR, p. 152.)
Although this represents a substantial increase in energy use on the Project site over existing
levels, Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Co. have indicated in writing
that they can accommodate this increase, but with the caveat that they do remain subject to
regulatory actions by the California Public Utilities Commission that could affect their service
abilities. (Final EIR, p. 151.) However, on a statewide level, the Project will only cause a minor
and insignificant increase in the usage of energy. Further, the Project will comply with all
applicable energy conservation regulations, including Section IV, Managing Environmental
Resources, of the City's General Plan and Title 24 of the California Code dealing with energy
conservation design in residential structures. (Final EIR, p. 152.) The Project will also conform
to the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code, and the Uniform Plumbing Code to
assure safe installation of electrical and natural gas systems. (Final EIR, p. 153.) Compliance
with all these standard codes, and regulatory requirements will ensure that the Project will be
developed in a manner that is consistent with the City's high energy efficiency standards for new
housing developments. As such, the impact to energy resources will not be significant. I( bid.)
D. Agriculture
While locations near the Project have supported extensive agriculture in the past, the
Project site and surrounding area has never been used for productive agriculture due to the
Project site's rocky soils and the area's strong seasonal winds. (Final EIR, p. 209-211.) Aerial
photographs of the immediate area surrounding the Project, dating back as far as 1980, do not
indicate any active agricultural activities. (Ibid.) For these reasons, development of the site will
not have any adverse impacts related to agricultural resources. (Ibid.)
In addition, the Project does not conflict with existing zoning related to agriculture uses,
nor does it conflict with a Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contract. (Ibid.) Also, the
proposed Project will not result in off-site conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses.
8
(Ibid.) Further, the Project site does not contain or support any prime or otherwise important
agricultural soils. (Ibid.) Therefore, there will be no significant impacts related to agricultural
resources. I( bid.)
E. Recreation
The City General Plan requires new projects to provide 5.0 acres of parkland per 1000
population. (Final EIR, p 212.) Under this standard, the Project is required to provide 4.37 acres
of parkland based on 269 planned units times the City's current occupancy rate or 3.25 persons
per household (269 units times 3.25 persons per unit equals 874 project residents divided by 5
acres/1000 residents equals 4.37 acres). (Ibid.) The Project will provide 5.81 acres of parks and
.44 acres of equestrian trails, which exceeds the City's requirement. (Ibid.)
Ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the open space/park lands require ongoing effort,
and the City typically identifies the method of maintenance prior to approving new parkland.
(Ibid.) The creation of recreation facilities could cause an adverse physical effect on the
environment if not maintained properly. I( bid.) To prevent this from being a potentially adverse
impact, the Applicant will be required, as a condition of approval, to coordinate and fund the
formation of a Landscape Maintenance District to maintain the Project's community park to the
satisfaction of the City. (Ibid.) Overall, although open space will be removed by development of
the Project, this will not be a significant impact, as the proposed park and equestrian trail amount
to the benefit to recreation resources that exceeds the City's requirements and are consistent with
all the City's applicable General Plan policies. (Final EIR, p. 213.)
The Project proposes that the .44 acres of equestrian trail be located along the eastern
portion of the Project adjacent to Etiwanda Creek. (Final EIR, p. 213.) This trail will connect to
the proposed equestrian park located at the southeast portion of the developed area of the Project
adjacent to Etiwanda Creek. (Ibid.) An equestrian trail is proposed along the western edge of the
Project within the Etiwanda Avenue right-of-way. The Project is also adjacent to two Edison
power corridors on which the City may locate a regional network. (Ibid.) Consequently, the
Project's equestrian trails will complement the other trails and networks of trials proposed by the
City. That is, the continuing development of the equestrian trail system will also benefit the
recreation opportunities for City residents. (Ibid.)
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City hereby finds that mitigation measures have been identified in the Draft and
Final EIR that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant
environmental impacts to a less than significant level. A "significant effect on the environment"
means "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient
noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. . . ." (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15382.)
The potentially significant impacts of the Project, as well as the mitigation measures which will
reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:
9
A. Earth Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts.
The Project site, like most of the Southern California region, is subject to moderate to
strong seismic ground shaking from numerous regional faults. (Final EIR. pp. 51, 57.) The San,
Andreas Fault Zone, the largest fault structure in California, is located approximately 8 miles
northeast of the Project site. (Final EIR, p. 52.) The San Andreas Fault is capable of producing a
8.3 magnitude or greater earthquake and poses the highest potential risks to the Project site in
terms of seismic movement and duration of an event. (Final EIR, p. 55.) The Project area is also
subject to strong seismic activity from various other faults in the region which could create
moderate to significant horizontal accelerations and strong ground shaking. (Final EIR, p. 55-
59.) For instance, the Cucamonga Fault Study Zone is located less than a quarter mile north of
the Project site. (Final EIR, pp. 52, 55.) Also, though the Project site is not located within the
boundaries of an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone
Act, the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazards Map does show the Etiwanda Avenue Fault
Zone intersecting the southeast corner of the Project site. ()bid.) In any case, active faults are
typical to Southern California, so it is reasonable to expect a moderately strong ground motion
seismic event to occur during the lifetime of any proposed development. (Final EIR, p. 51.)
While seismic risks to new structures and residents in this area are properly considered
significant absent mitigation, other seismic-related impacts such as ground rupture, liquefaction,
seismically-induced settlement, seismically-induced landslides, seiches, tsunamis, and
inundation due to failure of large water storage facilities are not anticipated on-site. (Final EIR,
pp. 62-64.)
Development of the Project site (i.e., grading, clearing and grubbing) will require grading
over a period of 2-3 months, requiring approximately 500,000 cubic yards of earthwork to be
moved. (Final EIR, pp. 63-65.) Development will also remove the top layers of soil along with
vegetation. (Ibid.) The removal of vegetation during grading will expose the underlying topsoil
to a short-term increased potential for erosion. (Ibid.) Cut and fill areas that expose sandy or
gravelly soils will also be subject to the highest potential for erosion by surface runoff. (Ibid.)
Long-term increases to erosion potential will occur as a result of increased surface runoff rates
due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures (Ibid., See also, Section 3.4,
Water Resources). Furthermore, the construction of unpaved emergency access routes will leave
more soils exposed and vulnerable to erosion. I( bid.) Also, the steep sides of the nearby East
Etiwanda Creek channel might be subject to localized damage or failure if grading activities
were to occur too close to the bank. (Ibid.) Absent mitigation, this activity related to construction
of the Project could cause significant impacts.
Development of the Project site will also cause minor changes in local topography, but
these changes should not contribute to, or create, any unusual or unstable slope conditions. The
overall topography of the site will not change. (Ibid.) However, Section 6.3.8 of Chapter III,
Developing the Community, of the City's General Plan addresses Hillside Development and has
certain requirements for slopes of 5 to 7.9 percent, and the Project has the potential to fail to
meet all the applicable requirements. I( bid.)
10
2. Findings.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to
Earth Resources to a less than significant level:
Standard Conditions of Approval and Codes
Project design, including seismic design, will be in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code and the recommendations of the Structural Engineers Association. The Project
must also adhere to the City's standard erosion and sedimentation control requirements. The
potential impacts and the corresponding standard conditions or code applications that will help to
mitigate the potential impacts, are as shown in Table 3.3-3 of the Final EIR, entitled Seismic
Related Conditions and Codes. (Final EIR, p. 66.)
Geotechnical Mitigation Measures
3-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall demonstrate that each lot is
buildable and complies with the recommendations and general earthwork and grading
specifications found in the RMA Group Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C of Final
EIR.). This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building
Official. (Final EIR, p. 67.)
3-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or recordation of each phase, a detailed
geologic and geotechnical investigation shall be prepared and approved for the residential
building areas and all roads. The report shall demonstrate that each lot is buildable and
identify potential geologic and soil limitations and recommend appropriate engineering
and design measures to adequately protect structures and inhabitants. This report shall
also examine the drainage area adjacent to East Etiwanda Creek to identify potential
landslide, erosion, or other slopes that could affect the residential area. Subsequent
foundation and other design guidelines in these studies shall be consistent with the.
standards established in the RMA Group Geotechnical Investigation (Appendix C). This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 67-
68.)
3-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or recordation, construction measures
recommended by the detailed geological investigation shall be identified on grading plans
and implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 68.)
Wind Erosion Mitigation Measures
3-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permits for each phase, the developer shall prepare and
submit a Dust Control Plan to the City that meets all applicable requirements of the South
Coast Air Quality Management District. The Plan must be approved by the City Building
and Safety Department, prior to issuance of the grading, permit and demonstrate that
methods are in place to assure the following:
11
a) Areas disturbed by construction activities and/or used to store backfill
materials, will be sprayed with water at least twice a day, in the morning
and afternoon, or more often if fugitive dust is observed migrating from
the site.
b) Storage piles, which are to be left in place for more than three working
days shall either be sprayed with a non-toxic soil binder or covered with
plastic or revegetated until placed in use.
C) Tires of vehicles will be washed before the vehicle leaves the Project site
and enters a paved road.
d) Dirt on paved surfaces shall be removed daily to minimize generation of
fugitive dust.
(Final EIR, p. 68.)
NOTE: Additional mitigation measures included in Section 3.6, Air Quality, also address
impacts from dust that will help reduce wind erosion impacts. (Final EIR, p. 68.)
Water Erosion Mitigation Measures
3-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, where cut and fill slopes are created higher than
three feet, a detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted to the City
Planning Department prior to grading plan approval. The plans shall be reviewed for
type and density of ground cover, shrubs, and trees, and shall be consistent with the
Neighborhood Theme Plan of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner. (Final EIR, p. 68.)
3-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, graded, but undeveloped land shall be
maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping within ninety days of
completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. (Final EIR, p. 69.)
3-7 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, planting of developed land shall comply with
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Best Management Practices
Construction Handbook Section 6.2. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.)
3-8 Prior to the issuance of building permits, all grading shall be conducted in conformance
with the recommendations contained within the Geotechnical Report included as
Appendix B of the Final EIR. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. (Ibid.)
12
NOTE: Additional mitigation measures included in Section 3.4, Water Resources, also address
impacts from dust. These measures will assist in minimizing water-related erosion impacts.
(Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation.
While the Project will expose people and property to seismic hazards, these conditions
are similar throughout Southern California. (Final EIR, pp. 51-69.) Further, the available
geologic and seismic data indicates that no major active faults traverse the Project site. (Final
EIR, p. 62.) While the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazards Map shows that the Etiwanda
Avenue Fault Zone crosses the far southeast comer of the Project site, the Project's Geotechnical
study indicates that this is not the case, and that the Fault Zone is actually located further
southeast of the Project site. (See Plate 1 of the Project's Geotechnical Report.) Moreover, since
the Project site contains mostly course alluvial soils, liquefaction is considered unlikely due to
the fact that the historic depth of the ground water has been on the order of 250 feet or more.
(Final EIR, p. 64.) Since liquefaction most often occurs in areas of shallow groundwater
underlying areas with loose, unconsolidated soils, the liquefaction potential for the Project site is
properly considered insignificant. Ibid.) Further, according to the Project's geotechnical report,
the probability of deep-seated landslides occurring is considered remote because the slope onsite
is not great enough to contribute to any significant threat from rock falls. (Ibid.) Also, the
Standard Conditions of Approval for the City, and the applicable standard code provisions, will
ensure that the Project will be constructed according to the State of California's high seismic
safety standards. (Ibid.) Specifically, mitigation measures 3-1 through 3-3 require a detailed
geologic and geotechnical investigation for each lot prior to the grading of the Project site. (Final
EIR, pp. 67-68.) The implementation of these specific engineering and design measures
according to the professional standards for licensed geologists, and according to the geologic and
soil limitations for each buildable lot, will ensure that each residential structure will be designed
to withstand the anticipated seismic stresses and soil conditions associated with the Project site.
Therefore, potential adverse impacts related to earthquakes and seismic activities will be reduced
to a less than significant level.(Final EIR, pp. 67-69.)
While the Project will result in the disruption of soil and topography, the disruption will
not be significant. The Project design creates slopes that will fall within a slope category
regulated by the City's General Plan (i.e., 5-7.9 percent). (Final EIR, p. 63.) However,
approximately 96 percent of the Project site has slope gradients of less than 7 percent. (Final
EIR, p. 58.) Further, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) considers the soils on the Project site as Soboba stony loamy sand, which
typically occurs on two to four percent slopes. (Final EIR, p. 60.) The original land use plan of
the Project, i.e. the one that was previously submitted to the County for approval, had a standard
grading scheme with relatively straight streets, linear lot alignments, and did not incorporate
contour grading into its design. (Final EIR, p. 63.) The Project, as currently designed, has more
curvilinear streets and is more sensitive to existing contours, and as such complies with the
City's Hillside Development Ordinance, and is generally consistent with the overall intent of the
guidelines, and is consistent with the ENSP's standards. (Final EIR Supp., p. 3; Final EIR, pp 63-
64.) Moreover, once a specific grading plan is prepared, additional slope evaluations and a slope
stability analysis will be prepared consistent with implementation of the recommendations of the
13
Project's geotechnical report (see Appendix C of the Final EIR.) As documented in this report,
engineered cut and fill slopes can be safely constructed at a 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) slope
angles. (Final EIR, p. 63.) As slopes within the Project site will not exceed 9 percent, an angle
far below the 2 to 1 ratio, all slopes will be well within the required safety threshold. (Ibid.)
When these proper planning, construction, and engineering practices are incorporated into the
Project, potential impacts related to the sloping topography and unstable slope conditions will
not be significant.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures relating to wind and water erosion, as
well as those listed in the finding for Air Quality and Water Resources will reduce impacts
related to the erosion of soil to a less than significant level. (Final EIR, pp. 68-69.) Spraying the
soil with water twice a day, while consuming water resources, will sufficiently prevent soil from
becoming loose and from leaving the Project site. (Ibid.) Similarly, ensuring that vehicles do not
leave the Project site with soil on their tires, will ensure that the soil remains onsite. (Ibid.) In
addition, the Project will not impact soils within the Etiwanda channel as the Creek is not located
on the Project site, and the Project developer will be required to comply with its NPDES permit,
preventing all potentially significant discharge effects. (Final OR, p. 68.)
4. Cumulative Impacts.
Impacts resulting from grading and construction of development projects in the area,
including cut and fill operations, will potentially alter the natural topography of hundreds of
acres in the region. (Final EIR, p. 221.) Much of the project area consists of coalescing
downward plane. (Ibid.) This may, in some cases, require extensive cut and fill operations,
which will impact landforms. I( bid.) However, it is expected that development will use the
lower, more level areas while preserving the steeper slopes. (Ibid.)
The presence of regional faults creates the potential for damage caused by major
earthquakes. (Ibid.) Proper building designs should reduce damages to a minimum. (Ibid.)
Although most of the soils in the immediate area are composed of alluvial material, soil
limitations and potential impacts can be mitigated by careful grading and foundation design.
(Ibid,) For this reason, anticipated development is not expected to have a cumulatively
considerable impact on earth resources. (Ibid.) Similarly, regional geotechnical constraints will
not have a cumulatively considerable impact on the proposed project or cumulative projects, as
long as proper design and engineering are implemented based on available seismic and other
geotechnical data. I( bid.) The proposed project represents an incremental portion of this
potential impact. (Ibid.)
Implementation of standard conditions, existing codes, proposed Project design features,
and mitigation measures will reduce potentially significant erosion impacts, including
cumulative impacts, to less that significant levels. If all other adjacent projects also comply with
the same standard conditions, existing codes, and permits such as the NPDES permits, impacts
from those adjacent projects will ensure no cumulative significant impacts in the Project's
region. Further, since there is no evidence that the surface grading associated with the Project's
development will alter the Project site's underlying geological makeup (Final EIR, p. 63.),
development of the Project will not have a cumulatively significant effect.
14
B. Water Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts.
Surface Water
Development of the Project will alter the composition of surface runoff presently entering
local drainages. (Final EIR, p. 77.) Runoff is presently limited to natural sediments from the
surrounding foothills. (Ibid.) Conversion of the site to urban uses will increase the amount of
sediment, suspended debris, landscape maintenance or associated chemicals (e.g., fertilizers,
herbicides, etc.), and materials related to automotive wear (e.g., tire rubber, oil, antifreeze, etc.).
(Ibid.) These materials will reach the local drainage system, not so much by direct dumping, but
by small amounts of material washing off the streets during storms or street-sweeping activities.
(Ibid.) The amount of runoff will also significantly increase after onsite grading and construction
of impervious streets, roof and parking facilities, and the irrigation of landscaped areas. Without
mitigation, this impact is considered potentially significant. (Ibid.)
Water-Related Hazards
The Project site is not associated with any potential catastrophic events, such as
mudflows, flooding, or tsunami. (Ibid.) The proposed Project will not impact any ocean waters.
The Project is not located within the 100-year floodplain, or within the flood hazard area of a
levee or dam. I( bid.) However, the National Flood Insurance Program, operated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA"), prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps to identify
potential flooding problems, referred to as 100-year and 500-year floods. (Final EIR, p. 71.)
FEMA has identified the Project site in a flood zone designated as a "Flood Zone D." (Ibid.)
Development of the Project site will also increase the amount of onsite runoff by
covering over pervious native soils with various impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete,
and buildings, however, not to such a degree as to create a hazard. (Final EIR, p. 77.) In
addition, the City and the San Bernardino County Flood Control District have identified a
network of drainage improvements and a funding mechanism that will be required to prevent
flooding in the Project area. I( bid.)
Groundwater
Due to the limited size of the Project, it is unlikely that implementation of the proposed
Project will significantly affect the direction of surface or groundwater flow. (Ibid.) However,
development of the Project site may incrementally increase the amount of urban pollutants in
onsite runoff, some of which may eventually reach local groundwater. (Ibid.) This includes
chemicals such as household cleaners, automotive fuels, etc. that may be spilled by new
residents on the site. Ibid.) Until recently, only industrial activities that made intensive use of
15
chemicals or hazardous materials were considered significant sources of groundwater pollution,
and this residential development is very unlikely to contribute a significant amount of urban
pollution. (Ibid.)
2. Findings.
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to
water resources to a less than significant level:
Standard Conditions of Approval and Codes
a. The following City standards apply to the Project relative to water resources:
• Prohibit activities within identified floodways that would interfere with
the channel capacity or would substantially increase erosion, siltation or
otherwise disturb the watercourse;
Review individual project design to insure the stability of slopes adjacent
to flood control facilities, which could be blocked due to slope failures;
Require that measures be taken to control runoff from construction sites;
• Require revegetation and/or development on newly graded sites to control
erosion;
• Control grading operations during the rainy season; and
• A soil erosion control plan may be required in conjunction with grading
plans.
(Final EIR, pp. 77-78.)
As a condition of approval, the City will require the Project to comply, or be
consistent with, these requirements as applicable. (Ibid.)
b. Proposed grading and drainage improvements shall conform to Section 2907 and
7012 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and shall incorporate the minimum standards for the
FEMA, which insures that 100-year flood protection is provided to all habitable dwellings
located within the floodplain. (Ibid.)
C. All streets will be designed so that storm water does not exceed the top of the curb
for a 10-year storm event and the right-of-way line for a 100-year storm on any street. Storm
drains will collect excess water. (Ibid.)
16
Mitigation Measures
The following additional measures will assure that potentially significant impacts related
to water resources are mitigated to below a level of significance:
Flooding/Flood Control
4-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall obtain Clean Water Act
Section 401 and 404 permits (for water quality certification for dredge and fill
operations), if necessary, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional
Board. Copies of the same shall be provided to City Building and Safety. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 79.)
4-2 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the planned revetment along the East
Etiwanda Channel adjacent to the Project site shall be installed, subject to approval by the
San Bernardino County Flood Control District and receipt of that approval to the City
Engineer. (Ibid.)
4-3 Prior to the recordation of each phase or approval of a grading permit, the Project
proponent will implement the on- and off-site drainage system improvements as outlined
in the Project Drainage Study (Appendix D). This includes detention facilities proposed
at 24th Street (Wilson Avenue) and Etiwanda Creek or onsite, participation in the
County's Etiwanda Creek fee program, and participation in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga's Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy program, including
appropriate fair share fees. Implementation of this measure is subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. (Ibid.)
Water Quality
4-4 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for
approval of a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP"), including a project
description and identifying Best Management Practices (`BMPs") that will be used on-
site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable.
The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the
Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga June 2000. (Ibid.)
4-5 Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall submit to the City
Engineer a Notice of Intent to comply with obtaining coverage under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") General Construction Storm
Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this
has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Dischargers Identification Number)
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for coverage under the NPDES General
Construction Permit. (Final EIR, p. 80.)
17
The following measures will also be required to prevent impacts relative to regional flood control
facilities:
4-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, drainage and flood control facilities and
improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District requirements, as applicable. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the County Flood Control District and receipt of
approval by the City Engineer. Ibid.)
4-7 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer will pay the required drainage fee
related to the San Bernardino County Flood Control District Etiwanda Creek watershed.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the County Flood Control
District and receipt of approval by the City Engineer. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation.
A detailed hydrology study was completed for the Project site, which included East
Etiwanda Creek in May of 2000, and which is attached to the Final EIR as Appendix C. (Final
EIR, p. 73.) According to the most recent FEMA Flood Rate Map (panel 060270 7900D August
1985), the entire Project site lies in Zone D. (Final EIR, p. 71.) This zone is one identified by
FEMA as an area of minimal but undetermined flooding. (Ibid.) Even though a portion of the
Project site is currently owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District ("Flood
Control District") for flood control purposes, the Project site is not located in a Flood Plain
Safety Overlay District or Dam Inundation Overlay Area as identified in the City's General Plan.
(Ibid.) That is why the Project site was determined to be surplus by the Flood Control District.
Moreover, the Project's hydrology study, based on considerable flood plain analysis by the Flood
Control District, indicates that a 100-year storm flow will already be contained with the middle
portion of the Etiwanda Creek channel and does not reach the west bank adjacent to the Project.
(Final EIR, p. 73.)
Nevertheless, to eliminate any potential flood impact to the Project site and adjacent
properties, the Project Applicant will be required to comply with the mitigation measures above,
including the City's Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy. (Final EIR, p. 77-80.)
Specifically, this mitigation will require a storm drain to be constructed within the entry road
pursuant to mitigation measure 4-3. Also, pursuant to mitigation measure 4-3, detention
facilities are proposed be constructed along 24th Street (Wilson Avenue) and Etiwanda Creek at
a location and in a manner that will be subject to review and approval by the Flood Control
District. The Project developer will be required to build the detention facilities, offsite drainage
improvements, and participate in the County's Etiwanda Creek fee program. (Ibid.) If the offsite
detention and these identified improvements are not completed prior to construction, the
Project's will have to provide onsite detention facilities, to the satisfaction of the City and the
County Flood Control District, until the offsite detention facilities and the identified
improvements are completed. (Ibid.) At the same time, the Project does not propose any
improvement to Etiwanda Creek, and Project construction will not impact the banks or channels
of the Etiwanda Creek, except for the addition of a connection from the proposed storm drain
along the northern boundary of the site to the East Etiwanda Creek channel which will require
18
"punching through" the west bank of the channel and a small reinforced outlet structure. (See
Final EIR Supp., p 2.) These mitigation measures, which themselves will have only minimal
impacts that were analyzed in the EIR, will ensure that no significant flood impacts to the Project
and adjacent properties will occur as a result of Project development.
Regarding water quality impacts, the requirement that the Project developer will have to
apply for a and receive a NPDES permit, and implement all applicable BMPs. (Final EIR, pp.
79-80.) The required terms of this permit, under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act and
the State Water Resources Control Board, will ensure that no significant impacts will result from
Project development. These standardized permits and requirements have been designed by
regulating agencies to ensure that the required standards established under the federal Clean
Water Act and California's Porter-Cologne Water Control Act of 1968 will be met. Also, if
necessary, mitigation measure 4-1 requires the Project's developer to obtain any appropriate
permits under the Clean Water Act for dredge and fill activities on the .48 acres of land on the
Project site identified to be under the jurisdiction of the USACOE, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
4. Cumulative Impacts.
As development occurs, local water resources, surface and underground, will be
incrementally impacted as native soils are covered over, runoff is increased, and more urban
pollutants are introduced into local runoff. (Final EIR, pp. 221-222.) However, these impacts are
not expected to be significant as long as the City and County continue to require developers to
decrease on-site runoff and to properly plan flood control improvements for new developments.
(Ibid.) Cumulative developments in the area are expected to add 4,111 residential units, resulting
in a "worst case" population of 13,319 persons to the area. (Ibid.) Based on an average water
consumption rate of 200 gallons per person per day, cumulative growth is expected to consume
2.66 million gallons or 8.1 acre-feet of water per day. (Ibid.)
