HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-13 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN
AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 MODIFYING THE MASTER PLAN
TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE MAIN STREET AREA,
INCREASE THE AVERAGE HEIGHT IN THE MAIN STREET AREA
TO 120 FEET, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 160 FEET, AMEND THE
BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAIN STREET
AREA, AND CLARIFY PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY
PERMITTED USES, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CHURCH
STREET TO THE NORTH, FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE
SOUTH, 1-15 TO THE EAST, AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO
THE WEST; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
A. Recitals.
1. Forest City Development California, Inc, filed an application for Victoria Gardens Master
Plan Amendment DRC2009-00145 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendment is referred to as"the application."
2. On April 8, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during
the above-referenced public hearing on April 8, 2009, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The property subject to the application (hereinafter,the"subject property")is
comprised of approximately 174 acres of land, generally bounded by Church Street to the north,the
1-15 Freeway to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the south, Day Creek Boulevard to the west. Said
property is currently designated as Mixed Use.
b. Development of the subject property is governed by the Victoria Gardens
MasterPlan, the Victoria Arbors Master Plan,the Victoria Community Plan,the City's General Plan,
and a development agreement between the City and the applicant.
C. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Mixed Use, and is
partially developed with a winery and single-family residential development. The property to the
west is designated Mixed Use, and is developed with multi-family residential units. The 1-15
Freeway lies immediately to the east with the land further east designated Low-Medium Residential
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 2
and Medium Residential within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and Regional Related Commercial. The
property to the south and beyond Foothill Boulevard is developed with commercial uses and is
designated Regional Related Office/Commercial.
d. On February 20, 2002 and in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City certified Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2001031028 (EIR),
which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan. As the
Lead Agency, the City considered the information in the EIR before approving the Victoria Gardens
Master Plan. At that time, the City Council also adopted a Statement of Facts and Findings and
Overriding Considerations for the Victoria Gardens Master Plan. The Statement found that the
economic, social, or other benefits of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan outweighed the significant
and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR.
e. Subsequent to the 2002 approval of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan,
approximately 52% of the approved residential dwelling units and 57%of the approved commercial,
office, and civic uses included in the Victoria Gardens Master Plan have been completed.
f. As shown and attached hereto as Exhibit "A", the application proposes
changing various sections of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan.
g. The applicant has also applied for General Plan Amendment DRC2008-
00384, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00383, Victoria Arbors Master Plan
Amendment DRC2009-00146, and Development Agreement Amendment DRC2008-00385. The
purpose of these other amendments is to allow the development of the subject property in the
manner specified in the application.
h. The City caused to be prepared and circulated an Initial Study to evaluate the
changes to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan proposed by the application, and to determine whether
those changes require additional environmental review under CEQA.
i. Under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162(a)(1), when an EIR has been
previously certified for a project, a lead agency may require the preparation of a subsequent EIR if
substantial changes are proposed to the project that will require major revision of the previous EIR
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects of a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects.
j. Under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163, the City may prepare a
supplemental EIR in lieu of a subsequent EIR if the changes to project or the circumstances under
which the project would be undertaken require only minor revision to a previously certified EIR to
make the EIR adequately apply to the proposed project.
k. Based on the Initial Study, comments received during the public review of the
initial Study, and comments received during the public scoping meeting,the City determined that the
changes to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan proposed by the application are substantial and
require further environmental analysis with respect to aesthetics and air quality. The City further
determined that a supplemental EIR would make the previous EIR adequately apply to the
application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 3
I. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082,the City published a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for the application, and circulated the NOP
to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the application,
including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants.
M. When the Draft SEIR was complete,the City circulated it for public review and
comment for 45 days.
n. The City has responded to the two sets of written comments regarding the
Draft SEIR that were received during the public review period. Those comments and the City's
responses are included as Appendix C to the Final Supplemental EIR/Response to Comments
document ("Final SEIR").
o. On April 8, 2009,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing
on the application and the Final SEIR, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity
to present oral and written evidence regarding the application and the Final SEIR.
P. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that will be less than
significant and that do not require mitigation are described in Section 5 of Exhibit "B" to this
Resolution.
q. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that will be less than
significant after mitigation measures have been imposed are described in Section 6 of the Exhibit
"B"to this Resolution. In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City has prepared a mitigation
monitoring and reporting program to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures.
r. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that will be significant and
unavoidable despite the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section 7 of
the Exhibit "B" to this Resolution.
S. A proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental
impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level is located at Section 13 of
Exhibit "B" to this Resolution. The proposed Statement provides substantial evidence that the
environmental risks of the application have been balanced against its benefits.
t. Based on the totality of the administrative record, the Planning Commission
finds that the Final SEIR complies with the requirements of CEQA and recommends that the City
Council certify the Final SEIR as being prepared in compliance with CEQA and that the City Council
also adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
U. Subject to the City Council's approval of the related applications (General
Plan Amendment DRC2008-00384,Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00383,Victoria
Arbors Master Plan Amendment DRC2009-00145, and Development Agreement Amendment
DRC2008-00385), the application does not conflict with the policies and provisions of the General
Plan or any specific plan applicable to the subject property.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 4
V. Approval of the application would not be materially injurious or detrimental to
the adjacent properties.
W. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of
the Planning Commission.
3. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and the totality of the administrative
record before it,the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final
SEIR, adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit B, adopt
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as conditions of approval, and approve Victoria
Gardens Master Plan Amendment DRC2009-00145.
4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2009.
PLANNING
}COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:�� 7 ^�
Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman
ATTEST: "
Jam R. Troyer, AICP, Secret ry
I, James R. Troyer, 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 8th day of April 2009, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WIMBERLY
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 5
Exhibit A
Text Amendments to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan
Section 1.2 of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan is hereby amended to add the following at the
end of the second paragraph:
"All figures in the Master Plan that provide building and parking footprints and locations are
illustrative and are provided to gain an understanding of what could be developed under the Master
Plan. It is important to note that the figures are purely conceptual and that a final plan may vary
provided it complies with the regulations in the Master Plan."
Section 3.2 of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan is hereby amended to add subsection 3.2e as
follows:
"3.2e: Mid-rise Building(s): Mid-rise is defined as a building which is divided at regular intervals
into occupiable levels not to exceed 160 feet in height. These buildings are typically taller than the
maximum height which people are willing to walk up and therefore requires mechanical vertical
transportation. These types of buildings include building uses such as residential, hotels and office
buildings."
Figure 3.2-a, Examples of Mid-rise Buildings, as set forth below, is hereby added to Chapter
3 of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan.
stt r
un.
Si R.
tiafr,,. int •k";r` 9�i:.s 11+ + � ' �" u
l�i' G
v
Snnu Monio.CR Am¢ncana.GbMaCCA
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 6
Figure 4-1, Permissible Building Areas, in the Victoria Gardens Master Plan is hereby deleted
and replaced with a new Figure 4-1, Permissible Building Areas, set forth below:
CHURCHSTREET a 71
f C Residential Area bWr
- Cbltural Center Drive
i) I Eastern' -t/ I:
MainStreet'Ar(a'I � ,� 7 ",�.�',•'
,.:,�W,,
m South Mom Street -.
T 55 q i Ky/Eabllnp Uses
oiX}3t ' . v x T
1�:r. � F�.t..h� >r r/ os c[PnamrN...onE
cc cvunnr rEN.r.
VICTORIA GARDENS LANE..'_ EK-rGOu u..
_ �' pS PnA1,N42'FJC'V0.E
11 ��3'suat..a.�t lt� �. y^� � sFa.sNCIEPnen.xEnoc�u.
1 1 f i�1( % MFP sMVST inryIIY PFSIpF`ml
ROUte 66 y4 / •Perm as ble Building Area.
'Area �x�4r�
FOO TNILL BOULEVARD/ROUTE 66 --� .a
E—
FIGURE 4.1
Permissible Building Areas
The last paragraph and the district square footage calculations at the end of Section 4.1d of
the Victoria Gardens Master Plan are hereby amended as follows:
"The total site area of Victoria Gardens is comprised of a gross area of approximately 174
acres, and without the inclusion of the right-of-way of Victoria Gardens Lane, a net area of
approximately 165 acres. The total Permissible Building Area in square feet of gross building floor
area is 2,502,000, which is allocated within the four districts of Victoria Gardens with approximately
the following total area:
Main Street Area: 2,128,800 sf Commercial/Office/Hotel
90,850 sf Civic
290 dwelling units
Residential Area: 310 dwelling units
Route 66 Area: 95,700 sf Commercial/Office
Eastern Area: 185,500 sf Commercial/Office"
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 7
Section 4.3 of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
"4.3 Permitted Land Uses
Uses listed in the following table below shall be permitted or prohibited within each of the
defined districts (set forth in diagram 4-1 of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan) as indicated in the
columns. Those uses not specifically listed in the table below shall be subject to a comparable use
determination according to the provisions of 17.02.040 of the Development Code. If the use is not
found comparable, the use shall be prohibited.
• Where indicated with the letter"P", the use shall be a permitted use.
• Where indicated with the letters"PD", the use shall be a permitted with the approval
of the Planning Director pursuant to the procedures and requirements of Sections
17.02.050, 17.06.010(C)(2), and 17.06.020 of the Development Code. Any decision
by the Planning Director to approve or deny such a use may be appealed in
accordance with Section 17.02.080 of the Development Code
• Where indicated with the letter"C", the use shall be a use permitted with approval of
a conditional use permit in accordance with 17.04.030 of the Development Code.
• Where indicated with an "N", the use shall be prohibited.
Use Main Route Eastern Residential
Street 66 Area Area
Area Area
A. Offices and Related Uses
1. Administrative and executive
offices P P P N
2. Artist and photographic studios,
not including the sale of equipment
and supplies P P P N
3. Clerical and professional offices P I P P I N
4. Financial services and institutions
a. Financial services and
institutions without drive-
through P P P N
b. Financial services and
institutions with drive-through N P P N
5. Outpatient Medical, dental, and
related health services(non-animal
related), including laboratories and
clinics; only the sale of articles
clearly incidental to the services
provided shall be permitted. P P P N
6. Public services (City and County
buildings, special districts, and
post office) P P P N
7. Public utility service offices P P P N
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Pa e 8
Use Main Route Eastern Residential
Street 66 Area Area
Area Area
8. Related commercial uses
(blueprinting, stationary, quick
copy, etc.) when incidental to an
office building or complex P P P N
B. General Commercial Uses
1. Antique shops PD PD PD N
2. Animal grooming C C I C N
3. Apparel stores P P P N
4. Art, music, and photographic
studios and supply stores P P P N
5. Arcades(see special requirements
per Section 17.10.030F - RC
Development Code) C C C N
6. Athletic and Health Club, gyms,
and weight reducing clinics P P P N
7. Automotive sales and services
(including motorcycles, boats,
trailers, and campers)
a. Sales (New and classic cars) PD PD PD N
b. Automatic washing in
conjunction with an approved
gasoline dispensing station or
parking structure C C C N
c. Service or gasoline dispensing
stations C C C N
8. Bakeries retail only) P P P N
9. Barber and beauty shops with the
exception of Beauty schools P P P N
10. Bicycle shops with the exception of
outdoor storage P P P N
11. Book, gift and stationary stores
other than adult related material P I P P N
12. Candy stores and confectionaries P P P N
13. Cleaners (drop-off and pick up
only) P P I P N
14. Cocktail lounge (bar, lounge,
tavern) including related
entertainment PD PD PD N
15. Commercial recreation facilities
a. Indoor uses such as bowling,
theaters, billiards, etc. PD PD PD N
16. Dairy product stores P P P N
17. Delicatessens P P P N
18. Drug stores and pharmacies P P P N
19. Fast-food restaurants
a. Fast-food restaurants with
drive-through N P C N
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Pa e 9
Use Main Route Eastern Residential
Street 66 Area Area
Area Area
b. Fast-food restaurants without
drive-through P P P N
20. Florist shops P P P N
21. Food stores, specialty food and
supermarkets PD PD PD N
22. Furniture stores except repair and
upholstery P P P N
23. General retail stores
a. General retail businesses-
establishments engaged in the
selling of first quality goods
and merchandise(e.g.,apparel
and/or accessories, shoes,
books/magazines, electronics/
computers, department stores,
cosmetics, food, home
furnishings and accessories,
etc.) to the general public for
personal and household use
and rendering services
incidental to the sale of such
goods. This definition shall not
apply to outlets or businesses
that focus mainly on selling
closeout, liquidation, second
quality, and/or overstock
merchandise P P P N
24. Home Improvement Centers
a. Material stored and sold within
enclosed buildings PD PD PD N
b. Outdoor storage of material
such as lumber and building
materials C C C N
25. Hotels
a. Hotels with a cocktail lounge C C C N
b. Hotels with a day spa, salon,
health & beauty PD PD PD N
c. Hotels without a cocktail
lounge or day spa, salon,
health & beauty P P P N
26. Jewelry stores P P P N
27. Laundry self-service as a service
component of a residential
development N N N C
28. Liquor stores C C C N
29. Day spa, salon, health & beauty PD PD PD N
30. Music, dance, and martial arts
studio P P P N
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Pae 10
Use Main Route Eastern Residential
Street 66 Area Area
Area Area
31. Nurseries and Retail garden
supply stores; provided all goods
are kept within an enclosed area,
and provided that seeds and
fertilizer is stored in small
packaged form only P P P N
32. Office supply stores. P I P P N
33. Pet shop. P P P N
34. Political or philanthropic head-
quarters. P P P N
35. Photocopy retail P P P N
36. Restaurants(other than fast food),
with indoor and/or outdoor seating.
