Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 10-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2010 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DRC2007-00867, FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A. RECITALS WHEREAS, The 2010 General Plan Update (the "Project") would consist of a comprehensive update to the " City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City') General Plan in accordance with the City's vision for the future and by reinforcing established land uses attained in the City over the last 10 to 15 years by emphasizing protection of existing residential neighborhoods and targeting new residential, office and commercial growth along major corridors (such as Foothill Boulevard) and other areas south of Foothill Boulevard (such as Haven Avenue) where development opportunities exist on vacant and underutilized properties; and WHEREAS, the 2010 General Plan Update would augment the City's economic base by providing incentives for tax-generating uses to remain in or relocate to the City because of ample opportunities for development and redevelopment in a well-planned community; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 at sec.), the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the lead agency for the Project, as the public agency with general governmental powers, and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as lead agency, determined that a Program Environmental Impact Report ("PEIR") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA in order to analyze all adverse environmental impacts of the Project; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. WHEREAS, 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. 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. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on April 28, 2010, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. A Notice of Preparation ("NOP") .identifying the scope of environmental issues was distributed to numerous State, Federal, and local agencies and organizations on November 12, 2009, with comments requested by December 11, 2009, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15082(a), 15103 and 15375. A total of eight comment letters were received and are included in Appendix A of the Draft PEIR ("Draft PEIR"). Relevant comments received in response to the NOP were incorporated into the Draft PEIR; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-17 DRC2007-00867 2010 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE April 28, 2010 Page 2 b. A public scoping meeting was held at the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 23, 2009, and input from the public providing direction and scope of the PEIR was received; and c. A Draft PEIR was prepared for the Project in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, where the City analyzed the Project's environmental impacts; and. d. The Draft PEIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period on February 16, 2010, with the comment period expiring on April 5, 2010. Nine comment letters were received during the public comment period. The City prepared written responses to all comments received on the PEIR, and those responses to comments are incorporated into the Final PEIR; and e. The Final PEIR is comprised of the Draft PEIR, and all appendices thereto, the comments and responses to comments, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and f. A Notice of Completion ("NOC") was sent with the Draft PEIR to the State Clearinghouse on February 16, 2010, and g. As contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and h. All the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied in the PEIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and i. The findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final PEIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings and in the record of the proceedings. The documents, staff reports, technical studies, appendices, plans, specifications, and other materials that constitute the record of the proceedings on which this Resolution is based are on file for public examination during normal business hours at the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and j. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving the Project, make one or more of the following written findings for each significant effect identified in the Final PEIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or, (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR; and k. On April 28, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the application and the Final PEIR, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the application and the Final PEIR; and I. Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-17 DRC2007-00867 2010 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE April 28, 2010 Page 3 prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and m. Environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR as less-than-significant and not requiring mitigation are described in Section 3 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and n. Environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR as significant but which the City finds can be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant, through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final PEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 4 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and o. Environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR as significant but which the City finds cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less-than-significant, despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final PEIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 5 of Exhibit A, .attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and p. Alternatives to the 2010 General Plan Update that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 6 of Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and q. A discussion of the project benefits and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level are set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and r. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit C, and is hereby incorporated herein by reference; and S. Based on the totality of the administrative record, the Planning Commission finds that the Final PEIR complies with the requirements of CEQA and recommends that the City Council certify the Final PEIR as being prepared in compliance with CEQA and that the City Council also adopt the Findings of Fact attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B. and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting. Program, attached as Exhibit C, and all incorporated by this reference. C. '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 PEIR, and adopt the Findings of Fact attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit C, as conditions of approval, and approve the 2010 General Plan Update DRC2007-00867. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 10-17 DRC2007-00867 2010 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE April 28, 2010 Page 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL 2010. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman ATTEST: 6n!�� z' J,-,A James . Troyer, AICP, Secreta y I, James R. Troyer, AICP, 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 28th day of April 2010, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, OAXACA, WIMBERLY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MUNOZ EXHIBIT A Findings and Facts in Support of Findings SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the "Guidelines') provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EI R.1 Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update PEIR (the "Project"), These findings are based upon evidence presented in the record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the Draft PEIR, and all of their contents, the Comments and Responses to Comments on the PEIR, and staff and consultants' reports presented through the hearing process, which comprise the Final PEIR ("FPEIR"). SECTION 2 -PROJECT OBJECTIVES As set forth in the PEIR, the proposed Project is intended to achieve a number of objectives (the "Project Objectives" as follows: To establish a planning framework that incorporates the City's Healthy-RC initiative: Healthy Mind, Body, and Earth. To maintain well-established land use patterns for most of the City while creating new opportunities for mixed-use development at strategic locations in Rancho Cucamonga in an effort to facilitate use of transit, encourage walking as an alternative to automobile travel for short trips, and allow more people to live and shop near their homes. To create opportunities for the provision of varied housing types that meet the needs of all household income levels and lifestyle choices. To recognize, promote, and preserve Rancho Cucamonga's history as represented by buildings, agricultural landscapes, and unique community features. To enhance community mobility by implementing a comprehensive and connected citywide network of streets, bikeways, and pedestrian trails; by accommodating bus rapid Cal. Pub. Res. Code§ 21081: 14 Cal.Code Regs. § 15091. transit along Foothill Boulevard and other locations as demand dictates; and by increasing use of commuter rail through land use policies. To move forward with initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including land use and mobility planning practices, programs that promote sustainable building practices, and City purchasing decisions. To conserve natural resources through land use regulations that respect hillside habitats and policies aimed at reducing water consumption, energy use, and refuse generation. To promote policies that provide for City compliance with applicable Federal and State laws. To provide clear direction for use of lands within the City's Sphere of Influence. To designate lands for a variety of beneficial open space purposes: for recreation, for resource conservation, for public safety enhancement, for the managed production of resources, and for preservation of historic landscapes. SECTION 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION The following issues were found in the Final PEIR as having no potential to cause significant impact or potential to cause a less than significant impact and therefore require no mitigation. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the 2010 General Plan Update are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. A. Aesthetics 1. Impacts to Scenic Highways: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in impacts to scenic highways. Finding: An analysis of scenic resources and scenic highways is provided in Section 4.1 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded'that the there are no scenic highways in or near the City which may be affected by future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. No impact to scenic highways would occur. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: There are no scenic highways in or near the City or the Sphere of Influence (SOI) that could be affected by future development pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Views of the City from the 1-15 and SR-210 freeways would change with future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, although these freeway segments are not designated scenic highways. Although not a designated scenic highway, Foothill Boulevard is considered a historic route by many and changes in views along Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 may occur with future development and redevelopment along this corridor. Adherence to the City conditions including the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan and Mural Program and Special Boulevard designation would prevent adverse aesthetic impacts along Foothill Boulevard. (Draft PEIR p. 4.1-19). 2. Light and Glare: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts related to light and glare. Finding: An analysis of light and glare is provided in Section 4.1 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded new sources of light and glare that would accompany future development and redevelopment would need to comply with the City's lighting standards. A less than significant impact related to light and glare would occur. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would be accompanied by new sources of light and glare. New sources of light and glare may include street lights, security lighting, lighted signs, parking lot lighting, pedestrian path lighting as well as reflective building surfaces. Adherence to the City's lighting standards would lessen lighting and glare impacts to a level considered less than significant. (Draft PEIR p. 4.1-22 and 4.1-22). B. Agricultural Resources 1. Impacts to Agricultural Zoning: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural resources. Finding: An analysis of Agricultural Zoning impacts is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with or create any conflict with the existing zoning, which allows agricultural uses as an interim use. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: According to the proposed Land Use Plan (refer to Exhibit 3-3 of Section 3.0, 2010 General Plan Update Description), the lots that are currently vineyards and orchards would be converted into urban uses as part of future, anticipated development. The City does not have an agricultural land use designation in its existing Land Use Plan or the proposed Land Use Plan. The City's Development Code also does not have . an agricultural zone, although agricultural uses are allowed as an interim use on lots 2.5 acres or more in size within the Residential Development Districts. Thus, existing vineyards and orchards are expected to remain without conflict with the City's Development Code, and no impact would occur. Additionally, there are no lands within the City that are under a Williamson Act contract; therefore, no impacts related to Williamson Act contracts would occur, and no mitigation is necessary (Draft PEIR p. 4.2-7). 2. Impacts to Forest Land and Timberlands: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not impact forest land or timberland. Finding: An analysis of impacts to forest land and timberlands is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with or create any conflict with the existing zoning, which allows agricultural uses as an interim use. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: The 2010 General Plan Update Study Area does not include any lands that qualify as forest land or timberland. Therefore, no impacts would occur related to the loss or conversion of forest land to a non-forest use. Further, there are no areas within the 2010 General Plan Update Study Area that are zoned as or planned for forest land, timberland, or Timberland Production. No impacts would occur; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.2-8). C. Air Quality 1. Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in inconsistency with the current Air Quality Management Plan, Finding: An analysis of Air Quality Management Plan consistency with the proposed General Plan Update (2030) is provided in Section 4.3 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with implementation of the current Air Quality Management Plan. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: The proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in a net increase in regional emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 when comparing the 2009 Existing Conditions to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update (2030) that exceed SCAQMD thresholds, as discussed further below. However, this consistency criterion pertains to local air quality impacts, rather than regional emissions, as defined by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD has identified CO as the best indicator pollutant for determining whether local air quality violations would occur, as CO hot-spot is most directly related to increase in traffic. The SCAB is now in attainment for the CO standards and exceedances of the CO standards would not be expected. Local air pollutant concentrations would not be expected to exceed the ambient air quality concentration standards due to local traffic, with or without the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Because the proposed 2010 General Plan Update is not projected to impact the local air quality, the proposed 2010 General Plan Update is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion (Draft PEIR p. 4.3-28). The proposed 2010 General Plan Update would generate a net decrease of 112,879 daily trips from the existing General Plan. As such, the anticipated decrease in the proposed 2010 General Plan Update traffic, does not conflict with 2010 General Plan projections for the existing 2001 General Plan, and thus the 2003 AQMP. Therefore, the proposed 2010 General Plan Update is considered consistent with the 2003 AQMP and no impact would occur. (Draft PEIR p. 4.3-29). 