Over the long-term, the City and County may wish to encourage use of imported water to
prevent overdrafting of local sources, although it would make the area more dependent on non-
local water, which in turn could require more water facilities to be built and result in additional
environmental impacts. (Ibid.) Importation would allow local water to be more available for
emergencies if regional supplies were temporarily lost (i.e., aqueduct damage, earthquake, etc.).
(Ibid.) New development should have "first flush" basins at the inlet point of areas that produce
urban pollutants (e.g., parking lots). (Ibid.) As growth continues, there may be cumulatively
considerable impacts to water resources, mainly flood control and water quality. (Ibid.) It is also
possible, though not fully documented, that cumulative water demand will exceed the sustainable
yield of the local groundwater basin or surface water supplies. However, the proposed project
represents only a small portion of these potential cumulative impacts. (Ibid.)
With the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, any potentially significant
cumulative impacts to water resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. (Final EIR,
p. 80.) The mitigation required for this Project will effectively reduce any potential flood risk for
the Project, and adjacent properties, far beyond the risk that could be caused by the Project's
development. That is, the cumulative impact of the Project's will, overall, be a net benefit to the
19
City's and County's flood control efforts. Further, the requirement that the Project's developers
comply with all applicable federal, state, and City and County requirements regarding water
quality are substantially the same as requirements on nearby developments. If similar
requirements are made for later developers, the cumulative impacts will continue to be less than
significant.
C. Transportation and Circulation
1. Potential Significant Impacts.
Trip Generation
The proposed Project would increase motor vehicle trips associated with the urban
development on the Project site. (Final EIR, p. 87.) Table 3.5-1 of the Final EIR, Project Trip
Generation, summarizes Project related traffic volumes for average daily and peak hour traffic
volumes. Peak hour trips are those that occur during the highest one-hour period in the morning
and highest one-hour period in the afternoon (typically 7:00 — 8:00 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM,
respectively). I( bid.)
The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 2,956 daily vehicle trips at build
out. I( bid.) Of this total, approximately 220 vehicles per hour are expected during the peak
morning hours, while approximately 373 vehicles are expected during the peak evening hours.
(Ibid.) The traffic reducing potential of public transit was not considered in the RKJK traffic
study. (Ibid.) Traffic Projections presented in the report are therefore conservative in that public
transit could be effective in reducing traffic volumes. (Ibid.)
Adjoining land uses and other development in the area will also generate vehicular trips,
which must be evaluated in relation to Project impacts. (Ibid.) Table 3.5-2 of the Final EIR,
Cumulative Development Trip Generation, lists the proposed other development land uses,
which depicts the daily and peak hour vehicle trips generated in the vicinity of the study area.
(Ibid.)
Trip Distribution
Trip characteristics of the Project were estimated based upon several factors, including
the geographical orientation of the Project site, the location of various anticipated employment,
commercial, and recreational destinations, and the site's proximity to the regional freeway
system. (Final EIR, p. 89.) Also assumed in the trip characteristics are certain proposed arterial
streets and collectors, as well as the local street systems that would be in place at the time of
Project development. I( bid.) Based on local and regional land uses, the traffic consultant
distributed Project traffic onto the local roadway network, as shown in Figure 3.5-4 of the Final
EIR, Project Trip Distribution. (Ibid.) For the Project traffic study, it was assumed that, at build
out, 68 percent of the Project traffic will enter/exit the site along Etiwanda Avenue, while 32
percent will use East Avenue. (Ibid.) It is also assumed 22 percent of the Project traffic will
eventually travel west on Route 210. I( bid.) These increases in vehicle traffic, including the
20
distribution of the vehicle traffic on some roads more intensely than others, is a potentially
significant impact. (Final EIR, p. 102.)
Intersection Analysis
The current technical guide used to evaluate traffic operations is the 1997 Highway
Capacity Manual ("HCM"), Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. (Final EIR, p.
89.) The HCM defines the level of service as a qualitative measure for describing operation
conditions within a circulation system. (Ibid.) This method describes operational conditions,
such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and
convenience, and most importantly, safety. (Ibid.) The criteria used for Level of Service
("LOS") was based on the type of roadway and whether traffic flow is considered interrupted or
uninterrupted. (Ibid.) The criteria for LOS determination is summarized in Table 3.5-3 of the
Final EIR, Level of Service Definitions, and Table 3-5 of the Final EIR, Level of Service Criteria.
(Ibid.) Finally, the 1997 HCM methodology is currently required by the County for unsignalized
intersection analysis. (Ibid.) Methodologies for the traffic analysis are discussed in detail in the
RKJK analysis. (Ibid.) For the purpose of this EIR, Endo Engineering analyzed the site and
traffic report, provided by RKJK. (Ibid.) Endo used the 1997 HCM methodology in their
analysis. (Ibid.)
The definitions of LOS for interrupted traffic flow (i.e., flow restrained by the existence
of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differs slightly depending on the type of traffic
control. Qid.) The HCM methodology defines LOS at an intersection in terms of delay time
for the various intersection approaches. (Ibid.) Delay time can vary depending on the type of
intersection control (i.e. traffic signals, two-way stop signs, or four way stop signs). Qid.) For
signalized intersections, average stopped delay per vehicle is used to determine LOS. (Ibid.)
Signalized intersections are evaluated against the HCM intersection analysis program. (Ibid.)
Study area intersections, which are stop sign controlled or with stop control on the minor streets,
have only been analyzed using the unsignalized intersection methodology of the HCM. (Ibid.)
For intersections that are controlled by all way stop signs, the HCM methodology for multi-way
stop controlled intersections was used. (Ibid.) The level of services are defined for the various
analysis methodologies in Table 3.5-4 of the Final EIR, Level of Service (LOS) Criteria. (Ibid.)
Four intersections in the vicinity of the Project have been evaluated to determine their
existing levels of service. (Ibid.) The four intersections and their morning and evening peak
hour Level of Service (LOS) are listed in Table 3.5-5 of the Final EIR, Intersection Analysis for
Existing Conditions. (Ibid.) A discussion of Level of Service follows the table. (Ibid.)
Estimates of existing traffic conditions are delineated in Figure 3.5-5 of the Final EIR, Existing
Average Daily Traffic. (Ibid.) Development of the Project could have a potentially significant
impact upon the level of service at Etiwanda and Highland Ave, in particular, because the Endo
Engineering Study prepared by RKJK indicates that the LOS at this intersection could be
reduced to LOS D during the A.M. peak hour at full Project build out in 2015. (Final EIR, p.
102.)
2. Findings
21
The Project would add an increment of traffic resulting in a potential for cumulatively
significant impacts if certain improvements are not undertaken. The following mitigation
measures will reduce Project traffic impacts to below a level of significance:
5-1 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for the Project, the following
intersections are projected to be warranted for traffic signals by opening year:
• Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at Banyan Avenue (EW)
Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at SR-210 West Bound Ramp (EW)
• Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at SR-210 East Bound Ramp (EW)
• Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Banyan Avenue (EW)
• Etiwanda Avenue (NS) at Wilson Avenue (EW)
• East Avenue (NS) at Banyan Avenue (EW)
The applicant shall make a fair share contribution, as identified in the Project traffic
report, to the traffic signal mitigation program of the County of San Bernardino and/or
City of Rancho Cucamonga, as appropriate' This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(Final EIR, p. 104.)
5-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the Project shall incorporate bus
turn-outs and/or shelters if required by Omni-Trans and/or the Transportation
Commission. The project applicant shall consult with and obtain clearance from these
agencies to assure compliance with the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management
Plans. Confirmation of contact and compliance with their requirements shall be provided
to the City Engineer. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. (Ibid.)
Note: Mitigation Measure 6-12 in Air Quality (Section 3.6) also addresses public transit to help
mitigate air quality impacts. (Ibid.)
5-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall pay a fair
share basis for off-site improvements as identified in the Project traffic report. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including but not
limited to the following: (Final EIR, p. 105.)
• 24`h Avenue (Wilson Avenue) from Etiwanda Avenue to Day Creek;
• Day Creek Boulevard from 24`h (Wilson) to Highland Avenue;
22
• 24h (Wilson) between Etiwanda Avenue and Wardman Bullock Road; and
• East Avenue from south of the Project limit to 23rd Street.
5-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall pay a "fair
share" contribution towards off-site impacts to linked roadways and intersections, as
outlined in the Project traffic report. The Project share of the cost has been calculated
based on the proportion of the Project peak hour traffic contributed to the improvement
location relative to the total new peak hour Year 2015 traffic volume. The Project's fair
share of identified intersection and roadway link cost is $63,818 as of the date of the
traffic study. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of City Engineer,
including any changes in the Project's fair share contribution due to changes in the
Consumer Price Index or similar public works measures. (Ibid.)
5-5 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first residential unit, the developer shall
construct East Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue to City standards, as outlined in the Project
traffic report. These improvements will be made to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(Ibid.)
Note: Measure 6-5 in Section 3.6, Air Quality, restricts receipt of construction materials to non-
peak hours, which will help reduce potential traffic impacts during those times. (Ibid.)
5-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall coordinate all construction-
related activities to minimize congestion and delay on local roadways, to the satisfaction '
of City Engineer. (Ibid.)
5-7 Prior to the issuance of grading permits or land disturbing activity, the developer shall
submit a Dust Control Plan ("DCP") to the City Building and Safety Department
consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. The DCP shall include activities to reduce on-site
and on-site dust production. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City Building Official. Such activities shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
(Final EIR, pp. 105-106.)
a) Throughout grading and construction activities, exposed soil shall be kept moist
through a minimum of twice daily watering to reduce fugitive dust.
b) Street sweeping shall be conducted, when visible soil accumulations occur along
site access roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried
mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials. Site
access driveways and adjacent streets will be washed if there are visible signs of
any dirt track-out at the conclusion of any workday.
C) All trucks hauling dirt away from the site shall be covered to prevent the
generation of fugitive dust.
23
d) During high wind conditions (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), areas with
disturbed soil will be watered hourly, and activities on unpaved surfaces shall be
terminated until wind speeds no longer exceed 25 mph.
3. Supporting Explanation.
The Project's Traffic Study indicates that traffic and circulation improvements associated
with the Project will result in all intersections operating at a LOS of C or better, except the
intersection at Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Avenue during peak morning hours. (Final EIR,
p.\94.) During this time, the Project's Traffic Study indicates that traffic at this intersection will
have a LOS of D at Project build out in 2015, unless any additional improvement occurs before
2015. (See Table 3.5-7 Project Traffic Impacts-Build out (2015) Final EIR, p. 99.) As it turns
out, the required improvements to this intersection were made as part of the extension of the
Route 210 to the City. (Final Supp., p. 3.) Thus, this intersection will operate at a level that well
exceeds the LOS D identified in the Project's traffic study. Since the City has set a standard of
LOS of D for all new projects to maintain City streets, this Project, even without the recent
improvements, would have nevertheless met the City's LOS standards at full Project build out.
(Ibid.) Overall, the required LOS standard will be met by a number of different circulation
improvements, as identified herein, with signalization providing the greatest improvement at
designated intersections. (Final EIR, pp. 104-106.)
In addition, the Project is consistent with transportation-related City General Plan goals.
(Final EIR, pp. 101-102.) The Project is also consistent with the West Valley Foothills Sub-
Regional Plan guidelines because it provides a road system of an appropriate scale for the
foothills area; it achieves the City's LOS standards; it discourages through traffic within the
residential area; and provides pedestrian and bicycle trails on-site that will connect to adjacent
trails planned by the City. (Ibid.)
With implementation of the Project as proposed, including standard conditions, uniform
codes, Project design features, and the above mitigation measures, the Project will not produce
significant long-term impacts to traffic or circulation. (Final EIR, p. 106.)
4. Cumulative Impacts.
The traffic analysis for the proposed project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts.
As growth occurs, there will be cumulatively considerable traffic impacts in the Etiwanda
community. (Final EIR, p. 222.) Cumulative growth could generate approximately 2,956 average
daily trips based on 220 vehicles per hour during AM peak hours and 373 during the PM hours.
(Ibid.) Increased traffic volumes and related congestion at major intersections and along major
roadways, most notably Etiwanda and East Avenues at 24th Street, especially during peak hours.
(Ibid.) As long as recommended and needed improvements to the infrastructure are completed in
a timely manner, regional impacts will not be cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.) In addition, the
Project does not represent a significant contribution to this impact as discussed in Section 3.5,
Transportation and Circulation. (Ibid.)
24
D. Hazards
1. Potential Significant Impacts.
Hazardous Materials:
The proposed Project will expose people and structures to potential hazards due to the
possibility of hazmat spills on nearby state highways. (Final EIR, p. 155.) However, this risk is
not elevated for the Project site and would be typical for any suburban development proposed in
Southern California. (Ibid.) Development of the Project site will involve the use of, and may
require the temporary storage of, vehicle fuels on the site. Qjtd.) After construction is complete,
occupancy or operation of the Project will involve the minor use of chemicals and other
materials typical of suburban uses (e.g. cleaning and automotive compounds) including
landscape maintenance (i.e. pesticides, fertilizers). (Ibid.) Due to the type of land uses proposed
(e.g., residential and open space), large amounts of hazardous materials will not be stored on-
site, although small amounts of necessary maintenance chemicals will be stored in individual
structures and for park maintenance. (Ibi(i) Nearby schools will also not be affected by any
hazardous materials related to this Project. I( bid.)
Wildland Fires:
The proposed Project will expose more people and structures to potential wild fire
hazards. I( bid.) Conversely, development of the Project will permanently remove some fire
prone vegetation from the Project site. (Ibid.)
Wildlife/Human Interaction:
The proposed Project would expose additional residents to potentially dangerous
wildlife/human encounters. (Ibid.) This risk is similar for residents throughout the foothill
communities and is not particularly elevated for this site. (Ibid.) This hazard may be slightly
higher for new Project residents compared to existing residents, because areas with larger lots
and lower housing density have more open space and may attract more animals. (Ibid.)
Conversely, areas with more homes closer together may attract wildlife if, for example, trashcans
are left uncovered or other attractions are readily available. (Ibid.) This particular hazard is
difficult to quantify for different areas, but it is reasonable to conclude that residents of the
foothill communities will generally face some incremental increased risk from interactions with
wildlife.
2. Findings
The following measures are proposed to help assure that potentially significant impacts
regarding hazmat release during construction, wildlife/human interaction, and wild fires are
mitigated to below a level of significance.
25
Hazardous Materials:
9-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits or land disturbing activity for each phase, the
developer shall submit a plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District
("RCFPD") for each phase for the proper clean up of any hazardous or toxic substance
that is discovered or released during construction. The plan will require the developer to
properly clean-up and remove any contaminated soil or other material; restore the
affected area to background conditions or to regulatory threshold levels for the
contaminant(s) accidentally released or discovered; and deliver the contaminated material
to an appropriate treatment, recycling, or landfill facility in accordance with the
regulations for the type of contaminant accidentally released and collected for
management. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the RCFPD.
(Final EIR, p. 157.)
Wildland Fires:
9-2 Each individual lot owner will be required to maintain their side and back yards with 30
feet of irrigated "firewise" Zone 1 landscaping or equivalent. No buildings are to be built
within this setback area. Swimming pools and non-combustible deck coverings are
permissible. Any remaining portion of the backyard lot will be maintained to either Zone
1 or Zone 2 criteria depending on the lot depth. This measure shall be implemented to
the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (Ibid.)
9-3 Landscape and maintenance for the manufactured slopes common areas will be to Zone 2
criteria. These areas may be irrigated, ornamental firewise landscaping, or planted with
native fire resistant plants and trees. Access points every 500 feet shall be available to
perform annual maintenance. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (Ibid.)
9-4 A special fuel modification zone easement shall be located outside and adjacent to the
northern Project boundary within the electric utility corridor and on flood control district
land where all native and exotic vegetation will be treated to Zone 2 criteria on a strip of
land 50 feet in width. Also, a Fuel Modification Zone Easement of 75 feet in width will
be created and maintained by the maintenance authority adjacent to the east side of Lot
46, Phase 4. Alternatively, the tentative tract map may be modified to allow an
appropriate onsite Fuel Modification Zone along the northern boundary if the electric
corridor cannot be used. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. (Final EIR, p. 158.)
9-5 All residential structures within the Tract 14749 development will be built with a Class A
Roof Assembly, including a Class A roof covering and attic or foundation ventilation
louvers or ventilation openings in vertical walls shall not exceed 144 square inches per
opening. These opening shall be covered with '/a inch mesh corrosion-resistant metal
screening or other approved material that offers equivalent protection. Attic ventilation
shall also comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.).
Ventilation louvers and openings may be incorporated as part of access assemblies. This
26
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District. I( bid.)
9-6 A six-foot high solid non-combustible wall shall be constructed along the entire length of
the north, east and west property lines to minimize fire danger. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.)
Wildlife/Human Interaction:
9-7 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide signs along
1 the community trails, including the west bank of. East Etiwanda Creek, that warn
residents of the potential risk of wildlife/human interactions. The wording, design,
number, and placement of the signs shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Department. (Ibid.)
9-8 The applicant shall provide wildlife resistant trash receptacles at the parks and other
public facilities to prevent foraging by local wildlife. The design and placement of the
receptacles shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation.
The risk of exposure to hazardous materials for the Project is typical for any suburban
development in Southern California and will not create any unusual potential health hazard.
(Final EIR, p. 156.) In addition, mitigation measure 9-1 ensures that any hazardous materials
discovered on the Project site, or any spills or releases of hazardous material related to Project
construction will be mitigated pursuant to the requirements of federal and state laws and to the
satisfaction of the RCFPD. (Final EIR, p. 157.)
After construction is completed, the Project site will be surrounded by either landscaped
area or the Etiwanda Creek, significantly reducing the future danger of wild fires. (Final EIR, pp.
1577158.) In addition, the Project will meet RCFPD requirements for brush clearing, and add
water service to the site, significant improving fire-fighting capabilities. (Final EIR, p. 155.)
These Project design features will reduce impacts related to fire safety to less than significant
levels. (Final EIR, p. 158.)
Impacts related to wildlife/human interactions will be mitigated by providing warning
signs in high-risk areas of such potential risks, and by placing wildlife resistant trash receptacles
in public areas pursuant to mitigation measures 9-7 and 9-8. (Final EIR, p. 158.) Further, since
growth is gradually occurring in the Project area, including immediately south of the Project site,
the result will be that somewhat fewer wild animals will live in the Project area.
Therefore, with implementation of the standard conditions, Project design features, and
above mitigation measures, all project-level and cumulative impacts related to hazards will be
reduced to below a level of significance. (Ibid.)
4. Cumulative Impacts.
27
Continued growth will increase the potential for dangerous interactions with native
wildlife (e.g., rattlesnakes, mountain licit, bear, coyote, etc.) as long as these species remain in
the foothills proximate to human activity. (Final EIR, p. 223-224.) While this will be an
incremental impact, the experiences of other developing foothill communities (i.e., Arcadia,
Monrovia, etc.) indicate that these impacts may be cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.)
As development occurs, the area will experience an incremental increase in the use of
hazardous materials, mainly from domestic sources (i.e., household cleaners, gardening
chemicals, automotive fluids, etc.). (Ibid.) It is expected that these materials will be handled,
transported, and disposed of properly, according to existing regulations. Ibid.) However, growth
may also increase the amount of illegal dumping of these materials in the area, which is
especially destructive in the foothill area. Ibid.) Because natural streams and chaparral
vegetation are more prevalent in the foothills than in urban areas, they are more susceptible to
damage from these illegally dumped materials. (Ibid.) Therefore, planned development could
have cumulatively significant impacts, although the proposed project, being entirely residential,
will probably not make a significant contribution to this potential cumulative impact. Ibid.)
The area is served by two highways (SR-210 and Interstate 15) that can provide routes
for evacuation out of the area in all directions but immediately north. (Ibid.) However, the local
roads leading to these major highways are currently limited, although it is planned that they will
be improved as they are needed (i.e., as development occurs). (Ibid.)
Access for Project residents to evacuate the area in the event of a localized emergency
(i.e., small fire) is available in several directions. (Ibid.) To the south, Etiwanda and East
Avenues provide access south to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. (Ibid.) Residents can also
travel west on Wilson Avenue, which is presently incomplete. (Ibid.) When completed, 24th
Street can also provide east and west access. (Ibid.)
If the area were to experience a major disaster (e.g., major flood, fire, or earthquake),
evacuation of several thousand residents via the current road system would probably take several
hours, which is marginal even assuming there is adequate warning. (Ibid.) Fuel modification
requirements for the project reduce its potential to be impacted by a major fire. (Ibid.) Based on
available information, evacuation routes for the foothill area appear to be presently adequate but
must be expanded as planned growth occurs, otherwise, this impact could become cumulatively
considerable. (Ibid.)
CEQA does not allow mitigation of project impacts to be deferred in lieu of conducting
additional studies. (Ibid.) However, this represents only a potential cumulative impact that may
or may not occur as a result of existing area-wide conditions. (Ibid.) If these conditions do
indeed represent threats to the foothill community, the proposed Project will contribute only an
incremental portion of the increased impact due to the number of units proposed. With the
implementation of the above listed mitigation measures, any potentially significant cumulative
impacts to land use and planning will be reduced to a less than significant level. Indeed, the
improvements made as part of the Project will marginally reduce the likelihood of additional
wild fires in the area, and the possibility of dangerous wildlife/human interactions.
28
E. Noise
1. Potential Significant Impacts.
Short-Term Impacts:
Construction of the proposed Project will produce ground borne noise or vibrations
during grading operations. (Final EIR, p. 163-164.) Although surrounding properties are
currently vacant, more distant receptors could be impacted. (Ibid.) Such ground vibrations will,
however, cease after construction is completed. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project will also cause a short-term increase in ambient noise levels due to
construction activities. .) Temporary noise impacts will occur adjacent to site access routes
and onsite in areas under construction. (Ibid.) Since the surrounding properties are vacant, the
potential for significant noise impacts on local residents is, however, low. (Ibid.) Earth-moving
equipment will be the loudest equipment with noise ranging up to about 90-dB. (Ibid.)
Long-Term Impacts:
The proposed Project will increase long-term noise levels, mainly from the additional
motor vehicle noise, and from general human activity. (Final EIR, p. 166.) As the site is
developed, Project-related traffic will cause an incremental increase in area-wide noise levels
throughout the Etiwanda area. (Ibid.) Development of the Project site will produce incremental
long-term noise impacts, in addition to cumulative noise impacts that will result from increased
urbanization of the Etiwanda area. (Ibid.) Detailed noise calculations for the Project were
prepared by Endo Engineering in July 2000 using the accepted Federal Highway Administration
methodology. (Ibid.) Table 3.10-3 of the Final EIR, Project-Related Increase in Motor Vehicle
Noise, summarizes the 24-hour CNEL level at 100 feet from the roadway edge along seven area
roads for existing, opening year, and build out (after year 2015) both without and with the
Project. (Ibid.)
The future traffic noise environment in the Project vicinity is almost exclusively due to
cumulative growth. (Ibid.) Table 3.10-4 of the Final EIR, 2015+ Project Exterior Noise
Exposure Adjacent to Area Roadways, compares the noise level changes attributable to area
build out without the Project versus the increment attributable to the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Maximum noise level increases from no-Project to build out are 59.5 dB, while the maximum
Project traffic-related noise impact is 3.0 dB CNEL. (Ibid.) As a general planning guide, noise
level differences of less than 1.0 dB are not perceptible, and 3.0 dB is the commonly accepted
threshold for people to perceive that noise levels have measurably changed. (Ibid.) The
individual differences in noise levels between existing and future are shown in Table 3.10-4 of
the Final EIR; 2015+ Project Exterior Noise Exposure Adjacent to Area Roadways. .(Ibid.)
Although the individual Project noise impact is below the generally accepted significance
threshold, cumulative noise impacts are well in excess of these thresholds. (Ibid.)
29
As traffic disperses within the Project site, noise levels will decrease. (Final EIR, p. 167.)
As volumes decrease and speeds drop within residential communities, the need for perimeter
noise protection will also decrease. (Ibid.) For a travel speed of 40 mph, the 65 dB CNEL
contour distances decrease to less than 50 feet from the centerline when daily traffic volumes
drop to less than 7,000 ADT. (Ibid.) Streets with less than this threshold volume likely will not
require noise protection, or alternately, will offer the opportunity to have the homes front the
street instead of having a rear yard exposure to the roadway. Ibid.)
The threshold level for evaluation of noise protection requirements is 60 dB CNEL.