a. Without alcohol sales P P P N
b. With entertainment and/or
cocktail lounge and bar. C C C N
c. Incidental serving of beer and
wine but without a cocktail
lounge, bar, entertainment, or
dancing. P P P N
37. Shoe stores, sales and repair P P P N
38. Second-hand store C C C N
39. Sporting oods stores P P P N
40. Stamp and coin shops P P P N
41. Tailor P P P N
42. Thrift store C C C N
43. Toy stores P P P N
44. Travel agencies P P P N
45. Transportation facilities
a. Transit centers (structures or
fixed locations where
passengers transfer from one
transit route to another) PD PD PD N
b. Bus stops, bus stands, taxicab
stands and stands for other
passenger common-carrier
motor vehicles designated by
the City engineer (Section
10.48.040) P P P P
C. Public and semi-public uses
1. Day Care Facilities PD PD PD N
2. Hospitals C C C N
3. Private and public clubs and
lodges including YMCA and similar
youth group uses C C C N
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Pa gall
Use Main Route Eastern Residential
Street 66 Area Area
Area Area
4. Educational institutions, parochial,
private (including colleges and
universities) C C C N
5. Libraries & museums, public or
private P P P N
6. Churches, convents, monasteries,
and other religious institutions C C C N
7. Emergency Shelters C C C N
D. Temporary Uses
1. Temporary uses as prescribed in
Section 17.04.070 and subject to
those provisions P P P N
2. Temporary office modules, subject
to provisions in Section 17.10.030-
F.3 C C C N
3. Farmer's Market P C C N
E. Residential Uses
1. Single-Family detached C N N P
2. Single-Family attached (du-, tri-
and four- lex) P N N P
3. Multiple Family Dwellings P N N P
Section 4.4 of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
4.4 SIDEWALK AND OUTDOOR USES
The regulations applicable to sidewalk and outdoor uses, including the sale and display of
merchandise, shall be as follows:
1. For the Main Street Area, sidewalk and outdoor uses, including the sale and display
of merchandise, shall be permitted, provided that a Temporary Use Permit shall be required in
accordance with Section 17.04.070 of the Development Code if such sidewalk or outdoor use will
continue for more than 60 days.
2. For the Route 66 and Eastern Areas, sidewalk and outdoor uses, including the sale
and display of merchandise, shall be permitted in accordance with Section 17.10.030 'Use
Regulations for General Commercial/Office Districts."'
Section 4.5b of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:
"4.5b Main Street Area
1. Building Heights within the Main Street Area shall be encouraged to vary in order to
achieve diversity in architecture. Two building height zones of 90 feet and 120 feet shall be as
indicated on figure 4-3. In the 90 foot zone, the maximum building height shall be 90 feet. In the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 12
120 foot zone, the average building height shall be no higher than 120 feet, and the maximum
building height shall be 160 feet. Building height shall be to the roof level of the top occupied floor.
2. Setbacks in the Main Street Area shall follow the plan for "Permissible Building
Areas," and have the following setbacks:
The Ground Floor of proposed buildings may be built to the Permissible Building boundaries
along street and open space frontage. Additional setback from the boundaries lines can be provided
for entrances, port cocheres, porticos, plazas, sitting areas, and similar architectural features.
Floors of proposed buildings above the ground level may be permitted to be built to the
Permissible Building Area Boundary along street and open space frontages."
Figure 4-3, Main Street Building Heights, as set forth below, is hereby added to Chapter of
the Victoria Gardens Master Plan.
l� I
_CHURCH STREET
RESIDENTIAL .AREA _
1 it� EASTERN gRE'A
L -
°.
✓�fi�'',
yl �
/ ..
i m M44+ I f�$5 ♦??E+�' ]TR{< �4.. �!r a `�� /�,�
WI. IY S �r �} TRK ,Ya l�{lr
Z [ i
I �.41tdY,tir}.iR �i
90'Max. Height Limit
�_ROUtTE 66 A,REAi i 0 Avera9eHeight
-,1 160'Max.Limit >
'
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ROUTE 66—
I i +rr
FIGURE 4.3
Proposed Building Height Restrictions
within the Victoria Gardens Master Plan
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April S, 2009
Page 13
Figure 4-4, Examples of Commercial and Residential Main Street Building Heights, as set
forth below, is hereby added to Chapter 4 of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan.
All .�.._ _ -�...—
75 FT
AFF
r @fl r b'e i
,(Pill
II
LII(11j11 .d 6. 1611 � � s
y.:
u-C6.W.81W.NI.&na,CA AMennna,GlerWll¢CA
A new Section 4.9 of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan is hereby added as follows:
"4.9 Residential Standards for Main Street Area
4.9a. Purpose and Intent
The purpose of these standards is to encourage compatible residential infill development
within the Main Street Area of Victoria Gardens and plan for medium and high density residential
and mixed-use projects. These standards establish flexible guidelines to encourage such
development, ensure that it is of a minimum standard of appearance, and compatible with the
surrounding lifestyle center. The specific objectives are:
1. Allow flexibility in lot size and configuration, and facilitate residential development
within acceptable densities;
2. Provide clear development standards that promote compatibility between new and
existing development and exhibit the characteristics of vibrant, urban, pedestrian-oriented,
storefront-style shopping streets with pedestrian amenities at Victoria Gardens;
3. Encourage development of housing in close proximity to the existing lifestyle center
while providing flexibility in the siting and design of new developments to anticipate changes in the
marketplace; and
4. Encourage efficient land use by facilitating compact, high-density, multi-story
development.
4.9b. Residential Development Requirements
1. The intent of these residential standards is to provide an overlay mix of residential
within the existing and future commercial uses at Victoria Gardens. To accomplish this while
providing flexibility of design, two development options are offered:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 14
a. Mixed-Use Residential Development. The proposed development shall
provide for both residential uses and commercial use (either retail, office or hotel) in a single
building.
b. Full Residential Development. The proposed development site shall provide
for residential use.
2. All residential property shall be developed in a manner consistent with the provisions
of the master plan. The Developer will work with the City Planning Department to consider the
residential uses' compatibility within Victoria Gardens, especially related to:
a. Site access, on-site circulation and off-street parking;
b. Architectural design of buildings and use of materials;
C. Landscaping and buffering of buildings, parking, loading and storage use;
d. Light and shadow impacts;
e. Generation of noise and irritants such as noise, smoke, dust, odor, glare,
vibration or other undesirable impacts;
f. The arrangement of buildings and open spaces as they relate to each other
within the development site or development area;
g. Visual impact of the proposal on the surrounding area;
4.9c. Density/Residential Use
The Maximum density for each lot is specified as;
Development Units per Acre Description
Designation
Mixed Use Residential 75 Allowed above the ground
floor
Full Residential Density 100 Allowed on all floors
4.9d. Shared Private and Common Open Space
The Victoria Gardens Main Street Area is urban in nature. Common areas, parks and
recreational areas are likewise expected to be urban in nature. This will include elements such as
plazas or other hardscaping, landscaping with planters, plazas, pocket parks, fountains, furniture,
and be more concentrated in size and development than anticipated in a less urban setting. New
and existing public spaces shall jointly be considered common areas to the project and designed to
encourage consistent human presence and activity. Public spaces shall be designed to:
a. Facilitate social interaction between and within groups;
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 15
b. Provide safe, pleasant, clean and convenient sitting spaces adaptable to
changing weather conditions;
C. Be attractive to multiple age groups,
d. Provide for multiple types of activities without conflicting;
e. Support organized activities;
f. Be visually distinctive and interesting;
g. Interconnect with other public and private spaces; and
h. Prioritize use by persons.
In addition to common landscaped areas, private open space shall be provided within
developments for the amenity of the residents, which may include parks, courtyards or gardens,
Alternative provisions should be incorporated in developments through a combination of terraced
open space/roof gardens (provided to a satisfactory specification) and/or balconies with good
landscaping where appropriate. When located on the ground level, private open space should be
screened from public view by landscaping, courtyard walls or privacy fences.
In addition, as already described earlier in the Master Plan under Section 2.1, any future
residential use will also shall be designed to take advantage of the community trail system, which
consists of pedestrian and bicycle trails.
A minimum of 40 Square feet of common open space shall be provided for each unit.
4.9e. Parking Requirements
The parking requirement for residential units shall be 1 space per bedroom with a minimum
dimension of 9 feet by 18 feet located within an approved parking structure for the residential
development and shall not be tandem. As customary in Mixed Use projects, visitor parking will be
shared with the retail parking."
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 16
Figure 4-5, Examples of Residential Building Heights, as set forth below, is hereby added to
Chapter 4 of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan.
4
Sao
0. rr
r.
f4'X{ tri b {
F� ! ' { 'aW !' k{ ��1y,4 li ii'�;�." EE4 � v ✓,u
All
q`
y
WIN
. eat
h
r
4
!Section 5.1 c, Subsequent Projects and Phases, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Following Phase I Design Review approval, Phase ll, subsequent phases and projects must
be submitted to the City for Design Review approval. Applications for such approval may be
submitted from time to time based on the applicant's development schedule. Projects submitted in
Phase II and subsequent phases will vary in size. The smallest project could be an individual
building and the largest could be Mid-rise residential or office and/or development consisting of
multiple buildings on more than one block of Victoria Gardens.
Projects in Phase II and subsequent phases will be required to obtain the Design Review
approval of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 17.06.010 of the Development
Code if they include buildings either: (i)70 feet or more in height; or(ii) 35 feet or more in height and
located south of Church Street and north of the line depicted in Figure 5.4 that extends easterly from
Cultural Center Drive."
All other projects in Phase II and subsequent phases will be reviewed by the Director of
Planning ministerially for conformance with the Development Standards and for adherence to the
design directions established by the Design Guidelines."
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145 FOREST CITY
DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC.
April 8, 2009
Page 17
Figure 5.4, is hereby added to appear as follows:
CHUI sraeer ryry - �j� a� :'I it I B iJ6
�l a<�r I li r .� I Irrl it ' L'I �% tufa of sgniE t '1 I ,
Resfdentlal Area </ r / T\
L
CWtural Center Drlve
gg rs£ tIH a'Yf� 4 1 ti`t� Eastern,
I S l 1 rr I trx� I �+k
n >!itl'C i' I 'YA f . ,� \� tiA`rrk- q.F y✓ / z
.._➢lerth Ma[n Street. " .} (' z tJR�pa/
�`'''`,a,if Ar M
avilStreetArea' +(Gilt + ;� r �,r
*
j-
F ov
m South Maln Slrae wY ! - /
° I r � ° 4 5 I'• I � � `/, / � K YIE s!'ng Usec:
I I `�� [�C4 � t .�'G iI II r'����II'1'�✓ / , rinr..Y:
g h
os or narnoCi rroxF
FN r:u Mrcr�.'Fx
FN FLdO.
VICTORIA GARDENS LANE ; % / rI0.xl\'G SIAVCIORF
I'
SFa+ TI R S FNML
i ILMUT
AI.b.iLL` % MFR . fWI Y.E '1nl.l
tRcuteF66' r3'y
h / O>•remissible Building Aryaf
il,f ;xiArea="'('�,".Fj /V •Etna of Sight Extension
FOOTHILLBOULEVARO/ROUTE 68 - 0.
FIGURE 5.4
Easterly Line of Sight Extension
of Cultural Center Drive
Section 5.1 e, Timing and Appeals, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"The City shall process and render its decision on each Design Review application within 120
calendar days of when the applicant's Design Review application is deemed complete. Any Design
Review decision by the Director of Planning may be appealed to the Planning Commission in writing
within 10 days following the applicant's receipt of written notice of the Design Review decision. The
Planning Commission shall hear and affirm, modify, or overrule the decision under appeal within 30
calendar days of the appeal. Any Design Review decision by the Planning Commission may be
appealed to the City Council in writing within 10 days following the applicant's receipt of written
notice of the Commission's decision. The City Council shall hear and affirm, modify, or overrule the
decision under appeal within 30 calendar days of the appeal."