2. Odor.lmpacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Finding: An analysis of odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors is provided in Section 4.3 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to significant odor impacts. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Construction activities associated with implementation of individual projects in compliance with the 2010 General Plan Update would have the potential to use equipment and perform activities that would temporarily generate odors (Draft PEIR p. 4.3-33). During long-term implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, some odors associated with residential uses would be expected to occur, such as from cooking and gardening. Similarly, common odors associated with mixed-use and commercial land uses would be expected to occur, such as from restaurants. However, these types of odors are not generally considered objectionable (Draft PEIR p. 4.3-33). D. Biological Resources 1. Special Status Species Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not significantly impact special status species. Finding: An analysis of impacts to special status species is provided in Section 4.4 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with any Special Status Species. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update Study Area has the potential to result in the loss of native habitat that provides nesting, foraging, roosting, and denning opportunities for a variety of wildlife species. In addition, implementation of the proposed General Plan Update could result in the loss of non-native habitats (non-native grassland, ruderal, ornamental, flood control channel, and disturbed) that provide lower-quality wildlife habitat. However, adherence to Standard Conditions requiring surveys for the presence or absence of species and compliance with State and Federal regulations would ensure that impacts would be less than significant (Draft PEIR p. 4.4-27 — 4.4-29). 2. Riparian Habitat and Jurisdictional Area Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not significantly impact protected wetland areas and other significant natural communities. Finding: An analysis of riparian habitat and jurisdictional area impacts is provided in Section 4.4 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not significantly impact riparian habitat and jurisdictional areas. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would result in the loss of areas potentially under the jurisdiction of the CDFG and/or USACE. As part of a development project, a jurisdictional delineation should be conducted if a proposed individual project in compliance with the 2010 General Plan Update will impact jurisdictional resources and compensation for impacts to jurisdictional resources shall be mitigated at a ratio no less than one to one (one acre restored for every acre impacted in compliance with required permits. (Draft PEIR p. 4.4-29—4.4-30). 3. Wildlife Movement Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not significantly disrupt wildlife movement. Finding: An analysis of wildlife movement impacts is provided in Section 4.4 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not interfere with wildlife movement. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update Study Area has the potential to disrupt wildlife movement through the loss of open space corridors. The SOI areas along the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains do contain some large, contiguous open space areas. Anticipated future buildout of the proposed General Plan Update Study Area may result in fragmentation of unprotected areas in the northern portion of the City and the SOI, thus inhibiting wildlife movement between remaining open space areas. However, the City is required to acquire and/or protect open space areas that provide strategic wildlife corridors and that provide vital connectivity between habitat areas according to General Plan Policy RC-8.4 (Draft PEIR p. 4.4-30). 4. Impacts related to Biological Resource Policies: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with biological resource policies. Finding: An analysis of biological resource policy consistency is provided in Section 4.4 of the Final PER. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with biological resource policies. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future buildout of the proposed General Plan Update Study Area is expected to result in the loss of trees and other plants that are protected by City and County codes. Specifically, the projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan Update could involve clearing, grading, and construction of structures on currently undeveloped lands which may contain individuals or groups of a protected tree or plant as defined by City and County codes. Assuming compliance with City and County codes, a permit shall be obtained for the removal or destruction of any protected plants, thereby ensuring that any impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PER p. 4.4-31). 5. Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not impact any Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans, Finding: An analysis of Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans Impacts is provided in Section 4.4 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Neither the City nor the SOI lies within an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan area; therefore, buildout of the proposed General Plan Update Study.Area would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan. No impact would occur; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.4-31). E. Climate Change 1. Compatibility with Plans, Policies, and Regulations: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Finding: An analysis of compatibility with Climate Change plans, policies, and regulations is provided in Section 4.5 of the Final PEIR. The proposed 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The impact would be less than significant. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: CAPCOA's model policies for GHGs in General Plans, while not formal policies of a regulatory agency, provide important and appropriate guidance on 2010 General Plan Update compliance with State policies. Many of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update policies would be consistent with measures recommended by the CAPCOA to reduce GHG emissions, indicating that the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with existing plans, policies and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (Draft PEIR p. 4.5-42). F. Cultural Resources 1. Impacts to Human Remains: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not significantly impact human remains. Finding: An analysis of impacts to human remains is provided in Section 4.6 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the proposed 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to disturb unknown human remains; however, compliance with SC 4.6-2 would ensure that potential impacts would be less than significant. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: No direct evidence of human remains has been found as a result of surveys of the Study Area. Based on these data, no disturbance of human remains is anticipated as a result of the implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update. However, the presence of prehistoric archaeological sites within the Study Area, especially those with buried deposits, increases the likelihood that human remains may be present. The potential discovery and treatment of human remains pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code, ensures that potential impacts would be less than significant. (Draft PEIR p. 4.6-19). G. Geology and Soils 1. Seismic Hazard Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not expose future development and redevelopment to significant seismic hazards. Finding: An analysis of seismic hazards is provided in Section 4.7 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to seismic hazards. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would be exposed to seismic hazards, including surface rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and seismic settlement. Compliance with Goal PS-5 and its supporting policies in the Public Health and Safety Chapter of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and with standard conditions related to compliance with State and local regulations and preparation of project-specific geotechnical studies and implementation of all feasible recommendations would reduce impacts to less than significant levels; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.7-18 —4.7-22). 2. Soil Erosion Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to soil erosion. Finding: An analysis of soil erosion is provided in Section 4.7 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to seismic hazards. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Soil erosion hazards are present in the City and ground disturbance associated with the construction of new development and redevelopment projects under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update may lead to wind and water erosion. Compliance with Goal PS-5 and Goal PS-8 and their supporting policies in the Public Health and Safety Chapter of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and standard conditions related to compliance with the City's Hillside Development Regulations and Grading Ordinance, dust-control measures, and NPDES permit requirements would reduce erosion hazards. Impacts would be temporary and less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.7-22—4.7-23). 3. Geologic Stability Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to geologic stability. Finding: An analysis of geologic stability is provided in Section 4.7 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to geologic stability. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment would be exposed to geologic hazards in the City and the SOI, which include landslides, soil erosion, and collapsible soils. Compliance with Goal PS-6 and its supporting the policies and policies PS-5.6 and PS-5.7 in the Public Health and Safety Chapter of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and with standard conditions related to .compliance with the City's Hillside Development Guidelines, final grading plan requirements, compliance with the City and County's soil erosion control regulations, preparation of project-specific geotechnical investigations would reduce hazards to less than significant levels; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.7-23—4.7-25). 4. Expansive Soils Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to expansive soils. Finding: An analysisof expansive soils impacts is provided in Section 4.7 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to expansive soils. No mitigation is required. Supporting 'Explanation of the Finding: The soils in the City have low shrink-swell potential. However, site-specific geologic conditions must be evaluated based on soil borings, and geotechnical investigations shall be required for every development. The geotechnical investigations would identify structural design criteria and construction recommendations to ensure the stability and integrity of structures and infrastructure that would be built, including potential for soil expansion and the soil expansion index that needs to be used in the engineering design. Compliance with the City's Building Regulations for the preparation of geotechnical investigation and compliance with appropriate construction standards for individual projects as well as preparation of a soils report would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant; no mitigation is required (Draft PEIR p. 4.7- 25—4.7-26). 5. Septic Tank Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to septic tanks. Finding: An analysis of septic tank hazards is provided in Section 4.7 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to septic tank hazards. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Septic tanks in areas with soil limitations are expected on sites overlain by Cieneba and Ramona soils, as found at the foothills in the SOI. Compliance with standard conditions related to connection to the public sewer system, compliance with the Santa Ana RWQCB's regulations, and compliance with the County's septic tank regulations for design, use and maintenance of on-site septic systems would limit the number of septic systems and require them to be designed, used, and maintained properly. Impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.7- 26). H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Impacts related to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials is provided in Section 4.8 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not create significant impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update may use or generate hazardous materials or wastes in quantities that would pose a significant hazard to the public. In addition, small business operations, individual households, and maintenance activities are likely to use hazardous, materials in limited quantities, such as paints, thinners, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, motor oil, and automotive substances. These hazardous materials would be stored and used at individual sites and may create a public health and safety hazard through routine transport, use, or disposal. Construction activities associated with new development and redevelopment would also involve the use of hazardous materials for construction. These would include paints, thinners, solvents, acids, curing compounds, grease, oils, and other chemicals, which.could pose risks to construction workers or lead to soil and groundwater contamination, if not properly stored, used, or disposed. However, Impacts would be less than significant since hazardous material use, transport, and disposal would occur in accordance with existing regulations including the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (Draft PEIR p. 4.8-15—4.8-16). 2. Impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to the accidental release of hazardous materials. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials is provided in Section 4.8 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not create significant impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment in the City may include industrial and commercial uses that would use large quantities of hazardous materials. These users would be subject to various State and Federal regulations on storage, use, handling, transport or disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Compliance with pertinent regulations would avoid the creation of a significant hazard to the public and reduce the potential for the release of hazardous materials into the environment. There are sites in the City that have historically used or produced hazardous materials, and redevelopment of these sites may lead to the exposure or release of hazardous materials in existing structures (such as asbestos and lead-based paint) or in the ground. Compliance with the standard conditions including SCAQMD Rule 1403, the Cal-OSHA regulations on asbestos abatement, the Cal-OSHA regulations on lead abatement, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program would allow for the clean-up of sites prior to their redevelopment and reuse. (Draft PEIR p. 4.8-16—4.8-17). 3. Impacts related to exposure of schools to hazardous materials: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to the exposure of schools to hazardous materials. Finding: An analysis related to the exposure of schools to hazardous materials is provided in Section 4.8 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not create impacts related to the exposure of schools to hazardous materials. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: While most schools are or would be located near residential areas where hazardous materials use would be limited, future development and redevelopment pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update may be located within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Developments that emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials may pose hazards to nearby school children in the event of an accidental release or spill. However, compliance with existing hazardous material regulations including the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program would prevent undue hazards. Therefore, impacts related to the exposure of school- aged children to hazardous emissions, materials, substances, or wastes would be less than significant assuming compliance with applicable standard conditions. (Draft PEIR p. 4.8-17). 4. Impacts related to known hazardous materials: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to known hazardous materials. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to known hazardous materials is provided in Section 4.8 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to known hazardous materials. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: There are facilities in the City and its SOI that handle hazardous materials and are listed on various databases for hazardous materials. Of the known hazardous materials sites within the Study Area, 46 of these facilities were identified as having a high potential for, or known release of, hazardous substances into the ground, groundwater, or surface waters. Future development may include facilities that would be listed in government databases. Redevelopment on sites currently listed on databases may also occur. Compliance with existing regulations including the Hazardous Material Transportation Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, the CUPA, and the California Accidental Release Prevention Program would reduce impacts to less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.8-18 —4.8-19). 5. Impacts related to airport hazards: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to airport hazards. Finding: An analysis of airport hazards is provided in Section 4.8 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not create airport hazards. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: The nearest airport to the City is the LA/Ontario International Airport, located approximately 1.2 miles south of the City's southern boundary. Cable Airport in the City of Upland is located approximately 3.5 miles west of Rancho Cucamonga, and the RPZ for this airport does not extend into the City. Future development and redevelopment in the City's southern section may extend into the navigable airspace of LA/Ontario International Airport and could affect aircraft landing and take-off operations. Future development and redevelopment within this area would need to comply with FAR Part 77 regarding height limitations in order to prevent hazards to users, occupants, and visitors of the development and to prevent obstruction to aircraft operations. Compliance with these regulations would allow the FAA to review development plans, to identify/prevent potential hazards to aircraft navigation, and to prevent exposure of persons or workers to aircraft hazards. Aircraft operations at Cable Airport would not be adversely affected by future development or redevelopment in the City, nor would development in the City affect activities at this airport. (Draft PEIR p. 4.8-19—4.8-20). 6. Impacts related to airstrip hazards: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to airstrip hazards. Finding: An analysis of airstrip hazards is provided in Section 4.8 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in airstrip hazards. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the, Finding: There are no private airstrips within the City; thus, no hazards from airstrips would occur to future development and/or redevelopment. (Draft PEIR p. 4.8-20). 7. Impacts related to emergency response: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to emergency response. Finding: An analysis of impacts to emergency response is provided in Section 4.8 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in impacts to emergency response. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and/or redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update are not expected to interfere with emergency response and evacuation with compliance with existing Fire District regulations for access and project review. Impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.8-20 and 4.8-21). I. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Impacts related to groundwater resources: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to groundwater resources. Finding: An analysis of impacts to groundwater resources is provided in Section 4.9 of the Final PER. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to groundwater. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would not lead to a direct withdrawal of groundwater. Construction of future development and redevelopment would also not interfere with groundwater recharge since local spreading grounds in and near the City are designated as Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Conservation areas per the proposed Land Use Plan. Development on other sites in the City would have limited effects on groundwater recharge due to their relatively small sizes and scattered locations. Future development and redevelopment would create a long-term demand for water to be used for domestic purposes, landscape irrigation and maintenance activities. This water demand may lead to an increase in groundwater pumping from local wells. The Chino Basin Water Master Plan regulates groundwater pumping for the Chino Groundwater Basin and the Cucamonga Groundwater Basin. The CVWD complies with its pumping rights; therefore, groundwater pumping that may lead to the depletion of local groundwater resources is not expected to occur. (Draft PER p. 4.9-19—4.9-20). 2. Impacts related to drainage patterns: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to drainage patterns. Finding: An analysis of impacts to drainage patterns is provided in Section 4.9 of the Final PER This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to drainage patterns. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Changes in drainage patterns would be confined to individual development sites and would not affect underground storm drain lines and channelized creeks in the City or downstream of the City. Increase in runoff volume and velocity would be relatively minor due to the anticipated sizes and locations of sites where .future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update are expected. Assuming all future development and redevelopment is consistent with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. (Draft PER p. 4.9-21). 3. Impacts related to exposure of residential units to flood hazards: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to exposure of residential units to flood hazards. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to exposure of residential units to flood hazards is provided in Section 4.9 of the Final PER. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to flood hazards to residential units. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: The proposed Land Use Plan designates the majority of the 100-year floodplain as Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Conservation Areas where no development is allowed. However, some areas are designated as Hillside Residential, Open Space, or Very Low Density Residential where residential structures may be developed in the future. Future residential development and redevelopment pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update in these areas would be located in areas prone to flood hazards. Compliance with the City's Floodplain Management Regulations, construction of the necessary local storm drain infrastructure, and improvements of the regional storm drainage facilities would prevent any significant adverse impacts related to the placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.9-24). 4. Impacts related to exposure of structures to flood hazards: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to exposure of structures to flood hazards. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to exposure of structures to flood hazards is provided in Section 4.9 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to flood hazards to structures. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Areas along various creeks and channels in the City are located within the 100-year flood hazard area. Structures that would be built within the 100-year floodplain as part of future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would potentially impede or redirect flood flows. Compliance with the City's Floodplain Management Regulations would prevent the impediment or redirection of flood flows. Thus, impacts related to the impediment or redirection of flood flows would be less than significant; no mitigation is required (Draft PEIR p.-4.9-25). 5. Impacts related to dam inundation, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to dam inundation. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to dam inundation is provided in Section 4.9 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to dam inundation, seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: The City is located within the dam inundation area of San Antonio Dam and several debris basins and hazards from dam inundation would affect future development and redevelopment proposed in these areas. Additionally, the hillside areas at the northern end of the City have the potential for mudflow hazards. While future development and redevelopment would be exposed to these hazards, the 2010 General Plan Update would not increase these hazards in the City or the surrounding area. Provided there is compliance with standard conditions including ongoing maintenance of debris basins, channels, and spreading grounds by the County; compliance with the City's floodplain management regulations; and compliance with the USACE-prepared emergency action plan would reduce impacts to less than significant levels; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.9-25 —4.9-26). Finally, there are no dangers from a tsunami or seiche as the City is inland and no large bodies of water pose this hazard. J. Land Use and Planning 1. Impacts related to established communities: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in disruption to established communities. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to established communities is provided in Section 4.10 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to established communities. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would lead to changes in existing land uses on scattered lots in the City through the development of vacant lots and the redevelopment of underutilized parcels. However, the proposed 2010 General Plan Update calls for the preservation of the established residential neighborhoods and the majority of existing developments in the Land Use Plan. No established communities will be divided by the proposed 2010 General Plan Update or future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.10-17). 2. Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans Impacts: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not impact any Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation.Plans. Finding: An analysis of Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans consistency is provided in Section 4.10 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan has been adopted for any area in the City or its SOI. Thus, no conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan would occur with adoption of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update or with future development and redevelopment allowed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. (Draft PEIR p. 4.10- 35). K. Mineral Resources 1. Impacts to locally important mineral resources: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impact related to the loss of locally important mineral resources. Finding: An analysis of locally important mineral resources is provided in Section 4.11 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with locally important mineral resources. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development under the 2010 General Plan Update would preclude mining operations in a few areas planned for Hillside Residential development. Impacts related to the loss of locally important resources, such as sand and gravel, are expected to be less than significant with adherence to Goal RC-7 and associated policies related to the management of these resources in consideration of their value, development pressures, and adjacency effects; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEI p. 4.11- 7 and 4.11-8). L. Population, Housing, and Employment 1. Impacts related to population growth: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in impacts related to population growth. Finding: An analysis of population growth is provided in Section 4.13 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to population growth. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update will indirectly increase the City's population, housing stock, and employment base by providing capacity to accommodate future development. Exceedances of SCAG projections for population, households, and employment are expected, which may have the potential for a significant impact based on the rate of future development proposals and entitlements. Also, the increase in the jobs/housing ratio at buildout may create more traffic congestion. However, if the new trips replace longer trips to distant job markets, regional impacts would be beneficial. Additionally, traffic impacts associated with buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update are expected to be fully reduced to a less than significant impact through implementation of programmed transportation and circulation improvements. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PER p. 4.13-13). 2. Impacts related to displacement of housing and people: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in impacts related to displacement of housing and people. Finding: An analysis of displacement of housing and people is provided in Section 4.13 of the Final PER This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to the displacement of housing and people. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: The proposed Land Use Plan shows that the City's development capacity will increase by 7,584 dwelling units over the existing housing stock. This equates to 62,196 housing units citywide, with another 1,057 units in the SOI for a total of 63,253 units in the Study Area. The proposed Land Use Plan preserves the City's existing residential neighborhoods. Thus, existing residential developments in the City are expected to remain in place and displacement would not occur in these areas. Future development on vacant lots also would not involve any displacement. The only anticipated impacts related to displacement of housing or people would occur as older structures are redeveloped or improved by the property owners. However, this redevelopment would only result in the temporary displacement of households and residents at the owners discretion, which would result in a less than significant impact; no mitigation is required. (Draft PER p. 4.13-13). M. Public Services 1. Impacts related to fire protection: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to fire protection. Finding: An analysis of fire protection services is provided in Section 4.14 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not significantly impact fire protection services. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would introduce new structures and additional residents to the Study Area, thus increasing the demand for the fire protection services that the City provides. The City is currently in the planning stages for a new fire station (the Northwest Fire Station) to be located on the west side of Hellman Avenue, north of Wilson Avenue, within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Implementation of the standard condition requiring future projects to be reviewed by the City and to comply with all applicable requirements prior to the issuance of building permits in order to ensure the safety of each future project being considered and, potentially, lessen the future demand for fire protection services by creating more fire-resistant structures. Impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.14-9). 