(Ibid.) This level occurs at 50 feet from the roadway centerline when daily traffic volumes
exceed 2,000 ADT. I( bid.) Any future roadway that has abutting noise-sensitive (homes,
schools, parks, churches) uses and is forecast to carry over 2,000 vehicles will require a noise
abatement study at the tract map level for future Project construction. (Ibid.) The triggering
level for actual noise mitigation likely will not be reached until a 7,000 ADT daily traffic level.
(Ibid.)
Opening Year (2005)
Noise levels on streets within the study area were quantified based upon year 2003+
Project traffic volumes. (Ibid.) Table 3.10-3 of the Final EIR, Project-Related Increase in 2003
Motor Vehicle Noise, provides the Projected noise exposure adjacent to roadways carrying
appreciable volumes of Project-related traffic. (Ibid.) As shown in the figure, noise levels at
fifty feet from the centerline of area roadways will range from a low of 58.1 CNEL along Wilson
Avenue (east of Etiwanda Avenue) to a high of 78.3 CNEL along Highland Avenue (east of
Etiwanda Avenue). (Ibid.)
Build out (2015)
To determine long-term noise impacts, engineers compared the Projected 2015 CNEL (no
Project) with the Projected 2015 CNEL plus the Project traffic. (Ibid.) The noise impact
calculations are summarized in Table 13.4 of the Final EIR, 2015+ Project Exterior Noise
Exposure Adjacent to Area Roadways. (Ibid.) Increases in noise levels are expected by the year
2015 from Project traffic along Highland Avenue and east of Etiwanda Avenue (78.5 CNEL at
50 feet from the roadway centerline). (Ibid.) However, traffic volumes on Etiwanda Avenue
(north of Wilson Avenue) and Wilson Avenue (west of Etiwanda Avenue) will generate the
lowest motor vehicle noise levels (64.7 CNEL). (Ibid.) Therefore, Project noise impacts at build
out are not expected to be significant. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project may result in temporary exposure of persons to, or generation of,
noise levels in excess of standards established in the City General Plan Noise Element during
construction. (Ibid.) Vacant lots surround the site, therefore there are no sensitive receptors to
noise at or near the site. (Ibid.) The only noise generated would be that of construction related
activities. (Ibid.) The Project must meet the City Noise Ordinance standards as a condition of
building permit approval. (Ibid.) The Project must also comply with the City Development
Code which sets noise standards for potential future on-site and/or adjacent off-site noise
sources. (Ibid.) The Project is not located in close proximity to major noise sources such as rail
30
lines, freeways, or airports. I( bid.) The potential for significant impacts related to excessive
noise will be discussed below. Ibid.)
Summary
Upon completion, the proposed Project will not generate an audible noise increase
(greater than 3.0 dBA) along any of the roadway links, except Wilson Avenue, west of Etiwanda
Avenue. (Final EIR, p. 168.) Even with Project-related traffic, the 60 CNEL contour will
remain within the right-of-way of Wilson Avenue. (Ibid.) With year 2015 traffic volumes, the
proposed Project will not generate an audible noise increase (greater than 3.0 dBA) along any of
the roadway links. (Ibid.)
The Project noise impact study concludes that off-site noise impacts will be individually
less than significant, but cumulatively significant. (Ibid.) Off-site impact mitigation is not
feasible because the cumulative impact is incrementally due to hundreds of planned
developments. (Ibid.) Over the long-term, noise-sensitive land uses typically incorporate their
own noise protection (e.g., schools install block walls, double-glazed windows, or air
conditioned classrooms so windows can be kept closed). (Ibid.) In addition, less sensitive land
uses are often allowed to be located and used as a buffer between roadways and sensitive
receivers. (Ibid.)
Other Noise Sources:
The site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
airport or a private airstrip. (Ibid.) Furthermore, the Project site is not in close proximity to
major noise sources such as rail lines, freeways, or industries. (Ibid.)
2. Findings
The following measures are proposed to help assure that potentially significant impacts
regarding noise during construction and at Project build out are mitigated to below a level of
significance.
Short-Term (Construction) Noise
Construction or grading shall not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a national holiday. (Final EIR, p.
173.)
10-1 Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in
Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer
shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in
Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the
Planning Division. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Planning Division
31
within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant
shall immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels exceed the above
standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of
compliance with above noise standards or halted. (Ibid.)
10-2 During construction, haul truck deliveries shall not take place between the hours of 8:00
p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a
national holiday. Additionally, if heavy trucks used for hauling would exceed 100 daily
trips (counting both to and from the construction site), then the developer shall prepare a
noise mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes. To the extent
feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or
residential dwellings. I( bid.)
10-3 Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for each phase, the developer shall
confirm to Building and Safety in writing that all construction equipment, fixed or
mobile, shall use properly operating mufflers. No combustion equipment, such as pumps
or generators, shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from
6:30 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier.
Stationary equipment shall be placed in such a manner as emitted noise is directed away
from sensitive receptors. Additionally, stockpiling of vehicles and staging areas shall be
located as far as practical from sensitive noise receptors as well. The developer shall
include this provision and adherence to all conditions of approval as a requirement of all
construction contracts for this site. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the City Planning Department. I( bid.)
10-4 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, all construction staging shall be
performed at least 500 feet from occupied dwellings. The location of staging areas, as
indicated on the grading plan, will be subject to review and approval by the City Planning
Department. (Ibid.)
Long-Term (Occupancy) Noise
10-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer will document that
exterior residential areas will have exterior noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL, to the
satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Department. (Final EIR, p. 174.)
10-6 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each phase, the developer shall document
that interior living areas have noise levels less than 45 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of
the Building and Safety Department. (Ibid.)
10-7 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer shall incorporate
site designs and measures to help reduce proposed noise levels over the long-term.
Residential lots with rear yards or side yards adjacent to collector streets (i.e. Lower
Crest) shall be constructed with a 6-foot block wall along the perimeter or demonstrate
with an additional noise study that ultimate traffic volumes onsite will not exceed the
32
noise performance standards in the City Development Code to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Department. (bid.)
NOTE: In addition, the traffic mitigation measures 5-1, 5-3, and 5-4 will help reduce noise-
related impacts from Project traffic by contributing to various roadway and intersection
improvements. bid.)
3. Supporting Explanation
Short-Term (Construction) Noise
Implementation of the proposed mitigation measures 10-1 through 10-4 will reduce any
short-term noise impacts to a less than significant level. (Final EIR, p. 174.) Mitigation measure
10-1 ensures that the City's noise ordinance will not be violated by construction activity. (Final
EIR, p. 173.) Measure 10-2 limits the exposure that City residents will have to noise from
construction vehicles to work days, during which time many residents will not be at home, and
would not typically be sleeping. Ibid.) Further, to the extent that trips are required in excess of
100 per day, this measure requires the City to prepare a noise mitigation plan to further reduce
potential impacts. (Ibid.) Measures 10-3 and 10-4 protect sensitive receptors at or near the
Project site, by requiring mufflers and or barriers, plus a minimum distance for construction
activities to take place away from occupied dwelling. I( bid.) Together, these measures will
mitigated noise from construction activities to a less than significant level.
Long-Term (Occupancy) Noise
While the Project's noise study indicates that noise levels on Wilson Avenue itself will
exceed thresholds for significance in the long term, noise levels are only expected to exceed City
thresholds within the Wilson Avenue's right-of-way itself, where no sensitive users could
possibly locate. (Final EIR, p. 168.) That is, any potentially significant impact is limited to the
roadway and adjacent right-away itself, and not the Project area or any other adjacent areas.
Mitigation measure 10-5 and 10-6, however, also require the Project developer, before the
issuance of building permits for each phase, to demonstrate that noise thresholds for both interior
and exterior meet the City's standards of no greater than 45 db CNEL for interior noise and 65
db CNEL for exterior noise. (Finale EIR, p. 174.) Mitigation measure 10-7 ensures that
residences located on collector streets, i.e., Lower Crest, will include an additional sound
attenuation feature such as a 6-foot block wall to ensure that noise impacts from those collector
streets, as they begin to receive more traffic, will not exceed City standards. (Ibid.) These
measures ensure that if there are any subsequent changes to the noise environment in the Project
area because of any unforeseen circumstances, the Project will continue to meet the City's noise
standards even at full build out. (Ibid.) Implementation of these mitigation measures will ensure
that noise levels do not exceed City's requirements, and remain less than significant. (Ibid.)
Therefore, with the implementation of standard conditions, uniform codes, and the above
mitigation measures, the Project will not cause any short-term or long-term significant noise
impacts. (Ibid.)
33
4. Cumulative Impacts
Construction activities of the various development projects will cause temporary impacts
on the ambient noise environment, which is relatively quiet at present. (Final EIR, p. 224.) It is
expected that any cumulative construction noise impacts can be mitigated at a project level.
(Ibid.) The major cumulative noise impacts in the area would result from increased traffic
volumes impacting existing surrounding dwelling units and increasing noise levels beyond local
standards (i.e., 60 CNEL). (Ibid.)Future noise levels are projected to increase over existing noise
levels by more than 3 dBA on the CNEL scale for many of the roadways in the Project area,
however, in many cases the 3 dB increase is the result of very low traffic volumes on rural roads.
(Ibid.) Existing residences should not be exposed to significant noise impacts, even with the
general increase in area-wide noise levels. (Ibid.) Additionally, only those roadways that have a
significant noise increase and are adjacent to existing residential developments are of concern.
I( bid.)
Roadways along planned residential areas that are not yet developed will be mitigated by
the developer at the time of design. (Ibid.) Area roadways are expected to experience significant
cumulative noise impacts due to regional growth (+6 dB), therefore, growth will have
cumulatively considerable impacts on noise. (Ibid.) However, it is not anticipated that the
proposed Project will make a significant contribution to cumulative noise impacts according to
the Project noise report prepared by The Chambers Group. (Ibid.) As long as careful long-term
planning, engineering and construction practices continue to be employed by the City, and
projects comply with local and regional plans, anticipated cumulative noise impacts will be
effectively mitigated to less than significant levels.
F. Public Services
1. Potential Significant Impacts.
Fire Protection
The development of the proposed Project would create the need for additional fire
protection services. (Final EIR, p. 178.) The Project would add to the number of incidents
responded to by the fire department, and thus the Applicant should contribute financing to the
department for additional fire related services. (Ibid.) Further, as evidenced by the recent Grand
Prix fires, the area lies in a high fire hazard area. (Ibid.) Since the Project is in a Fire Overlay
District, certain requirements on construction are necessary. (Ibid.) This includes water supply,
access, and fuel modification plans and landscape design (RCFPD, 2000). (Ibid.)
Police Protection
The proposed Project will generate an incremental increased need for police protection in
the Project area. (Ibid.) As the Project population increases, there will be a related increase in
service calls typical of suburban areas (e.g., domestic problems, theft, vandalism, etc.). (Ibid.)
34
However, the Sheriff's Department has indicated the Project is not expected to create any
significant demand or impact on police services (RCSD 2000). (Ibid.) Access to the site and
surrounding area by police personnel will not be significantly impacted, as the Project will have
"Knox" boxes that will allow emergency access. (Ibid.)
Schools
Historical enrollments in both the Chaffey Joint Union High School District (CJUHSD)
and the Etiwanda Elementary School District (EESD) schools have increased dramatically over
the past 10 years. (Final EIR, p. 179.) The districts have also experienced periodic "spikes" in
enrollments depending on various regional conditions (e.g., during the civil strife in Los
Angeles). (Ibid.) Historical student generation data from the districts indicate the Project could
generate as many as 111 K-5 students, 56 6-8 grade students, and 40 high school students at
build out, based on a total of 0.78 students per household, as shown in Tables 14.1 and 14.2.
(Ibid.) The actual number of students generated will depend on Project phasing (i.e., how many
units are built and occupied each year). (Ibid.) The developer presently proposes 5 phases over
3 years. (Ibid.)
At present, enrollments at all of the schools serving the Project site are at or over their
capacities, as shown previously in Tables 14.1 and 14.2. (Ibid.) Payment of state-mandated
developer impact fees represents full and complete mitigation under CEQA, regardless of the
enrollment to capacity conditions of the affected schools.
Library
The proposed Project will create an incremental increase in the use of, and the need for,
library facilities and services. (Ibid.) While many of its services have been augmented by
intemet use at home and work, there is a continuing need for libraries and their unique services
in the future. (Ibid.) The Project is expected to generate revenues for library services in excess
of expected costs (Gobar 1999). (Ibid.)
Medical Services
The proposed Project will create an incremental increase in the use of, and the need for,
medical facilities in the area in direct proportion to the occupancy of the Project. I( bid.) Many
general medical services are provided by County health care facilities, but other general and
many specialized services are provided by private companies. (Ibid.) At present, private or
corporate insurance, or government subsidized programs (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid) cover the
vast majority of medical costs, so there will be no significant impacts to area medical facilities as
a result of development of the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Roads
The Project will generate an incremental increase in maintenance needs for federal, state,
and County government by increased traffic from Project residents. (Ibid.) The Project will
provide additional funds to the City and County in the form of increased property and gasoline
taxes to help fund road maintenance. (Ibid.) Construction and maintenance of internal roads
will be the responsibility of the developer. (Ibid.) According to the Gobar fiscal report, the
35
Project is expected to generate road revenues in excess of road maintenance costs. I( bid.) The
Project will, therefore, produce no significant impacts related to roads. (Ibid.)
Other Public Facilities
At full build out, the proposed Project could generate as many as 861 additional residents
that will require general governmental services from the County. (Final EIR, p. 180.) The
Project will, likewise, provide additional funds to the County in the form of increased sales taxes,
subventions, and other taxes to help fund these governmental services. (Ibid.)
2. Findings
The following measures will reduce service-related impacts to below a level of
significance:
11-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer and/or individual
homebuilders shall pay all legally established public service fees, including police, fire,
schools, parks, and libraries to the affected public agencies as stipulated in the
Development Agreement. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City Building and Safety Department. (Final EER, p. 183.)
11-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer and/or individual
homebuilders shall comply with all design requirements of affected public agencies such
as police, fire, health, etc. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City Planning Department. Ibid.)
11-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall obtain
approval of the Fire Department with regard to determination of adequate fire flow and
installation of acceptable fire resistant structural materials in project buildings. (Rid.)
11-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each phase, the applicant shall pay all
legally established impact fees to the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint
Union High School District in accordance with state law. Proof of such payment shall be
submitted to City Building and Safety Department. (Ibid.)
11-5 Prior to recordation for each phase, the developer shall post a bond in an amount to be
determined by the City Engineering Department to ensure installation and maintenance of
all public and private roads and drainage facilities necessary for each phase of the project.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation
Project impacts related to services will be mitigated primarily by the payment of all
legally established public service fees prior to the issuance of the building permits, pursuant to
36
the terms of the Project's Development Agreement and mitigation measure 11-1. (Final EIR, p.
183.)
The Project will also provide for new roads to the Project site and will contribute funding
toward improvements and signalizations in surrounding area, which will help improve fire safety
to the area. (Final EIR, p. 179.) In addition, the Project will follow requirements from the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District related to water supply, access, and fuel
modification plans and landscape design. (Final EIR, p. 178.) Currently, the response time from
the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District to the Project area is five minutes ninety percent
of the time. (Final EIR, p. 175.) Fire Station 176 is currently a proposed station in the Project
area , however, a temporary station has already been constructed and is operating at the CCWD
facility on Etiwanda Avenue (Ibid.) This station's long-term funding and operations are
conditioned upon construction of a certain number of residential dwellings. (Ibid.) As residents
from this Project are added to the City, and other residents from any future projects in this area
are also added, this new station should become permanent, improving already excellent response
times. (Ibid.) As a condition of approval, the Project developer will be required to participate in
the funding of Fire Station 176 as deemed appropriate by the City's Planning Director.
Not only will the Project meet all required State, County and City standards for fire safe
construction, mitigation measure 11-3 requires the Project developer will meet with the Fire
Department prior to construction so as to ensure adequate fire flow and installation of acceptable
fire resistant structural materials in Project buildings. (Final EIR, p. 183.) With payment of all
required fees relating to payment for fire services, the Project impacts related to fire protection
are less than significant. (Ibid.)
Current enrollment at all of the schools serving the Project site are at or over their current
capacities. (Final EIR, p. 179.) Typically this would be considered a significant impact, however,
recent changes in school financing laws indicate that payment of state-mandated developer
impact fees represent full and complete mitigation under CEQA, regardless of the enrollment
conditions of the affected schools. (Final EIR, p. 179.) Mitigation measures 11-1 and 11-4
require such fees. (Final EIR, p. 183.) Therefore, payment of school fees to schools serving the
Project site will mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. (Ibid.)
With implementation of the Project as proposed, including standard conditions, uniform
codes, payment of impact fees for all other potential impacts to public services, and the above
mitigation measures, the Project will not result in any significant impacts to public services,
including fire safety and schools. (Final EIR, p. 183.) Further, the Project is consistent with all
applicable provisions of the City's General Plan relating to public services. (Final EIR, pp. 180-
181.)
4. Cumulative Impacts
The County Sheriff's office has indicated that it has adequate facilities and staffing to
accommodate the project and continued growth in the area. (Final EIR, p. 225) The Project will
also be required to pay its share of impact fees. (Ibid.) As the area develops, the level of service
37
may decline, however, at this point in time, the project's impacts to police services are not
cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.)
The local fire authority has indicated that it has adequate facilities and staffing to
accommodate the project and continued growth in the area. (Ibid.) New development, including
the proposed Project, will be required to pay its fair share of fire impact fees. (Ibid.) Continued
growth will put additional pressure on fire protection services by adding residents and structures
to this area. I( bid.) However, it will also help reduce existing fire hazards in the area by
improving roads, water service, and introducing projects that have adequate fire safety zones
around them, such as is required for the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, the long-term
impacts on fire services will not be cumulatively considerable. (lbid.)
The Chaffey Joint Union High School District and the Etiwanda Elementary School
District have indicated that they can accommodate students from the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
The two school districts are also expecting enrollments to continue increasing and
accommodating growth mainly by using portables (CJUHSD, 2000 and EESD, 2000). (mid.) At
present, the payment of developer fees is considered adequate mitigation for individual project
impacts under CEQA. I( bid.) However, these fees may be inadequate over the long term to fully
mitigate cumulative impacts to schools, since no long-term funding mechanisms have been
successfully established. (Ibid.) Based on this information, it can be reasonably concluded that
growth could have cumulatively considerable impacts on school services, and the proposed
Project will contribute incrementally to this impact. (Ibid.)
With continued growth, developers will continue to pay their fair share of impact fees
which will support public services for the area. As long as careful long-term planning,
engineering and construction practices are employed, and later projects comply with the same
local and regional plans, anticipated cumulative impacts related to public services will be
effectively mitigated to less than significant levels.
G. Utilities
1. Potential Significant Impact
Water
The Project site is currently undeveloped and does not consume any domestic water.
(Final EIR, p. 184.) Based upon the Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan residential
water consumption factor, (3,571.2 gallons per acre per day), the 168.8 acre-Project will require
approximately 602,819 gallons of water per day. (Final EIR, p. 185.) Water will be provided via
a 12-inch main, which was constructed in Etiwanda Avenue with the development of Tracts
14139 and 13527. (Ibid.) This main will provide water to the Project from an existing two
million-gallon reservoir (Reservoir 5C). (Ibid.) Reservoir 5C, north of the Project, will provide
storage and supply to the zone that serves the Project. (Ibid.) The reservoir is located
approximately 1,000 feet north of the Project at an elevation of 2,090 feet. (Ibid.) However, as
growth continues in the Project area, additional offsite water storage facilities will eventually be
38
required to serve water to the Project, and the Project's developer will be required, as a condition
of approval, to participate in funding these improvements as necessary and as specified in
Cucamonga County Water District's Master Plan. (Final EIR Supp., p. 12.)
The Project engineer expects individual water pressure for the development to be in a
range of 40 PSI (pounds per square inch) to 111 PSI. (Ibid.) Lots that exceed the 80-PSI
standard will have pressure reducers to comply with building code regulations. I( bid.) Finally,
fire flow hydrant demands are expected at 1,250 GPM with 20-PSI residual pressure. I( bid.)
This will be accommodated by a dedicated interior looping water supply system (SE 2000).
(Ibid.)
Water supply facilities within the Project will be constructed and financed by the
developer. (Final EIR, p. 186.) Because the backbone system is already in place, and no
additional backbone construction is anticipated except for what has already been planned for
according to Cucamonga County's Master Plan, this impact will be less than significant. (Ibid.)
Furthermore, no new entitlements or resources are required for the Project. (Ibid.) Also, no
significant Project-specific or cumulative impacts were identified. (Ibid.) The CCWD has
issued a letter to the Applicant indicating "the District has adequate supply of water available to
meet the needs of the development, including minimum fire flow requirement as established by
the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District" (R. Silva, CCWD). (Ibid.)
Sewer
Based on the CCWD Master Plan and IEUA estimates, wastewater generation in the
Project area is 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day. (Ibid.) Therefore, the 265 residential
units proposed in the Project will generate approximately 71,550 gallons of sewage per day (0.07
mgd). (Ibid.) In addition, the proposed Project will comply with all Regional Water Quality
Control Board wastewater treatment requirements and will obtain Section 401 and Section 402
permits prior to Project construction. I( bid.)
Presently, there are no existing trunk sewers in the Project area. I( bid.) A fifteen-inch
sewer exists near the intersection of East Street and the I-15 Freeway. (Ibid.) To provide
service, the developer will construct approximately 13,600 feet of off-site sewer main to the
southeast corner of the Project. Ibid.) The Project's backbone sewer system will be constructed
by the developer, but it is anticipated the developer will finance the system with a Mello-Roos
assessment district (SE 2000). (Ibid.) In addition, the CCWD has issued a letter to the developer
indicating "the existing sewer system and sewage treatment plant capacity to be adequate for this
development" (R. Silva, CCWD, March 10, 1999). (Ibid.)
Flood Control
A drainage study (Appendix D) has been completed in coordination with the San
Bernardino County Department of Transportation and Flood Control. (Ibid.) The study includes
several flood control measures, which will be implemented as part of the Project. (Ibid.) Based
on data from the Project hydrology study, the Project will not produce any significant impacts
relative to flood control. (Ibid.)
39
Electricity
Implementation for the proposed Project will result in the consumption of approximately
4,085 kilowatt-hours per day (kWh/day) or 1,491,023 kWh of electricity annually based on full
occupancy. (Ibid.) Southern California Edison has indicated that they are able to provide
service to the Project without significant impact and that they are ready to install electrical
distribution facilities for the Project in accordance with applicable tariffs, rules, and
authorizations (SCE, 2000, SCAQMD, 1993). (Ibid.)
Natural Gas
At build out, the Project will consume approximately 58,874 cubic feet per day of natural
gas, assuming full occupancy. (Final EIR, p. 187.) Connecting gas service to the site may
temporarily disrupt traffic or pedestrian access along Etiwanda and East Avenue. (Ibid.) This is
not anticipated to produce any significant impacts with regard to natural gas service. (Ibid.) The
existing gas line along Etiwanda Avenue will be protected in place (SCGC, 2000). I( bid.)
Telephone
Implementation of the proposed Project would require the installation of buried cables to
serve new development. (Ibid.) No adverse impacts to telephone service would result from the
Project implementation (Verizon, 2000). (Ibid.)
Cable TV
Implementation of the proposed Project would require the installation of buried cables to
new developments. (Ibid.) No adverse impacts to cable service would result from Project
implementation. (Ibid.) Growth and development in the area has been anticipated and has been
planned for by Charter Communications (CC, 2000). (Ibid.)
Solid Waste
According to the website of the California Integrated Solid Waste Management Board,
County residents generate an average of eight pounds of solid waste per person per day. (Ibid.)
Since the Project is proposed to have 265 units with 861 new residents, the Project could
generate as much as 6,888 pounds or 3.4 tons per day of solid waste. (Ibid.) According to San
Bernardino County's Integrated Waste Management Plan, adequate capacity has been identified
in the valley landfills to meet growth within the County Service Areas for the next five or more
years. (Ibid.) In addition, the County has up to thirty years of additional landfill capacity
available if the Mid-Valley facility is expanded as proposed. (Ibid.) The County has
implemented recycling programs, as required by state law and the local Source Reduction and
Recycling Element. (Ibid.) The Project will not produce any significant impacts related to solid
waste based on available disposal capacity of County landfills. I( bid.) Since fees are collected
for refuse collection services, increased service levels will be expanded and funded through user
fees. (Ibid.) Therefore no significant impacts are anticipated with regard to solid waste
collection or disposal. I( bid.)