EXHIBIT B IS AS SHOWN IN THE PLANNING
COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 8, 2009
AS EXHIBIT D
RESOLUTION EXHIBIT B
Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Regarding the Environmental Effects from the
Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendments Project
(SCH # 2001031028)
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("this Council") hereby adopts this entire
document, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 12 below, as its
findings ("Findings") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the
Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendments Project ("Project") described in the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("Final SEIR") for the Project, State
Clearinghouse Number 2001031028. The Project as described in the Final SEIR includes all
discretionary actions that will be considered by the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City"), the
Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, and other public agencies that may have
approval authority over aspects of the Project. City's discretionary actions in approving the
Project will include: 1) the General Plan Amendment, 2) the Victoria Arbors Master Plan
Amendment, 3) the Victoria Community Plan Amendment, 4) the Development Agreement
Amendment, and 5) the Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendment for the Victoria Gardens
Master Plan Amendments Project.
In considering the potential benefits of the Project, the City identified the following objectives
that will be achieved upon development of the Project site:
• Ensure that development of the site is in accordance with established functional
standards and design and aesthetic standards contained in the Victoria Community
Plan, including the incorporation of certain elements representative of community
heritage styles found within the City. Thus providing the City with a development, which
creates a distinctive "downtown" environment;
• Implement the regionally oriented commercial development envisioned for the Project
site in the General Plan and Victoria Community Plan;
• Create a mixed-use neighborhood with public spaces, shopping, entertainment, and civic
uses, within walking distance;
• Augment the City's economic base by providing sales and property tax-generating uses,
• Create employment opportunities for citizens of the City and surrounding communities;
• Provide commercial development in conformance with applicable policies and programs
included in the City's General Plan, inclusive of the rezoning of a portion of the site;
• Create a vibrant and active downtown, which can accommodate the civic activities,
commerce, and public events resulting from interaction of businesses, residents, and
visitors, and
• Capture retail sales that may currently be lost to adjacent cities.
EXHIBIT D
1
These Findings are based upon the entire record before this Council, including the Final
SEIR prepared for the Project. The Final SEIR was prepared by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency under the CEQA.
SECTION 2
THE PROJECT
A. Project Description
The Project proposes to amend the approved Victoria Community Plan (VCP) by amending
the Development Agreement DA01-02 to include minor technical and conforming
amendments to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan (VGMP) and related documents to allow
flexibility to construct the remaining 290 dwelling units and undeveloped commercial
office/retail space as approved within the VGMP. The Victoria Arbors Master Plan is
proposed to be amended to include references to the VGMP and a General Plan
Amendment amending Table III-4 to increase dwelling unit density within the Residential
Land Use designation for the Victoria Gardens Regional Mixed Use Lifestyle Center. The
amendments are designed to allow for the most efficient use of available land area within
the VGMP Project area, and to allow for creative and distinctive building design solutions in
achieving these goals.
The VGMP Project site is located within the boundaries of the City's VCP. As originally
approved, the VGMP allows the development of 600 residential units and approximately
2.45 million square feet of Commercial/Office space, Civic uses, and associated
infrastructure. A portion of the VGMP has already been built and consists of approximately
1,413,383 square feet of Commercial/Office uses, approximately 90,850 square feet of Civic
uses, 215 dwelling units with an additional 95 dwelling units approved but not yet
constructed, and associated infrastructure and is considered the baseline condition.
Surrounding land uses consist of single-family residential uses located north of the Project
limits, north of Church Street. Commercial/retail uses are located to the south of Foothill
Boulevard. 1-15 is located adjacent and to the east of the Project site, and Residential and
Commercial/Retail uses are located west of Day Creek Boulevard.
The site is bounded on the west by the approved Victoria Arbors Village project area. The
Victoria Arbors Village project envisions the development of commercial, residential, park,
and school uses, and required roadways and utility infrastructure within an area bounded by
Base Line Road, Foothill Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, 1-15, and Day Creek Channel.
The Project site is designated "Mixed Use" (MU) in the City's General Plan. The MU land
use designation is intended to stimulate and guide development in special opportunity areas
where land change is desired, which may occur in two ways. The first way in which such
development might occur would be as a combination of uses in a single development project
on a single parcel of land. Secondly, such uses are encouraged to occur as a combination
of uses on multiple parcels within a specified district of the City.' As previously noted, the
VGMP Project site is located within the boundaries of the VCP. The Project site is currently
zoned Mixed-Use/Retail (MU) and Mixed-Use/Office (MUO).
' City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan,Section 2.5.3.6 Developing the Community, Pg. III-29.
2
The Victoria Gardens Master Plan was prepared as the governing land use and design
document for an approximately 174-acre site within the eastern area of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga. The VGMP was approved by the City in 2001. The 174-acre Project site
included the combination of 147 acres of land controlled by the Rancho Cucamonga
Redevelopment Agency, 18 acres of undeveloped property, and 9 acres of land previously
dedicated for street rights-of-way. At ultimate build out, the 174 acres will be built with
approximately 2.45 million square feet of retail, office, and civic uses as well as up to 600
multiple-family residential units.
The development scenario for the Victoria Gardens Project envisioned development of a
"new downtown" consisting of an open-air mixed-use complex, which includes an attractive
and compatible blend of major retail tenants, specialty commercial uses, restaurant and
entertainment outlets, office uses, residential dwellings, and community facilities. These
uses are built along a setting that is reminiscent of a traditional "Main Street' with interesting
streetscapes exhibiting individually designed storefronts, wider sidewalks, street furniture,
and landscaping including pocket parks. Second-story office space is built above portions of
some retail uses to accommodate professional uses (medical/dental offices, accountants,
lawyers, etc.). The Project includes a variety of sit-down restaurants, cafes, and
coffeehouses. The Project includes civic and cultural uses that include a branch library,
community playhouse, performing arts theater, and community center. The use of
landscaping, awnings, canopies, sun shelters, misting systems, and other architectural
elements serve to help shield patrons of the shopping district from extreme weather
conditions.
The area located between Foothill Boulevard and Victoria Gardens Lane will be developed
with fast food uses, automobile service station(s), restaurants, and retail uses. This area will
be oriented toward vehicle traffic. The area of the Victoria Gardens Project that directly
abuts 1-15 may be developed with either retail or office/hotel uses.
The Victoria Gardens Project includes the development of up to 600 multiple-family
residential units. These dwelling units were envisioned to be located north of the "new
downtown," within walking distance of commercial, public, and civic uses. The residential
component of the Project may include clubhouse facilities, recreational features, or open
space reserved for the exclusive use of Project residents. There are currently 215 dwelling
units with an additional 95 dwelling units approved but not yet constructed north of the "new
downtown." An additional 290 residential units are approved but not currently built and are
the subject of the amendments to the VGMP.
The applicant is proposing to amend the approved VGMP and related documents to allow
flexibility to construct the remaining number of dwelling units and undeveloped square
footage of office/retail space. The Victoria Community Plan and the Victoria Arbors Master
Plan would be amended to include references to the VGMP. The General Plan amendment
would amend Table III-4 to increase dwelling unit density within the Residential Land Use
designation for the Victoria Gardens Regional Mixed Use Lifestyle Center. The amendments
are designed to allow for the most efficient use of available land area within the VGMP
Project area, and to allow for creative and distinctive building design solutions in achieving
these goals.
The primary Project objectives are as follows:
3
• Ensure that development of the site is in accordance with established functional
standards and design and aesthetic standards contained in the Victoria
Community Plan, including the incorporation of certain elements representative
of community heritage styles found within the City, thus providing the City with a
development, which creates a distinctive "downtown" environment.
• Implement the regionally oriented commercial development envisioned for the
Project site in the General Plan and Victoria Community Plan.
• Create a mixed-use neighborhood with public spaces, shopping, entertainment,
and civic uses, within walking distance.
• Augment the City's economic base by providing sales and property tax-
generating uses.
• Create employment opportunities for citizens of the City and surrounding
communities.
• Provide commercial development in conformance with applicable policies and
programs included in the City's General Plan, inclusive of the rezoning of a
portion of the site.
• Create a vibrant and active downtown, which can accommodate the civic
activities, commerce, and public events resulting from interaction of businesses,
residents, and visitors.
• Capture retail sales that may currently be lost to adjacent cities.
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City initiated the environmental process with the completion of an Initial Study. The City
used an Initial Study to determine which impacts would be less than significant and did not
warrant further environmental review, while identifying those issues that required further
analysis in an EIR. The City circulated the Initial Study with a Notice of Preparation (NOP)
for the Amendments to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan Draft SEIR to State, regional, and
local agencies on September 8, 2008, for a 30-day review period.2 The Initial Study was
made available to the public during and after the comment period. The NOP was distributed
to the State Clearinghouse, as well as agencies, organizations, and persons who may
provide appropriate comment on the proposed project as well as the potential environmental
impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the proposed on-site uses.
Comments received regarding the NOP were used to help identify impacts that could result
from implementation of the proposed project. The City received five comment letters to the
NOP. The NOP and Initial Study, as well as the comment letters received regarding the
NOP, are included in Appendix A of the Draft SEIR.
A joint workshop with the Planning Commission and the City Council was held at the
Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, Tri Communities Room on August 29, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. In
addition to Planning Commissioners, City Council members, and City staff, a representative
' The Notice of Preparation 30-day public review period was from September 8 to October 8, 2008.
4
from the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department was present. The project proponent
described the project to those in attendance and displayed conceptual plans of the proposed
project site, landscaping, and architectural details. Following a brief explanation of the
environmental review process, comments from the public were solicited. No communication
was received from the public.
A public scoping meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, City Council
Chambers on September 24, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. Comments were received by the Planning
Commission and were related to the following issues: traffic, air quality, parking, noise,
ingress/egress to freeways, public safety, fire protection services, water services, law
enforcement, healthcare, internal circulation, connectivity of perimeter uses with internal
uses, walkability/livability, and the desire for more open area/green space/park areas.
Following a brief explanation of the environmental review process, comments from the
public were solicited. No communication was received from the public.
The Draft SEIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected
agencies, and interested parties. Additionally, in accordance with Public Resources Code
§21092(b)(3), the Draft SEIR has been provided to all parties who have previously
requested copies. During the 45-day public review period, the Draft SEIR and technical
appendices had been made available for review at the City and at the Paul A. Biane Library.
The Draft SEIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on December 23, 2008,
with the comment period expiring on February 6, 2009. Three comment letters were
received during the public comment period.
After the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental
issues raised were prepared. These responses were made available for review for a
minimum of 10 days prior to the public hearing before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council,
at which time the certification of the Final SEIR was considered. The Final SEIR (which
includes the Draft SEIR, the public comments and responses to the Draft SEIR, and
findings) were included as part of the environmental record for consideration by the City
decision-makers.
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND FINDINGS
City staff reports, the Final SEIR, written and oral testimony at all relevant public meetings or
hearings, and these Fact, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other
information in the administrative record serve as the basis for the City's environmental
determination.
The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures
for the Project are presented in Section 4.0 of the Draft SEIR. Responses to comments and
any revisions/omissions to the Draft SEIR are provided in Appendix C, or indicated by
strikethrough (deletions) or double-underline (additions) in the Final SEIR, respectively.
The Draft SEIR evaluated two major environmental categories (aesthetics and air quality) for
potential significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts. Both project-specific,
short- and long-term, and cumulative impacts were evaluated. In addition to the two major
5
environmental categories addressed in the Draft SEIR, fourteen other major categories were
found to be insignificant in the Initial Study prepared for the Project. Except as may be
otherwise expressly provided herein, these Findings incorporated the conclusions on these
categories as outlined in the Initial Study (Appendix A of the Draft SEIR) and the City finds
that no significant impacts have been identified as to those categories identified in the Initial
Study and no further analysis is required.
At a meeting assembled on May 6, 2009, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
determined that, based upon all of the evidence presented, included by but not limited to the
Final SEIR, written and oral testimony given at the meetings and hearings, and submission
of testimony from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following 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 level of
insignificance through the identified mitigation measures and/or implementation of an
environmentally superior alternative to the Project; or (3) significant and cannot be fully
mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be substantially lessened to the extent
feasible by the identified mitigation measures.
SECTION 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following issues were found in the Final SEIR as having no potential to cause significant
impact and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. The City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga 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. Aesthetics
1. Impacts to Scenic Resources and Scenic Highways:
Implementation of the Project would not result in impacts to scenic resources and
scenic highways.