2. Impacts related to law enforcement: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to law enforcement. Finding: An analysis of law enforcement services is provided-in Section 4.14 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not significantly impact law enforcement services. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update could result in the addition of approximately 24,300 residents, resulting from the development of 7,584 dwelling units throughout the Study Area. Based on the City's current officer to population ratio of 1 officer for every 1,080 residents, the incremental development resulting from implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would result in the demand for approximately 23 new law enforcement officers to maintain the current level of service. As previously noted, San Bernardino Sheriffs Department's (SBSD) current response time is 3 minutes and 21 seconds. Without additional staff, future development under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to impact SBSD's current response time. This increase in demand for police services would be met through the hiring of additional staff, as needed, which would be funded through existing funding mechanisms such as the general fund revenue and grant funding. Therefore, impacts related to police services would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.14-10). 3. Impacts related to schools: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to schools. Finding: An analysis of schools is provided in Section 4.14 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not significantly impact schools. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in the development of up to 7,584 dwelling units throughout the Study Area and generate approximately 3,792 new elementary/middle school students. There is currently excess capacity at all Study Area schools. It is therefore reasonable to assume that schools within the Planning Area could accommodate the increase in students generated from implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Pursuant to SB 50, each of the school districts can collect school impact fees as new development occurs which would serve to fund additional school resources. While these impact fees may not provide full funding for all necessary resources, impacts would be less than significant pursuant to SB 50. Therefore, buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to schools; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.14-11 —4.14-12). 4. Impacts related to libraries: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to libraries. Finding: An analysis of libraries is provided in Section 4.14 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not significantly impact libraries. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would add approximately 7,584 dwelling units and approximately 24,300 residents to the Study Area, thereby increasing the demand for library services. The City does not have any currently planned library facilities within the Study Area. Therefore, the residents associated with future development of the proposed General Plan Update would significantly impact existing library services. The demand for library, services would be met through implementation of the goals and policies identified in the Public Facilities and Infrastructure Chapter of the General Plan (PF 3.1 though PF 3.6); no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.14-11). N. Parks and Recreation 1. Impacts related to existing park facilities: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to existing park facilities. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to existing park facilities is provided in Section 4.15 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to existing park facilities. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future residential development and redevelopment would create a demand for parks and recreational facilities, which is expected to be met by the provision of on-site recreational areas and parkland development and dedication/in lieu fees consistent with local laws. With implementation of relevant General Plan goals and policies and standard conditions related to compliance with the City's Development Code and the City's Local Park Ordinance, impacts associated with future development and redevelopment under the proposed General Plan Update would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.15-9). 2. Impacts related to new and altered park facilities: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to new and altered park facilities. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to new and altered park facilities is provided in Section 4.15 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to new and altered park facilities. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: The proposed Land Use Plan includes 445 acres of land in the City designated as Parks, along with 353 acres in the City and 983 acres in the SOI designated as Conservation areas, and another 1,711 acres in the City and 1,753 acres in the SOI designated as Flood Control/Utility Corridors and that may be utilized for trails. In addition, 130 acres are designated as Civic/Regional and includes areas developed with community centers. Also, 483 acres in the City and 2,496 acres in the SOI are designated as Open Space and will remain largely undeveloped. Another 558 acres are designated as Schools and provide joint-use recreational facilities and areas that may be utilized for various recreational uses. With the development of 7,592 new dwelling units in the City and SOI and an estimated increase in population of 24,300 residents, approximately 121.5 acres of new parkland would be needed to meet the 5 acres per 1,000 residents standard. This parkland need would be provided in compliance with the standard conditions calling for compliance with the City's Development Code and the City's Local Park Ordinance. The development of new parks and recreational facilities would be a beneficial impact in the City by meeting existing and future demand. Parks and recreational facilities developed as part of new residential 2010 General Plan Updates would result in environmental impacts as discussed under the various sections of this PEIR. Individual parks developed pursuant to implementation of the 2010 General Plan Updates would also be subject to separate CEQA review in the future, in light of this PEIR. Less than significant adverse impacts are expected; and no mitigation is required (Draft PEIR p. 4.15-10). 3. 1mpacts related to park service ratios: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to park service ratios. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to park service ratios is provided in Section 4.15 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to park service ratios. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment would be accompanied by the development of new parks and recreational facilities pursuant to the City's Local Parkland Ordinance. The existing parkland deficiency will be reduced through development of planned parks and trails and parks as well as recreational facilities that would accompany future residential development. A deficiency will remain at buildout due to existing deficiencies in meeting the 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents standard set by the proposed General Plan. However, service ratios and performance ratios would be improved by the development of planned and future parks, recreational facilities and trails. Impacts are expected to be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.15-11). O. Transportation/Traffic 1. Impacts related to the circulation system: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to the circulation system. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to the circulation system is provided in Section 4.16 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to the circulation system. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would increase traffic volumes in the City, leading to four intersections operating at LOS E or worse by 2030. Improvements at these intersections would allow them to operate at LOS D or better. Applicants for future development and redevelopment projects would be required to prepare traffic studies and participate in the Development Impact Fee (DIF) program for the improvement of the local and regional roadway network. Improvements to the local and regional roadway network would include the improvement of the four intersections that are projected to operate at LOS E or worse by 2030. With local on-site or abutting roadway improvements provided by individual developments and regional transportation projects, increases in traffic volumes are expected to be accommodated by the improved roadway system. Impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.16-28). 2. Conflicts with the Congestion Management Program: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not conflict with the Congestion Management Program. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to the Congestion Management Program is provided in Section 4.16 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to the Congestion Management Program. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: The San Bernardino County CMP uses an LOS standard of LOS E or better for CMP designated roadways. Since future development and redevelopment projects would be subject to City review and compliance with the City's LOS D standard (SC 4.16-1), they are not expected to lead to intersections operating at LOS E or worse. When intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or worse, the requirement for appropriate mitigation would ensure that the development implements the necessary improvements to allow the affected intersections to operate at LOS D or better. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's DIF program complies with the CMP, and the City collects DIF from new development. These fees will be used to implement the City's needed roadway improvement projects. Regional transportation improvements are also expected to be implemented over time and would maintain LOS E or better operations at areawide intersections. Thus, implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and future development and redevelopment pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would lead to LOS D intersection operations in the City, which would not exceed the CMP standard of LOS E. No adverse impacts would occur; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.16-28 —4.16-29). 3. Impacts related to air traffic: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to air traffic. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to air traffic is provided in Section 4.16 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to air traffic. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would not be directly served by air transportation and this would not affect air traffic volumes at the LA/Ontario International Airport. Development in the southwestern section of the City may affect aircraft operations at this airport and would need to comply with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations regarding structural height limits to prevent hazards to users, occupants, and visitors and to prevent obstruction to aircraft operations. Impacts on air traffic patterns would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.16-29). 4. Impacts related to roadway hazards: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to roadway hazards. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to roadway hazards is provided in Section 4.16 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to roadway hazards. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Increases in vehicle trips from future development and redevelopment under, the proposed 2010 General Plan Update may increase the potential for traffic accidents. Implementation of the standards in Titles 10 and 12 of the Municipal Code, and compliance with the City's Circulation Plan would prevent the creation of traffic hazards. Impacts would be less than significant; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.16-29-4.16-30). 5. Impacts related to emergency access: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to emergency access. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to emergency access is provided in Section 4.16 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to emergency access. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment is not expected in areas that are used for emergency access and evacuation. Evacuation routes include major roadways in the City, with freeways serving as primary exit routes for the planning area. Roadways, driveways, and parking lot aisles shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Title 16 of the Municipal Code, which mandates following the City's roadway functional design guidelines, line of sight design guidelines, and access and parking design guidelines. Compliance with Title 12 of the City's Municipal Code and the standards in the Work Area Protection and Traffic Control Manual, would maintain emergency access to individual parcels at all times; no mitigation is required. (Draft PEIR p. 4.16-30—4.16-31). 6. Impacts related to alternative transportation: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in impacts related to alternative transportation. Finding: An analysis of impacts related to alternative transportation is provided in Section 4.16 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to alternative transportation. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Future development and redevelopment pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would increase vehicle trips and the use of alternative transportation systems in the City. Specifically, the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance identifies the facilities that need to be provided in larger multi-family developments, commercial, office, and industrial projects; these would encourage the use of alternative transportation systems. Compliance with the SCAQMD's Rule 2202 would also reduce vehicle trips and trip lengths by encouraging the use of alternatives to the automobile. The Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan also promotes walking/hiking, biking, and horse riding alternatives to reach various destinations in the City and surrounding areas. No conflict with policies, plans and programs for alternative transportation would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. (Draft PEIR p. 4.16-31 —4.16-32). P. Utilities and Service Systems 1. Impacts related to water supply and infrastructure: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to water supply and infrastructure. Finding: An analysis of water supply and infrastructure is provided in Section 4.17 of the Final PEIR.-This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to water supply and infrastructure. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Based on population data from the California Department of Finance, the Cucamonga Valley Water District's (CVWD) 2005 Urban WMP includes future water demand projections through 2030. In 2030, the anticipated population of the CVWD service area is 248,000 people; associated water demand is estimated to be 86,000 acre feet per year (afy). At the target density of development addressed in the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, the City's 2030 population is expected to reach 203,400 persons, or approximately 43,000 fewer persons than anticipated by CVWD. Therefore, while the 2010 General Plan Update was not specifically considered during preparation of the 2005 UWMP, the expected population growth is substantively lower than the expected population used as the basis of CVWD's water supply planning in the 2005 UWMP. Therefore, adequate water supplies would be available to serve proposed land use development consistent with the 2010 General Plan Update. Implementation of SB 610 and/or SB 221, where required, and the identified 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies related to water supply and infrastructure would contribute to ensuring that adequate water resources would be available for future development in the City. A less than significant impact would occur; no mitigation is required (Draft PEIR p. 4.17-18). 