40
2. Findings
The following measures are proposed to ensure that service-related impacts remain below a level
of significance:
12-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the applicant shall provide
funding to the Cucamonga County Water District for sewer service. Additionally, the
Cucamonga County Water District will be required to provide funds to the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency for treatment of the project's wastewater. Proof of such payment shall
be submitted to the City Building and Safety Department. (Final EIR, p. 190.)
12-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, development plans shall be provided to Southern
California Edison, the Gas Company, and Verizon, as they become available in order to
facilitate engineering, design and construction of improvements necessary to provide
electrical, natural gas, and telephone service to the project site. This shall be done to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. .)
12-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall apply for and obtain will-
serve letters from SCE, SCGC, and Verizon and place them on file with the City
Engineer. (Ibid.)
12-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall comply with the guidelines
provided by SCE, SCGC, and Verizon in regard to easement restrictions, construction
guidelines, protection of pipeline easements, and potential amendments to right-of-way in
the areas of any existing easements of these companies. This shall be done to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Ibid.)
3. Supportine Explanation
Water will be provided from an existing reservoir and existing water line. (Final EIR, p.
185.) Because the Project's developer will be required to contribute to funding for the additional
offsite physical facilities that will be needed to serve water to the Project and other adjacent
development in the future, as previously identified in the Cucamonga County Water District's
Master Plan, no significant impacts to water supply is anticipated. (Final EIR Supp., pp. 11-12.)
Moreover, the Project does not reach the threshold under SB 221 that requires new developments
over 500 units to demonstrate a reliable water supply for 20 years, nor does the water to be
supplied to the Project represent 10 percent or more of Cucamonga Valley Water District's
("CVWD") annual water supply. (Final EIR, p. 186.)
Southern California Edison has indicated that they are able to provide service to the
Project without significant impact and that they are ready to install any needed distribution
facilities. (Final EIR, p. 189; see also Energy and Mineral Resources.) No adverse impacts are
anticipated by telephone or cable providers as a result of the Project. (Final EIR, p. 190.)
41
While at present there are no existing trunk sewers in the Project area, the Project
developer will form a Mello-Roos assessment district which may fund a sewer line to the Project.
(Final EIR, p. 186.) A fifteen-inch sewer exists near the intersection of East Street and the I-15
Freeway. To provide service, the developer will construct approximately 13,600 feet of off-site
sewer main to the southeast comer of the Project. The Project's backbone sewer system will be
constructed by the developer (Ibid.) In addition, the CCWD has issued a letter to the developer
indicating "the existing sewer system and sewage treatment plant capacity to be adequate for this
development." (Ibid.)
Adequate capacity has been identified in the valley landfills to meet growth within the
County Service Area for the next five or more years. (Final EIR, p. 187.) With planned
expansion and County waste reductions programs in place the Project will not produce any
significant impacts related to solid waste. (Ibid.)
Implementation of the Project will not result in the need for new utility systems, or
substantial alterations to electric or natural gas systems. (Final EIR, p. 186-187.) With
implementation of the Project as proposed, including standard conditions, uniform codes, and
mitigation measures, the Project will not result in any significant utility impacts. (Final EIR, p.
190.)
4. Cumulative Impacts
The North Etiwanda communities are served by a variety of public and private water
purveyors and suppliers. (Final EIR, p. 225-226.) Many residents are on local wells while others
have piped water. (Ibid.) Continued growth will require expansion of existing water systems and
additional hook-ups. (Ibid.) There should be no significant short-term impacts as long as water
lines are extended or wells installed as needed. I( bid.) However, there may be significant
cumulative impacts if more wells are installed and more groundwater is removed than can be
sustained by the local aquifers. (Ibid.) In addition, new growth will undoubtedly require more
dependence on imported water from northern California. (Ibid.) The proposed Project will
contribute incrementally to these water-related impacts.
Most of the Etiwanda community is served by sewer systems, while many areas
throughout the foothills still use septic tanks or holding systems. (Ibid.) Given the cost and
difficulty of installing a piped network, it is unlikely that all residences in foothill areas will be
fully sewered anytime in the foreseeable future. (Ibid.) This does not represent a significant
impact in itself, as long as overall development densities remain low so septic systems do not
overload the local soils and impact the groundwater. (Ibid.) While the continued use of septic
systems may have a cumulatively considerable impact on the area, the proposed Project will
have a piped sewer system and so will not contribute significantly to this potential impact. (Ibid.)
Much of the East Etiwanda Creek area presently does not have improved flood control
structures but rather depends on local topography and natural drainages to convey runoff. (Ibid.)
At present, there are no major flooding threats identified in the Project area, although many areas
suffer from short-term flooding or inundation during heavy storms or snowmelt. (Ibid.) While
the area may continue to have considerable flooding impacts, the proposed Project will not
42
contribute significantly to this impact since it will be required to mitigate its projected-related
drainage impacts as part of its development approval, and the improvements needed to mitigate
those impacts are part of a regional drainage system eventually planned for this area. (Ibid.)
Continued growth will require additional electric and natural gas hook-ups throughout the
Etiwanda community. (Ibid.) No major impacts to energy resources are expected to occur as a
result of continued growth, and thus the Project's impacts on energy resources will not be
cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.)
As long as careful long-term planning, engineering and construction practices are
employed, and future development continue to comply with local and regional plans and fee
obligations, anticipated cumulative impacts related to all utilities, including water, cumulative
impacts will remain less than significant levels. (Final EIR, pp. 226-227, 228.)
H. Cultural Resources
Two cultural resources inventory reports were completed for this Project site. The first
report was prepared by the Chambers Group in June of 1998 (Chambers 1998). (Final EIR, p.
202.) The second study was prepared by the Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC) in June of 2000.
I( bid.) These documents were prepared to identify and assess the significance of prehistoric
and/or historic cultural resources, which may exist on the subject site. (Ibid.) TLC also reviewed
the Chambers report, which included data on recorded site CA-SBR-313H. I( bid.) Copies of
these reports are included in Appendix G. (Ibid.)
1. Potentially Significant Impacts
Paleontological Resources
The research conducted for this Project indicates that the major portion of rocks
underlying the Project property likely have a "Low Paleontological Sensitivity." (Final EIR, p.
202, 204.) Further, the geotechnical study of the property indicated that most of the strata
contain sedimentary and alluvial deposits that are not known to yield vertebrate fossils. (Ibid.)
According to the Rancho Etiwanda Planned Unit Development EIR, a fossil horse skull was
identified approximately a mile northwest of the Project site. (Ibid.)This specimen was removed
from the site and it is presently on display at the San Bernardino County Museum. strata contain
sedimentary and alluvial deposits that are not known to yield vertebrate fossils. (Ibid.) It is not
known if the formation, in which the skull was found, will produce additional fossil resources,
though because of the soil structure such additional fossil resources are unlikely, though
possible. (Ibid.) No other fossils or paleontological resources, however, have been recorded or
discovered on this Project site (MBA, 1988). (Ibid.) Further, the records search for the Project
concluded that no additional sites have been recorded within a mile of the site (CG12, 1998).
(Ibid.)
Archeological/Historical Resources
One historic archeological site was previously recorded on the property, CA-SBR-3131H.
(Final EIR, p. 204.) This prior survey found what appeared to be the remains of a construction
43
camp used by the Etiwanda Water Company in the 1880's. (Ibid.) Its structure consists of rock
walls, hand-forged metal barrel hoops and nails, barbed wire, and glass fragments. (Ibid.) This
archeological resource was previously deemed potentially eligible for the California Register of
Historic Resources. (Ibid.) The record search conducted for this Project recommended that an
archeological test program be performed within the identified site area. (Ibid.) Historical research
was also recommended to provide a context for the material remains found at the site. (Ibid.) It
was recommended that the test program and the historical research should be used to evaluate the
site's eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources. If the site was determined
eligible, a data recovery program was determined to be necessary. (Ibid.)
2. Findings
The following measures have been selected from the City's standard mitigation measures
and are proposed to ensure that potential impacts to cultural resources are below a level of
significance:
14-1 A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a preconstruction field survey of the Project site.
The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific
recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e.,paleontological monitoring)
that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must
include, but not be limited to, the following measures: (Final EIR, p. 207.)
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid
removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during
the interval of earth-disturbing activities;
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-
disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If
construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should
immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find; and
• Submit summary report to the City. Transfer collected specimens with a copy of
the report to San Bernardino County Museum.
14-2 If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the
developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take
appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the
archaeologist, the City will: (Ibid.)
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or
significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its
archaeological value;
• Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites
within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point;
44
• Pursue educating the public about the area's archaeological heritage;
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate
adverse Project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric
resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines;
• Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory,
evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the Project area. Submit
1 one copy of the completed report with original illustrations, to the San
Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving;
and
• If artifacts of Native American origin are discovered, official representatives of
the Native American group will be consulted to determine the most appropriate
disposition of the artifacts, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department in
agreement with County Museum and the Native American group.
3. Supporting Explanation
Adverse paleontological impacts are not anticipated because the sedimentary and alluvial
deposits on the Project site are not known to yield vertebrate fossils. (Final EIR, p. 204.)
However, if any paleontological resources are found during grading or construction, mitigation
measure 14-1 ensures that the resources will be properly excavated, preserved, and transferred to
the San Bernardino County Museum. (Final EIR, p. 207.)
In June of 2000, the Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC) evaluated the site pursuant to
thresholds contained in the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register
of Historic Places. (Final EIR, p. 204.)The TLC concluded that the site CA-SBR-3131H was not
the location of the Chinese labor camp as previously indicated. bid.) It is believed that the site
once served a more utilitarian purpose as a stock pen or corral. (Ibid.) Therefore, CA-SBR-
3131H was determined by the TLC to represent an insignificant resource and lacks sufficient
merit for consideration in the California Register of Historic Resources and the National Register
of Historic Places. (Ibid.)
Work will be halted in the event that human remains are discovered during excavation.
(Final EIR, p. 206.) In addition, mitigation measure 14-1 and 14-2 requires the presence of
paleontological and archeological monitors onsite during grading. (Final EIR, pp. 207-208.)
These monitors have the authority to stop grading in the event that fossils or artifacts are found
so that they will be conserved. (Ibid.) Mitigation measure 14-2 also requires that if artifacts of
Native American origin are discovered, official representatives of the Native American group
will be consulted to determine the most appropriate disposition of the artifacts. (Ibid.)
45
Therefore, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, the Project will not
have significant impacts on paleontological, archaeological or historical resources. (Final EIR,
p. 208.)
4. Cumulative Impacts
Development of the area could impact archaeological and/or paleontological resources
because excavation activities will disturb native soils. (Final EIR, p. 2.) It is possible the area
contains undiscovered archaeological, paleontological, or historical resources. I( bid.) As long as
qualified personnel are retained to conduct surveys of land to be developed, and are retained to
be,present during grading of approved developments, potential impacts to these resources will
not be cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.) Therefore, cumulative impacts to Cultural Resources
from Project development are considered less than significant.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The City hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in
the Final EIR and herein, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level: Project level (i.e., direct) and cumulative impacts to Air Quality, Biological
Resources and Aesthetics.
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15092(b)(2), the City cannot approve
the Project unless it first finds: (1) under Public Utilities Code section 21081(a)(3) and State
CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in
the Final EIR, and (2) under State CEQA Guidelines section 15092(b)(2)(B), that the Project
benefits outweigh the remaining significant effects and are therefore acceptable pursuant to State
CEQA Guidelines section 15093.
A. Air Quality
1. Significant Unavoidable Effects
Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
The Air Quality Impact Analysis, conducted by Synectecology and the Chambers Group
Inc., dated March 28, 2000 and included in its entirety in Appendix F of the Final EIR
("Chambers Group study"), is based upon appropriate methodologies, as established in the South
Coast Air Quality Management District's ("SCAQMD") CEQA Handbook. (Final EIR, p. 107.)
The Project site consists of 168.8 total acres, however, only about 107 acres would be
disturbed (i.e., graded) for the proposed residential development. (Final EIR, p. 113.) Dust
46
emissions were calculated by the Chambers Group study based on a worst case assumption of 10
acres being disturbed on any given day, which would generate as much as 550 pounds per day of
PM10 (10 acres times 55 pounds/day). (Ibid.) However, implementation of a typical dust control
program, as recommended by the SCAQMD, could reduce these emissions to 275 pounds per
day (i.e., 50 percent). I( bid.) Even with this level of reduction, however, Project grading would
still exceed the maximum daily PM10 emission threshold of 150 pounds per day according to the
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook PM10 Significance Thresholds. (Ibid.)
Construction activities will also generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic
compounds ("VOC") from paints, solvents, asphalt, roofing tar and other coatings. I( bid.) The
volatility of the materials used in asphalt is regulated by SCAQMD rules, as are paints and
solvents. (Ibid.) Even water-based paint, however, still contains a high percentage of VOCs
such that paint and other architectural coatings are the primary source of construction-related
VOC emissions. (Ibid.) For the purposes of this "worst case" analysis, it is assumed that
standard water-based materials will be used for this Project. (Ibid.) Typical water-based paints
contain around two pounds of VOC per gallon of paint (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, Table A9-
13-C). (Ibid.) If painting one home requires 20 gallons of paint, about 40 pounds of VOCs will
be released per house painted (inside and out). Q?id.) Painting more than two homes per day
would cause the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day of VOCs to be exceeded. (Ibid.)
Exhaust emissions would result from on and off-site heavy equipment. (Final EIR, p.
114.) The types and numbers of equipment are expected to vary among contractors, therefore
emissions could not be quantified by the Chambers Group study with certainty. (Ibid.)
However, typical emission rates for a single diesel powered scraper were obtained from the
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook and are provided in Table 9-4 of the Final EIR, Typical
Construction Equipment Emissions. (Ibid.) Diesel scrapers are the most common equipment
used.for grading activities. (Ibid.) A Project will likely utilize ten to twenty pieces of heavy
equipment at any one time during mass grading operations. (Ibid.) Assuming that ten pieces of
heavy equipment were operated an average of eight hours per day, the emissions anticipated are
also shown on Table 9-4 of the Final EIR, Typical Construction Equipment Emissions. (Ibid.)
Of the five types of air pollutants listed in Table 9-4 of the Final EIR, only Nitrogen Oxides and
Reactive Organic Compounds ("ROC") would exceed the SCAQMD-established threshold of
significance during construction operations. (Ibid.)
To summarize, according to the Chambers Group Study air quality analysis, the Project
will produce significant emissions of NO, and Reactive Organic Compounds ("ROC") during
construction because of exhaust from on and off-site heavy equipment. (Ibid.) Additionally,
unless fewer than two homes are painted on any given day, or the average daily consumption of
paint is limited to 37.5 gallons per day, VOC emissions will exceed SCAQMD significance
levels. (Ibid.) Finally, particulates produced from Project grading, even with mitigation, may
still exceed the maximum daily PMio emission threshold of 150 pounds per day according to the
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook PM10 Significance Thresholds. (Ibid.)
47
Long-Term (Operational) Impacts
The greatest Project-related air quality concern centers on the 2,536 external vehicle trips
that would be generated at Project completion. (Final EIR, p. 116.) Typical San Bernardino
County residential trip lengths average about 10 miles, so the additional 25,360 vehicle miles
traveled from Project traffic would produce additional air quality impacts. (Ibid.) Together with
stationary emissions from power plants, and comparable facilities, the proposed Project will
generate 436 pounds per day of CO, NOx, ROG, and PM10 at build out. (Ibid.) According to the
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, the Project would exceed applicable NOx and PMio standards for
significance for the Project's Long-Term (Operational) Impacts. (Ibid.)
Secondary impact potential would derive from energy consumption in power plants or
on-site heaters, stoves, water heaters, and similarly consumptive appliances. I( bid.) General
development also creates miscellaneous emissions from a variety of sources, such as cleaning
products, landscaping equipment, and fireplaces, which contribute to off-site emissions. (Ibid.)
Sensitive Receptors
Certain groups of people, such as the elderly, young children, hospital patients, are
especially sensitive to air pollutant health effects. (Final EIR, p. 118.) The SCAQMD requires
an analysis of potential impacts to any nearby land uses that contain these "sensitive receptors."
(Ibid.) Of particular concern are unusually high concentrations of CO called "hot spots." (Ibid.)
Etiwanda Intermediate School is a sensitive receptor located approximately 1.4 miles south of
the Project site. (Ibid.) The exhaust emissions generated by the proposed Project traffic may
impact this school due to its proximity to travel routes. (Final EIR, p. 119.) Therefore, a "hot
spot" analysis was conducted for the Chambers Group study near intersections where Project
vehicles might cause extended traffic congestion and have a potential to create pockets of toxic
gases such as CO. I( bid.) A "hot spot" analysis concluded that projected concentrations of CO
at Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Avenue would be significant until this intersection is fully
signalized. (Ibid.)
Further, the 5.81 acres of park facilities and 2.71 acres of open space planned for the
Project, plus the network of trials to be developed by the City, are places where sensitive
receptors could be located.
2. Findings
The following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to air quality to the extent
feasible:
Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
6-1 During construction, all construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating
condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all
construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers'
specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City
verification. (Final EIR, p. 123.)
48
6-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, developer shall submit construction plans to
City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction
contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile construction equipment will
be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the Project.
Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning Staff. (Ibid.)
6-3 During construction, all paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards
noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or
high volume, low-pressure spray, to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. (Ibid.)
6-4 During construction, all asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in
SCAQMD Rule 1108, to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. bid.)
6-5 During grading and construction, the prime contractor shall post signs requiring that
trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). (Ibid.)
6-6 During construction, all construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402
and 403, to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. Additionally, contractors shall include
the following provisions: (Ibid.)
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and
watering;
• Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads;
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over
extended periods of time;
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during
and after the end of work periods;
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and
use sound engineering practices;
• Sweep streets according to a schedule established by the City if silt is carried
over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling. Timing
may vary depending upon time of year of construction;
• Suspend grading operations during high winds (i.e., wind speeds exceeding
25 mph) in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; and
• Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on soils haul trucks or cover
payloads using tarps or other suitable means.
49
6-7 During grading, the site shall be treated with water or other soil-stabilizing agent
(approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB]) daily to
reduce PM10 emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. (Final EIR, p. 124.)
6-8 Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all
inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM]o
emissions. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors.
(Ibid.)
6-9 During construction, contractors shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel powered
equipment where feasible. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City Inspectors. (Ibid.)
6-10 During construction, contractors shall ensure that construction and grading plans include
a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. This measure shall
be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. (Ibid.)
Note: Short-Term (Construction) Air Quality impacts will also be mitigated by the
measures established in Transportation and Circulation,including
mitigation measure 5-7 and Earth Resources, including mitigation measure
3-4. I( bid.)
Long-Term (Operational) Impacts
6-11 Prior to approval of building permits, the developer shall demonstrate that all residential
structures have incorporated high-efficiency/low-polluting heating, air conditioning,
appliances and water heaters. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of
the City Building Official. (Ibid.)
6-12 Prior to approval of building permits, the developer shall demonstrate that all residential
structures have incorporated thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. (Ibid.)
6-13 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit and obtain approval
of a plan for the provision of adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities for Project
residents throughout the Project. The plan shall detail the construction timing for bike
racks at the two parks, sidewalks, and trails based upon completion prior to occupancy of
the first unit of the subject phase. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.)
50
6-14 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall make a fair share
contribution to a park and ride facility along the I-15 or I-10 Freeways that would serve
Project residents. The fair share calculation shall be determined to the satisfaction of
City Engineer. The applicant shall place the appropriate funds in a special account for
such purposes. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. (Ibid.)
6-15 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the applicant shall provide a bus
stop/shelter at the trailhead park to OmmTrans standards if so directed by OmniTrans,
and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Final EIR, p. 125.)
Note: Mitigation Measure 5-2 in Transportation and Circulation addresses potential public
transit improvements to help mitigate potential traffic impacts, and would also help reduce
potential air quality impacts. (Ibid.)
3. Supporting Explanation
Short-Term (Construction) Impacts
Construction activity emissions are generally difficult to quantify because the exact type
and amount of equipment that will used or the acreage that may be disturbed on any given day is
not known with any reasonable certainty. (Final EIR, p. 121.) Here, the custom orientation of
the Project should spread construction (and thus construction-related emissions) over a longer
period of time than would be the case for similar sized projects who construct all residences at
the same time as part of a single tract development. (Final EIR, p. 123.)
The emissions which do result from construction activities will be minimized as fully as
possible through the comprehensive mitigation as set forth above and in the Final EIR. Based on
the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, these proposed mitigation measures should reduce projected
emissions overall by approximately twenty percent. (Final EIR, p. 125.) Specifically, mitigation
measures 6-1, 6-2, 6-5, 6-9 and 6-10 will ensure that criteria emissions from construction and
grading equipment will be limited to the greatest extent feasible by only allowing properly tuned
and serviced equipment to operate on the Project site. (Final EIR, pp. 123-124.) Further, these
mitigation measures require a preference for low-emission vehicles, and require that all vehicles
operate in a manner that prevents unnecessary exhaust and idling. The Chambers Group study
does indicate that these mitigation measures should reduce projected ROC emissions from 2.89
tons per quarter to 2.3 tons per quarter, which is less than the SCAQMD's significance threshold
for ROC (2.5 tons per quarter). (Final EIR, p. 125.) However, ROC emissions will still exceed
significance thresholds if more than two houses are painted on a single day. (Final EIR, p. 113.)
This conclusion remains the same no matter if the URBEMIS 2002 or the URBEMIS 7G model
is used to calculate emissions significance. (Final EIR Supp., p. 25-26.)
Mitigation measures 6-6, 6-7 and 6-8 (plus mitigation measures established in
Transportation and Circulation, including mitigation measure 5-7 and Earth Resources mitigation
measures 3-4), will require PMio emissions to be reduced to the greatest extent feasible by
restricting the ability of dust and dirt to escape the Project site. (Final EIR, pp. 123-124.)
51
However, even with this mitigation, the PMio emissions during construction and particularly
during grading activities, will likely exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. (Final EIR, p.
113.) Further, these mitigation measures will not reduce construction-related NOx emissions to
less than significant levels. (Final EIR, p. 125.) Thus, despite the City's and the Project
developer's best efforts, according to the SCAQMD's CEQA Guidebook the numbers of heavy
equipment anticipated to be needed to grade and prepare the Project site for construction, plus
certain construction activities such as applying paint, will result in emissions that exceed the
threshold standard for these specified criteria pollutants on a short-term basis. Again, this
conclusion remains the same no matter if the URBEMIS 2002 or the URBEMIS 7G model is
used to calculate emissions significance. (Final EIR Supp., p. 25-26.)
Long-Term (Operational Effects)
The Long-Term (Operational Effects) of the Project are primarily related to the operation
of vehicles by Project residents. (Final EIR, p. 116.) Implementation of mitigation measure 6-13
related to pedestrian and bicycle facilities, mitigation measure 6-14 related to park and ride
facilities, and mitigation measure 6-15 related to bus shelters will encourage residents to engage
in activities that reduce vehicle trips. (Final EIR, pp. 124-125.) However, even with
implementation of these measures, vehicle trips will still produce significant long-term air
quality impacts because daily emission levels for NOx and ROG remain significant under the
standards established by the SCAQMD. (Final EIR, p. 125.) This significance conclusion
remains the same despite the use of the URBEMIS 7G model for evaluating potential impacts
rather than the URBEMIS 2002 model. (Final EIR Supp., p. 25.) As noted in the responses to the
comments submitted by the SCAQMD, the emissions factors for the newer URBEMIS 2002
model are higher than those in the URBEMIS 7G. (Ibid.) As such, Project emissions will still
exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for those specified pollutants that already exceed
thresholds, no matter which modeling program is utilized. Moreover, those pollutants that do not
exceed thresholds under the URBEMIS 7G study would not now exceed these thresholds or
become significant. The Project's transportation consultants have indicated that there are few, if
any, effective mitigation measures available to reduce operational emissions for NOx and ROG.
(Final EIR, p. 125.) As such, even if the Project's traffic consultant used the URBEMIS 2002
model, the mitigation proposed and adopted (as well as the significance conclusions) would have
remained exactly the same. Therefore operation-related emissions were properly analyzed, but
do remain a significant air quality impact. I( bid.)
Because the Chamber's Group study concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed
Project will result in a significant impact to air quality, a South Coast Air Quality Management
Plan ("SCAQMP") Consistency determination is necessary. (Final EIR, p. 118.) The SCAQMD
recognizes two key indicators of consistency relative to the determination by the SCAQMP.
(Ibid.) The first indicator is whether the project would result in an increase in frequency or
sensitivity or existing air quality violations, or cause or contribute to new violations. Ibid.)