Finding: An analysis of scenic resources and scenic highways is provided in Section
4.1 of the Final SEIR. This analysis concluded that the Project site does not
contain any scenic resources (including trees and rock outcroppings) or any
historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway or local scenic road. No
impact to scenic resources or scenic highways would occur. No mitigation is
required.
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: There are no State Scenic Highways
Within the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-11). The City of Rancho
Cucamonga General Plan recognizes the San Gabriel Mountains as the most
prominent scenic feature in the City. The City also designates Day Creek Boulevard
(adjacent and west of the project site) as a scenic corridor. None of the potential
development locations are located adjacent to Day Creek Boulevard, a City-identified
scenic corridor. Therefore, because these structures would not be placed adjacent to
Day Creek Boulevard, the views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north of the City
6
would be preserved as well as the Day Creek Boulevard scenic corridor.
B. Air Quality
1. Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan:
Implementation of the Project would not result in inconsistency with the current Air
Quality Management Plan.
Finding: An analysis of Air Quality Management Plan consistency is provided in
Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. This analysis concluded that the Project would
not conflict with implementation of the current Air Quality Management Plan.
No mitigation is required.
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Although the Project would include a
General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the existing residential density of 30
dwelling units per acre to 100 dwelling units per acre within the general areas
proposed for mid-rise building construction, the total number of dwelling units to be
constructed under the Project (290 units) would not exceed the total number of
dwelling units approved under the Victoria Gardens Master Plan (VGMP) (600 units
of which 215 are completed or are being constructed with an additional 95 approved
for development). Additionally, there is no increase in commercial/office development
as part of the Project. Therefore, while the Project would result in a more intense
land use within the general areas proposed for mid-rise building construction, the
total number of units envisioned in these areas would not exceed the previously
approved amount and the Project area would not contribute to the growth projections
assumed in the currently adopted (2007) AQMP (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-22 —4.2-23).
2. Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Impacts:
Implementation of the Project would not result in long-term microscale (CO Hot Spot)
impacts.
Finding: An analysis of long-term microscale (CO Hot Spot) impacts is provided in
Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. This analysis concluded that the Project would
exceed federal or State CO concentration standards.
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: An assessment of Project-related impacts
on localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be
projected. Ambient CO concentrations monitored at the Upland Station (1350 San
Bernardino Road, Upland), the closest station with monitored CO data, showed a
highest recorded 1-hour CO concentration of 2.7 ppm (the state AAQS is 20
ppm) and a highest 8-hour concentration of 1.90 ppm (the state AAQS is 9 ppm)
during the past three years. The one-hour CO concentration near all 11 intersections
analyzed ranges from 3.0 to 4.5 ppm, much lower than the 20 ppm state standard.
The eight-hour CO concentration ranges from 2.1 to 3.1 ppm, also lower than the 9.0
ppm State standard (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-23 — 4.2-24).
3. Air Quality Impacts to Nearby Sensitive Receptors and On-Site Future
Development:
7
Implementation of the Project would not result in air quality impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors and on-site future development.
Finding: An analysis of air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors and on-site
future development is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. This analysis
concluded that the Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors or
on-site future development to significant air quality impacts.
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: On-site grading and construction activities
will likely generate temporarily increased levels of particulates and emissions from
construction equipment. Subsequent to construction, an increase in air pollutant
emissions will occur as a result of increased traffic volumes associated with operation
of the proposed on-site uses. The closest residential uses are north of and adjacent to
the project site (approximately 550 feet) and considered to be receptors sensitive to air
pollutant emissions generated during the construction and operation of the proposed
on-site uses. This analysis provides the most conservative analysis. As the Project
was included in the VGMP Final EIR PM10 analysis, the Project would have no greater
emission impacts than those previously analyzed in the VGMP Final EIR. The
projected 57,312 vehicle trips associated with the VGMP would also apply for the
Project as no additional uses or square footage is proposed. As the Project was
included in the VGMP Final EIR operational analysis and the Project will comply with
mitigation measures proposed in the VGMP Final EIR, the Project would have no
greater emission impacts than those previously analyzed in the VGMP Final EIR.
Nearby sensitive receptors would not be exposed to significant air quality impacts
greater than previously identified in the FOR and a less than significant impact would
occur (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-23 — 4.2-24).
4. Odor Impacts:
Implementation of the Project would not result in odor impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors.
Finding: An analysis of odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors is provided in
Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. This analysis concluded that the Project would
not expose nearby sensitive receptors to significant odor impacts.
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Odors typically associated with the
proposed uses include those associated with the preparation of food products, as
well as temporary and/or short-term odor releases associated with construction
activity (e.g., glues, paint, asphalt) necessary to build and maintain the site. The
control of such odors is typically achieved through the sanitary storage and disposal
of organic waste and the utilization of equipment and/or measures to contain and/or
neutralize objectionable odors. The Project does not include land uses typically
associated with emitting objectionable long-term odors. Adherence to the standard
regulatory conditions identified in the SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1113 would reduce
temporary odor impacts to a less than significant level (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-26).
8
SECTION 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following impacts related to Aesthetics and Air Quality were found to be potentially
significant, but, unless otherwise noted below, can be feasibly mitigated to a less than
significant level with the imposition of mitigation measures. The City finds that, except as
stated to the contrary, all potentially significant Project impacts listed below can and will be
mitigated, reduced or avoided by imposition of the mitigation measures, and these mitigation
measures are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan adopted by
the City.
Specific Findings of the City for each category of such impacts are set forth in detail below.
Public Resources Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a
project for which an Environmental Impact Report has been completed which identifies one
or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following
findings:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that the following environmental
impacts identified in the Final SEIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less
than significant levels through the implement imposition of mitigation measures and or
conditions identified in the Final SEIR and summarized below.
A. Aesthetics
1. Light and Glare: The proposed project will create new sources of light in the project area
and may create glare that affects surrounding land uses that may be determined to be
significant.
The amount of glare (if any) generated from implementation of the proposed project would
vary based on the type, amount, and reflectivity of building material as well as the manner in
which any such material is installed. While the VGMP discourages the use of materials that
cause unwanted glare, the possibility exists that development of the proposed mid-rise
buildings would create glare that affects surrounding land uses.
Finding: An analysis of light and glare impacts is provided in Section 4.1 of the Final
SEIR. This analysis concluded that adherence to the City's Development
Code and design guidelines in the Master Plan would ensure that any
building or parking lighting would not significantly impact adjacent uses.
9
Therefore, lighting impacts associated with this issue are less than significant
and no mitigation would be required. However, while the VGMP discourages
the use of materials that cause unwanted glare, the possibility exists that
development of the proposed mid-rise buildings would create glare that
affects surrounding land uses. The following mitigation measure has been
identified to reduce any potential glare-related impacts that may result from
the development of the proposed mid-rise structures to a less than significant
level.
Mitigation Measure 4.1.1A: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
project proponent shall submit to the City for review and approval, plans,
designs, or other information detailing the type, amount, location, and type of
installation of the materials that will face the exteriors of the proposed mid-
rise structures. The information submitted to the City shall be sufficient to
demonstrate that the proposed facing material does not create glare of a
quality or quantity that would adversely affect surrounding uses. Any
determination of adverse effect (or lack thereof) shall be made by the
Community Development Director (or designee).
Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible and the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project.
Supporting Explanation: Development of the Project would introduce a new
source of light and glare in the form of signage, building lighting, parking lot lighting,
security lighting, and reflections from windows (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-7). Existing sources
of light from surrounding areas similarly include streetlights, exterior lighting from the
residential and commercial uses and vehicle headlights from motorists driving along
1-15. Existing sources of glare within the project site include reflections from cars
parked in surface parking lots, and windows and building finishes on structures within
the project site (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-26). All development within the City is required to
adhere to lighting requirements contained in the City's Development Code (Title 17).
The Development Code states that any on-site lighting shall be provided to ensure a
safe environment while at the same time not causing areas of intense light or glare.
Because development that would occur with the proposed amendments is required
to adhere with the adopted Master Plan, the proposed project is not expected to
significantly increase the amount of daytime glare in the project area. Implementation
of the mitigation measure will reduce glare impacts to a less than significant level
because the potential glare originating from the proposed mid-rise structures and/or
affecting surrounding properties would be minimized. The review and approval by the
City would limit the amount and extent of materials that could produce glare from on-
site uses.
B. Air Quality
1. Global Climate Change Impacts: The primary greenhouse gas generated by the project
would be carbon dioxide. The proposed project's total unmitigated carbon dioxide
equivalents for carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide would be 0.098 Tg CO2 Eq (Draft
SEIR, p. 4.2-33).
10
Finding: An analysis of global climate change impacts is provided in Section 4.2 of the
Final SEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2.2A through 4.3.2E
will reduce the potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2A: The project shall comply with Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations or City requirements regarding energy
conservation standards.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.28: Use of transportation demand measures (TDM),
such as preferential parking for vanpooling/carpooling, subsidy for transit
pass or vanpooling/carpooling, flextime work schedule, bike racks, lockers,
showers, and on-site cafeterias, shall be incorporated in the design of the
commercial land uses.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2C: Houses shall be prewired for electrical "charging
EV cars unless such facilities are either not commercially available or not
economically feasible for purchase or use on this project. Conduits for fiber
optics shall be installed for residential and non-residential uses.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2D: Install EV chargers or alternative fuel stations
(natural gas) for communitywide use at key commercial and public
location(s).
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2E: The developer shall contract with a mitigation
monitor to ensure compliance with and implementation of the mitigation
monitoring program.
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible and the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project.
Supporting Explanation: The proposed project is consistent with the strategies to
reduce California's emissions to the levels proposed by Executive Order S-3-05. In
addition, the impacts on climate change of a project of this size, considered in
isolation, would be analytically indistinguishable from the background. It is not
possible to specifically quantify the reduction in greenhouse gases that will result
from implementation of the identified mitigation measures. With adherence to the
identified mitigation measures, on a project level, no global climate change impact
would result from the development of the proposed on-site uses.
SECTION 7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Based upon information in the Final SEIR, in the record, and based upon testimony provided
during the public hearings on this project, the following adverse impacts of the Project as
more particularly discussed below are considered to be significant and unavoidable, both
individually and cumulatively: Aesthetics and Air Quality. The City Council of the City of
11
Rancho Cucamonga finds the following environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR
remain significant even after application of all feasible mitigation measures: Aesthetics (as to
scenic vistas and changes to existing visual character) and Air Quality (as to short-term and
long-term area source and mobile source air pollution emissions, localized construction and
operational area source and mobile source air pollution emissions, cumulative greenhouse
gas emissions, and cumulative impacts as to failure to meet State and federal ambient air
quality standards for Ozone, PM10,and PM2.5)
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)(2), the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga cannot approve the Project unless it first finds (1) Under CEQA
Section 21081(a)(3), and state CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific
economic, legal, social technological, or other considerations, including provisions of
employment opportunities to highly trained workers make infeasible mitigation measures of
the Project alternatives identified in the Final SEIR; and (2) Under State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15092(b), the remaining significant affects are acceptable due to overriding
concerns described in the state CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and, therefore, a
statement of overriding considerations is included herein as Section 10.
A. Aesthetics
1. Scenic Vista Impacts: An analysis of scenic vistas is provided in Section 4.1 of the Final
SEIR. The Project will result in the development of mid-rise structures that will partially
obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains that have been identified by the City as a
scenic resource. This is a significant impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures that
would be available to reduce the obstruction of the San Gabriel Mountains caused by the
implementation of the proposed project. Since there is no feasible mitigation available to
reduce impacts related to the loss of this viewshed, impacts associated with this issue would
remain significant and unavoidable (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-21).
Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures available that the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga can adopt or incorporate to reduce project-
related impacts associated with the obstruction of the San Gabriel Mountains,
which are a City-identified scenic resource. Therefore, the impact cannot be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Currently, there are unobstructed views of the San
Gabriel Mountains available to passing motorists along I-15 north and Victoria
Gardens Lane. Existing views while travelling along Victoria Gardens Lane (south of
the Main Street Area) include the roadway and parkway landscaping in the
foreground, existing surface parking areas and existing commercial retail structures
in the midground, and views of the San Gabriel Mountains in the background. With
development that would occur under the Project, mid-rise buildings, associated
parking structures/lots, and landscaping would be built and placed on the Project
site. This would change existing views in the northern direction of the passing
motorists heading east or west along Victoria Gardens Lane, south of the Main
Street Area. (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-13). The placement of a mid-rise structure would
substantially block views (up to approximately 80% of that previously visible) of the
San Gabriel Mountains to the north. Because previous views of the San Gabriel
Mountains from this vantage point were unobstructed, and a loss of the majority of
12
this existing scenic vista would occur (i.e., approximately 75% of the ridgeline is fully
blocked).