2. Impacts related to wastewater infrastructure and treatment: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to wastewater infrastructure and treatment. Finding: An analysis of wastewater infrastructure and treatment is provided in Section 4.17 of the Final PER This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to wastewater infrastructure and treatment. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements with compliance with NPDES wastewater discharge requirements and CVWD standards and there would be a less than significant impact. There would be adequate capacity at the wastewater treatment plants serving the City (RP-1 and RP-4) with implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update. If RP-4 is expanded in the future to the planned 28 million gallons per day (mgd), this would occur entirely within the facilities' existing footprint, which has been expressly planned to accommodate such an expansion. Therefore, based on this and the identified 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies related to wastewater infrastructure, there would be a less than significant impact related to wastewater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. No mitigation would be required. (Draft PEI R p. 4.17-19—4.17-20). 3. Impacts related to electricity, natural gas, and communication infrastructure: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to electricity, natural gas, and communication infrastructure. Finding: An analysis of electricity, natural gas, and communication infrastructure is provided in Section 4.17 of the Final PER. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to electricity, natural gas, and communication infrastructure. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would result in increased demand for electricity, natural gas and communication services. Adherence to the 2010 General Plan Update promotes energy efficiency and use of alternative energy sources as part of implementing future growth in the City and states the City's desire to support access to established and emerging communication technologies, while minimizing environmental impacts. The City would also be required to implement all applicable California Title 24 energy efficiency standards into new development and redevelopment projects. Both Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (SCGC) are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which mandates that electric and natural gas service must be provided to new customers. The need for, and location of, new or expanded dry utility infrastructure, including communication systems, would be determined on a case basis. Generally, extension of dry utility services to new development occurs within the service provider's easement or within that project's boundary. Future development projects would be required to comply with conditions requiring provision of utilities and places the responsibility for relocation of on-site utilities with the future project developer(s). Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact related to the need for new or expanded dry utilities. (Draft PER p. 4.17-21). 4. Impacts related to solid waste: Implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to solid waste. Finding: An analysis of solid waste is provided in Section 4.17 of the Final PEIR. This analysis concluded that the 2010 General Plan Update would not result in significant impacts related to solid waste. No mitigation is required. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Build out of the 2010 General Plan Update would result in an estimated net increase in solid waste disposal of 201.5 tons per day and 73,545 tons per year. This increase would represent approximately 2.7 percent of Mid-Valley Landfill's daily permitted capacity. The City of Rancho Cucamonga would continue compliance with AB 939 and SB 1016. Therefore, with continuing adherence to regulatory requirements and implementation of the identified goal and related policies in the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, the City would maintain compliance with applicable statutes and regulations related to solid waste and would not be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity. There would be a less than significant impact related to solid waste. (Draft PEIR p. 4.17-22). SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The following impacts related to Cultural Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Noise were found to be potentially significant, but 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 impacts listed below can and will be mitigated, reduced or avoided by imposition of the mitigation measures that will be adopted as standard conditions of approval, and these mitigation measures are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan detailed in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. A. Cultural Resources 1. Historical Resources: Buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to significantly impact historical resources. An analysis of impacts to historical resources is provided in Section 4.6 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, compliance with General Plan policies, SC 4.6-1, and implementation of MM 4.6-1 would reduce impacts to historical resources to a less than significant level. MM 4.6-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any future development within the General Plan Study Area, project applicants shall ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, direct or indirect impacts to any known properties that are deemed eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or a local designation be avoided and/or preserved consistent-with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Should avoidance and/or preservation not be a feasible option, a qualified architectural historian shall develop a mitigation program which may include, but not be limited to, formal documentation of the structure using historical narrative and photographic documentation, facade preservation, or monumentation. Properties are not equally significant, and some retain more significance than others. Therefore, prior to development decisions being made, a qualified architectural historian shall be retained to evaluate the circumstance regarding the property and planned development, and to make management decisions regarding documentation of the property. Supporting Explanation: A total of 210 properties were deemed eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), California Register or Historic Resources (CRHR), or a local designation list. For purposes of this analysis, historical significance is assumed for any property deemed eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, CRHR, or a local designation list. Buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would involve development and redevelopment activities which may directly or indirectly impact the identified properties. Applicable policies of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update identify a variety of policies and related implementation actions that include preservation techniques such as creating conservation easements and incorporating historic preservation principles into the City's project review process. Compliance with these General Plan policies would ensure that effort is made to preserve and protect historic resources in place. To the extent that this is not possible, implementation of MM 4.6-1 would require separate evaluation to reduce the historical resources impacts to the maximum extent feasible. Additionally, pursuant to SC 4.6-1 any proposed modifications to designated Historical Landmarks would be subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. Compliance with applicable policies, SC 4.6-1, and implementation of MM 4.6-1 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft PEIR p. 4.6-18). 2. Archaeological Resources: Buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to significantly impact unknown archaeological sites. An analysis of impacts to archaeological resources is provided in Section 4.6 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of MMs 4.6-2 and 4.6-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. MM 4.6-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any future development within the 2010 General Plan Update Study Area, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to assess if any of the 18 known archaeological sites identified within the Study Area, or other unknown archaeological sites, may be within the proposed construction impact or buffer zone areas. To the maximum extent feasible, known archaeological sites shall be avoided through project design modifications. If avoidance is not feasible, those sites that will be impacted shall be subjected to a Phase II evaluation, which may include further archival research and ethnographic research as well as subsurface testing to determine (1) the horizontal and the vertical extent of a resource; (2) the stratigraphic integrity of a resource; and (3) the density and diversity of artifactual material. The Phase II evaluation shall include a report describing the findings and recommendations for further evaluation if required. Should the Phase II evaluation identify a significant resource where avoidance and/or preservation are not feasible, a Phase III mitigation or data recovery phase shall be conducted. The Phase III work shall provide sufficient scientific information to fully mitigate the impacts of development on these sites and shall be performed in accordance''with the standards of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Rancho Cucamonga or its designee on a first refusal basis. If the artifacts are refused, the landowner may retain said finds if the 2010 General Plan Update applicant provides written assurance that they will be properly preserved in the City_of Rancho Cucamonga, unless (1) said finds are of special significance or (2) a museum in the City of Rancho Cucamonga indicates a desire to study and/or display them, in which case the items shall be donated to the City or its designees. If the project applicant provides no such assurance, the City shall retain the artifacts and shall be subject to the same stipulations set forth in this mitigation measure for disposition of artifacts. Final mitigation shall be carried out based upon the recommendations in the Phase II Report, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director shall make a determination as to the site's disposition based on the recommendation of the qualified archaeologist. Possible determinations include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage, or no mitigation necessary. MM 4.6-3 If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. Pursue educating the public about the archaeological heritage of the area. Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse 2010 General Plan Update effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA guidelines. Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the 2010 General Plan Update area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. Supporting Explanation: Buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update may directly impact 18 known prehistoric archaeological sites in the Study Area. Where feasible, sites will be avoided and preserved without evaluation since archaeological excavation is considered a destructive activity and therefore an impact. Given the presence of recorded resources throughout the Study Area, significant subsurface archaeological resources may also exist. The potential to encounter previously unknown archaeological resources during excavation and construction activities for 2010 General Plan Update implementation is a potentially significant impact. However, this impact would be reduced to a level considered less than significant with implementation of MMs 4.6-2 and 4.6-3 (Draft PER p. 4.6-18). 3. Paleontological Resources: Buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to significantly impact,paleontological resources. An analysis of impacts to paleontological resources is provided in-Section-4.6 of the Final PEIR. Finding:. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of MM 4.6-4 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. MM 4.6-4 If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth- disturbing activities. Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth- disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum. Supporting Explanation: As previously discussed, most of the Study Area consists of surficial sedimentary or metamorphic rocks that are unlikely to contain significant vertebrate fossils. The younger Quaternary alluvial sediments in the main active drainages and the older Quaternary fan deposits nearest the San Bernardino Mountains and around Red Hill are not expected to contain significant vertebrate fossils, however, deeper excavations into Quaternary alluvium throughout most of the rest of the Study Area and that expose older Quaternary alluvial sediments may potentially contain fossil resources. The presence of sedimentary units known to contain fossil materials indicates that there is a potential for unidentified, significant, non renewable paleontological resources; therefore, future buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update within these areas would have a potentially significant impact on paleontological resources. Implementation of MM 4.6-4 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels (Draft PEIR p. 4.6-18 — 4.6-19) by requiring any developer to retain a qualified paleontologist if any paleontological resources are encountered. B. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Wildland Fires: Future development within designated wildland fire hazard areas at the northern end of the City and its SOI would represent a potentially significant impact related to wildland fire hazards. An analysis of wildland fire hazard impacts is provided in Section 4.8 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8.1 as well as adherence to standard conditions related to implementation of the California Fire Plan, City of Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Strategic Plan, and future Fire Protection Plans for new development will reduce the potential impacts related to wildland fires to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1: Future development and redevelopment shall comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC), which includes building standards for the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. The standards call for the use of ignition- resistant materials and design to inhibit the intrusion of flame or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire and help reduce losses resulting from repeated interface with fire disasters. These standards shall apply to the areas within the designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone at the northern end of the City and Sphere of Influence (SOI). Supporting Explanation: The State Board of Forestry and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) shall implement the California Fire Plan, to reduce wildland fire hazards at the San Bernardino National Forest and foothills in Rancho Cucamonga, The City's Fire Protection District also has a Strategic Plan to reduce the threat of wildland fires. Additionally, the City requires all new development within hazardous fire areas to prepare a Fire Protection Plan that outlines measures for adequate water supply, emergency access, building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management. In addition to these standard conditions, implementation of MM 4.8-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels (Draft PEIR p 4.8-21) by ensuring that fire-resistant building materials and design is used in any new development. C. Hydrology and Water Quality 1. Water Quality and Waste Discharge Standards: Future development and redevelopment have the potential to generate pollutants that could enter the storm drainage system and affect water quality at local and regional creeks and the Santa Ana River. An analysis of water quality and waste discharge standards impacts is provided in Section 4.9 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9.1 through 4.9-4 as well as adherence to standard conditions related to implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for