These criteria are also reached if the action would delay timely attainment of air quality
standards, or the interim emissions reductions specified in the SCAQMP. I( bid.) The second
indicator is whether the Project will exceed the assumptions in the SCAQMP in the year 2010 or
increments based on the year of Project build out. (Ibid.) As documented by the Chamber's
Group study, development and operation of the Project will be consistent with the SCAQMP.
52
Since development of the Project site, with appropriate minor adjustments related to allowable
project density, is already be consistent with the General Plan and the ENSP in that these
documents both recognized that residential development was to occur on the Project site, the
consistency analysis has already been completed by the SCAQMD. That is, when the City's
General Plan and the ENSP were approved, the development anticipated by these documents was
determined to be consistent with the SCAQMP. (Ibid.) Moreover, this consistency with the
SCAQMP is demonstrated by the Project's consistency with other applicable portions of the
City's General Plan. Chapter 5 of the City's General Plan, "Maintaining Public Health and
Safety," the City's actions to improve air quality are integrated with other related regional and
local programs, such as the SCAQMP and the Congestion Management Plan ("CMP"). (Final
EIR, p. 119.) Here, as noted by the Final EIR, the Project is consistent with the County's CMP,
and the Project is specifically being analyzed pursuant to the requirements SCAQMP. (Ibid.)
Further, the City's General Plan also provides that the City will promote non-motorized
transportation. (Ibid.) Since the Project contains multi-use trails that will encourage non-
motorized access to the Project, the Project is consistent with this air quality policy of the
General Plan. (Ibid.)
Sensitive Receptors
The improvements that have taken place to the Etiwanda Avenue and Highland Avenue
intersection as part of the extension of the I-210 freeway have reduced the CO concentrations to
below a level of significance. (Final EIR Supp., p. 26.) Further, the active portions of the
recreational areas and the park site, such as the athletic playing fields, as designed will be located
far enough away from "the Lower Crest Collector" to effectively minimize exposure to sensitive
receptors and prevent a significant impact. Parking facilities will be located adjacent to the
recreational facilities and would serve as a buffer from vehicular traffic and emissions.
4. Cumulative Impacts
Construction of development projects in the area will have cumulative air quality
impacts. (Final EIR, p. 222.) Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction that
will occur separately and simultaneously. .) However, the greatest cumulative impact on
regional air quality will be the addition of incremental pollutants from increased traffic and
vehicular emissions in the area and increased energy consumption from the planned projects.
(Ibid.) This will be a significant air quality impact both on a project level and on a regional basis.
(Ibid.)Ultimate development of the area will generate thousands of additional trips per day based
on standard trip generation conditions (see Section 3.6, Air Quality). Assuming an anticipated
generation of 2,956 daily vehicle trips at buildout, area development will eventually produce air
pollutants close to SCAQMD thresholds. (Ibid.) The Chambers Group estimates that continued
growth would produce incremental but cumulatively considerable amounts of additional air
pollutants from increased traffic, mainly NOx and ROG. (Ibid.) This will be the eventual result
of cumulative residential, commercial, and industrial development in the community. (Ibid.) The
traffic and the air quality analyses include cumulative CO levels and the Project itself does not
present a cumulative impact. (Ibid.)
53
Even with implementation of the Project as proposed, including standard conditions,
uniform codes, Project design features and the above mitigation measures, the Project will
produce significant short-term air quality impacts from ROG emissions, and significant long-
term air quality impacts from NOx and ROG/ROC emissions. (Final EIR, p. 125.) In addition,
the Project will incrementally contribute to cumulatively considerable air quality impacts from
development of the Etiwanda area. (Ibid.) The emissions in excess of SCAQMD significance
thresholds, in particular, represent a significant Project impact. (Ibid.)
B. Biological Resources
1. Significant Unavoidable Effects
Vegetation
The Project site encompasses 168.8 acres in a portion of the Etiwanda Creek watershed
known as the Etiwanda Alluvial Fan. (Final EIR, p. 126.) The biological studies for the Project,
conducted by The Chambers Group ("rCG") from 1998 through 2000 with updated gnatcatcher
surveys in 2002, determined that the development of the Project site will eliminate
approximately 109 acres of sage scrub that is "strongly denominated by white sage..." TCG's
studies also indicate that the Project site also included California sagebrush, California
buckwheat, California filago, valley lessingia, popcorn flower, and common phacelia. (Final
EIR, p. 127.)That is, though white sage (Salvia apiana) predominates the Project site, other sage
scrub species was found sporadically throughout the Project site. In addition, non-native
(invasive) annual grasses such as wild oat and red brome were common onsite. fflli�d., a complete
list of plant species present onsite is attached to the Final EIR as Appendix G.) The Final EIR
then concluded that the TCG referred to the sage scrub vegetation on the Project site as "white
sage series" because it is largely monotypic and dominated by this one upland scrub indicator
species. (Final EIR, p. 127.) Therefore, the Draft EIR concluded this vegetation to be distinct
and less diverse collection of habitat than high-quality RAFSS, which is typically composed of a
more diverse collection of sage scrubs and other plants, and that the high concentration of white
sage scrub onsite indicates that the sage scrub on the Project site and could be properly classified
as white sage series or as Riversidian Upland Sage Scrub ("RUSS") according to Holland's
1986. (Final EIR, p. 127.)
A joint comment letter received from the USFWS and DFG argues that the Project site
itself, as well as the entire Etiwanda fan, still contains an intact, biological significant, and viable
stand of RAFSS, but did not indicate the basis for this conclusion. This comment letter also
pointed out an apparent inconsistency between the labeling of the sage scrub onsite, as in some
places the scrub is referred to as RAFSS, while the EIR document at one place argues that the
sage scrub is Riversidian Upland Sage Scrub ("RUSS"). (Final EIR Supp., p. 4.) The term
RAFSS is often used in a generic sense to refer to sage scrub located on an alluvial fan or
historic alluvial fan along the south foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. (Ibid.) That is, the
term RAFSS is often and conveniently used to refer to the many kinds of vegetation throughout
54
an alluvial fan area. The Final EIR clarifies that it does appear that the sage scrub onsite,
consisting of largely monotypic white sage series, is considered by many experts as a sub-group,
or a variant of RAFSS, (Final EIR Supp., p. 4-6.) However, as noted by the April 12, 2004 study
conducted by George Wirtes, no matter the technical classification given to the sage scrub, it
continues to be the case that the habitat is dominated by white sage, including even after the
November 2003 Grand Prix fire that left approximately 95% of the Project site burned. This
study indicates that at as of April 14, 2004, approximately 85.9% of the species onsite are Salvia
apiana.
Although there is some ambiguity regarding the proper label for these related sage scrubs,
the EIR does consistently describe the composition of the sage scrub onsite as being
predominated by white sage, and that the loss of this habitat is a significant impact. The Final
EIR also consistently indicates that the channelization of Day Creek years ago eliminated the
sheet flow that historically scoured this area, and as such the sheet flows that are necessary to
support a viable Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ("RAFSS") natural community over the
long-term have been eliminated. (Final EIR, pp. 127, 128.) That is, while it appears to be true
that the Project site is currently composed of sage scrub that is a sub-group or variant of RAFSS,
the long-term lack of sheet flows on the Project site have severely limited the type of sage scrub
that is viable. (Ibid.) The result is a largely monotypic stand of white sage scrub that could be
further degrade over the years. The TCG study also noted that while a more diverse and vibrant
RAFSS community also appears to occur in Etiwanda Creek east of the proposed development
area, this community is topographically separated from the largely monotypic sage scrub on the
Project site by an approximately 50-foot high embankment along the creek channel. (Final EIR,
p. 128.) As a result, development of the Project will not significantly impact this apparently
viable off-site RAFSS that does appear to be present in the general Project area.
Though the EIR determines that although the sage scrub onsite does not have the same
habitat value as undisturbed RAFSS, it is nonetheless valuable to a variety of animal species that
have been found in or are believed to inhabit the North Etiwanda area, though at this point the
site remains badly damaged by the wildfires. (Final EIR, p. 132.) Further, development of the
Project site will likely impact (assuming the wildfires have not permanently destroyed these
plants) the following sensitive plant species (see Table 3.7-1) and will require appropriate
mitigation:
1) Plummer's mariposa lily (listed - federal Species of Special Concern) is found
onsite; (Final EIR, p. 131.)
2) Pious daisy (not listed—CNPS List 1B) was found onsite in past, and site has
suitable habitat; and (Ibid.)
3) Four spineflowers—Ramona, prostrate, California, and Parry's. All have
moderate to high potential to occur onsite. Parry's is federal Species of Special
Concern, the other three species considered sensitive by the California Native
Plant Society. (Ibid.)
55
In addition, the listed Santa Ana River wooly star has the potential to exist in the Project area,
but only in the Etiwanda Creek channel. (Final EIR, p. 130.) Again, the only disturbance to the
Etiwanda Creek bank from the Project will be where the new storm drain line may tie, into the
creek channel. Available data indicates that there will only be negligible impacts to the
following sensitive plant species: Southern California black walnut; Parish's desert thorn;
Laguna mountains jewel-flower; Johnston's buckwheat; lemon lily; Peirson's spring beauty; San
Gabriel linanthus; Pringle's monardella; and California muhly grass. (Final EIR, p. 130.) These
species were not observed and there is no suitable habitat onsite, therefore, they have little or no
potential to occur onsite. (Ibid.)
Wildlife
Development of the Project site will remove habitat that supports a number of sensitive
species that were either observed onsite or have a moderate to high potential to occur onsite,
including: sharp-shinned hawk; Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow; red-shouldered
hawk; white-tailed kite; northern harrier; Cooper's hawk; San Diego horned lizard; and orange-
throated whiptail. (Final EIR, pp. 132-134.)
The California gnatcatcher was not observed on-site and has a low probability of
occurring on the site due to the type of vegetation present. (Ibid.) However, the species has
been found in the general area of the Project site, and the Project site has been designated as
critical habitat. (Final EIR, p. 142.) Previous sightings within the last few years have been made
about half a mile west and north of the Project. (Ibid.) The Etiwanda Creek channel also
contains suitable habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat ("SBKR"). (Final EIR, 134.) In
addition, the Etiwanda Creek area has been included in the critical habitat for this species, as
designated by the USFWS. (Ibid.) However, since no channel improvements are currently
proposed that would impact this habitat, the Project will not cause direct impacts to the SBKR.
(Ibid.) However, revetment along the creek adjacent to the site is identified as an improvement
planned at some point by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. (Ibid.) Such
activity in or along the channel could impact the SBKR if it is indeed present in this area. (Ibid.)
The flood control channel along the north side of the Project will require a penetration of
the west bank of the Etiwanda Creek, including an energy dissipater. (Final EIR Supp., p. 2.)
Prior to construction, the area proposed for this work will have a protocol survey performed to
assure there will be no impacts to SBKR. (Ibid.) If any impacts are identified, they will be
mitigated at an appropriate ratio based on the number of individual SBKR and amount and
quality of habitat affected. (Ibid.)
Development of the site is not expected to impact the California mastiff bat or Nelson's
bighorn sheep because they were not observed and there is no suitable habitat onsite, so there is
little to no potential for them to utilize the Project site. (Final EIR, p. 134.)
Specialized Wildlife Habitats
The Project will not directly impact the Etiwanda creek channel, but the introduction of
structures and humans in close proximity along the west bank of the creek may restrict wildlife
56
movement to the east bank of the creek. (Final EIR, p. 143.) However, as long as the eastern
bank and streambed are not impacted by development, wildlife can continue to move through
this area using the creek as a movement corridor. (Abid.) A wildlife corridor in the strict
scientific sense is a specific route for migratory animals such as deer or elk. (Abid.) However,
the common use of the word refers more to the general movement of wildlife, especially larger
mammals such as deer and coyote, through an area with relatively undisturbed native vegetation.
(Abid.) This movement may or may not follow specific routes, only some of which may be
identified by biologists during typical field surveys. (Ibid.) While the Project site is not a
wildlife corridor in the strict ecological sense, wildlife does tend to move through the area,
including the Project site. I( bid.)
Development of the site will also remove natural vegetation that provides foraging for
raptoral birds and supports several sensitive or otherwise protected species. (Final EIR, p. 144.)
Scrub-covered meadows and open land adjacent to taller structures (e.g., Edison power line
towers and fences) provide opportunities for raptors to perch and forage along much of this
foothill area. (Abid.) This loss may not be substantial on a Project level, but is likely significant
on a cumulative basis unless sufficient land is preserved under the NEOSHPP program or as
mitigation. (Ibid.)
jurisdictional Land/Wetlands
Development of the site will remove 0.48 acres of land in 4 small drainages that are
under ACOE jurisdiction, although none of these areas are considered wetlands. (Final EIR, pp.
135-137, 144.) In addition, the 4 drainages contain 0.27 acres of land under CDF&G jurisdiction
but only 0.01 acre (400 square feet along Drainage A) that supports riparian vegetation. (Ibid.)
These 4 small drainages do not contain water except during storm activity and, therefore, no
aquatic wildlife corridors will be affected. (Final EIR, p. 144.) A mitigation ratio of 1:1 has
nevertheless been recommended to replace these losses. (Abid.)
NEOSHPP/County General Plan
The Project developer proposes no onsite preservation of open space lands to compensate
for the loss of this land. (Final EAR, p. 144.) Therefore, the Project as proposed is not consistent
with the goals of the NEOSHPP program. (Ibid.) Since a possible MSHCP for the County is not
currently being pursued, the Project cannot be evaluated relative to consistency with a this non-
existent conservation program. (Ibid.)
State and Federal Regulations
Development of the site may require subsequent permitting action through the United
States Army Corps of Engineers (i.e., Section 404), which would trigger consultation with the
USFWS due to this area being designated as critical habitat for the California gnatcatcher and the
SBKR. A Section 1601/1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement with DFG could also be required
for removal of the four small drainages onsite. (Final EIR, p. 145.)
57
2. Findings
The following measures will reduce significant and potentially significant biological
impacts of the Project to the greatest extent feasible:
7-1 If necessary, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate federal Clean Water Act ("CWA")
Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If a permit is required, the
applicant will mitigate any loss of jurisdictional land or wetland areas at a minimum 1:1
ratio, which is consistent with the Project delineation report. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department prior to the issuance of
grading permits. (Final EIR, p. 148.)
7-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a CWA Section 401
Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, if necessary. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department prior to the
issuance of grading permits. (Final EIR, p. 149.)
7-3 If necessary, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement ("SAA") from
the California Department of Fish and Game. If an SAA is required, the applicant will
mitigate any loss of jurisdictional land at a minimum 1:1 ratio as recommended by the
Project biology report. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. (B!W.)
7-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all manufactured slopes on the periphery of
the development shall be landscaped as approved by Planning staff. This measure shall
be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner, prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits for the first unit in each phase. Prior to recordation of each phase, the phase map
shall contain a note requiring this measure. (Ibid.)
7-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall acquire and convey to the
County Special District OS-1 or other appropriate conservation organization 164 acres of
land within or near the NEOSHPP area that supports alluvial fan sage scrub and/or
upland sage scrub. This measure is proposed to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for
sensitive plant and animal species, and the loss of raptor foraging land. This offsite
mitigation land (OML) shall be of equal or greater habitat value than that of the project
site. The identification and transfer of OML will be to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Department, in accordance with the guidelines of the NEOSHPP. All
reasonable efforts will be made to locate the OML within or near the NEOSHPP area.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department.
I( bid; Final EIR Supp., p. 8.)
7-6 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a protocol gnatcatcher survey will be conducted. If
any individuals or nesting pairs of birds are found onsite, the developer shall obtain
appropriate take authorization and additional mitigation land shall be added to the amount
of Offsite Mitigation Land (OML) described in Measure 10-5 according to the following
minimum ratios: individual = 15 acres, nested pair = 30 acres. If gnatcatchers are found
58
onsite, an Incidental Take Permit would be required from the U.S. Fish and Wildilfe
Service either by a Section 10(a)permit or through a Section 7 Consultation with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City Planning Department. (Ibid.)
7-7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall conduct a protocol survey
for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the Santa Ana wooly star within those
areas of East Etiwanda Creek within 50 feet of the connection of the new northern
drainage channel to the creek channel. This survey is to verify that these species do not
occupy area to be disturbed by construction. If SBKR and/or Santa Ana wooly star are
found to be present, the developer shall comply with applicable U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service requirements, which may include obtaining a federal Endangered Species Act
Section 10(a) permit or a Section 7 Consultation. SBKR or wooly star habitat disturbed
by construction will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 subject to any subsequent
USF&WS permit conditions and receipt or notification to the City Planning Department.
(Ibid.) (Final EIR, p. 149.)
7-8 If grading of the site has not occurred before February 15 of 2005, protocol surveys for
SBKR and gnatcatchers will be performed over the entire site, and each spring thereafter,
until grading is completed. Any occupied habitat found during those surveys for either
species will be added to the amount of offsite mitigation land required under the Final
EIR. (Ibid.) (Final EIR Supp., p. 7.)
7-9 The developer will provide an appropriate contribution for the Project toward funding a
local brown-headed cowbird trapping program to further benefit gnatcatchers in this area.
The amount of this contribution, and the location of the trapping program, shall be
determined by the City in consultation with DFG. The contribution shall be made prior
to grading, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department in consultation with the
California Department of Fish and Game. (Ibid.)
7-10 Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for
nesting birds on the site. Any occupied nest shall be avoided and separated by at least
200 feet from ground-disturbing activities. Nesting areas are to be marked by orange
construction fencing. The biologist shall verify a nest has been abandoned prior to
removing the fencing and commencing ground-disturbing activities in any of these areas.
(Final EIR Supp, p. 8.)
Note: Additional mitigation measures related to slope plantings, irrigation, and landscaping are
located in Section 3.13.7, Aesthetics, Mitigation Measures. (Final EIR, p. 149.)
3. Supporting Explanation
The Project's impact to biological resources due to the loss of habitat for sensitive plant
and animal species, and the loss or raptor foraging land, will be greatly reduced by
implementation of mitigation measure 7.5. This mitigation measure requires that the Applicant to
59
undertake reasonable efforts to convey land containing a variant of alluvial fan sage scrub within
or near the NEOSHPP area at a 1.5:1 ratio for the vegetation that will be removed for Project
development. (Ibid.) The Project developer and the City have voluntarily agreed to increase this
mitigation ratio from 1:1 to address the comments made by the public, although the City believes
that a 1:1 ratio remains reasonable and legally adequate given the low-quality of the habitat on-
site. (Final Supp. EIR, p. 8.) This additional commitment, however, is made in a spirit of
cooperation, and is designed to fully address the comments and concerns made regarding the
Final EIR by the USFWS,DFG, and the Spirit of the Sage council.
USFWS, DFG and others have commented that loss of onsite vegetation should be
mitigated at a ratio of up to 5:1. (Final EIR, p. 145.) However, there was no empirical data
provided that demonstrated why this ratio was legally permissible or appropriate, especially
considering mitigation of impacts from surrounding projects has only ranged from 1:1 to 3:1.
(Ibid.) Moreover, a March 2002 settlement agreement reached between the City and the Spirit of
the Sage Council for impacts to RAFSS habitat of higher biological value for development of the
nearby 250 acre Rancho Etiwanda Estates, was at an approximately 1:1 ratio, including impacts
related to an USACOE permit that will likely be unnecessary here. Further, a similar settlement
agreement between the Spirit of the Sage Council and U.C.P. Incorporated reached in July 2000
for the 186 acre Crest project adjacent to the Day Creek and including similar or higher quality
habitat also settled for certain cash payments related to an endowment, attorneys' fees, and the
conveyance of offsite mitigation lands totaling approximately 135 acres, which is substantially
less than a 1:1 ratio. The mitigation ratio in mitigation measure 7-5 was selected in large part
because the Project site does not contain high-quality RAFSS. (Ibid.) The habitat onsite does not
provide any significant value to otherwise sensitive plant and animal species. Repeated surveys
of the Project site have not found CAGN, SBKR, or any other listed species that would indicate a
higher habitat value and could justify a higher mitigation ratio. (Ibid.) Indeed, this is a prime
indicator of the fact that the RAFSS onsite is of low quality. Further, this sage scrub is also
evidently fragmented or isolated from higher quality habitat by proposed development to the
west, disturbed power line corridors to the north and south, and Etiwanda Creek to the east.
(Ibid.) Moreover, as already discussed above, channelization of the Day Creek years ago shut off
the historical flow of scouring flood waters across this portion of the Etiwanda alluvial fan. That
is, long ago actions by federal agencies have forever prevented the biological conditions
necessary to support RAFSS of a high biological value over the long-tern. I( bid.) Moreover, the
flood control channel required by the City and County across the north boundary of the Project
site will further eliminate any runoff from land north of the site, thereby continuing the natural
degradation experienced in this area that began when the historical drainages such as Day Creek
were first channelized. (Ibid.) This process of degradation would therefore continue with or
without the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Further, additional OML will be provided in the event any gnatcatchers are discovered
during protocol surveys. (Final EIR, p. 149.) Also, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat ("SBKR")
does have a slight potential to occur in the area due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat
within certain areas of East Etiwanda Creek. (Final EIR, p. 134.) Therefore, protocol surveys
will be conducted in the areas likely to be disturbed during revetment installation in the Etiwanda
Creek. (Final EIR, p. 149.) In the event that SBKR are found, the Project developer will also be
required to comply will all applicable USFWS and DFG requirements and obtain any necessary
60
permits, including appropriate take authorization where required. I( bid.) Consultation with
USFWS and DFG, if necessary, could result in the Applicant acquiring additional mitigation
lands.
All OML that will be acquired will be conveyed to County Special District OS-1 (or
other another appropriate entity as approved by the City Planner) pursuant to mitigation measure
7-5, and should add to the other large blocks of habitat that are being preserved in the foothills
north of the City. (Final EIR, p. 149.) The requirement that a qualified group will have to
manage the conveyed habitat will ensure that the habitat remains a valuable biological resource
in years to come. Large blocks of habitat allow for more effective management and preservation
of�habitat and species that would be possible if smaller blocks of land, such as the Project site,
were to be maintained instead. Thus, while development of the Project site will remove this 109
acres of sage scrub habitat and this will be a significant impact to biological resources, the
inclusion of a larger block should benefit the overall preservation goals of the City and County.
In addition, mitigation measures other than 7-5, as specified in the Draft EIR, Final EIR,
and as described above, will further ensure that the Project's impacts to biological resources are
mitigated to the extent feasible. The federal and state permits potentially required by mitigation
measures 7-1 through 7-4 will ensure that development of the Project site will comply will all
other applicable federal and state laws relating to the Project's construction activities that could
impact streams or wetlands on or adjacent to the Project site, as appropriate. (Final EIR, pp. 148-
149.) Further, compliance with mitigation measure 7-10 ensures compliance with the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, and mitigation measure 7-9 will require the Project developer to assist with the
County's efforts to reduce cowbirds, which can negatively impact gnatcatchers that could
potentially be located on properties adjacent to the Project site. (Final EIR Supp., pp. 7-8.)
The standard conditions and uniform codes, Project design features, and implementation
of the specified mitigation measures will help reduce significant impacts regarding the loss of
habitat and wildlife movement, but not below significant levels. (Final EIR, pp. 150.)
Therefore, despite appropriate mitigation, the Project's impacts related to Biological Resources
remain significant. (Ibid.)
4. Cumulative Impacts
Continued development in the foothill area will further impact local flora and fauna,
mainly through the loss of sage scrub habitat. (Final EIR, p. 223.) Wildlife will have fewer
resource areas to use, although most of these areas are already surrounded by development.
(bid.) Increased traffic will also result in increased mortality of native wildlife (i.e., roadkills).
(Ibid.) Some of the planned growth is in "infill" areas, but much of the outlying areas contain
RAFSS and other sage scrub habitat and not enough land has been preserved yet under the
NEOSHPP to effectively mitigate the cumulative loss of this habitat. bid.) Although
preservation of the OML pursuant to mitigation measure 7-5 will benefit the City and County's
overall conservation efforts by adding to the large contiguous block of habitat within or near
NEOSHPP, the Project will still remove approximately 109 acres of sage scrub that is a sub-
group or variant of RAFSS. Therefore, planned development will still have a cumulatively
considerable impact on the area's biological resources, including loss of habitat and restriction of
61
wildlife movement. Ibid.) Therefore, the proposed project will contribute to cumulatively
considerable biological impacts due to the continued loss on the Etiwanda Fan and the region as
a whole. This cumulative impact also includes restriction of wildlife movement in the fan area
by encroachment of human structures and activities.