2. Existing Visual Character Impacts: An analysis of visual character is provided in
Section 4.1 of the Final SEIR. The proposed project will result in the construction of mid-rise
structures that will alter the existing visual character of the project site and the surrounding
area. This is a significant impact. There is no feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts
related to the degradation of the visual character or scenic quality of the site and its
surroundings, impacts associated with this issue would remain significant and unavoidable.
(Draft SEIR p. 4.1-25).
Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures available that the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga can adopt or incorporate to reduce project-
related impacts associated with the obstruction of the San Gabriel Mountains,
which are a City-identified scenic resource. Therefore, impacts to visual
character cannot be reduced to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Development occurring under the Project would change
the character of the Project site. Currently the site is developed with commercial,
office, residential, and civic uses. The development of mid-rise buildings would
change the character of the site by adding taller buildings, double the height of the
existing buildings in the Project vicinity. The proposed mid-rise buildings, as with all
development within the VGMP, would be subjected to the City's design review
approval and required to adhere to City standards as defined in the Master Plan
related to construction and design for this area. The Project would not conflict with
policies related to design. However, certain policies identified in the General Plan are
in place to protect, preserve, and/or minimize impacts to sensitive land resources,
including significant views of scenic resources and natural landforms. The
development of mid-rise buildings would result in substantial obstruction of views of
the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. Therefore, based on the context of
degradation described in the Draft SEIR, a significant impact to visual character
and/or quality of the site and surroundings would occur.
Although the visual characteristic of the project site would change, the Project would
replace the existing parking area with a development that would include the use of
architectural elements, landscaping, and design criteria per the adopted VGMP
which was based on City Municipal Code and General Plan standards. Nonetheless,
because development of mid-rise structures would result in the obstruction of the
San Gabriel Mountains, a City-identified scenic resource, the Project would conflict
with policies related to the preservation/minimization of scenic features and impacts
are significant. Since there is no feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts
related to the degradation of the visual character or scenic quality of the site and its
surroundings, impacts associated with this issue would remain significant and
unavoidable. (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-25).
B. Air Quality
1. Short-term Construction Emissions Impacts: An analysis of short-term construction
emissions is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Peak grading and construction
13
emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for the criteria pollutants of NOx. PM,o,
and PM2.5, which are 100 pounds per day, 150 pounds per day, and 55 pounds per day,
respectively. These impacts would be significant. Emissions of other criteria pollutants would
be below the standards.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1A through 4.3.1 would reduce
NOx, PM,o, and PM2.5 impacts resulting from grading/construction activities to
the extent feasible:
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1A The Construction Contractor shall select the
construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high
energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction
grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be
tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 IS The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric
or alternative-fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel-powered
engines unless the Contractor determines, and the City concurs, that electric
or alternative-fuel powered equipment is either not commercially available or
not economically feasible for purchase or use on this project.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 C The Construction Contractor shall ensure that
construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off
equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the
overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby
decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and
equipment operating at the same time.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1D The Construction Contractor shall time the
construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic and
minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, if necessary,
a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing
roadways.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 E The Construction Contractor shall support and
encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1F Dust generated by the development activities
shall be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control
measures listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of
cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's
activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such
areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day, and
whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
C. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the
entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately with soil
14
bonding agents until the area is landscaped, paved, or otherwise
developed so that dust generation will not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction
debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
4.3.1G The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as possible
precoated/natural colored building materials, water-based or low VOC
coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency,
such as a high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual
coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber,
rag, or sponge as defined is SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Implementing these mitigation measures is feasible. Therefore, the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project.
However, the mitigation measures identified would not necessarily reduce the impact to a
less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Short-term emissions after mitigation would exceed the
SCAQMD's daily thresholds for the criteria pollutants of NOx, PM1o, and PM2.5
Although fugitive PM10 emissions are greater per square foot using URBEMIS2007,
the total amount of emissions analyzed is within the volume of emissions identified in
the Final SEIR. Emissions of other criteria pollutants resulting from the continued
development of the VGMP area would be below the standards. As stated in the Final
SEIR, short-term construction emissions would remain significant with
implementation of mitigation measures. While the Project would alter the type,
location, and density of development, no greater level of development would occur.
Therefore, no greater impact would occur than that previously analyzed in the Final
SEIR. Adherence to SCAQMD rules/regulations and the identified mitigation
measures would reduce emissions of NOx, PM10, and PM25; however, impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of the Project. (Draft SEIR p.
4.2-31).
Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing,
exposure, vehicle, and equipment travel on unpaved roads, and with cut and fill
operations. Dust generated during construction activities would vary substantially
depending on the level of activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions.
Nearby sensitive receptors and workers may be exposed to blowing dust, depending
upon prevailing wind conditions. Peak grading day construction equipment emissions
would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds for the criteria pollutants NOx, PM1o,
and PM2.5. Emissions of other criteria pollutants would be below the standards
established by the SCAQMD (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-27).
Building erection or construction would involve different types of equipment being
used on the project site. Similarities do exist in terms of equipment exhaust
emissions and fugitive dust emissions; however, it is anticipated that emissions
during the building erection phase would be below peak grading day emissions (Draft
SEIR p. 4.2-29).
15
Architectural coatings contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are similar
to reactive organic compounds (ROCS) and are part of the ozone precursors.
Because there is insufficient information at this time for the proposed residential units
and office/commercial/residential uses, the VOC emissions associated with
architectural coatings are not calculated. Emissions associated with architectural
coatings can be reduced by using precoated/natural-colored building materials,
water-based or low VOC coating, and using coating transfer or spray equipment with
high transfer efficiency. For example, the high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray
method is a coating application system operated at air pressure between 0.1 and 10
pounds per square inch gauge (psig) with 65 percent transfer efficiency. Manual
coating applications, such as paint brush, handroller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or
sponge, have a 100 percent transfer efficiency. Furthermore, SCAQMD Rule 1113,
Architectural Coating, restricts the amount of VOC allowed in architectural coating to
control VOC emission in the Basin; therefore, the combination of low VOC
architectural coating and utilizing high transfer efficiency coating equipment would
reduce this potential impact to less than significant (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-29).
2. Air Pollutants with Regional Impacts: An analysis of air pollutant emissions with
regional impacts is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Long-term air pollutant
emission impacts are those associated with changes in permanent usage of the project site.
Area sources include on-site emissions such as natural gas consumption and emissions
associated with consumer products. Mobile source emissions result from vehicle trips
associated with the proposed project. These impacts would be significant.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.2A through 4.3.2.E would
reduce impacts to long-term air quality from mobile sources to the extent
feasible:
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2A The project shall comply with Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations or City requirements regarding energy
conservation standards.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.26 Use of transportation demand measures (TDM),
such as preferential parking for van pool ing/carpool ing, subsidy for transit
pass or vanpooling/carpooling, flextime work schedule, bike racks, lockers,
showers, and on-site cafeterias, shall be incorporated in the design of the
commercial land uses.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2C Houses shall be prewired for electrical charging
EV cars unless such facilities are either not commercially available or not
economically feasible for purchase or use on this project. Conduits for fiber
optics shall be installed for residential and non-residential uses.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2D Install EV chargers or alternative fuel stations
(natural gas) for communitywide use at key commercial and public
location(s).
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2E The developer shall contract with a mitigation
monitor to ensure compliance with and implementation of the mitigation
monitoring program.
Implementing these mitigation measures is feasible. Therefore, the City Council of the City
16
of Rancho Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project.
However, the mitigation measures identified would not necessarily reduce the impact to a
less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: The Project may result in the additional development of up
to approximately 978,800 square feet of commercial/office space and up to 290
dwelling units. These land uses would consume natural gas and electricity. There
would be 26,811 daily vehicular trips associated with the Project. Total emissions of
CO, ROG, NOx, PM1o, and PM2.5 would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for long-term
operations. Emissions of SOx would not exceed the SCAQMD operational threshold
(Draft SEIR p. 4.2-31 through 4.2-32).
Total emissions from long-term project operations would include stationary sources
added to the mobile sources. The emissions for CO, NOx, ROC, PM10, and PM2.5
would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for daily operations emissions. It is not feasible
to quantify the emission reductions achieved through the mitigation measures
identified. Therefore, long-term regional air quality impacts would remain significant
and unavoidable despite the implementation of mitigation measures. Although
implementation of the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts
related to long-term regional emissions, the Project consists of approximately half of
the total development envisioned under the VGMP and does not propose additional
square footage or dwelling units from that previously approved. No greater operational
air quality impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project than that
previously analyzed (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-33 through 4.3.34).
3. Localized Construction Equipment Exhaust Impacts: An analysis of localized
construction emissions is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. The emissions rates for
the proposed construction activities are below the localized construction threshold for CO
and NOx emissions rates. However, the localized construction emission thresholds for PM,o,
and PM2.5 are exceeded. These impacts would be significant.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1A through 4.3.1G would reduce
impacts from localized construction equipment exhaust to the extent feasible`
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1A The Construction Contractor shall select the
construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high
energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction
grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be
tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.16 The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric
or alternative-fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel-powered
engines unless the Contractor determines, and the City concurs, that electric
or alternative-fuel powered equipment is either not commercially available or
not economically feasible for purchase or use on this project.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1C The Construction Contractor shall ensure that
construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off
equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the
overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby
decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and
equipment operating at the same time.
17
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 D The Construction Contractor shall time the
construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic and
minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary,
a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing
roadways.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 E The Construction Contractor shall support and
encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 F Dust generated by the development activities
shall be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control
measures listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut
or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent
dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities
cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such
areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day, and
whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the
entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately with soil bonding
agents until the area is landscaped, paved, or otherwise developed so
that dust generation will not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction
debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1G The Construction Contractor shall utilize as
much as possible precoated/natural colored building materials, water-based
or low VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high
transfer efficiency, such as a high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray
method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller,
trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge as defined is SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Implementing these mitigation measures is feasible. Therefore, the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project.
However, the mitigation measures identified would not necessarily reduce the impact to a
less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Although of the identified mitigation measures would
reduce localized emission rates up to 50 percent, the localized construction
thresholds are exceeded at the nearest residences for PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore,
even with implementation of the identified mitigation measures impacts associated
with localized construction emissions for PM10 and PM2,5 would remain significant
and unavoidable (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-35). Although implementation of the Project would
result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to localized construction
equipment emissions, the Project consists of approximately half of the total
18
development envisioned under the VGMP and does not propose additional square
footage or dwelling units from that previously approved. No greater operational air
quality impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project than that
previously analyzed.
4. Localized Operational Emissions Impacts: An analysis of localized operational
emissions is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Long-term emissions of PM10 and
PM2,5 would result in exceedances of the LST thresholds. These impacts would be
significant.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1A through 4.3.1G would reduce
impacts to localized operation emissions to the extent feasible:
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1A The Construction Contractor shall select the
construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high
energy efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction
grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be
tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.16 The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric
or alternative-fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel-powered
engines unless the Contractor determines, and the City concurs, that electric
or alternative-fuel powered equipment is either not commercially available or
not economically feasible for purchase or use on this project.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1C The Construction Contractor shall ensure that
construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off
equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the
overall length of the construction period should be extended, thereby
decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and
equipment operating at the same time.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1D The Construction Contractor shall time the
construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic and
minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, if necessary,
a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing
roadways.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1E The Construction Contractor shall support and
encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 F Dust generated by the development activities
shall be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control
measures listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut
or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent
dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities
cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to
keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from
leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such
19
areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day, and
whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per hour.
c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the
entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately with soil bonding
agents until the area is landscaped, paved, or otherwise developed so
that dust generation will not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or
treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction
debris to or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1G The Construction Contractor shall utilize as
much as possible precoated/natural colored building materials, water-based
or low VOC coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high
transfer efficiency, such as a high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray
method, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, hand roller,
trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge as defined is SCAOMD Rule 1113.
Implementing these mitigation measures is feasible. Therefore, the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project.
However, the mitigation measures identified would not necessarily reduce the impact to a
less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Although of the identified mitigation measures would
reduce localized emission rates, the localized operational thresholds are exceeded at
the nearest residences for PM10 and PM2.5. No feasible mitigation measures are
available to reduce long-term air quality emissions from project related vehicles to a
less than significant level. Therefore, even with implementation of the identified
mitigation measures impacts associated with localized operational emissions for
PM10 and PM2.5 would remain significant and unavoidable (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-36).