individual 2010 General Plan Updates, and compliance with pertinent Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations and the City's Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance will reduce the potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge standards to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval, SWPPP specifically identifying BMPs that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2: Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a WQMP, including a 2010 General Plan Update description and identifying BMPs that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall —identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the current Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mitigation Measure 4.9-4: The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the WQMP prepared by (name/date) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. Supporting Explanation: Future development and redevelopment have the potential to generate pollutants that could enter the storm drainage system and affect water quality at local and regional creeks and the Santa Ana River. During construction activities, storm water runoff from individual construction sites could contain pollutants such as soils and sediments that are released during grading and excavation activities and petroleum-related pollutants due to spills or leaks from heavy equipment and machinery. Other common pollutants that may result from construction activities may include solid or liquid chemical spills; concrete and related cutting or curing residues; wastes from paints, stains, sealants, solvents, detergents, glues, acids, lime, plaster, and cleaning agents; and heavy metals from equipment. Potential pollutants that could be generated by the occupancy/operation of future development and redevelopment pursuant to the 2010 General Plan Update could include, but are not limited to, bacteria/viruses, heavy metals, nutrients, pesticides, organic compounds, sediments, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, and oil and grease. Implementation of BMPs in the SWPPP and a WQMP for individual projects, and compliance with pertinent Santa Ana RWQCB regulations, the City's Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, adherence to applicable 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies and implementation of applicable mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 2. Drainage and Erosion: Changes in drainage patterns would be largely confined to individual development sites and erosion or siltation impacts may be potentially significant. An analysis of drainage and erosion impacts is provided in Section 4.9 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1, 4.9-2 and 4.9- 5 as well as adherence to standard conditions related to implementation of BMPs in the SWPPP and a WQMP for individual 2010 General Plan Updates, and compliance with the City's Floodplain Management Regulations will reduce the potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge standards to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2: Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit, Mitigation Measure 4.9-5: An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed 2010 General Plan Update that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experience in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur on-site or off-site as a result of this 2010 General Plan Update will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. Supporting Explanation: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is largely developed, with an improved storm drain system of underground lines and concrete-lined creeks. This would not change with the 2010 General Plan Update or future development and redevelopment pursuant to the 2010 General Plan Update. Changes in drainage patterns would be largely confined to individual development sites and no substantial erosion or siltation impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with adherence to applicable 2010 General Plan Update policies and implementation of the applicable standard condition and mitigation measures. 3. Surface Runoff: Significant impacts from increases in runoff volumes and rates would occur from future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update in terms of flooding or the capacities of downstream drainage systems. An analysis of surface runoff impacts is provided in Section 4.9 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-4 as well as adherence to standard conditions related to site design, source control and treatment control BMPs and compliance with the City's storm water system regulations will reduce the potential impacts related to surface runoff to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.9-4: The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by (name/date) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. Supporting Explanation: The amount of impervious surface area in the City would increase as new development and redevelopment introduces structures, driveways, parking lots, walkways, and other site improvements. Thus, runoff volumes are likely to increase over existing conditions. The existing drainage system would need to convey these increased volumes. Additionally, several areas of the City are subject to flooding. Two areas within the City are also known to have deficient drainage facilities. Development within the areas with flood hazards and deficient storm drainage may cause flooding or add to existing flood hazards. Implementation of BMPs to prevent hydrologic conditions of concern (HCOCs), as contained in the individual WQMPs, would decrease off-site flows. Site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs in the WQMPs and in compliance with the City's storm water system regulations would also reduce pollutants in the runoff that would be conveyed into the creeks serving the City. 4. Water Quality: Discharges from future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would contribute to the continued impairment of Prado Park Lake at the Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River and Reach 1 of Cucamonga Creek. An analysis of surface runoff impacts is provided in Section 4.9 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1 through 4.9-4 and 4.9-6 through 4.9-8 as well as adherence to standard conditions related to Compliance with Santa Ana RWQCB regulations and Chapter 19.20 of the City's Municipal Code will reduce the potential impacts related to water quality and waste discharge standards to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1: Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to Building Oficial for approval, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that shall be used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure 4.9-2: Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number) shall be submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. Mitigation Measure 4.9-3: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a 2010 General Plan Update description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural measures consistent with the current Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Mitigation Measure 4.9.4: The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by (name/date) to reduce pollutants after construction entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. Mitigation Measure 4.9-6: During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is rainfall or other runoff. Mitigation Measure 4.9-7: During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent discharge of debris or sediment from the site. Mitigation Measure 4.9-8: Landscaping plans shall include provision for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Supporting Explanation: The western section of the City drains into the Cucamonga Creek, Demens Creek, and Deer Creek at the western section of the City. The eastern section drains into Day Creek, Etiwanda Creek, and San Sevaine Creek. Cucamonga,Creek and Etiwanda Creek eventually connect to Chino Creek, Mill Creek, and the Santa Ana River, Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, impaired water bodies in or downstream of the City include Prado Park Lake at the Santa Ana River, Mill Creek, Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River, and Reach 1 of Cucamonga Creek. Discharges from future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, if unmitigated, would contribute to the continued impairment of these water bodies/water courses. Compliance with applicable standard conditions and 2010 General Plan Update Policies, and implementation of mitigation measures requiring preparation of a SWPPP, identification of appropriate methods for controlling discharge of debris and sediment into water bodies, and controlling use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides through preparation of a landscaping plan would reduce the potential impact to water quality to a less than significant level. D. Land Use and Planning 1. Plan Consistency: Approval and implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to conflict with the current General Plan due to minor changes in land use designations. No conflict with the 2010 General Plan Update, SCAG's Compass Blueprint, or SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan is expected with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. An analysis of these plan consistency impacts are provided in Section 4.10 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.10.1 as well as adherence to standard conditions related to consistency of future development with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and the City's Development Code will reduce the potential impacts related to plan consistency to a less than significant level. MM 4.10-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department shall monitor all development that takes place within the Study Area against the projected target densities detailed in Tables LU-16, LU-17, and LU-18 of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. As buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update Study Area approaches 80 percent of the total additional development allowed, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall initiate environmental analysis to address full buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update or prepare an update to the General Plan to be completed prior to reaching the established target densities herein. Supporting Explanation: Conflict with the current Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and the City's Development Code is mainly due to a change in the City's vision for its future. This does not represent an adverse impact, since the proposed 2010 General Plan Update will supersede the current Plan. An amendment to the Development Code would also be required. No conflict with the 2010 General Plan Update, SCAG's Compass Blueprint, or SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan is expected with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Implementation of standard conditions related to consistency of future development with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and the City's Development Code as well as implementation of MM 4.10-1 would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant levels. E. Noise 1. Noise Levels and Vibration: Construction activities associated with development pursuant to the 2010 General Plan Update would result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels during the various stages of construction and would have the potential to expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's Noise Ordinance. Vibration may be noticeable for short periods during construction. Future development and redevelopment under the .proposed 2010 General Plan Update would lead to increases in noise levels that would affect residential uses and noise sensitive receptors. An analysis of noise impacts is provided in Section 4.12 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, orincorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12.1 through 4.12-7 as well as adherence to standard conditions related to compliance with the City's Municipal Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code will reduce the potential impacts related to noise levels and vibration to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.12-1: Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a construction-related noise mitigation plan to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the construction equipment and how the noise from this equipment would be mitigated during construction of the project. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2: Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other times may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with the City's noise standards or construction halted. Mitigation Measure 4.12-3: The constriction-related noise mitigation plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays). Additionally, the plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The construction-related noise mitigation plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. Mitigation Measure 4.12-4: If a perimeter block wall is required for a 2010 General Plan Update, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during the first phase of construction. Mitigation Measure 4.12-5: Applicants for new proposed land uses shall specify increased setbacks such that land uses do not lie within the 65 dBA CNEL overlay zone for commercial, office and sensitive uses (60 dBA CNEL for residential use). This would ensure that proposed land uses are not exposed to excessive noise from roadways, railroads and other nearby noise sources and that exterior and interior noise levels do not exceed the goals of the 2010 General Plan Update Public Health and Safety Chapter and the City's noise standards. If increased setbacks are not provided, an applicant may provide barriers between the noise source and the proposed development; site design that reduces the noise levels at exterior living areas; and/or sound insulation or specialized construction methods to block out exterior noise. Prior to the Development Application CEQA review, a developer shall contract for a site-specific noise study for the specific project that identifies existing and projected noise levels and measures to maintain noise levels within City standards. The noise study shall be performed by an acoustic consultant experienced in such studies and the consultant's qualifications and methodology to be used in the study must be presented to City staff for consideration. The final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the report. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction, including measurements of interior and exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected homes. Noise levels shall be monitored after construction to verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures, with noise levels monitored by actual noise level readings taken on- and off-site. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to final occupancy release. The final report shall make a determination that the mitigation measures have reduced noise levels to below City standards, such as, residential exterior noise levels to below 60 dBA and interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA. Mitigation Measure 4.12-6: No industrial facilities shall be constructed within 500 feet of any commercial land uses or within 2,800 feet of any residential land uses without preparation of a noise analysis. This analysis shall document the nature of the industrial facility as well as noise producing operation associated with the facility. Noise control measures shall be incorporated into the development of the facility to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. Mitigation Measure 4.12-7: Restrictions on commercial, industrial and other non- residential activities shall be imposed by the City, so as not to create any noise that would exceed exterior and interior noise standards. This may include restrictions on business operations to maintain noise levels at 60 dB or less during the hours of 10 PM until 7 AM and at 65 dB or less during the hours of 7 AM until 10 PM; establishment of set hours of operation; and regulations on loading and unloading activities such that no person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. Supporting Explanation: Future development associated with buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update has the potential to create noise levels greater than the established noise criteria thresholds during both construction and operation. Assuming that future projects adhere to the identified mitigation measures and comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and Noise Standards, construction and operational impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. 