C. Aesthetics
1. Significant Unavoidable Impacts
1
Short-Term Views
Alteration of the landscape by grading and clearing will change the existing topography
into a series of pads to support the new community. (Final EIR, p. 193.) Further, views of the
Project site will include heavy construction equipment and machinery preparing the Project site
for construction of the new homes. I( bid.) Dust will also obscure or interfere with views of the
area during grading, although fugitive dust will disperse relatively soon after the end of
construction. (Ibid.) Temporary impacts to views of the site will be most pronounced from the
existing residential development at the southwest comer of the site. (Ibid.)
Long-Term Views
The Project will produce long-term aesthetic impacts at the Project site which will
fundamentally change the visual and aesthetic character of the area, transforming the existing
natural terrain into a developed and a planned community. (Final EIR, p. 194.) Most of the
Project site will be graded in conjunction with the residential structures being proposed. (Ibid.)
The present viewshed of the mountains and the valley below will be replaced by a new suburban
community, mainly a variety of residential structures. bid.) As shown in Figure 2-6(a) of the
Final EIR, A View Looking North From the Southern Border, portions of the Project site are
visible from many vantage points. (Ibid.) Even during hazy condition days, the surrounding
foothill community will see residential structures instead of boulder-strewn, brush-covered
undisturbed open space land. (Ibid.) Figure 3.13-2 of the Final EIR, Conceptual Photographic
Rendering, provides a conceptual representation of the future appearance of the Project. (Ibid.)
The East Etiwanda Creek channel, however, will remain in its present condition, which will help
maintain the natural visual character of that potion of the Project area. (Ibid.)
Another major component of evaluating impacts to views is the presence of the Edison
towers. (Ibid.) These towers are presently visible from anywhere in North Etiwanda, and will
continue to be visible as the Project is completed and occupied. (Ibid.) The continued presence
of these towers will degrade the otherwise consistent suburban development views to which
development of the Project contributes. (Ibid.) However, the overall visual change will
dominate the viewscape, in that views will be essentially transformed from foothill open space to
suburban development. (Ibid.)
62
NEOSHPP
The Project is located within the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation
Program (NEOSHPP) area established by the County of San Bernardino to encourage retention
of open space and biological values. (Ibid.) The visual characteristic of the site is predominately
native vegetation open space interspersed with boulders. (Ibid.) Development of the Project will
fundamentally alter the visual characteristics of the site, changing it from rural open space to a
typical suburban residential community. (Ibid.) This loss of open space land represents a
potentially significant visual impact based on the goals of the NEOSHPP program. Ibid.)
Light and Glare
The Project consists of single family detached residential units which will require a
variety of lighting at night. (Final EIR, p. 197.) Streetlights will also be used in conjunction with
new streets and a proposed community park. (Ibid.) Glare will also increase with the addition of
windows in the surrounding community. (Ibid.)
At this time, it is only possible to predict that nighttime light levels in the Project area
will increase substantially. (Ibid.) It is not necessary or economical to attempt to estimate the
specific amount of light increase. (Ibid.) However, it is reasonable to conclude that this increase
will be at least potentially significant given ambient conditions (i.e., the current lack of night
lights in the area). (Ibid.) Since the North Etiwanda area is rural and relatively dark at present,
this increase is considered a significant impact. (Ibid.)
2. Findings
The following measures will reduce significant and potentially significant aesthetics
impacts of the Project to the greatest extent feasible:
13-1 All outdoor lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Department for plan check and
shall comply with the requirements of Etiwanda North Specific Plan design guidelines
and the City General Plan. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
City Planner. (Final EIR, p. 201.)
13-2 Prior to issuance of building permits the developer shall submit construction plans for
any signage associated with the site, including entrance monuments (but excluding street
signs and traffic signs), primarily of natural appearing materials (i.e. wood and rock),
consistent with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan design guidelines. If signs are lighted,
light must be directed toward the sign rather than backlighting. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. (Ibid.)
13-3 Prior to final inspection or occupancy of each phase, the City will evaluate the site
lighting, including entrance lighting, for potential on and offsite impacts. The lighting
will be adequately shielded or directed to minimize on-site impacts, to the satisfaction of
the City Planning Department. (Ibid.)
63
13-4 Prior to recordation for each phase, the developer will provide the telephone numbers of
persons to contact if there are complaints about noise, odors, night-lighting, etc. from
activities on the Project site. This information should be displayed on a sign visible from
the entrance to the development. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the City Building and Safety Department. (Ibid.)
13-5 Prior to issuance of building permits the developer will prepare a detailed landscaping
and wall treatment plan for the Phase 1 area along the "Lower West Collector," to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Department. Special attention shall be given to the
landscape treatments along Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue and at entrances to the
Project. I( bid.)
Note: Mitigation Measure 7-4 in Section 3.7, Biological Resources, requires the applicant to
secure offsite land to mitigate the loss of 109 acres of sage scrub vegetation. This mitigation will
also effectively mitigate potential impacts to NEOSHPP relative to voluntary preservation of
open space.
3. Supporting Rationale
Any night lighting introduced in the future will be designed to minimize spillage into
nearby onsite and offsite residential areas. (Final EIR, p. 201.) The lighting impacts that will
result in lighting levels typical for most suburban development. However, given the current rural
character and generally dark ambient light levels of the Etiwanda area, even with the above
mitigation measures, the Project will still produce significant aesthetic impacts related to views
and nighttime lighting. I( bid.)
The Project includes 8.02 acres of open space facilities will help reduce aesthetic
impacts. Planned building heights will also help prevent the restriction of views. (Final EIR, p.
200.) In addition, the Project will utilize the design guidelines set forth in the Etiwanda North
Specific Plan and the County of San Bernardino General Plan. Ibid.) These guidelines
encourage low density residences, preservation of visual and historic characteristics of the area,
and a neighborhood character or theme that will enhance the aesthetic and visual qualities
between the existing land use and future land uses. (Ibid.)
The threshold of significance regarding the transition of natural open space to developed
uses is a difficult balancing act of planning and environmental issues. (Final EIR, p. 198.)
Property owners, developers and many urban planners often consider the conversion of open
space to development to be a fundamental change, but not necessarily an adverse change as long
as the new structures are attractive and well planned. (Ibid.) In contrast, many residents and
environmentalists consider the loss of open space and the building of new comminutes to be
significantly adverse regardless of the appearance of the development. (Ibid.)
Overall, since development of the Project will fundamentally alter the appearance of the
Property site, its impact is properly considered to be significant. Further, since development of
the Project conflicts with NEOSHPP's goal of protecting views, this conflict remains significant
because views for the entire Project area will likely be impacted.. (Final EIR, p. 199.)
64
4. Cumulative Impacts
Anticipated growth will slowly but fundamentally change the visual and aesthetic
character of the Project area from largely vacant, rural rolling terrain to medium density
suburban development. (Final EIR, p. 226.) Continued development will also significantly
increase ambient light and glare. (Ibid.) If ultimate development occurs according to SCAG
projections, these impacts may be cumulatively considerable. (Ibid.)Even if the proposed Project
and other new developments are similar in appearance and scale to existing developments, the
proposed Project will contribute incrementally to these cumulatively considerable aesthetic
impacts. (Ibid.)
VII. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The City hereby declares that it has considered and rejected as infeasible the alternatives
identified in the Final EIR and described below. CEQA requires than an EIR evaluate a
reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project, which: (1) offer
substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly
accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the
economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. (State CEQA Guidelines, §
5126.6.) An EIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly
attain most of the project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.
(Ibid.) In all cases the consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. (Ibid.)
The lead agency is not required to choose the environmentally superior alternative identified in
the EIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the proposed project and:
(1) through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a project can be
reduced to an acceptable level, or (2) there are social economic, technological or other
considerations which make the alternative infeasible. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21002.)
Although the State CEQA Guidelines directs lead agencies to consider the feasibility of
an alternative location, that alternative is not required: "[i]f the lead agency concludes that no
feasible alternative location exists." (Ibid.) However, the lead agency "must disclose the reasons
for this conclusion and should include the reasons in the EIR." (Ibid.) To the best of the City's
knowledge and understanding, the Project applicant neither owns nor controls any other sites
within the City or nearby areas suitable for the development of the Project.
The Final EIR identified the City's objectives for the Tracy Development Project at page
15, and they are as follows:
• 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;
• To annex the proposed Project into the City of Rancho Cucamonga;
65
• Integrate the Project into the character of the surrounding communities and
establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth;
• Establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local
transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians;
• Provide a system of public/community facilities, including parks, trails, open
space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and
surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner;
• Limit impacts to surrounding uses and residents, and to the community character;
• Provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e. roads, utilities) to serve Project
residents and the surrounding community;
• Minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for, various public
service agencies, and
• Provide a variety of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and
planned development that responds to market demands.
The Final EIR considered a total of 5 alternatives to the Project, plus the no project
alternative, which are examined in detail as follows:
A. No Proiect-No Development Alternative
Under this alternative, the Project site would remain vacant and would not be developed
into a residential community. (Final EBR, p. 230.) Assuming that the site remains undeveloped,
all significant Project specific impacts will be avoided. (Ibid.) However, cumulative impacts
including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of \yhether the site is
developed, although not to the same degree as the proposed Project. (Ibid.) This alternative
would eliminate essentially all of the adverse environmental consequences associated with land
development of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative.
(Ibid.) However, this alternative does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a
residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site or any of the
other Project objectives. (Ibid.)
B. No Proiect-Open Space Alternative
Under this alternative, the Project site would remain vacant and not be developed into a
residential community. (Final EBR, p. 231.) Contrary to the No Project — No Development
Alternative, however, this alternative would designate the site to be acquired, fenced, and
66
maintained for open space and biological habitat as part of the NEOSHPP plan. Ibid.) This
alternative would avoid all the significant impacts of developing the property, however,
cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of
whether the site is developed or preserved, although not to the same degree as the proposed
Project. (Ibid.)
This alternative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse environmental
consequences associated with land development of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an
environmentally superior alternative. I( bid.) However, this alternative also does not meet the
Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan
land use designation for the site or any other Project objectives. (Ibid.) Further, the value of the
open space habitat would be minimal if and when additional development occurs adjacent to the
Project site, effectively cutting off the Project site from larger intact blocks of habitat.
C. Reduced Intensity Alternative
The Project site is currently designated by the County's General Plan for residential
development at 3 units per acre, although the City's General Plan requirements limit
development on the site to a lower density. (Ibid.) It can be reasonably anticipated that, assuming
the Project is not approved, that another residential development project would be submitted in
the near future under County jurisdiction. (Ibid.) Another development project on this site would
probably propose somewhere between 2 and 3 units per acre on 110 developable acres. The
current Project proposes 269 units (1.59 units per gross acre), and it is likely that any future
development Project would contain a similar number of units compared to the proposed Project,
and thus produce similar impacts. Ibid.)
Under this alternative, the Project site would be developed exclusively into residential
uses and the park relocated to some other (as yet unidentified) property in the Etiwanda area.
(Ibid.) Although a specific site plan is not proposed, it is assumed it would have approximately
the same buildable area (109 acres) and have to meet the County's parkland, open space, fire
safety, and road requirements. (Ibid.) Based on these constraints, this alternative would probably
result in a maximum of 180 units. I( bid.) While this alternative would have 85 fewer lots than the
proposed Project, they would be of correspondingly higher value than the smaller lots of the
proposed Project. (Ibid.) One additional restriction of this alternative would be to limit homes to
one story to help preserve views of the hills to the north. (Ibid.)
This alternative would eliminate the land use impacts associated with inconsistency with
the City's General Plan (i.e., no GPA) and some of the long-term air quality impacts. Ibid.)
However, these impacts would probably just be relocated to some other nearby property due to
the continued need for residences and parks in the Etiwanda area. (Ibid.) The following sections
analyze specific impacts of this alternative compared to the proposed Project:
1. Evaluation of Impacts
67
Land Use — Based on currently approved policies, this alternative would not be
consistent with both the City and County General Plan designations, although fewer units are
proposed than would be allowed under the County General Plan. (Final EIR, p. 232.) This
alternative does not eliminate the potentially significant land use impacts of the proposed Project,
nor is it fully consistent with the NEOSHPP because it does not identify specific mitigation lands
to be preserved. Other land use impacts are similar to those of the proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Population and Housing — This alternative would allow 47 percent fewer units and
residents than under the proposed Project (180 vs. 265 units and 585 vs. 861 residents). (Ibid.)
Similar to the proposed Project, population and housing impacts are not significant. (Ibid.)
Earth Resources — This alternative is similar to the proposed Project although it would
introduce fewer residents and structures into a seismically active area. (Ibid.) It would also
require slightly less grading for roads and building pads. (Ibid.) Impact to soils would be
equivalent to proposed Project. (Ibid.) Overall, impacts would be similar to the proposed Project,
potentially significant but mitigable through implementation of standard conditions, uniform
codes, and professional engineering and construction standards. (Ibid.)
Water Resources — This alternative would produce larger lots with fewer impermeable
surfaces, which may reduce runoff rates slightly. (Ibid.) Slower runoff would incrementally
reduce potential erosion and siltation of nearby East Etiwanda Creek, which would be mitigated
in the same manner as the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Overall, impacts would be similar to the
proposed Project (i.e., potentially significant but mitigable through standard practices). (Ibid.)
Transportation and Circulation — This alternative would have 32 percent fewer units
and so would produce significantly fewer vehicular trips (approximately 2,000 vs. 2,956) and
outside trips to the parks would be eliminated (i.e., moved to another park site). (Ibid.) Overall,
impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project and less than significant. (Ibid.)
Air Quality — This alternative would reduce construction emissions of NOx and ROG,
but ROG emissions would still exceed SCAQMD thresholds for application of architectural
coatings. (Final EIR, p. 235.) However, this alternative would reduce long-term emissions from
Project vehicular trips and elimination of the 2 parks by approximately 30 percent (40.5 pounds
vs. 55.7 pounds of NOx and 38.9 pounds vs. 56.8 pounds of ROG, respectively) which would
reduce them to less than significant levels. Ibid.)
Biological Resources — As with the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the
removal of 109 acres of sage scrub vegetation. (Ibid.) However, this alternative would likely
mitigate using the same measure recommended for the proposed Project (i.e., acquisition of
adequate offsite replacement habitat). (Ibid.) If this same measure is implemented for this
alternative, impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the proposed Project
(i.e., remains significant after mitigation). (Ibid.)
Energy and Mineral Resources — Under this alternative, fewer residents would
consume incrementally less energy and mineral resources. (Ibid.) However, impacts would be
similar to those of the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.)
68
Hazards — Under this alternative, hazards would be substantially less because the
number of residents potentially exposed to hazardous materials, wildland fires, and
human/wildlife interactions would be reduced. (Final EIR, p. 233.) However, any project,
including the Project and this alternative, that introduces a sizeable number of humans into this
area would produce similar impacts. (Ibid.)
Noise — This alternative would reduce construction-related noise levels, as well as long-
term noise levels, by reducing the number of units and thereby the number of vehicular trips (i.e.,
47 percent less). (Ibid.) However, the impacts of this alternative are similar to the proposed
Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.)
Public Services — This alternative would require incrementally less public services by
introducing fewer structures and residents into the area, but impacts would still be similar to the
proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.)
Utilities — Somewhat reduced but equivalent to the proposed •Project (i.e., not
significant). (Ibid.)
Aesthetics —This alternative would have fewer units and they would be restricted to one
story in height, which would significantly reduce impacts related to views. (Ibid.) Therefore,
aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less than significant, compared to the proposed
Project which has significant impacts related to views and night lighting. (Ibid.)
Cultural Resources — This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not
significant). (Ibid.)
Agriculture — This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not significant).
(Ibid.)
Recreation — This alternative produces impacts that are significantly greater than those
of the proposed Project by eliminating the 2 parks. (Ibid.)
2. Finding on Reduced Intensity Alternative
This alternative would relocate the parks to some other yet-undetermined offsite property,
and propose 180 units with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a height limit of one
story based on current County General Plan requirements. (Ibid.) It would eliminate the
significant impacts of the proposed Project related to land use (consistency with the City's
minimum lot size requirement), long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emission), and aesthetics
(views and night lighting). (Ibid.) However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term
air pollutant emissions ("ROG") and loss of biological resources will remain. (Ibid.)
This alternative would eliminate many of the significant or potentially significant impacts
associated with the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Those significant impacts remaining could probably
not be eliminated or significantly reduced by the implementation of any feasible alternative or
69
mitigation measures at this time. I( bid.) However, the Project fiscal report indicates that fewer,
larger residential lots/units would not generate sufficient public revenues to offset costs to
provide services. (Ibid.) While this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed
Project, it does not meet the Project developer's and the City's economic objectives of
developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio and generates a reasonable
return on investment. (Ibid; see also the Fiscal Impact Assessment Materials contained in
Appendix C of the Final EIR.) Also, as this alternative would not meet the other Project goals,
including the goal of developing park space for City residents.
D. Modified Site Plan Alternative
This alternative would create a 300-foot wide buffer along the west bank of the East
Etiwanda Creek to better buffer wildlife movement and create more open space. (Final EIR, p.
234.) It would also cluster the residential lots but on smaller lots (approximately 6,000 square
feet) in the southwestern portion of the site to provide an additional 15 acres of open space along
the west side of Etiwanda Creek and to connect the relatively undisturbed lands within the
Edison power corridors. (Ibid.) It would also eliminate the "surplus" flood control property from
development. (Ibid.) This alternative would not restrict building heights to one story and
eliminate the 2 parks, but would provide 2 acres of neighborhood park to meet the County's
Quimby Act requirements Q acres per thousand population). (Ibid.) This alternative would allow
approximately 200 units to be constructed compared to the 269 units allowed in the proposed
Project (65 less units) and would require a redesign of the internal circulation system.
While this alternative would not completely eliminate all impacts associated with the
Project, it would reduce aesthetic impacts related to views and night lighting of the Park as well
as long-term air quality impacts. (Ibid.) The following sections analyze specific impacts of this
alternative compared to the proposed Project:
1. Evaluation of Impacts
Land Use — Based on the current approved policies, this alternative would not be
consistent with County General Plan land use designations or the City's General Plan regarding
minimum lot sizes (6,000 square feet proposed vs. 20,000 square feet City standard). (Ibid.)
However, this alternative is more consistent with the NEOSHPP because it sets aside more
mitigation land onsite to be preserved. (Ibid.) Other land use impacts are similar to those of the
proposed Project.
Population and Housing — This alternative would allow 25 percent fewer units and
residents than under the proposed Project (200 vs. 269 units and 650 vs. 831 residents). (Ibid.)
Similar to the proposed Project, population and housing impacts are not significant. I( bid.)
Earth Resources — This alternative is similar to the proposed Project although it would
introduce fewer residents and structures into a seismically active area. (Ibid.) It would also
require slightly less grading for roads and building pads. (Ibid.) Impact to soils would be
equivalent to the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Overall, impacts would be similar to the proposed
70
Project, potentially significant but mitigable through implementation of standard conditions,
uniform codes, and professional engineering and construction standards. (Ibid.)
Water Resources — This alternative would provide more open space with less
impermeable surfaces, which may reduce runoff rates slightly. (Ibid.) Slower runoff would
incrementally reduce potential erosion and siltation of nearby East Etiwanda Creek, which would
be mitigated in the same manner as the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Overall, impacts are similar to
the proposed Project (i.e., potentially significant but mitigable through standard practices). (Ibid.)
Transportation and Circulation — This alternative would produce 25 percent fewer
vehicular trips from residential units (approximately 2,000 vs. 2,650 trips), although outside trips
to the 2 parks would be the same. (Ibid.) Overall, impacts would be less than those of the
proposed Project and less than significant. I( bid.)
Air Quality — This alternative would reduce construction emissions of NOx and ROG,
but ROG emissions would still exceed SCAQMD thresholds for application of architectural
coatings. (Ibid.) However, this alternative would reduce long-term emissions from Project
vehicular trips by approximately 25 percent (41.8 pounds vs. 55.7 pounds of NOx and 42.6
pounds vs. 56.8 pounds of ROG, respectively) which would reduce them to less than significant
levels. (Ibid.)
Biological Resources — This alternative would result in the removal of 85 acres of sage
scrub vegetation, which is 25 acres less than the proposed Project but still considered significant.
(Ibid.) However, this alternative would likely mitigate using the same measures recommended
for the proposed Project (i.e., acquisition of adequate offsite sage scrub vegetation land) and it
would maintain the wildlife movement corridor along Etiwanda Creek. (Ibid.) If the proposed
sage scrub mitigation measure is implemented for this alternative as well, impacts to biological
impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.)
Energy and Mineral Resources — Under this alternative, fewer residents would
consume incrementally less energy and mineral resources. (Ibid.) However, impacts would be
similar to those of the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.)
Hazards — Under this alternative, hazards would be slightly less by reducing the number
of residents potentially exposed to hazardous materials, wildland fires, human/wildlife
interactions. (Ibid.) However, any project, including the proposed Project and this alternative,
that introduces a sizeable number of humans into this area would produce similar impacts. (Ibid.)
Noise —This alternative would reduce construction-related noise by reducing the number
of units to be built, as well as reducing long-term noise levels by reducing the number of units
and thereby the number of vehicular trips (i.e., 25 percent less). (Ibid.) However, the impacts of
this alternative are similar to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.)
Public Services — This alternative would require incrementally less public services by
introducing fewer structures and residents into the area, but they would still be similar to the
proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.)
71
Utilities — Somewhat reduced but equivalent to the proposed Project (i.e., not
significant). (Ibid.)
Aesthetics — This alternative would have fewer units but they would not be restricted to
one story in height, so it would reduce impacts related to views, but not to less than significant
levels. (Ibid.) Aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less than significant related to night
lighting, compared to the proposed Project which has significant impacts related to both views
and night lighting. (Ibid.)
Cultural Resources — This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not
significant). (Ibid.)
Agriculture — This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not significant).
bid.)
Recreation —This alternative reduces impacts compared to those of the proposed Project
by providing one neighborhood park. (Ibid.)
2. Finding on the Modified Site Plan Alternative
This alternative would have 200 units with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet with a
height limit of one story. (Final EIR, p. 236.) This plan would reduce the impacts of the proposed
Project related to long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emissions) to less than significant levels.
I( bid.) However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions
(ROG), and biological resources (relative to the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat
Preservation Program) would remain. (Ibid.)
This alternative would eliminate,some of the significant or potentially significant impacts
associated with the proposed Project. (Ibid.) This alternative is marginally superior to the
proposed Project in terms of environmental impacts, but it does not meet the Project's economic
objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost benefit ratio and generates a
reasonable return on investment as well as the proposed Project. (Ibid; see also the Fiscal Impact
Assessment Materials contained in Appendix C of the Final EIR.)
E. Rural Density Alternative
The City commented on the Draft EIR that the "City Density" alternative was not fully
consistent with City development guidelines and policies for this area. (Ibid.) This new
alternative has been developed to be consistent with City policies and guidelines. (Ibid.)
The property is currently designated by the City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan as
Very Low density residential (VL) which allows a maximum of 2 units per acre of developable
land with minimum 20,000 square foot lots. (Ibid.) According to the proposed Project tract map,
72
the site has 107.3 acres of developable land. However, the City has optional development
standards that are applicable to this category which would set aside almost 70 acres as open
space. (Ibid.) In this case, the open space acreage would be set aside for biological habitat. The
remaining 37.3 acres of developable land would allow approximately 75 units to be built under
this alternative. (Ibid.)
The City's Hillside Development regulations apply to this site. The current Project
proposes 269 units (2.47 units per acre), so this alternative would have 190 less units (a 72
percent reduction) and would be consistent with the City's hillside guidelines. (Ibid.) This
alternative would not have 2 parks at the perimeter of the project, but would rather have a small
neighborhood park in the middle of the project. (Ibid.) Although the project would only generate
a Quimby Act requirement for 1.2 acres of parkland, the City has a minimum requirement of 5
acres for a neighborhood park. (Ibid.)
Under this alternative, the residential lots would be clustered along the southern and
western portions of the site, leaving the 70 acres of open space along the Etiwanda Creek
channel and the northern SCE power corridor. (Ibid.) These homes would be on half-acre lots
and be up to 2-story. (Ibid.)
This alternative would substantially reduce long-term air quality impacts and would also
eliminate impacts associated with removal of biological habitat onsite, since the 70 acres of open
space would represent an onsite mitigation ratio of 2:1 for loss of alluvial fan habitat. (Ibid.) The
following sections analyze specific impacts of this alternative compared to the proposed Project:
1. Evaluation of Impacts for Rural Density Alternative
Land Use — This alternative would be consistent with both the City and County General
Plan designations, although fewer units are proposed than would be allowed under the County
General Plan. (Ibid.) This alternative eliminates the potentially significant land use impacts of
the proposed Project and is consistent with the NEOSHPP because it identifies specific
mitigation lands to be preserved. (Ibid.) Other land use impacts are similar to those of the
proposed Project. (Ibid.)