Although implementation of the Project would result in significant and unavoidable
impacts related to localized operational emissions, the Project consists of
approximately half of the total development envisioned under the VGMP and does not
propose additional square footage or dwelling units from that previously approved. No
greater operational air quality impact would occur with implementation of the proposed
project than that previously analyzed.
20
SECTION 8
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts refer to one or more individual effects which considered together
compelled or increase the environmental impact of the Project. State CEQA Guidelines
require a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a Project "when the Project's incremental
effects are cumulatively considerable." For example, when the incremental effects of an
individual Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and determines that the discussion
of cumulative impacts in the Final SEIR provides adequate and sufficient discussion of the
cumulative impacts of the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. Cumulative
impacts are discussed in Chapters 2.0, 4.0 and in 5.0 of the SEIR. The City Council further
finds that the cumulative impacts addressed would be less than significant, as set forth in
Section 3 herein, or mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of mitigation
measures into the Project, as set forth in Section 4 herein, with the exception of the
following environmental impacts that remain significant even with the implementation of
mitigation measures as set forth in Section 5 herein: Air Quality; (long-term Project related
emissions and cumulative air emissions-failure to meet State and Federal ambient air quality
standards).
While on a project-level, no global climate change impact would occur, the Project will
contribute to cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in California. However, without the
necessary science and analytical tools, it is not possible to determine with certainty, whether
the Project's emissions of greenhouse gases will be cumulatively considerable, within the
meaning of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130. The CARB is currently in the
process of designing regulations to monitor, limit, and ultimately reduce California
greenhouse gas emissions but there are as yet no clear standards for assessing the
significance of cumulative impacts from projects. Given the findings of AB 32 and the
requirements of CEQA, the lead agency must determine whether a project will or will not
have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Due to the lack of guidance for determining
the significance of cumulative impacts to climate change from projects, and out of an
overabundance of caution, the effect of 0.098 Tg CO2 Eq is considered cumulatively
considerable (Draft SEIR p 4.2-33). This determination is based upon a lack of clear
scientific and regulatory criteria for determining the level of significance of the Project's
contribution to global climate change.
At this time, it is unknown if global warming can be reversed through the use of greener
technology, economic regulations and social practices. Project-related CO2 emissions and
their contribution to global climate change impacts in the State of California are less than
significant and less than cumulatively considerable because the project's impacts alone
would not cause or significantly contribute to global climate change.
SECTION 9
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
21
Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a
determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that
there would be little possibility of restoring them. Development of the proposed project would
result in the use of non-renewable resources during construction and operation.
Construction would require the consumption of natural resources and renewable and non-
renewable materials, including building materials (e.g., stone and metal) and fossil fuels
(e.g., gasoline, diesel, fuel, and natural gas). Once operational, the proposed project would
• require some consumption of natural resources and renewable and non-renewable
materials such as electricity, natural gas, potable water, and fossil fuels for operational
systems such as pumps, air conditioning, lighting, and monitoring equipment. Currently,
these resources are readily available and are expected to remain available in the
foreseeable future. Therefore, the commitment of these resources to the proposed project is
not considered significant. (Draft SEIR p. 5-3)
While it is anticipated that design, construction, and maintenance of the proposed mid-rise
buildings would follow established City standards to ensure compatibility with existing uses,
the development that may result from implementation of the proposed amendment would
nonetheless permanently alter views of the San Gabriel Mountains from selected vantage
points on and adjacent to the project area. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains have been
identified as significant visual resource by the City; therefore, changes to the amount,
breadth, and quality of view achieved from areas adjacent to the project site would be
significant. (Draft SEIR p. 5-3)
SECTION 10
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the Project could be growth inducing
specifically Section 15126.2(d) as State CEQA Guidelines states that SEIR's must describe
the ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction
of additional housing either directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. The
proposed project is consistent with the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and with
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projections. The proposed
amendments would not alter the amount of residential development permitted within the
VGMP area; rather, it alters the location and/or density of residential development. In the
absence of an increase in the amount or change in the type of residential development, no
increase in population beyond that previously forecast in the Final EIR would occur. The
proposed project does not foster growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is
assumed in the Final EIR, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, nor does the proposed project
provide infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels
currently permitted by the General Plan. (Draft SEIR p. 5-4).
Growth inducement may result from the removal of obstacles to growth, usually in adjacent
areas, through creating opportunities to extend infrastructure that could support
development of areas where development is not planned or expected to occur. However,
infrastructure elements such as sewer and water lines, roads, and drainage facilities are
already provided in the project area. The project site is located in an urbanized developed
area which has been previously developed with commercial, service, office, and residential
uses. Utility and service systems have already been fully extended to the project area.
Because the amount and type of development that could be result from implementation of
22
the proposed amendments would not increase beyond that previously identified, and
because the utility and service demands of the VGMP have been fully integrated into the
long-term plans of utility and service providers, the construction of new facilities or
expansion of existing facilities that could accommodate additional new growth would not
occur. The proposed project would not create or encourage growth through the provision of
new and essential public services or access opportunities. Therefore, no adverse effect from
the removal of obstacles to growth would occur. (Draft SEIR p. 5-4)
SECTION 11
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines describes the energy conservation information and
analyses that should be included in an EIR, including emphasis on avoiding or reducing
inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Energy conservation, if
defined in terms of decreased reliance on natural gas and oil, decreases per capita energy
consumption and increases reliance on renewable energy sources. (Draft SEIR p. 5-4)
The electricity usage for the Project was determined using data from the United States
Department of Energy's (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA).3 For the entire
VGMP project area, the expected annual electricity usage would be 55,000 megawatt-hours
(MWh), which includes electricity used for all direct uses (lighting, appliances, etc.), for
potable water delivery, treatment, and distribution, and for treating wastewater. This was
combined with the GHG emission factors for California power plants, also from the DOE,4 of
0.61 Ib of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), 0.067 Ib of CH4 per MWh, and 0.0037 Ib of N20per
MWh. The natural gas usage was also determined using data from the EIA. For this project,
the expected natural gas usage would be 110 million standard cubic feet (mscf) per year.
This was combined with natural gas combustion emissions factors from the EPA's AP-42
Volume I, Chapter 1.4, Table 1.4-2 of 120,000 lbs of CO2 per mscf of natural gas
combusted, 2.3 lbs of CH4 per mscf, and 2.2 lbs of N20per mscf. (Draft SEIR p. 5-5)
The project proponent would be required to meet the service requirements of these utility
providers, which would ensure that a less than significant impact related to the provision of
power would result. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to adhere to Title
24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, which identifies energy efficiency
standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. These standards are updated
periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency
technologies and methods. The most recent standards were adopted and went into effect
October 1, 2005. The 2005 standards for residential and non-residential buildings are
expected to reduce the growth in electricity use by 478 gigawatt-hours per year (GWh/y) and
reduce the growth in natural gas use by 8.8 million therms per year (therms/y). The savings
attributable to new nonresidential buildings are 163.2 GWh/y of electricity savings and 0.5
million therms of gas savings.5 Such standards include the provision of cool roofs, demand
control ventilation, skylights for day-lighting in buildings, thermal breaks for metal building
' Table C14.:Electricity Consumption and Expenditure Intensities,
www eia.doe.gov/emeu/ becs/cbecs20031detaiiecl tables 2003/detailed tables 2003.html,website accessed April 10,2008.
4 Updated State- and Regional-level Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Electricity (March 2002),
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html,website accessed April 14,2008.
' Nonresidential Compliance Manual for California's 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards, California Energy Commission,
April 2005.
23
roofs, and lighting power limits. Compliance with such standards would be reviewed before
the issuance of a building permit by the City. Because the proposed project would be
required to adhere to standards contained in Title 24 in addition to requirements set forth by
the respective utility providers, development of the proposed project would not result in the
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Consequently, impacts
associated with this issue are considered to be less than significant and no mitigation would
be required. (Draft SEIR p. 5-5)
The methodology used in the SEIR to analyze the project's potential effect on global warming
includes a calculation of GHG emissions. The purpose of calculating the emissions is for
informational purposes, as there is no quantifiable emissions threshold established by any
judicial decision or CEQA regulation or statute as indicated in the public policy rationale
underlying AB 32 and SB 97. A detailed analysis of the project's GHG emissions has been
provided in Section 4.2 Air Quality of the SEIR. (Draft SEIR p. 5-5)
SECTION 12
ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that a SEIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or 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
amount of time considering the economic, environmental, social, and
technological factors involved.
A SEIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly obtain
most of the Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all
cases, the consideration of the alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. The
lead agency is not required to choose an environmentally superior alternative identified in
the SEIR if the alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the Project, and
A. Through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of
the Project can be reduced to an acceptable level; or
B. There are social economic technical or other considerations that make the
alternative infeasible.
The State CEQA guidelines direct agencies to consider the feasibility of alternative
locations. The development that would result from the implementation of the Project is within
the development envelope addressed in the certified Final EIR for the VGMP. The intent of
the Project is to allow the on-site development of the remaining commercial square footage
and residential dwelling units entitled for the site. Because the Project is the amendment of
the approved VGMP, it is not practical to consider an alternative location outside of the limits
of the VGMP; therefore, further consideration of an Off-Site Location Alternative was not
warranted.
The objectives for the Project are on page 3-9 of the Draft SEIR (which are stated here in
Section 2B). The following alternatives were analyzed in the Draft SEIR.
24
A. Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative
Description: Pursuant to CEQA (§15126.6[e][3][a]), when the project is the revision of an
existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the No Project Alternative
should discuss what would reasonably be expected to occur through the continuation of the
existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. It is currently infeasible to implement the
remaining level of residential development that is entitled within the portions of the VGMP
available for development unless demolition of the existing residential uses within the
Residential Area occurs. Under the existing VGMP development standards, there are areas
defined as "Permissible Building Areas" within four districts that comprise the total Victoria
Gardens Regional Center. The Residential Area is located in the northern portion of the
project site and is bounded by Day Creek Boulevard, Church Street, Eden Avenue, and
Cultural Center Drive. This area is currently developed with 215 dwelling units with an
additional 95 dwelling units approved but not yet constructed. The ultimate development of
these 310 dwelling units would occupy the entire "Permissible Building Area" within the
Residential Area. The existing VGMP does not allow the construction of residential uses in
areas outside of the designated Residential Area; therefore, the construction of an additional
approved 290 dwelling units could not occur within the project site unless the demolition
and/or reconfiguration of the residential uses occurs and additional residential uses at a
higher density are constructed. The development of an additional approved 996,617 square
feet of commercial/office space could occur within the project site within existing surface
parking areas. The loss of existing surface parking necessary for the development of the
approved amount of commercial uses would necessitate the construction of multiple-level
parking structures. For the purpose of this alternatives analysis, it is assumed that these
parking structures will not exceed the height of existing structures developed within the Main
Street Area of the VGMP.
Finding: The City Council finds that under the "No Project" alternative, the Project's
objectives would still be met through the development of residential and
commercial/office uses. This alternative would restrict residential uses,
commercial/office uses, and parking structures to the current height limits
within the Main Street Area. Development under this alternative would also
have a building height and scale similar to other existing buildings in the area
and would not result in a greater obstruction of views of the San Gabriel
Mountains. Therefore, impacts related to the obstruction of a scenic vista or
change in visual character would be reduced in magnitude when compared to
the Project. Such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impacts related to short-term construction-related air quality would be similar
to the Project. While demolition activities would occur and a greater amount
of land would be disturbed, which would result in a greater amount of
emissions, the level of impact would not differ from what was identified for the
Project. Long-term operational air quality impacts would be similar when
compared to the project as the same level of development would occur, but
would remain significant and unavoidable. While demolition activities would
result in the temporary displacement of approximately 989 people; the level of
impact would not differ from what was identified for the Project as the No
Project Alternative would ultimately add additional housing to the City's
existing housing stock. Therefore, impacts associated with population and
housing would remain less than significant.
25
Supporting Explanation: This alternative would have similar impacts as the Project related
to the following issues: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use
and planning, mineral resources, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, and
utilities. (Draft SEIR p. 6-6).
With implementation of the No Project Alternative, the development of mid-rise buildings
would not occur. Buildings under this alternative would be similar in height to the existing
buildings in the surrounding area. Because the height of the proposed buildings under this
alternative would not differ from those existing in the project area, no greater obstruction of
the San Gabriel Mountains than that which currently exists would occur (Draft SEIR p. 6-6).
The installation of on-site lighting to accommodate nighttime activities and for safety
purposes would be required under the No Project Alternative. Similar to the proposed
amendments, potential impacts from spillover light may occur on adjacent properties.
However, each of the alternatives would be required to submit a lighting plan that includes
evidence that the on-site lighting adequately adheres to City standards. Due to the absence
of mid-rise buildings constructed (or potentially constructed) with large areas of reflective
surfaces, no significant glare-related impact would occur under this alternative.
Development occurring under the No Project Alternative would be required to comply with
design standards, such as setbacks, building height, lot dimensions, and maximum lot
coverage contained in the VGMP and City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning and Municipal
Codes (Draft SEIR p. 6-6).
Rather than three proposed mid-rise structures, it is anticipated the commercial
development occurring under this alternative would be similar to that already developed
within the Main Street Area; that is, two-story single- and multiple-tenant structures. This
would necessitate that construction activities would occur over a broader development
footprint, thereby (compared to the Project) necessitating a extensive disturbance of existing
parking areas and of underlying soils. The amount of land to be disturbed under this
Alternative would be greater than that which would be graded under the Project. A similar
mix of equipment as identified for the proposed amendments would operate during
earthmoving activities and construction, therefore, like the proposed amendments,
significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the emission of NOx, PM10, and PM2.5
would occur. Because the area disturbed under this alternative is increased, the duration of
construction-related emission impacts would likely be extended beyond that required for the
development of the structures envisioned under the Project. Additionally, to construct the
denser residential development assumed under this Alternative, the existing residential uses
would either be demolished and/or reconfigured to incorporate the additional dwelling units
permitted by the VGMP in the Residential Area. Increasing the density of residential uses
within the Residential Area would require construction activities not associated with the
proposed amendments (Draft SEIR p. 6-6 through 6-7).
Because the total development permitted under this Alternative is similar to that envisioned
under the Project, the operational emissions associated with this alternative would be similar
to those of the Project.
This Alternative would result in the demolition of the existing 215 dwelling units within the
Residential Area and the reconfiguration of an additional 95 dwelling units approved but not
yet constructed within the Residential Area. The No Project Alternative would ultimately
26
result in the construction of 600 dwelling units within the "Permissible Building Area" of the
Residential Area and an additional 966,617 square feet of commercial/office space within
the VGMP. Because the No Project Alternative would require the demolition and the
reconfiguration of 310 dwelling units, a temporary displacement of approximately 989
peoples would occur. When compared to the proposed project, population and housing
impacts are greater in magnitude as this alternative would displace approximately 989
people. However, like the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in an
increase to the City's existing housing stock (Draft SEIR p. 6-7).
Similar to the Project, this alternative would contribute toward long-term air quality
operational emissions of CO, ROG, NOx, PM1o, PM2,5, and greenhouse gases. Because
there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the cumulative impacts associated with
long-term operational air pollutant emissions, long-term air quality impacts would remain
significant and unavoidable (Draft SEIR p. 6-7).
B. Alternative 2 - Reduced Development Alternative
Description: This Alternative includes an amendment to the VGMP to allow residential
development within the Main Street Area. The amount of development that would occur
would be reduced to 500,000 square feet of commercial/office uses and up to 150
residential dwelling units. Existing height restrictions would be maintained in the Main Street
Area. To replace existing surface parking along Victoria Gardens Lane, multiple-story
parking structures would be constructed between future and existing commercial uses. The
amount of parking provided in structures would be sufficient to provide for lost parking
spaces and parking spaces required for any new commercial/residential uses (Draft SEIR p.
6-6).
Finding: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that the construction
of a Reduced Development Alternative would still be partially meet the
Project's objectives through the development of residential and
commercial/office uses. This Alternative would restrict residential uses,
commercial/office uses, and parking structures to the current height limits
within the Main Street Area. Development under this Alternative would also
have a building height and scale similar to other existing buildings in the area
and would not result in a greater obstruction of views of the San Gabriel
Mountains. Therefore, impacts related to the obstruction of a scenic vista or
change in visual character would be reduced in magnitude when compared to
the Project. Such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impacts related to short-term construction-related air quality would be similar
to the Project as a similar amount of land would be disturbed and the same
mix of equipment would be utilized. Long-term operational-related air quality
impacts would be reduced in magnitude when compared to the Project as
less development would occur, but would remain significant and unavoidable.
The decrease in commercial/office uses would result in a reduction of
permanent jobs that would be created. This Alternative would have a reduced
demand on public services, recreation, and water use as fewer job
s 310 dwelling units . 3.19 people per dwelling unit (Average from Department of Finance Table E-5 City/County
Population and Housing Estimates,January 1, 2008)=989 people.
27
opportunities and residences would result. However, similar to the Project,
the payment of fees, dedication of parkland, and adherence to utility
requirements would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Water use for this alternative would be less than the Project and would
generate less wastewater and solid waste .
Under this Alternative, the Project objectives are partially met as
commercial/office and residential uses would still be built, but on a smaller
scale, thus reducing the magnitude of impacts.
Supporting Explanation: This alternative would have similar impacts as the Project related
to the following issues: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use
and planning, mineral resources, and noise. (Draft SEIR p. 6-8).
With implementation of the Reduced Development Alternative, the development of mid-rise
buildings would not occur. Buildings under this Alternative would be similar in height and
scale as the existing buildings in the surrounding area. Because the height and scale of the
proposed buildings under this Alternative would not differ from those existing in the Project
area, no greater obstruction of the views of the San Gabriel Mountains would occur than
currently exists. Therefore, impacts related to obstruction of a scenic vista and change in
visual character would be reduced in magnitude compared with those identified for the
Project. (Draft SEIR p. 6-8).
The installation of on-site lighting to accommodate nighttime activities and for safety
purposes would be required for the Reduced Development Alternative. Similar to the Project
potential impacts from spillover light may occur on adjacent properties. However, each of the
Alternatives would be required to submit a lighting plan that includes evidence that the on-
site lighting adequately adheres to City standards. Development of this Alternative would be
required to comply with design standards, such as setbacks, building height, lot dimensions,
and maximum lot coverage contained in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning and
Municipal Codes (Draft SEIR p. 6-8).
The amount of land to be graded under this Alternative would be comparable to that which
would be graded under the project even though the amount of potential development is
reduced, because the same amount of surface area would be required under both
scenarios. Therefore, a similar mix of equipment as identified for the proposed amendments
would operate during earthmoving activities and construction emissions from the
development of Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project, which is significant and
unavoidable for NOx, PM,o, and PM2.5. Similarly, because the amount of land to be graded
with Alternative 2 would be equal to that of the Project, PM,o and PM2,5 LST emissions would
be similar to the Project and would be significant and unavoidable. However, because a
reduction in the total amount of commercial/office square footage and dwelling units to be
developed under this Alternative would occur, the corresponding air emissions that may
occur would be proportionally reduced as the amount of vehicle trip generation,
commercial/office square footage, and residential dwelling units would be reduced.
Therefore, operational air quality emissions would be reduced when compared to the
Project, as a reduction in vehicle trip generation, commercial/office square footage, and
residential dwelling units would occur, but remain significant. Similarly, operational LST
emissions of PM,o and PM2.5 would be proportionally reduced as the amount of vehicle trip
generation, commercial/office square footage, and residential dwelling units would be
28
reduced. However, given that the Project would result in operational LST emissions of
approximately 49 pounds per day of PM10 and 9.4 pounds per day of PM2.5, and this
Alternative would result in approximately half the development potential envisioned under
the Project, it is reasonable to assume that approximately half the operation LST emissions
would occur. Based on this assumption, approximately 24.5 pounds per day of PM10 and
approximately 4.7 pounds per day of PM2.5 would be emitted under this Alternative and
would still exceed the operational LST emissions. Therefore, operational LST emissions of
PM10 and PM25would be less than the Project, but would remain significant (Draft SEIR p. 6-
8 through 6-9).
Because the amount of development envisioned under this Alternative is approximately half
of the potential development that would occur under the Project, a decrease in population
and housing would occur compared with that previously analyzed in the FEIR. Therefore,
similar to the Project, impacts related to population and housing would remain less than
significant as this alternative would not result in an increase in population or housing (Draft
SEIR p. 6-9).
Compared to the Project, this Alternative would result in a reduction of approximately 50
percent of proposed commercial/office and residential uses. Similar to the Project, demands
on schools, parks, other public facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection services would
be reduced in magnitude as no greater commercial/office square footage or residential
dwelling units are proposed under this Alternative. Like the Project, development under this
alternative would require payment of development impact fees for schools, police services,
and fire services. The payment of development impact fees would offset any impacts to
these public services that may result from the development of this Alternative (Draft SEIR p.
6-9).
Under this Alternative, a reduction of approximately 50 percent of proposed
commercial/office and residential uses would occur than what is already permitted.
Therefore, there would be no increase in existing population and no increase in demand for
park and recreation facilities. Because no increase in demand for recreational facilities
would occur, impacts associated with recreation under this Alternative would remain less
than significant (Draft SEIR p. 6-9).
Based on trip generation rates utilized in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 7t" Edition, this
Alternative would generate approximately 26,287 daily vehicle trips, which is approximately
46 percent less than what was identified for the VGMP FEIR. With such a reduction in daily
trips, it is reasonable to conclude that traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections
would be reduced from levels associated with the Project. Although the volume of traffic is
reduced under this Alternative, impacts to LOS levels at nearby intersections and roadway
segments would still occur and would require mitigation as identified in the VGMP Final EIR.
The addition of traffic volumes associated with this alternative could result in a deficient LOS
level at one or more of the intersections in the project vicinity during the lifetime of the
development. While significant traffic impacts may occur under this Alternative, these
impacts would be mitigated in a manner similar to those of the Project. However, despite the
identification of mitigation measures, certain roadway improvements would not be under the
jurisdiction of the City and cannot be guaranteed to be in place when development under
Alternative 2 would become operational (Draft SEIR p. 6-9 through 6-10).
Existing utility infrastructure for stormwater and wastewater are present in adjacent
roadways or parcels. Like the Project, development under this Alternative would connect to
29
existing utility infrastructure subject to the terms and conditions of the City and IEUD. When
compared to the Project, this alternative's demands on wastewater treatment and capacity
at existing wastewater treatment facilities would be reduced in magnitude due to reduced
development of commercial/office square footage and residential dwelling units (Draft SEIR
p. 6-10).
The development of the commercial/office and residential uses associated with this Alternative
would also require the installation of water supply infrastructure. When compared to the
Project, water usage demands would be reduced due to reduced development of
commercial/office square footage and residential dwelling units. However, similar to the
Project, development under this Alternative would be required to obtain verification from the
water purveyor that water is available to serve the development. Since this Alternative would
utilize less water than the Project and since water supply for the Project is available, it is
reasonable to conclude that if this Alternative was built instead of the Project, adequate water
would be available (Draft SEIR p. 6-10).
Like the Project, Alternative 2 would also generate solid waste. Demands on solid waste
services and landfill capacity would be reduced in magnitude due to reduced development
of commercial/office square footage and residential dwelling units. However, similar to the
Project development under Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to the provisions of the
solid waste provider that would service the project site (Draft SEIR p. 6-10).
C. Alternative 3 — Second-Floor Residential Alternative
Description: With the intent of avoiding or substantially reducing significant impacts created
by the Project, the Draft SEIR has considered a Second-Floor Residential Alternative. Under
this alternative, the VGMP would be amended to permit the construction of residential units
within the Main Street Area, on top of existing commercial uses. Areas along Victoria
Gardens Lane would be developed with a combination of multi-story commercial/office uses
and parking structures. Commercial/office uses would be developed along the perimeter of
Victoria Gardens Lane, with parking structures located between the future and existing
commercial uses. Commercial/office and parking structures would be restricted to the
current height limits within the Main Street Area. The total amount of development permitted
under this alternative is equal to that anticipated with the proposed amendments
(approximately 1,000,000 square feet of commercial/office uses, and up to up to 290 high-
density residential units).
Finding: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that reduction of
impacts on the aesthetic character of the site and scenic vistas would be
achieved though the construction of buildings that would have a building
height and scale similar to other existing buildings in the area. With
implementation of this alternative, views of the San Gabriel Mountains would
not be obstructed. Change in visual character would be reduced in magnitude
when compared to the proposed amendments and would be reduced to a
less than significant level. With the Second-Floor Residential Alternative,
potential impacts associated with short-term construction-related and long-
term operational-related air quality impacts would remain similar to those
identified with the Project. However, like the proposed Project, the
30
significance of short-term construction-related and long-term operational-
related air quality impacts would remain significant and'unavoidable.
Alternative 3 (Second Floor Residential Alternative) allows the development
of employment and revenue-generating uses as well as provide additional
housing opportunities in City. Additionally, the Second-Floor Residential
Alternative meets all of the City's stated project objectives, while at the same
time reducing the aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed
amendments. Therefore, Alternative 3 has been determined to be the
environmentally superior alternative because it would satisfy the most of the
project objectives without creating additional impacts as indicated in Table
6.A. Although Alternative 3 has been identified as the environmentally
superior alternative. Alternative 3 would not provide for the level of
commercial and residential development to which the project applicant is
entitled through the previous approval of the VGMP. Therefore, the
alternative was rejected in favor of the Project.