Population and Housing — This alternative would allow 72 percent fewer units and
residents than under the proposed Project (75 vs. 269 units and 245 vs. 831 residents). (Final
EIR, p. 237.) Similar to the proposed Project, population and housing impacts are not significant.
(Ibid.)
Earth Resources —This alternative would introduce fewer residents and structures into a
seismically active area. (Ibid.) It would also require less grading for roads and building pads.
Impact to soils would be equivalent to proposed Project. (Ibid.) The overall, impact would be
similar to the proposed Project, which is potentially significant but mitigable through
implementation of standard conditions, uniform codes, and professional engineering and
construction standards. (Ibid.)
73
Water Resources — This alternative would produce larger lots with fewer impermeable
surfaces, which would reduce runoff as well as incrementally reduce potential erosion and
siltation of nearby East Etiwanda Creek. (Ibid.) Overall, water-related impacts would be reduced
compared to the proposed Project (i.e., potentially significant but mitigable through standard
practices). bid.)
Transportation and Circulation — This alternative would have 72 percent fewer units
and so would produce significantly fewer vehicular trips (approximately 720 vs. 2,956) and
outside trips to the parks would be eliminated (i.e., moved to another park site). (Ibid.) Overall,
impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project and less than significant. (Ibid.)
Air Quality — This alternative would reduce construction emissions of NOx and ROG,
but ROG emissions would still exceed SCAQMD thresholds for application of architectural
coatings. (Ibid.) However, this alternative would reduce long-term emissions from project
vehicular trips by approximately 70 percent (16.7 pounds vs. 55.7 pounds of NOx and 17 pounds
vs. 56.8 pounds of ROG, respectively) which would reduce them to less than significant levels.
(Ibid.)
Biological Resources—This alternative would preserve 70 acres of sage scrub vegetation
and only remove 37 acres. (Ibid.) It would also maintain the wildlife movement corridor along
Etiwanda Creek. I( bid.) This alternative would reduce potential impacts to biological resources
to less than significant levels after mitigation. (Ibid.)
Energy and Mineral Resources — Under this alternative, fewer residents would
consume incrementally less energy and mineral resources. (Ibid.) However, impacts would be
similar to those of the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.)
Hazards — Under this alternative, hazards would be substantially less because the
number of residents potentially exposed to hazardous materials, wildland fires, and
human/wildlife interactions would be reduced. (Ibid.) However, any project, including the
proposed Project and this alternative, that introduces additional humans into this area which
would produce similar impacts related to hazards. (Ibid.)
Noise — This alternative would reduce construction-related noise levels, as well as long-
term noise levels, by reducing the number of units and thereby the number of vehicular trips (i.e.,
72 percent less). (Ibid.) However, the impacts of this alternative are similar to the proposed
Project (i.e., not significant). I( bid.)
Public Services — This alternative would require less public services by introducing
fewer structures and residents into the area, but impacts would still be similar to the proposed
Project (i.e., not significant). (Final EIR, p. 238.)
Utilities— Reduced compared to the proposed Project (i.e., not significant). (Ibid.)
Aesthetics — This alternative would have much fewer units on larger lots, with 70 acres
of open space to the north and northeastern portions of the site. (Ibid.) While the units would not
74
necessarily be restricted to one story, this alternative would still significantly reduce impacts
related to views. I( bid.) The aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be less than significant,
compared to the proposed Project which has significant impacts related to views and night
lighting. (Ibid.)
Cultural Resources – This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not
significant). I( bid.)
Agriculture – This alternative is equivalent to proposed Project (i.e., not significant).
(Ibid.)
Recreation – This alternative produces impacts that are greater than those of the
proposed Project by eliminating the 2 parks but substitute a neighborhood park for Project
residents. (Ibid.)
2. Finding on Rural Density Alternative
This alternative would have 75 units on half-acre lots, clustered along the southern
portion of the site. (Ibid.) It would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project
related to biological resources in terms of loss of alluvial fan habitat and long-tetra air quality
(NOx and ROG emissions). (Ibid.) However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term
air pollutant emissions will remain. (Ibid.) In addition, this alternative does not provide the
benefit of providing park facilities. (Ibid.)
This alternative would eliminate almost all of the significant or potentially significant
impacts associated with the proposed Project. I( bid.) The remaining significant impact (i.e.,
construction emissions) could probably not be eliminated or significantly reduced by the
implementation of any feasible alternative or mitigation measures at this time, unless the project
were to support all custom lots of one acre or more where only building pads are graded when
needed. (Ibid.) However, the Project fiscal report indicates that fewer, larger residential lots/units
would not generate sufficient public revenues to offset costs to provide services. (Ibid.) While
this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, it does not meet the Project's
economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio for
the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. (Ibid; see also the Fiscal Impact
Assessment Materials contained in Appendix C of the Final EIR.) Also, since this alternative
does not fully implement the City's goal of providing adequate park facilities for City residents.
F. Comparison of Alternative
Table 6-1 of the Final EIR, Comparison of Project Alternative, and Table 6-2,
Comparison of Significant Alternative Impacts, summarize and compare the anticipated impacts
of alternatives. I( bid.)
No Project–No Development—The property would remain vacant which would avoid
all significant project specific impacts, although cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and
75
air quality would eventually occur, but not to the same degree as if the proposed Project were
built. (Ibid.) This alternative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse impacts of the
proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative. (Ibid.) This
alternative does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project
consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site.
No Proiect – Open Space — The property would remain vacant but be acquired,
fenced, and maintained for open space and biological habitat as part of the NEOSHPP plan.
(Final EIR, p. 239.) This alternative would avoid all the significant impacts of developing the
property, however, cumulative impacts including traffic, noise, and air quality, will eventually
occur regardless of whether the site is developed or preserved, although perhaps not to the same
degree as with the proposed Project. (Ibid.) This is an environmentally superior alternative but
does not meet the Project's basic objectives, and indeed all other objectives, of developing a
project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. I( bid.)
Reduced Intensity Alternative — This alternative proposes 180 units with a minimum
lot size of 20,000 square feet with a height limit of one story. (mid.) It would eliminate the
significant impacts of long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emission), but would still has
significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and biological resources.
(Ibid.) In addition, this alternative does not provide the beneficial impact of providing needed
park facilities. (Ibid.) Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of
developing a residential project that has a positive costfbenefit ratio for the City and generates a
reasonable return on investment. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed
Project, but does not meet the Project's objectives. I( bid.)
Modified Site Plan Alternative — This alternative would cluster the residential
development in the southwestern portion of the site. (Ibid.) It would have 200 units with a
minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a height limit of one story. (Ibid.) It would eliminate
the significant impacts of the proposed Project related long-term air quality (NOx and ROG
emissions). (Ibid.) However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant
emissions (ROG) and loss of biological resources would remain. (Ibid.) Also, this alternative
does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a
positive cost benefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. This
alternative is marginally superior to the proposed Project in terms of environmental impacts, but
it does not meet the Project objectives. (Ibid.)
Rural Density Alternative — This alternative would locate approximately 75 units on
the site with a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. (Ibid.) Units would be clustered on 37
acres in the southern portion of the site, while the remaining 70 acres would be set aside as open
space and biological habitat. (Ibid.) This alternative would eliminate the significant impacts of
the proposed Project related to biological resources related to loss of alluvial fan habitat and
long-term air quality from NOx and ROG emissions. (Ibid.) This alternative still has significant
impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG) and does not provide the benefits of
two parks. (Ibid.) Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of
developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio for the City and generates a
reasonable return on investment. As such, it does not meet the Project's goals. This alternative is
76
environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but it does not meet the Project objectives.
(Ibid.)
The CEQA Guidelines require identification of an environmentally superior alternative
(Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Of those alternatives discussed in this section, the two "No Project"
Alternatives (No Development and Open Space) are both environmentally superior alternatives
that would avoid all of the Project-related environmental impacts. (Final EIR, p. 239.) However,
the CEQA Guidelines stipulate that, "if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project
alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives" (Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Therefore, the Rural Density (Alternative 3) is the most
environmentally superior to the proposed Project since it eliminates all of the significant impacts
of the proposed Project except air quality emissions from construction. (Final EIR, p. 239.)
VIII. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR discuss the ways in which the Project
would induce growth, including whether it could foster economic or population growth, either
directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to, the removal of obstacles to population growth
or the construction of additional housing. State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2(d) refers to
growth inducement as ways in which the proposed Project would either directly or indirectly
stimulate economic or population growth in the Project vicinity and the surrounding region. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines require the
evaluation of growth inducing impacts of the proposed project, as well as the cumulative impacts
of the Project plus other reasonably foreseeable public or private projects planned in the same
area.
Growth inducement can take many forms. A project can remove barriers, provide access,
or eliminate other constraints, which encourage growth that has already been approved and
anticipated through the General Plan process. (Final EIR, p. 216-217.) The "planned" growth
would be reflected in land use plans that have been developed and approved with underlying
assumptions that adequate supporting infrastructure will be built. (Ibid.) This is perhaps best
described as accommodating or facilitating growth, but for the purpose of this section, the term
"inducing" is used. (Ibid.)
Development in the foothill communities has become a direct growth-inducing impact,
due to increases in population moving or migrating into the outlying community, and the area
has created a need for new housing in the West Valley Foothills Sub-Regional Planning Area.
(Ibid.) Hence, new housing projects, such as the current proposal, are not growth inducing by
themselves, but a part of the regional growth in the area. This Project helps meet these
additional housing demands. (Ibid.)
The proposed Project may also stimulate growth in the foothills of the Etiwanda
community, generally by improving existing roads and the construction of new urban
infrastructure. (Ibid.) Growth of the Etiwanda area constitutes several thousand residential units,
77
therefore, the predicted "buildout" population in the Project area would be considered significant.
(Ibid.)
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regularly publishes growth
predictions for use in traffic growth management and planning purposes. (Ibid.) SCAG has
predicted the population growth forecast for the Etiwanda community for the upcoming decade.
(Ibid.) They estimate the population in 2000 to be 128,300, in 2010 to be 155,900 and 186,300
in 2020. (Ibid.) The proposed Project therefore represents 1.45 percent of the predicted
population growth in the Etiwanda area. I( bid.) In comparison, the San Bernardino Area of
Governments suggests that the sub-region that includes the City of Rancho Cucamonga will have
a population of 1,772,700 by the year 2000 which will increase to 2,829,800 by 2020. (Ibid.)
This represents an estimated annual growth rate of 1.6 percent over the period, similar to the
growth rate anticipated for the City during the same period. (mid. It should be noted that the
closure of Etiwanda Avenue north of Lower Crest Collector Road will help restrict growth in the
areas north of the project site by controlling or limiting public access to these areas.
IX. UNAVOIDABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE IMPACTS
The State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of any significant irreversible
environmental changes, which would result from a proposed action, should it be implemented.
(See State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2.) The proposed Project will create the following
significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels even with
implementation of all feasible mitigation measures:
Short-Term Air Quality: Air pollutants generated by construction of the Project will be
significant, primarily oxides of nitrogen from vehicle exhaust and reactive organic compounds
from the application of architectural coatings, based on the CEQA significance thresholds
established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (Final EIR, p. 228.)
Long-Term Air Quality: Vehicular emissions from daily operation (i.e., occupation) of
the Project will produce significant levels of oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic compounds,
according to the CEQA significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District. (Ibid.)
Biological Resources: The Project will eliminate alluvial fan vegetation, contributing to
cumulative impacts to biological resources. (Ibid.)
Aesthetics: Development of the Project will alter the appearance of the Property site and
will conflict with NEOSHPP's goal of protecting views, and as such views for the entire Project
area will be impacted despite mitigation. (Final EIR, p. 199.)
Cumulative: The Project will also contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable
impacts related to land use, flood control, water quality from urban runoff, loss of alluvial fan
sage scrub, hazardous material dumping, congestion of evacuation routes, overcrowded schools,
inadequate utilities, and loss of views. (Ibid.)
Mitigation: No other significant adverse environmental impacts are expected as long as
the following are implemented as proposed and outlined in this document: 1) standard conditions
78
and uniform codes; 2) project design features outlined in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis;
and 3) the project mitigation measures outlined in Section 3.0, Environmental Analysis. (Ibid.)
The primary irreversible environmental impact of the Project will be the commitment of
capital, labor, materials, and especially the land to construct a housing development. I( bid.)
Construction of the Project will also result in the consumption of a variety of non-renewable or
slowly renewable resources such as sand and gravel, asphalt, lumber, petrochemical construction
materials, metals, fossil fuels, and water. (Ibid.) Over the long-term, daily occupancy of the
Project will require the consumption of additional non-renewable or slowly renewable resources
such as water and fossil fuels. The consumption of these resources will be similar to other
suburban development in the foothill region. (Ibid.) The development will urbanize a relatively
undeveloped area. (Final EIR, p. 13.) The level of urbanization is consistent with housing
developments throughout the City, San Bernardino County and Southern California. (Ibid.)
Impacts associated with aesthetics, and air quality and biological resources will be mitigated, but
not eliminated with the programs as outlined in the mitigation measures.
X. PROJECT BENEFITS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Legal Requirements.
State CEQA Guidelines sections 15093(a) and (b) state that:
"CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the
economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed Project
against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve
the Project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits
of a proposed Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable."
"When the lead agency approves a Project which will result in the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the EIR and/or other information in the record. The
statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence
in the record."
B. Project Benefits.
The City Council or Planning Commission finds that the Project's benefits are substantial
and outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects to air quality, biological resources,
aesthetics and related cumulative impacts associated with the Project. The City Council or
Planning Commission finds that the benefits set forth below, when balanced against the
79
unavoidable significant adverse impacts, outweigh the impacts because of the social and
economic values which accrue to the community:
• The Project will provide new housing in an area with a substantial demand for new housing,
thereby assisting in meeting the regional housing needs. The Project will provide up to 269
quality single-family residences for approximately 83 residents. (Final EIR, p. 47)
• The Project will provide 5.8 acres of land for a community park plus .44 acres for the City's
equestrian trail, which exceeds the City's mitigation requirements and Project impacts. (Final
EIR, p. 212)
•_ The Project will provide improved non-vehicular circulation through its addition of the .44
acres of equestrian trails to the City's planned trail network. This will encourage non-
vehicular circulation, and provide passive recreation areas. In addition, preservation of the
adjacent Edison utility corridors, which are planned for trail alignments in the future, will
expand non-vehicular circulation. (Final EIR, p. 213.)
• Development of the Project will help improve overall fire safety in the area by permanently
removing brush and trees from the Project site, and adding water service to improve fire-
fighting capabilities. The danger for fire in this urbanizing area was aptly demonstrated by
the recent Grand Prix area. The Project site will also be design to have two access points for
emergency services, and improve access generally to the area by providing new roads and
additional signalization of existing roads. (Final EIR, p. 155.)
• Development of the Project will improve the flood control programs of the County Flood
Control District because of the additional off-site facilities that are proposed as mitigation for
the Project's development. (Final EIR, pp. 177-180.) The construction of these facilities, with
funds coming in part from the Project's developer, will likely exceed the Project's impact
because the Project's hydrolic studies indicate that a 100-year flood event will be contained
within the existing Etiwanda Channel even without mitigation. (Final EIR, p. 78.)
• The Project will provide a positive economic benefit to public services. That is, the Project is
likely to generate more revenues than expected costs for County services through sales taxes,
subventions and other taxes which help fund government services. (Final EIR, p. 182-183;
see also the Fiscal Impact Assessment Materials contained in Appendix C of the Final EIR)
The City Council or Planning Commission hereby declares that, having reduced the
adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the
proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project,
and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after
mitigation, the City Council or Planning Commission has determined that the social, economic,
and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts
and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the identified
overriding considerations:
80
XI. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City Council or Planning Commission finds that it has reviewed and considered the
Final EIR in evaluating the Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that
fully complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the County's local CEQA Guidelines
and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council or Planning
Commission.
The City Council or Planning Commission declares that no significant new impacts or
information as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 has been received by the City
after circulation of the Draft EIR that requires recirculation. All of the information added to the
Final EIR merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an already adequate
EIR pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5(b).
The City hereby certifies the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions:
A. Findings:
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final EIR
and will require mitigation as set forth in this document but cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance: air quality, biological resources and aesthetics.
B. Conclusions:
1. All potentially significant environmental impacts from implementation of
the Project have been identified in the Final EIR and with implementation of the mitigation
measures identified will be mitigated to a level of insignificance except for those impacts listed
in Section IV above.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project have been considered but these
alternatives have been rejected because they fail to meet the basic objectives of the Project
and/or are infeasible.
3. Environmental economic social and other considerations and benefits
derived from the Project override the Project's significant environmental impacts.
XII. CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
81
The documents and materials that constitute the records of proceedings on which these
findings have been based are located at. The custodian for these records is the City. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
82
MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST
Project File No.: SCH# 2003081085 Tract Development Project Applicant: Tracy Development
Prepared by: Kent Norton — Michael Brandman Associates Date: April 28. 2004
Mitigation Measures No. . . g of Method .
Implementing Action for Monitoring FrequencyDate/initials Non-Compliance
1.0 Land Use and Planning
1-1 Prior to recordation of each phase,or issuance of grading CP Prior to Recordation or C, D 1,2
permits for each phase,the applicant shall submit and obtain recordation grading permit
approval of a landscape plan that demonstrates compliance or issuance issuance
with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Neighborhood Theme of grading
Plan in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan,to the satisfaction of permits for
the City Planning Department. each phase
2.0 Population and Housing
None Required
3.0 Earth Resources
3-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer BO B Prior to building C 2
shall demonstrate that each lot is buildable &complies with permit issuance
the recommendations and general earthwork and grading
specifications found in the RMA Group Geotechnical
Investigation (DEIR Appendix C). This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the Building Official.
3-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or BO B Prior to grading C 1, 2
recordation of each phase, a detailed geologic and permit issuance
geotechnical investigation shall be prepared and approved for and/or recordation
the residential building areas and all roads. The report shall of each phase
demonstrate that each lot is buildable and identify potential
geologic and soil limitations and recommend appropriate
engineering and design measures to adequately protect
structures and inhabitants. This report shall also examine the
drainage area adjacent to East Etiwanda Creek to identify
potential landslide, erosion, or other slopes that could affect
the residential area. Subsequent foundation and other design
guidelines in these studies shall be consistent with the
standards established in the RMA Group Geotechnical
Investigation (DEIR Appendix C). This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
• 9n
Mitigation Measures No.
Responsible . . . Timing of Method . .
ns forImplementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification
D.
3.0 Earth Resources • - - s s= ,, , .�""� .. ;:rdi°� � <:,�. - ,,
3-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or BO B Prior to grading C 1, 2
recordation, construction measures recommended by the permit issuance
detailed geological investigation identified in Measure 3-2 and/or recordation
shall be identified on grading plans and implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3-4 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for each phase, BO B C Prior to grading A, C 2,4
the developer shall prepare and submit a Dust Control Plan to permit issuance
the City that meets all applicable requirements of the for each phase
SCAOMD. The Plan must be approved by the City Building
and Safety Department, prior to issuance of the grading
permit and demonstrate that methods are in place to assure
the following:
a)Areas disturbed by construction activities and/or used to
store backfill materials, will be sprayed with water at least
twice a day, in the morning and afternoon, or more often if
fugitive dust is observed migrating from the site.
b)Storage piles, which are to be left in place for more than
three working days shall either be sprayed with a non-toxic
soil binder or covered with plastic or revegetated until placed
in use.
c)Tires of vehicles will be washed before the vehicle leaves
the project site and enters a paved road.
d)Dirt on paved surfaces shall be removed daily to minimize
generation of fugitive dust.
3-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits,where cut and CP B Prior to building A 2
fill slopes are created higher than three feet, a detailed permit issuance
Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall be submitted to the City
Planning Department prior to grading plan approval. The
plans shall be reviewed for type and density of ground cover,
shrubs, and trees, and shall be consistent with the
Neighborhood Theme Plan of the Etiwanda North Specific
Plan. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction
of the City Planner.
3-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, graded, but BO B, C Prior to building A, C 2, 3
undeveloped land shall be maintained weed-free and planted permit issuance
with interim landscaping within ninety days of completion of
grading,unless building permits are obtained. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building
Official.
2OF21
Mitigation
Implementing
3.0 Earth Resources
3-7 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, planting of CE B, C Prior to A,C 3
developed land shall comply with the National Pollutant occupancy permit
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management issuance
Practices Construction Handbook Section 6.2. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3-8 Prior to the issuance of building permits,all grading shall BO B,C Prior to building A,C 2
be conducted in conformance with the recommendations permit issuance
contained within the Geotechnical Report included as DEIR
Appendix B. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4.0 Water Resources
4-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the developer CE B Prior to grading A,C 2
shall obtain Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permits(for permit issuance
water quality certification for dredge and fill operations), if
necessary,from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Copies of
the same shall be provided to City Building and Safety. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
4-2 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the CE B Prior to issuance B 3
planned revetment along the East Etiwanda Channel adjacent of first occupancy
to the project site shall be installed,subject to approval by the permit
San Bernardino County Flood Control District and receipt of
that approval to the City Engineer.
4-3 Prior to the recordation of each phase or approval of a CE B Prior to the A, B, C 1. 2
grading permit, the project proponent will implement the on- recordation of
and off-site drainage system improvements as outlined in the each phase or
project Drainage Study (DEIR Appendix D). This includes - approval of a
detention facilities proposed at 24th Street(Wilson Avenue) grading permit
and Etiwanda Creek or onsite, participation in the County's
Etiwanda Creek fee program, and participation in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga's Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage
Policy program, including appropriate fair share fees.
Implementation of this measure is subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
3OF21
Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification
Date/initials Non-Compliance
4.0 Water Resources . :, », � -.,
4-4 Prior to issuance of building permits,the applicant shall CE B Prior to building D 2
submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality permit issuance
Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description
and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that will
be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain
system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall
identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent
with the Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment
adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga June 2000.
4-5 Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits,applicant CE B Prior to grading or D 2
shall submit to the City Engineer a Notice of Intent(NOI)to paving permits
comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)General Construction
Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e.,a copy of
the Waste Dischargers Identification Number) shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for coverage under the NPDES
General Construction Permit.
4-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, drainage and CE B Prior to building A, C 2
flood control facilities and improvements shall be designed permit issuance
and constructed in accordance with the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District requirements, as applicable.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
County Flood Control District and receipt of approval by the
City Engineer.
4-7 Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the developer will CE B Prior to grading C 2
pay the required drainage fee related to the San Bernardino permit issuance
County Flood Control District Etiwanda Creek watershed.
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the
County Flood Control District and receipt of approval by the
City Engineer.
4OF21
Mitigation Measures No. /
Responsible
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance
5.0 Transportation and Circulation 11 " 1 -
5-1 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for the CE D Prior to first B. D 3
project, the following intersections are projected to be occupancy permit
warranted for traffic signals by opening year: issuance
• Day Creek Boulevard (NS)at Banyan Avenue(EW)
• Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at SR-210 West Bound
Ramp (EW)
• Day Creek Boulevard (NS) at SR-210 East Bound
Ramp(EW)
• Etiwanda Avenue (NS)at Banyan Avenue(EW)
• Etiwanda Avenue (NS)at Wilson Avenue(EW)
• East Avenue(NS)at Banyan Avenue (EW)
The applicant shall make a fair share contribution, as
identified in the project traffic report, to the traffic signal
mitigation program of the County of San Bernardino and/or
City of Rancho Cucamonga, as appropriate. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, CE C Prior to building A, B,C 2
the project shall incorporate bus turn-outs and/or shelters if permit issuance
required by Omni-Trans and/or the Transportation for each phase
Commission. The project applicant shall'consult with and
obtain clearance from these agencies to assure compliance
with the Regional Mobility and Air Quality Management Plans.
Confirmation of contact and compliance with their
requirements shall be provided to the City Engineer. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
5-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, CE B Prior to building C 2
the applicant shall pay a fair share basis for off-site permit issuance
improvements as identified in the project traffic report. This for each phase
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, including but not limited to the following:
• 24'"Avenue (Wilson Avenue)from Etiwanda Avenue to
Day Creek;
• Day Creek Boulevard from 24'"(Wilson)to Highland
Avenue;
• 24'"(Wilson)between Etiwanda Avenue and Wardman
Bullock Road; and
• East Avenue from south of the project limit to 23rd
Street.
5OF21
Mitigation Measures No.