Supporting Explanation: Under this alternative, the same amount of commercial/office
square footage and residential dwelling units as that envisioned under the proposed
amendments (i.e., 1,000,000 square feet of commercial/office uses and 290 high-density
residential units) would occur. While the intensity of development would not differ from the
proposed amendments, the size and scale of the buildings would adhere to the previously
approved design guidelines established for the VGMP (i.e., maximum height of 70 feet and
maximum density of 30 units per acre). The development of mid-rise buildings would not
occur under this alternative. Because the height and scale of the proposed buildings under
this alternative would not differ from those existing in the project area, no greater obstruction
of the view of the San Gabriel Mountains would occur than currently exists and impacts
related to obstruction of a scenic vista and change in visual character would be reduced in
magnitude when compared to the proposed amendments. Since there would be no greater
obstruction of a scenic vista or a significant change in visual character of the surrounding
area, impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft SEIR p. 6-11).
The installation of on-site lighting to accommodate nighttime activities and for safety
purposes would be required for the Alternative 3. Similar to the proposed amendments,
potential impacts from spillover light may occur on adjacent properties. However, each of the
alternatives would be required to submit a lighting plan that includes evidence that the on-
site lighting adequately adheres to City standards. Development of the proposed
amendments would be required to comply with design standards, such as setbacks, building
height, lot dimensions, and maximum lot coverage contained in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga Zoning and Municipal Codes. (Draft SEIR p. 6-12).
Similar to the proposed amendments, Alternative 3 would contribute to long-term operational
air pollutant emissions of CO, ROG, NOx, PM10, and PMZ.S. Since Alternative 3 would result
in the same level of development envisioned under the proposed amendments, the amount
of operational air pollutant emissions would be similar in magnitude. Additionally, this
alternative would contribute toward greenhouse gas emissions and increased traffic
operations on local roadways and at local intersections. Because there are no feasible
mitigation measures to reduce the cumulative impacts associated with long-term operational
air pollutant emissions and increased traffic, long-term air quality and traffic impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft SEIR p. 6-12).
31
The remaining fifteen environmental issues (agricultural resources, air quality, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water
quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services,
recreation, transportation, and utilities/service systems) would have similar impacts as
identified for the proposed amendments. (Draft SEIR p. 6-11).
D. Alternative 4 — Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative
Description: Under this alternative, the VGMP would be amended to permit the
construction of residential units within the Main Street Area. The residential units would be
constructed on the second and/or third floors of multi-story structures located along Victoria
Gardens Lane. No increase in the permitted height limit within the Main Street Area would
occur. Surface parking lost through the development of commercial/residential structures
would be replaced by multi-level parking structures to be located between future and
existing commercial uses. The total amount of development permitted under this alternative
is equal to that anticipated with the proposed amendments (approximately 1,000,000 square
feet of commercial/office uses and up to up to 290 high-density residential units). (Draft
SEIR p. 6-12).
Finding: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that under the
Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative, potential impacts related
to short-term construction-related air quality would be greater when
compared to the proposed amendments as a greater amount of land would
be disturbed to accommodate the proposed uses. Impacts would be
significant and unavoidable. Long-term operational-related air quality impacts
would be the same when compared to the project and would remain
significant and unavoidable. This alternative would restrict residential uses,
commercial/office uses, and parking structures to the current height limits
within the Main Street Area. Development under this alternative would also
have a building height and scale similar to other existing buildings in the area
and would not obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Therefore,
impacts related to the obstruction of a scenic vista or change in visual
character would be reduced in magnitude when compared to the proposed
amendments. Such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant. The
Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative would meet all of the
identified project objectives while reducing aesthetic impacts. However, the
Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative would result in greater air
pollutant emissions as the same intensity of development would occur without
the building height amendments, thereby requiring more area to develop the
same intensity. Air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Supporting Explanation: This alternative would have similar impacts as the Project related
to the following fourteen issues: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land
use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation,
transportation, and utilities/service systems. (Draft SEIR p. 6-12).
Development under the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative would result in
the same amount of commercial/office square footage and residential dwelling units as that
envisioned under the proposed amendments. While the intensity of development would not
32
differ from the proposed amendments, the size and scale of the buildings would adhere to
the previously approved design guidelines established for the VGMP. The development of
mid-rise buildings would not occur under this alternative. Because the height and scale of
the proposed buildings under this alternative would not differ from those existing in the
project area, no greater obstruction of the views of the San Gabriel Mountains would occur
and impacts related to obstruction of a scenic vista and change in visual character would be
reduced in magnitude when compared to the proposed amendments. Since there would be
no greater obstruction of a scenic vista or a significant change in visual character of the
surrounding area, impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the
existing parking lots visible from Victoria Gardens Land would be shielded by the new
structures, thus improving the visual character as views would be of compatible structures
and not of vast parking areas. (Draft SEIR p. 6-13).
The installation of on-site lighting to accommodate nighttime activities and for safety
purposes would be required for the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative.
Similar to the proposed amendments, potential impacts from spillover light may occur on
adjacent properties. However, each of the alternatives would be required City standards
regarding the proper placement and design to avoid light intrusion into adjacent properties
and residential areas. Development of the proposed amendments would be required to
comply with design standards, such as setbacks, building height, lot dimensions, and
maximum lot coverage contained in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning and Municipal
Codes. (Draft SEIR p. 6-13).
The amount of land to be graded with the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building
Alternative would be greater than that of the proposed amendments because the same level .
of development is envisioned without the proposed amendment to building height (i.e., a
greater area is required to accommodate the same level of development). Therefore,
construction emissions from the development of this alternative would be greater when
compared to the proposed amendments, which is significant and unavoidable for NOx, PM10,
and PM2.5. Similarly, because the amount of land to be graded with the Mixed Commercial-
Residential Building Alternative would be greater to that of the proposed amendments, PM10
and PM2.5 LST emissions would be greater when compared to the proposed amendments
and would be significant and unavoidable. However, because the total amount of
commercial/office square footage and dwelling units to be developed under this alternative
would be the same as the proposed amendments, the operation air emissions that may
occur would be the same as that analyzed for the proposed amendments and no greater
impact would occur. Therefore, operational air quality emissions would be the same when
compared to the proposed amendments during operations. Similarly, operational LST
emissions of PM10 and PM25 would be no greater than that analyzed for the proposed
amendments. However, operational LST emissions of PM10 and PM2,5 would remain
significant and unavoidable. (Draft SEIR p. 6-13).
Similar to the proposed amendments, the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building
Alternative would contribute to construction emissions of NOx, PM10, and PM2,5 and long-
term operational air pollutant emissions of CO, ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Because a
greater amount of area would be disturbed to accommodate the same level of development
without an amendment to building height, construction air quality impacts are cumulatively
significant and unavoidable. Since the Mixed Commercial-Residential Alternative would
result in the same development envisioned under the proposed amendments, the amount of
operational air pollutant emissions. would be the same in magnitude. Additionally, this
alternative would generate greenhouse gas emissions and increase traffic volume on local
33
roadways and at local intersections. Like the proposed amendments, mitigation measures
would be implemented to reduce the cumulative impacts associated with long-term
operational air pollutant emissions and increased .traffic; however, impacts would not be
reduced to a less than significant level and long-term air quality and traffic impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft SEIR p. 6-13).
SECTION 13
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against
any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve
the Project. If the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts, those impacts are considered "acceptable."
The City Council hereby declares, that the Final SEIR has identified and discussed
significant effects that may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the
mitigation measures discussed in the Draft SEIR, these impacts can be mitigated to a level
of less than significant except for the unavoidable and significant impacts as discussed in
Sections 5 and 6 herein (Air Quality, short-term and long-term area source and mobile
source air pollution emissions, and cumulative impacts as to failure to meet State and
federal ambient air quality standards for Ozone, PM10, and PM2.5,and global climate change).
The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort
to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures
recommended to the City are not incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible
because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of
specific economic, social, and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the
unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set
forth in the Final SEIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of the
Project objectives and/or specific economic, social or other benefits that this City Council
finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives.
The City Council 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 significant impacts after
mitigation, the City Council has determined that the social, economic and environmental
benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable significant impacts and render
those potential significant impacts acceptable based upon the following considerations:
• The Project would ensure that development of the site is in accordance with
established functional standards and design and aesthetic standards contained in
the Victoria Community Plan, including the incorporation of certain elements
34
representative of community heritage styles found within the City. Thus providing the
City with a development, which creates a distinctive "downtown" environment;
• The Project would implement the regionally oriented commercial development
envisioned for the project site in the General Plan and Victoria Community Plan;
• The Project would create a mixed-use neighborhood with public spaces, shopping,
entertainment, and civic uses, within walking distance;
• The Project would augment the City's economic base by providing sales and
property tax-generating uses;
• The Project would create employment opportunities for citizens of the City and
surrounding communities,
• The Project would provide commercial development in conformance with applicable
policies and programs included in the City's General Plan,
• The Project would create a vibrant and active downtown, which can accommodate
the civic activities, commerce, and public events resulting from interaction of
businesses, residents, and visitors; and
• The Project would capture retail sales that may currently be lost to adjacent cities.
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public
through approval and implementation of the Project outweighs the identified significant
adverse environmental impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council
finds that each of the Project benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts identified in the Final SEIR and, therefore, finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 14
CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report in evaluating the Project, that the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission.
The City Council declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined
by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the City Council after the
circulation of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that would require
recirculation. All of the information added to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report merely clarifies, amplifies or makes insignificant modifications to an already
adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15088.5(b).
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby certifies the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Victoria Gardens Master Plan
Amendments is adequate and complete in that it addresses the environmental effects of the
Project and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and City of
Rancho Cucamonga Local CEQA Guidelines for implementation of the California
35
Environmental Quality Act. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report is
composed of:
a. The backup file material for the Project;
b. The Notice of Preparation;
c. The Initial Study and the studies it relies upon;
d. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 23, 2008;
e. The comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and
responses thereto;
f. The staff report for the public hearing before the City Council held on QATEx
g. The minutes of the hearing and all documentary and other testimonial evidence
submitted thereat;
h. The Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof, and
i. The Statement of Overriding Considerations.
A. Findings:
1. CEQA Compliance: As the decision-making body for the Project, the City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and
supporting documentation. The City Council determines that the Findings contain a
complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures
associated with the Project, as well as complete and accurate reporting of the unavoidable
impacts and benefits of the Project as detailed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. The City Council finds that the SEIR was prepared in compliance with
CEQA and that the City Council complied with CEQA's procedural and substantive
requirements.
2. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency: The City retained the
independent consulting firm of LSA Associates, Inc. to prepare the SEIR for the Project. The
SEIR was prepared under the supervision and directions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department staff. The City Council is the final decision making body for the
entitlements listed below. The City Council has received and reviewed the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prior to certifying the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and prior to making any decision to approve or disapprove the
Project.
Finding: The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report reflects the
City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance
with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental
consultant, directing the consultant in preparation of the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report as well as reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the
consultant.
3. Significant Unavoidable Impacts/Statement of Overriding
Considerations: The Project would have significant adverse impacts even following
adoption of all feasible mitigation measures which are required by the Planning
Commission. The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the
Final Environmental Impact Report and would require mitigation but cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance as set forth in Sections 5 and 6 of these Findings: Aesthetics (scenic
vistas and changes to existing visual character) and Air Quality (short-term and long-term
area source and mobile source air pollution emissions, short-term and long-term localized
36
area source and mobile source air pollution emissions, cumulative greenhouse gas
emissions, and cumulative impacts as to failure to meet State and federal ambient air quality
standards for Ozone, PM10, and PM2.5).The Project has eliminated or substantially reduced
environmental impacts where feasible as described in the Findings, and the City Council
determines that the remaining unavoidable significant adverse impacts are acceptable due
to the reasons set forth in the preceding Statement of Overriding Considerations.
B. Conclusions:
1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Project have
been identified in the Final SEIR and, with the implementation of the mitigation measures
defined herein and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will be
mitigation to a less-than-significant level, except for the impacts listed in Section A(3) above.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly achieve the
basic objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits
derived from the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to
the Project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.
SECTION 15
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts
a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit A. In the event of
inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall
control
SECTION 16
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and material that constitute the final record of proceedings on which
these Findings have been based are located at the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The
custodian for these records is the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 17
RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino within five
(5) working days of final Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this XX`." day of MONTH, 2009.
37