Responsible . . . Timing . od of Verified Sanctions .
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification
Date/initials Non-Compliance
5.0 Transportation and Circulation
5-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, CE B Prior to building C 2
the applicant shall pay a"fair share"contribution towards off- permit issuance
site impacts to linked roadways and intersections,as outlined for each phase
in the project traffic report. The project share of the cost has
been calculated based on the proportion of the project peak
hour traffic contributed to the improvement location relative to
the total new peak hour Year 2015 traffic volume. The
project's fair share of identified intersection and roadway link
cost is $63,818 as of the date of the traffic study. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of City
Engineer, including any changes in the project's fair share
contribution due to changes in the Consumer Price Index or
similar public works measures.
5-5 Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the first CE D Prior to first A 3
residential unit, the developer shall construct East Avenue occupancy permit
and Etiwanda Avenue to City standards, as outlined in the issuance
project traffic report. These improvements will be made to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the developer CE B Prior to grading A, D 2
shall coordinate all construction-related activities to minimize permit issuance
congestion and delay on local roadways,to the satisfaction of
City Engineer.
6OF21
Mitigation Measures No. I Responsible Monitoring
g of Method .
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
5.0 Transportation and Circulation
5-7 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer BO B Prior to grading D 2
shall submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to the City Building permit issuance
and Safety Department consistent with SCAQMD guidelines.
The DCP shall include activities to reduce on-site and on-site
dust production. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Building Official. Such activities shall
include, but are not limited to,the following:
a)Throughout grading and construction activities,exposed soil
shall be kept moist through a minimum of twice daily watering
to reduce fugitive dust.
b)Street sweeping shall be conducted, when visible soil
accumulations occur along site access roadways to remove
dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off
by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials. Site
access driveways and adjacent streets will be washed if there
are visible signs of any dirt track-out at the conclusion of any
workday.
c)AII trucks hauling dirt away from the site shall be covered to
prevent the generation of fugitive dust.
d)During high wind conditions(i.e.,wind speeds exceeding 25
mph), areas with disturbed soil will be watered hourly, and
activities on unpaved surfaces shall be terminated until wind
speeds no longer exceed 25 mph.
6.0. Air Quality -
6-1 During construction, all construction equipment shall be BO C City Inspectors to A 4
maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce monitor during
operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction
construction equipment is being properly serviced and
maintained as per manufacturers' specifications.
Maintenance records shall be available at the construction
site for City verification.
6-2 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, developer CP B Developer to C. D 2
shall submit construction plans to City denoting the proposed submit
schedule and projected equipment use. Construction documentation of
contractors shall provide evidence that low emission mobile compliance
construction equipment will be utilized,or that their use was
investigated and found to be infeasible for the project.
Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures City Inspectors to A 4
imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District monitor
(SCAQMD)as well as City Planning Staff. compliance
7OF21
Mitigation Measures No.
Responsible of Verified Sanctions for
ImplementingDate/initials Non-Compliance
6.0 Air Quality r >,n- e�e•a . � �a +.��w . ,_,
6-3 During construction,all paints and coatings shall meet or BO C City Inspectors to A 4
exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113. monitor
Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high compliance
volume, low-pressure spray, to the satisfaction of the City during painting
Inspectors.
6-4 During construction, all asphalt shall meet or exceed BO C City Inspectors to A 4
performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108,to the monitor
satisfaction of the City Inspectors. compliance
during paving
6-5 During grading and construction, the prime contractor BO C City Inspectors to A 4
shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for monitor
prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). compliance
during
construction
6-6 During construction, all construction equipment shall BO C City Inspectors to A 4
comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403,to the satisfaction monitor
of the City Inspectors. Additionally,contractors shall include compliance
the following provisions: during
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site construction
through seeding and watering;
• Pave or apply gravel to any on-site haul roads;
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of
exposed excavated soil during and after the end of
work periods;
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in
accordance with local ordinances and use sound
engineering practices;
• Sweep streets according to a schedule established
by the City if silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling.
Timing may vary depending upon time of year of
construction;
• -Suspend grading operations during high winds(i.e.,
wind speeds exceeding 25 mph)in accordance with
Rule 403 requirements; and
• Maintain a minimum 24-inch freeboard ratio on
soils haul trucks or cover payloads using tarps or
other suitable means.
8OF21
Mitigation Measures
. Responsible . . Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
6.0 Air Quality
6-7 During grading, the site shall be treated with water or BO B City Inspectors to A, D 4
other soil-stabilizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and monitor
Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCBj) daily to compliance
reduce PMiu emissions, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule during grading
403.This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of
the City Inspectors.
6-8 Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and BO C City Inspectors to A 4
RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas monitor
that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PMio compliance
emissions. This measure shall be implemented to the during
satisfaction of the City Inspectors. construction
6-9 During construction, contractors shall utilize electric or BO C City Inspectors to A 4
clean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. monitor
This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the compliance
City Inspectors.
6-10 During construction, contractors shall ensure that BO C City Inspectors to A 4
construction and grading plans include a statement that work monitor
crews will shut off equipment when not in use. This measure compliance
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Inspectors. during
construction
6-11 Prior to approval of building permits,the developer shall BO B Developer C 2
demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated submits plans for
high efficiency/low polluting healing, air conditioning, approval
appliances and water heaters. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building Official.
6-12 Priorto approval of building permits,the developershall BO B Developer C 2
demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated submits plans for
thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. This measure approval
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building
Official.
6-13 Prior to the issuance of building permits,the developer CP B Developer C, D 2
shall submit and obtain approval of a plan for the provision of submits plans for
adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities for project residents approval
throughout the project. The plan shall detail the construction
timing for bike racks at the two parks, sidewalks, and trails
based upon completion prior to occupancy of the first unit of
the subject phase. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Department.
9OF21
ImplementingMitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
MonitoringFrequency Verification Verification Date 11nitials Non-Compliance
6.0. Air Quality ri: w e.v . N71 -
6-14 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit,the CE B Developer C, D 2
applicant shall make a fair share contribution to a park and submits proof of
ride facility along the 1-15 or 1-10 Freeways that would serve fee payment
project residents. The fair share calculation shall be
determined to the satisfaction of City Engineer. The applicant
shall place the appropriate funds in a special accountfor such
purposes. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
6-15 Prior to issuance of the first occupancy permit, the CE E Developer shall B, D 3
applicant shall provide a bus stop/shelter at the trailhead park construct bus
to OmniTrans standards if so directed by OmniTrans, and to stop/shelter if
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. needed
7.0 Biological Resources
7-1 If necessary, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate CP B Developer shall B, D 2
federal Clean Water Act(CWA)Section 404 permit from the obtain
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If a permit is required, the determination
applicant will mitigate any loss of jurisdictional land orwetland from USACOE if
areas at a minimum 1:1 ratio, which is consistent with the permit is needed
project delineation report. This measure shall be —developer shall
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning obtain if needed
Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.
7-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant CP B Developer shall B, D 2
shall obtain a CWA Section 401 Certification from the obtain
Regional Water Quality Control Board, if necessary. This determination
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City from RWQCB if
Planning Department priorto the issuance of grading permits. permit is needed
—developer shall
obtain if needed
7-3 If necessary, the applicant shall obtain a Streambed CP B Developer shall B, D 2
Alteration Agreement(SAA)from the California Department of obtain
Fish and Game. If an SAA is required, the applicant will determination
mitigate any loss of jurisdictional land ata minimum 1:1 ratio from CDFBG if
as recommended by the project biology report. This measure permit is needed
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning —developer shall
Department prior to the issuance of grading permits. obtain if needed
10 OF 21
Mitigation . . of Verified Sanctions for
Im plementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification
Date/Initials Non-Compliance
7.0 Biolo 'cal Resources Y ua '.xy v ,rt Asx: m77
7-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all CP D Developer shall A 3
manufactured slopes on the periphery of the development install required
shall be landscaped as approved by Planning staff. This landscaping
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Planner, prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the
first unit in each phase. Prior to recordation of each phase,
the phase map shall contain a note requiring this measure.
7-5 Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the applicant shall CP B Developer shall B, D 2
acquire and convey to the County Special District OS-1 or provide proof of
other appropriate conservation organization 164 acres of land CSD
within or near the NEOSHPP area that supports alluvial fan establishment
sage scrub and/or upland sage scrub. This measure is
proposed to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive
plant and animal species,and the loss of raptor foraging land.
This offsite mitigation land(OML)shall be of equal or greater
habitat value than that of the project site. The identification
and transfer of OML will be to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Department,in accordance with the guidelines of the
NEOSHPP. All reasonable efforts will be made to locate the
OML within or near the NEOSHPP area. This measure shall
be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Department.
7-6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a protocol CP B Biologist shall D 2
gnatcatcher survey shall be conducted. If any individuals or conduct protocol
nesting pairs of birds are found onsite, the developer shall surveys before
obtain appropriate take authorization and additional mitigation grading
land shall be added to the amount of Offsite Mitigation Land
(OML) described in Measure 7-5 according to the following
minimum ratios: individual = 15 acres, nested pair = 30
acres. If gnatcatchers are found onsite, an Incidental Take
Permit would be required from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service either by a Section 10(a)permit or through a Section
7 Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Department.
11 OF 21
Mitigation Measures
. Responsible Monitoringof Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non-Compliance
t "' ,,c,�ta•.,�,.... r,.e¢^. t i�iR,,,. t't�^gn 4 ,,, k
7.0 Biological Resourc
es
a, Tib
S Y
7-7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,the developer CP B Biologist shall D 2
shall conduct a protocol survey for the San Bernardino conduct protocol
kangaroo rat (SBKR) and the Santa Ana wooly star within surveys before
those areas of East Etiwanda Creek within 50 feet of the grading
"punch through" connection of the new northern drainage
channel to the creek channel. This survey is to verify that
these species do not occupy area to be disturbed by
construction. If SBKR and/or Santa Ana wooly star are found
to be present,the developer shall comply with applicable U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service requirements, which may include
obtaining a federal Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)
permit or a Section 7 Consultation through the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. SBKR or wooly star habitat disturbed by
construction will be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1
subject to any subsequent USF&WS permit conditions and
receipt or notification to the City Planning Department.
7-8 If grading of the site has not occurred before February 15 CP B Biologist shall D 2
of 2005, protocol surveys for SBKR and gnatcatchers will be conduct protocol
performed over the entire site, and each spring thereafter, surveys before
until grading is completed. Any occupied habitat found during grading
those surveys for either species will be added to the amount
of offsite mitigation land required under the Draft EIR (164
acres).
7-9 The developer to provide an appropriate contribution for CP B Developer shall B 2
the project toward funding a local brown-headed cowbird demonstrate proof
trapping program to further benefit gnatcatchers in this area. of payment
The amount of this contribution, and the location of the
trapping program, shall be determined by the City in
consultation with the California Department of Fish and
Game. The contribution shall be made prior to grading,to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Department in consultation
with the California Department of Fish and Game.
7-10 Prior to issuance of grading permits,a qualified biologist CP B Biologist shall D 2
shall conduct a survey for nesting birds on the site. Any conduct protocol
occupied nest shall be avoided and separated by at least200 surveys before
feet from ground-disturbing activities. Nesting areas are to be grading
marked by orange construction fencing. The biologist shall
verify a nest has been abandoned prior to removing the
fencing and commencing ground-disturbing activities in any of
these areas.
12 OF 21
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification
Date Ifinitials Non-Compliance
8.0 Energy and Mineral Resources
None Required
9.0 Hazards
9-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer CE B Developer shall B, D 2
shall submit a plan to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection submit plan for
District (RCFPD) for each phase for the proper clean up of review and
any hazardous or toxic substance that is discovered or approval by
released during construction. The plan will require the RCFPD
developer to properly clean-up and remove any contaminated
soil or other material;restore the affected area to background
conditions or to regulatory threshold levels for the
contaminant(s) accidentally released or discovered; and
deliver the contaminated material to an appropriate treatment,
recycling,or landfill facility in accordance with the regulations
for the type of contaminant accidentally released and
collected for management. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the RCFPD.
9-2 Each individual lot owner will be required to maintain their BO E RCFPD to A Notice/Fine for
side and back yards with 30 feet of irrigated"firewise"Zone 1 conduct annual RCFPD to perform
landscaping or equivalent. No buildings are to be built within inspections required work if
this setback area. Swimming pools and non-combustible needed
deck coverings are permissible. Any remaining portion of the
backyard lot will be maintained to either Zone 1 or Zone 2
criteria depending on the lot depth. This measure shall be
implemented to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga
Fire Protection District.
9-3 Landscape and maintenance for the manufactured BO E RCFPD to A Notice/Fine for
slopes common areas will be to Zone 2 criteria. These areas conduct annual RCFPD to perform
may be irrigated,ornamental firewise landscaping,or planted inspections required work if
with native fire resistant plants and trees. Access points needed
every 500 feet shall be available to perform annual
maintenance. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District.
13 OF 21
Mitigation . . of
. . .
VerificationImplementing Action for Monitoring Frequency
Date/initials Non-Compliance
9.0 Hazards " - '
9-4 A special fuel modification zone easement shall be BO E RCFPD to A Notice/Fine for
located outside and adjacent to the northern project boundary conduct annual RCFPD to perform
within the electric utility corridor and on flood control district inspections required work if
land where all native and exotic vegetation will be treated to needed
Zone 2 criteria on a strip of land 50 feet in width. Also,a Fuel
Modification Zone Easement of 75 feet in width will be created
and maintained by the maintenance authority adjacent to the
east side of Lot 46, Phase 4. Alternatively,the tentative tract
map may be modified to allow an appropriate onsite Fuel
Modification Zone along the northern boundary if the electric
corridor cannot be used. This measure shall be implemented
to the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District.
9-5 All residential structures within the Tract 14749 BO D RCFPD or City to A 3
development will be built with a Class A Roof Assembly, conduct
including a Class A roof covering and attic or foundation inspections
ventilation louvers or ventilation openings in vertical walls
shall not exceed 144 square inches per opening. These
opening shall be covered with % inch mesh corrosion-
resistant metal screening or other approved material that
offers equivalent protection. Attic ventilation shall also comply
with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code(U.B.C.).
Ventilation louvers and openings may be incorporated as part
of access assemblies. This measure shall be implemented to
the satisfaction of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District.
9-6 A six-foot high solid non-combustible wall shall be CP D Developer to A 3
constructed along the entire length of the north,east and west construct
property lines to minimize fire danger. This measure shall be perimeter walls
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Department.
9-7 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, the CP D Developer to A 3
applicant shall provide signs along the community trails, prepare and
including the west bank of East Etiwanda Creek, that warn install signs per
residents of the potential risk of wildlife/human interactions. City direction
The wording, design, number, and placement of the signs
shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department.
14 OF 21
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification
Date/initials Non-Compliance
9:0 Hazards' . p• ter` � ,
9-8 The applicant shall provide wildlife resistant trash CP D Developer shall A 3
receptacles at the parks and other public facilities to prevent provide required
foraging by local wildlife. The design and placement of the facilities
receptacles shall be to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Department.
10.0 Noise
10-1 Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed CP C Developer shall A 4
the standards specified in Development Code Section retain noise
17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer consultant to
shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level perform required
monitoring as specified in Development Code Section monitoring
17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the
Planning Division. Said consultant shall report their findings
to the Planning Division within 24 hours; however, if noise
levels exceed the above standards,then the consultant shall
immediately notify the Planning Division. If noise levels
exceed the above standards,then construction activities shall
be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with above
noise standards or halted.
10-2 During construction, haul truck deliveries shall not take BO C City Inspectors to A 4
place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. on monitor
weekdays, including Saturday,or at any time on Sunday or a compliance
national holiday. Additionally,if heavy trucks used for hauling during
would exceed 100 daily trips (counting both to and from the construction
construction site), then the developer shall prepare a noise
mitigation plan denoting any construction traffic haul routes.
To the extent feasible,the plan shall denote haul routes that
do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings.
15 OF 21
Mitigation Measures No.
Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method .
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
10.0 Noise 3",;�:.r: .
10-3 Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits for BO B Developer to D 2
each phase, the developer shall confirm to Building and submit
Safety in writing that all construction equipment, fixed or documentation of
mobile,shall use properly operating mufflers.No combustion compliance to
equipment,such as pumps or generators,shall be allowed to City
operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 6:30
p.m.to 7 a.m.unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise
protection barrier. Stationary equipment shall be placed in
such a manner as emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive receptors. Additionally, stockpiling of vehicles and
staging areas shall be located as far as practical from
sensitive noise receptors as well. The developer shall include
this provision and adherence to all conditions of approval as a
requirement of all construction contracts for this site. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Department.
10-4 Prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits, CP B Developer C 2
all construction staging shall be performed at least 500 feet submits plan to
from occupied dwellings. The location of staging areas, as City for review
indicated on the grading plan, will be subject to review and C Ci Inspectors A 4
approval by the City Planning Department. City monitor
10-5 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, BO B Developer shall C, D 2
the developer will document that exterior residential areas will submit proof of
have exterior noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL, to the compliance
satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Department.
10-6 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each BO D Developer shall D 3
phase,the developer shall documentthat interior living areas submit proof of
have noise levels less than 45 dB CNEL,to the satisfaction of compliance
the Building and Safety Department.
10-7 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, BO D City Inspectors to A, D 2
the developer shall incorporate site designs and measures to verify compliance
help reduce proposed noise levels over the long-term.
Residential lots with rear yards or side yards adjacent to
collector streets(i.e.Lower Crest)shall be constructed with a
6-foot block wall along the perimeter or demonstrate with an
additional noise study that ultimate traffic volumes onsite will
not exceed the noise performance standards in the City
Development Code to the satisfaction of the Building and
Safety Department.
16 OF 21
Mitigation Measures No.
Responsible
of
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Method .
VerificationDate/initials Non-Compliance
11.0 Public Services
11-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, BO B Developer to D 2
the developer and/or individual homebuilders shall pay all submit proof of
legally established public service fees, including police,fire, fee payments
schools, parks, and libraries to the affected public agencies
as stipulated in the Development Agreement. This measure
shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Building
and Safety Department.
11-2 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, CP B Developer to C 2
the developer and/or individual homebuilders shall comply submit plans to
with all design requirements of affected public agencies such agencies for
as police, fire, health, etc. This measure shall be review and
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning approval
Department.
11-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, FC B Developer to C 2
the applicant shall obtain approval of the Fire Department with submit plans to
regard to determination of adequate fire flow and installation RCFD for review
of acceptable fire resistant structural materials in project and approval
buildings.
11-4 Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for each BO D Developer shall B 3
phase, the applicant shall pay all legally established impact submit proof of
fees to the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey Joint payment of school
Union High School Distrct in accordance with state law, fees
Proof of such payment shall be submitted to City Building and
Safety Department.
11-5 Prior to recordation for each phase,the developer shall CE B Developer shall D 1
post a bond in an amount to be determined by the City demonstrate
Engineering Department to ensure installation and payment of bond
maintenance of all public and private roads and drainage
facilities necessary for each phase of the project. This
measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
12.0 Utilities
12-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, BO B Developer shall B 2
the applicant shall provide funding to the Cucamonga County demonstrate
Water District for sewer service. Additionally,the Cucamonga payment
County Water District will be required to provide funds to the
Inland Empire Utilities Agency for treatment of the project's
wastewater. Proof of such payment shall be submitted to the
City Building and Safety Department.
17 OF 21
Mitigation Measures No.
Responsible g of Method .
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
12.0 Utilities
12-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, development CE B Developer shall B 2
plans shall be provided to Southern California Edison, the submit proof of
Gas Company, and Verizon, as they become available in review and
order to facilitate engineering, design and construction of approval by other
improvements necessary to provide electrical, natural gas, agencies
and telephone service to the project site. This shall be done
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
12-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits,the applicant CE B Developer shall B 2
shall apply for and obtain will-serve letters from SCE,SCGC, submit service
and Verizon and place them on file with the City Engineer. letters from other
agencies
12-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits,the applicant CE B Developer shall B, C 2
shall comply with the guidelines provided by SCE,SCGC,and submit proof of
Verizon in regard to easement restrictions, construction review and
guidelines, protection of pipeline easements, and potential approval by other
amendments to right-of-way in the areas of any existing agencies
easements of these companies. This shall be done to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
13.0 Aesthetics
13-1 All outdoor lighting shall be submitted to the Planning CP B Developer shall C 2
Department for plan check and shall comply with the submit lighting
requirements of Etiwanda North Specific Plan design plans to City for
guidelines and the City General Plan. This measure shall be review and
implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planner. approval
13-2 Prior to issuance of building permits the developer shall CE B Developer shall C 2
submit construction plans for any signage associated with the submit signage
site, including entrance monuments (but excluding street plans to City for
signs and traffic signs), primarily of natural appearing review and
materials (i.e.wood and rock), consistent with the Etiwanda approval
North Specific Plan design guidelines. If signs are lighted,
light must be directed toward the sign rather than
backlighting. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Planning Department.
13-3 Prior to final inspection or occupancy of each phase,the CP D City Planners to A 3
City will evaluate the site lighting,including entrance lighting, inspect lighting
The lighting will be adequately shielded or directed to
minimize on-and offsite impacts,to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Department.
18 OF 21 ,
Mitigation Measures No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of
of Verified Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Non-Compliance
13.0 Aesthetics
13-4 Prior to recordation for each phase,the developer will BO B Developer to D 1
provide the telephone numbers of persons to contact if there provide numbers
are complaints about noise, odors, night-lighting, etc. from to City
activities on the project site. This information should be
displayed on a sign visible from the entrance to the
development. This measure shall be implemented to the
satisfaction of the City Building and Safety Department.
13-5 Prior to issuance of building permits the developer will CP B Developer to C 2
prepare a detailed landscaping and wall treatment plan for the submit landscape
Phase 1 area along the "Lower West Collector," to the plans to City for
satisfaction of the City Planning Department.Special attention review and
shall be given to the landscape treatments along Etiwanda approval
Avenue and East Avenue and at entrances to the project.
14.0 Cultural Resources
14-1 A qualified paleontologist shall conduct a CP B Developer to A, B. D 2
preconstruction field survey of the project site. The
retain pal to
paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also survey site
provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation
measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be
appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate,the
program must include, but not be limited to, the following
measures:
• Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and
equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal
construction delay,to the site full-time during the interval
of earth-disturbing activities;
• Should fossils be found within an area being cleared
or graded,divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until
the monitor has completed salvage. If construction
personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor
should immediately divert construction and notify the
monitor of the find; and
Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Transfer collected specimens with a copy of the report to San
Bernardino County Museum.
19 OF 21
Mitigation Measures
No. . . of Verified Sanctions for
ImplementingDate/initials Non-Compliance
14.0 Cultural Resources '
14-2 If any prehistoric archaeological resources are CP C Developer will A 4
encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain archaeo
retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction monitor
activities,to take appropriate measures to protector preserve
them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist,the
City of Rancho Cucamonga will:
• Enact interim measures to protect undesignated
sites from demolition or significant modification withoutan
opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological
value;
• Consider establishing provisions to require
incorporation of archaeological sites within new
developments,using their special qualities as a theme or
focal point;
• Pursue educating the public about the area's
archaeological heritage;
• Propose mitigation measures and recommend
conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects
on significant, important, and unique prehistoric
resources,following appropriate CEQA guidelines;
• Prepare a technical resources management report,
documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed
mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit
one copy of the completed report with original illustrations,
to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information
Center for permanent archiving; and
• If artifacts of Native American (NA) origin are
discovered,official representatives of the NA group will be
consulted to determine the most appropriate disposition of
the artifacts, to the satisfaction of the City Planning
Department in agreement with County Museum and the
NA group.
15.0 Agricultural Resources
None Required
16.0 Recreation
16-1 The applicant will submit conceptual park design and CP B Developer to C 2
landscaping plans to the City subject to the approval of the submit park plans
City Planning Department. to City for review
and approval
20 OF 21
Key to Checklist Abbreviations
Responsible Person Monitoring Frequency Method of Verification Sanctions
CDD-Community Development Director or designee A-With Each New Development A-On-site Inspection 1 -Withhold Recordation of Final Map
CP-City Planner or designee B-Prior To Construction B-Other Agency Permit/Approval 2-Withhold Grading or Building Permit
CE-City Engineer or designee C-Throughout Construction C-Plan Check 3-Withhold Certificate of Occupancy
BO-Building Official or designee D-On Completion D-Separate Submittal(Reports/Studies I Plans) 4-Stop Work Order
PO-Police Captain or designee E-Operating 5-Retain Deposit or Bonds
FC-Fire Chief or designee 6-Revoke CUP
21 OF 21