2. Airport and Airstrip Noise: Development associated with buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update Study Area could expose people residing or working in the southern edge of the City to excessive noise levels from airport operations. An analysis of noise impacts is provided in Section , 4.12 of the Final PEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. More specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12.8 will reduce the potential impacts related to airport and airstrip noise to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.12-8: Residential developments and redevelopments at the southern edge of the City shall prepare an acoustical study to determine site exposure to airport noise and identify noise control measures that would be incorporated into the 2010 General Plan Update to achieve compliance with the City's interior and exterior noise standards for residential uses. These noise control measures may include locating outdoor living areas at the northern section of the site or north of the proposed structure, enclosed common recreational areas; provision of a wall, berm or other barrier to the noise source; and sound insulation or specialized construction methods to block out exterior noise. The acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the report. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction, including measurements of interior and exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected homes. Noise levels shall be monitored after construction to verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures, with noise levels monitored by actual noise level readings taken on-and off-site. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to final occupancy release. The final report shall make a determination that the mitigation measures have reduced noise levels to below City standards, such as, residential exterior noise levels to below 60 dBA and interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA. Supporting Explanation: The closest major airport to Rancho Cucamonga is the LA/Ontario International Airport, which is located to the south of the City. This airport is located approximately one mile from the City's southern boundary; however, the City of Rancho Cucamonga is well outside the LA/Ontario International Airport's 65 dBA CNEL noise contour. Noise levels in Rancho Cucamonga are not expected to be exceeding the 55 to 60 dB CNEL exterior noise standard for residential uses. Aircraft noise does not significantly impact the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Projected noise levels from airport operations show that in year 2030 the 65-dB CNEL noise contour would move to just south of the 1-10 Freeway, with the 60-dB CNEL noise contour generally along Inland Empire Boulevard, or 0.5 mile from the City's southern boundary. Thus, future residential development and redevelopment at the southern end of the City may be exposed to airport noise levels in excess of the 55 dB standard from 10 PM to 7 AM. With adherence to the identified mitigation measure requiring an acoustical study, impacts related to airport and airstrip noise _ would be less than significant. SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Based upon information in the Final PEIR, in the record, and based upon testimony provided during the public hearings on this 2010 General Plan Update, the following adverse impacts of the 2010 General Plan Update as more particularly discussed below are considered to be significant and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively: Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Mineral Resources. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds the following environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR remain significant even after application of all feasible mitigation measures: Aesthetics (as to scenic vistas and changes to existing visual character and quality), Agricultural Resources (conversion of Important Farmland into non-agricultural uses), Air Quality (violation of air quality standards for PM2.5 and PM10 and exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions), Climate Change (greenhouse gas emissions), and Mineral Resources (loss of regionally important mineral resources). In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)(2), the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga cannot approve the 2010 General Plan Update 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 2010 General Plan Update alternatives identified in the Final PEIR; 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 as Exhibit B to this Resolution, and is hereby incorporated by this reference. A. Aesthetics 1. Scenic Vista Impacts: An analysis of scenic vistas is provided in Section 4.1 of the Final PEIR. Future development and redevelopment could, change the views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, the foothill areas, and areas with eucalyptus windrows, scatted vineyards, and natural vegetation. Although compliance with goals supporting policies in the Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Element of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update as well as conditions requiring compliance with the City's Grading Ordinance, the City Hillside Development regulations, the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance, and the City's Light and Glare regulations would reduce impacts, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would be available to fully mitigate potential impacts to scenic vistas. 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 PEIR p. 4.1-21). Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project to attempt to lessen any potentially significant impact. More specifically, compliance with goals LU-8, LU-13, and related policies, as well as policies LU-18.1 through 18.5, LU-19.1 through 19.3, LU 20.1, and LU 21.1 through 21.3, along with SC 4.1-1 through 4.1-5 identified below attempt to lessen any significant impact. Nevertheless, there are no feasible mitigation measures other than the goals and standard conditions that would reduce any significant impact. Accordingly, specific economic, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures, including project alternatives identified in the EIR. Therefore, the impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Goal LU-8 Encourage visually attractive hillsides where the natural environment is protected, a sustainable level of development is ensured, and appropriate measures to protect against hazards are in place. Policy LU-8.1 Regulate development on natural slopes of eight percent grade or greater through the City's Hillside Development Ordinance, Policy LU-8.2 Approve only those residential densities that do not exceed the capacity of the land or the ability to reasonably provide public services and adequate public safety. Policy LU-8.4 Prohibit extensive disturbances and scarring of ridgelines and other distinctive landforms in the hillsides. Policy LU-8.5 Protect natural resources and sensitive habitat areas, and avoid encroachment from new hillside development. Policy LU-8.6 Require that hillside development minimize alteration of natural landforms, and encourage clustering where feasible to retain maximum open space. Policy LU-8.7 Blend hillside development with natural surroundings through architecture and the use of appropriate construction materials, colors, and natural vegetation. Policy LU-8.8 Provide conveniently located places to experience nature in the northerly reaches of the Planning Area, particularly through trail extensions and educational programs. Policy LU-8.10 Hillside development shall be controlled by customized regulations. Goal LU-13 Take full advantage of view lines and vista points with carefully designed development. Policy LU-13.1 On north-south roadways, open space corridors, and other locations where there are views of scenic resources, trees, and structures, encourage framing and orientation of such views at key locations, and endeavor to keep obstruction of views to a minimum. Policy LU-18.1 Prepare a Cultural Landscape Report. Policy LU-18.2 Update files for identified historic resources to include extant cultural .landscape features. Policy LU-18.3 Create a conservation easement program for cultural landscapes Policy LU-18.4 Continue to rebuild agricultural landscapes. Policy LU-18.5 Retain and restore windbreaks where appropriate. Policy LU-19.1 Identify historic districts and Neighborhood Character Areas (NCAs). Policy LU-19.2 Create new and modify existing specific plans to guide development of historic districts and Neighborhood Character Areas (NCAs). Policy LU-19.3 Evaluate post-World War II buildings for historic significance. Policy LU-20.1 Create a historic resource interpretation program aimed at enhancing both public awareness of local history and opportunities for heritage tourism. Policy LU-21.1 Evaluate Route 66 properties and designate Route 66-related historic resources. Policy LU-21.2 Amend existing Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (Development Code §17.32) to include a linear Route 66 Neighborhood Character Area (NCA). Policy LU-21.3 Clarify the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Route 66/Foothill Boulevard Visual Improvement Plan/Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Mural Program to include policies that prioritize preservation of documented historic character of Route 66. SC 4.1-1 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Grading Ordinance, as contained in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (Title 19 Environmental Protection, of Chapter 19.04). This ordinance requires the submission of grading plans for approval by the grading committee to ensure that grading activities (1) retain the natural terrain; (2) preserve significant topographic features; and (3) limit construction on identified seismic or geologic hazard areas in the City's hillside areas. SC 4.1-2 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Hillside Development Regulations, which are found in Chapter 17.08 of the Development Code. These regulations require that development within the Hillside Residential District, in the Hillside Overlay Zone, or on sites with slopes 8 percent or greater comply with the Guidelines and development standards for site design, architecture, driveways/roadways, walls and fences, landscaping, grading, drainage, trails and corrals, public safety, and development density. These regulations seek to prevent the disturbance of natural slopes. SC 4.1-3 In accordance with its Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, the City shall continue to evaluate proposed landscape and irrigation plans and to determine if they meet the requirements of the ordinance and can be approved. This ordinance will allow the establishment of landscaped areas that are visually appealing and drought resistant. SC Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance in order to preserve mature trees in the City, which are considered scenic and cultural assets. SC 4.1-5 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Light and Glare regulations, which are found throughout the Development Code and require lighting to be directed away and shielded from adjacent residential areas. The regulations also prohibit the creation of areas with intense light or glare. As discussed above, the regulations call for the use of fences, walls, berms, screens, and landscaping to reduce light and glare spillover. The regulations are included under the special development criteria, performance standards, general design guidelines, special use regulations, and development standards for land uses in different development districts to prevent light and glare impacts on adjacent properties. Supporting Explanation: Scenic.vistas in and near the City include views of the nearby San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north and northeast. Future development and redevelopment could create obstructions to the views of land uses located immediately south of individual development sites. Depending on the building heights of new structures, some views of the mountains may be partially blocked, including views of the foothills at lower elevations. Building separation and setback requirements pursuant to the City Code for individual structures would preserve some distant mountain views and prevent total view obstruction. The mountains rise to heights over 6,000 feet above mean sea level (msl) and will remain partially visible from most areas of the City, despite future development pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Impacts to other scenic resources—such as eucalyptus windrows, scattered vineyards, and natural vegetation in flood control and utility corridors—would be reduced through compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and Tree Preservation Ordinance. Despite implementation of and compliance with applicable standard conditions and general plan goals and policies, impacts on a scenic vista would remain significant and unavoidable (Draft PEIR p. 4.1-18 and 4.1-19). 2. Existing Visual Character and Quality Impacts: An analysis of visual character is provided in Section 4.1 of the Final PEIR. Changes in visual quality from future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would be significant. Although compliance with goals and policies of the Land use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Element of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update as well as conditions requiring compliance with the Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan and Mural Program, the City's Beautification Master Plans for designated Special Boulevards, applicable design guidelines in the City's Development Code, the City's Design Guidelines for Residential and Commercial-Industrial land uses, the City's Sign Ordinance, the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts regulations, and the City's Wireless Communications Ordinance would reduce impacts, there are no feasible mitigation measures that would be available to fully mitigate potential impacts related to the potential degradation of visual character and quality. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue would remain significant and unavoidable. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project to attempt to lessen any potentially significant impact. More specifically, compliance with SC 4.1-6 through 4.1-13 identified below attempt to lessen any significant impact. Nevertheless, there are no feasible mitigation measures other than these standard conditions that would reduce any significant impact. Accordingly, specific economic, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures, including the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts to visual character cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Policy LU-1.4 Continue code enforcement activities to ensure proper maintenance of homes, buildings, yards, and neighborhoods in all areas of the City, and work with businesses and homeowners to gain compliance. Goal LU-2 Facilitate sustainable and attractive infill development that complements surrounding neighborhoods and is accessible to pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and automobiles. Goal LU-8 Encourage visually attractive hillsides where the natural environment is protected, a sustainable level of development is ensured, and appropriate measures to protect against hazards are in place. Goal LU-9 Foster a cohesive, healthy community through appropriate patterns and scales of development, including complementary transitions between districts, neighborhoods, and land uses. Goal LU-11 Ensure that community aesthetics are maintained through appropriate regulations. Goal LU-12 Foster a variety of travel routes that are enjoyable ways to experience Rancho Cucamonga. Goal LU-14 Support public art as an important amenity of a beautiful city. SC 4.1-6 The Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan and Mural Program shall be implemented through future development and redevelopment along Foothill Boulevard to enhance the streetscape and to create a unified theme for this major corridor in the City. SC 4.1-7 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Beautification Master Plans for designated Special Boulevards, as well as design guidelines for these Special Boulevards in existing and future specific plans. SC 4.1-8 The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan regulates all land uses in the City. Consistency with the goals, policies and programs related to community design in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, as amended, shall be required for all development projects. SC 4.1-9 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Development Code, which provides development standards and design guidelines for different development districts. Future development and redevelopment projects shall comply with applicable design guidelines in the Development Code. SC 4.1-10 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Design Guidelines for Residential and Commercial-Industrial land uses that promote quality development in new development and redevelopment projects. These design guidelines address site planning, subdivision layout, architecture, grading, landscaping, fencing, trails, sign programs, and master planning requirements. They are used in the design review of individual development proposals that are submitted to the City for approval. SC 4.1-11 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Sign Ordinance in order to limit the visual clutter and improve streetscapes in the City by regulating the size, color, location, number, design, lighting, and types of signs that are installed in the City. SC 4.1-12 As part of the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts, parkways and public landscapes in the City shall be continually maintained to enhance the City's positive visual image. SC 4.1-13 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Wireless Communication Ordinance to avoid the visual incompatibility of communication towers and antennas with the local streetscape or with views of the City from freeways and major roadways. Siting, design, and configuration standards shall limit the number of communication towers and antennas in the City and/or screen them from public views. Supporting Explanation: Future development and redevelopment pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would change the visual quality of individual development sites, as structures and site improvements are introduced on vacant and undeveloped lands and as older developments are replaced with newer structures and site improvements. This change would lead to greater urbanization within the Study Area, with the proposed introduction of 7,584 new homes and approximately 19.77 million square feet of non-residential development. These developments would change the overall visual quality of the City (Draft PEIR p. 4.1-20). Future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would change public views along roadways and freeways in and near the City. New streets may be developed as part of new development, existing streets may be improved with new development and redevelopment, or building facades may be replaced or revised for redevelopment 2010 General Plan Updates. These actions would change views along major streets and gateways in the City (Draft PEIR p. 4.1-21). Despite compliance with goals and policies in the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and applicable design guidelines (SCs 4.1-9 and 4.1-10), the change in visual quality from future development and redevelopment under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update is considered a significant adverse aesthetic impact. B. Agricultural Resources 1. Farmland Resources: An analysis of farmland resources is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final PEI R. Future development under the proposed Land Use Plan would lead to the conversion of 196.26 acres of Important Farmland into non-agricultural uses. Adherence to Goal RC-1 and Policy RC-1.4 of the 2010 General Plan Update Resource Conservation Element and implementation of MM 4.2-1 would reduce impacts related to the conversion of farmlands; however, this loss of farmland would remain a significant and unavoidable impact (Draft PEIR p. 4.2-7). Finding: Future development under the proposed Land Use Plan would lead to the conversion of 196.26 acres of Important Farmland into non-agricultural uses. Implementation of . MM 4.2-1 would reduce impacts related to conversion of farmlands; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Goal RC-1 Encourage stewardship of natural open space areas, environmentally sensitive lands, and agricultural resources. Policy RC-1.4: Evaluate the conservation of economically viable agriculture on lands that are designated by the State as important farmland. MM 4.2-1 Should a future project propose to develop designated Important Farmlands (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland and/or Farmland of Local Importance) pursuant to the current Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program map, the project applicant shall implement measure(s) to reduce impacts related to the loss of farmland to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Feasible mitigation measures may include, but not be limited to, the 1) purchase of land within a permanent agricultural conservation easement, as approved by the Planning Director, of at least equal quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of agricultural land; 2) donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose includes the acquisition and stewardship of agricultural conservation easements; or 3) direct conservation of a portion of designated Important Farmlands on the future project site. Should a project contribute to growth inducing or cumulative impacts related to the loss of agricultural land, adequate compensation values in the form of permanent agricultural conservation easements shall be evaluated on a project-specific basis. Supporting Explanation: No agricultural uses are proposed for preservation under the 2010 General Plan Update. Vineyards and orchards designated as Unique Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance are proposed for urban development under various land use designations, including Industrial Park, General Industrial, Very Low Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, and Mixed Use. Only the plant nursery, which occupies approximately 12.5 acres beneath the transmission lines and is designated as Flood Control/Utility Corridor, would allow the continued use of the nursery and would not convert its current Unique Farmland designation. Therefore, buildout of the 2010 General Plan Update Study Area would convert 196.26 acres of Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses (Draft PEIR p 4.2-6). The eventual development of these vineyards and orchards with urban land uses would lead to the conversion of farmland to other uses. Despite this long-term expectation, agricultural uses are allowed as an interim use by the City's Development Code; therefore, these vineyards and orchards are expected to remain until individual property owners decide to develop these lands. Future development associated with buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update pursuant to the proposed Land Use Plan would result in the conversion of these farmland areas to non-agricultural uses, thus creating a significant impact. Implementation of MM 4.2-1 would reduce impacts related to conversion of farmlands; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft PEIR p, 4.2-6). Grazing lands include scattered undeveloped lands in the City and the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. The loss of small, scattered undeveloped lands for grazing would not adversely affect Farmlands, nor would it result in a significant impact related to the conversion of farmlands to non-agricultural uses. C. Air Quality 1. Air Quality Standards Violation and Exposure of Sensitive Receptors: The net change in emissions with implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update when compared to the Existing Conditions (2009) would decrease significantly for CO, VOC and NOx, and increase for PMIS, PM10 and SOx. The net increase in SOx emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold and would be considered a less than significant impact. Estimated net emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would be a significant impact. Regarding TACs, there are no rail yards in the City, and there are no new residential land uses proposed next to freeways. Therefore, there would be a less than significant TAC impact from emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter. Implementation of identified 2010 General Plan Update goals and standard condition, and mitigation measures would; however, these reductions are not quantifiable at the time. Therefore, the anticipated net increase in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would be considered a significant and unavoidable direct impact. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project to attempt to lessen any potentially significant impact. More specifically, compliance with Standard Conditions 4.3-1 through 4.3-4 and Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 through 4.3-3 identified below attempt to lessen long-term criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from construction and operational activities to the extent feasible. Nevertheless, there are no other feasible mitigation measures that would reduce this significant impact. Accordingly, specific economic, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures, including the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. SC 4.3-1 All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga would be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9, 2009. SC 4.3-2 All future development redevelopment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be required to comply with the recommendations set forth in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, prepared by California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board (April 2005), for siting new sensitive land uses. SC 4.3-3 All future development and redevelopment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 212, Standards for Approving Permits, related to permitting projects based on the anticipated output of air contaminants and proximity to sensitive receptors. SC 4.3-4 All future development and redevelopment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1402, Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, related to reducing the health risk associated with toxic air contaminants from existing sources. MM 4.3-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure applicants of future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update implement the following measures, derived from the SCAQMD's AQMP, where feasible, in order to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions, primarily related to vehicular travel and energy. Potential measures for consideration in future 2010 General Plan Updates include: • Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. • Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. • Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hour. Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. • Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. • Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV-MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. MM 4.3-2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that applicants of future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update implement the following measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions. These measures shall be verified either during review of project plans and specifications. Measures to be enforced include: • All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). • All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. • All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. • All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. • All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. • All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. MM 4.3-3 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update implement the following construction- period measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions, including, but not limited to, compliance with SCAQMD Rules as described below. These measures shall be verified either during review of 2010 General Plan Update plans and specifications and/or during construction. Construction-period measures to be enforced include: • All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' specifications. Maintenance records shall be available at the construction site for City verification. • Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit Construction Plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff. • The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. •. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. • All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Control). All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt). All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. Supporting Explanation: The proposed 2010 General Plan Update would not involve specific construction activity. However, construction activities that implement land use policies over the long term would produce air pollutant emissions. Air pollutants would primarily be emitted by construction equipment and fugitive dust would be generated during demolition of the existing improvements as well as during grading and excavation of the individual 2010 General Plan Update sites. MM 4.3-3 describes a range of construction- period measures that the City would require of each future project developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. However, as no specific projects are proposed as part of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and specific details regarding the scheduling of grading activities are unknown, construction emissions cannot be quantified and the requirements of MM 4.3-3 do not directly apply to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Construction emissions would be evaluated on a case by case basis. (Draft PEIR p. 4.3-29). The primary source of criteria pollutant emissions with implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would be generated by motor vehicles. However, the future emissions due to vehicular emissions are projected to be less in 2030 when compared to 2009. This is primarily due to the anticipated decrease in the future emission rates for vehicular sources. The number of vehicles actually would increase in the future but is more than offset by the decrease in the emission factors. Hearth emissions from wood burning stoves and fireplaces would also be a substantive portion of total emissions. Other criteria air pollutant emissions would be generated by the combustion of natural gas for space and water heating, the use of landscaping equipment, and architectural coatings during maintenance, as well as off-site emissions from the generation of electricity consumed by the proposed 2010 General Plan Update over the long term. The net change in emissions with implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update when compared to the Existing Conditions (2009) would decrease significantly for CO, VOC and NOx, and increase for PM2,5, PM10 and SOx. The net increase in SOx emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold, however, estimated net emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 would exceed SCAQMD thresholds. (Draft PEIR p. 4.3-30). In 1998, the CARB identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines (Diesel Particulate Matter or DPM) as a Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC). The CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook describes that diesel fueled vehicles that emit DPM from nearby freeways or rail yards could be a problem for any residential areas within 500 feet of freeways and 1,000 feet of rail yards or related distribution centers. TAC impacts from toxic substances are related to cumulative exposure and are assessed over a 70-year period. Cancer risk is expressed as the maximum number of new cases of cancer projected to occur in a population of one million people due to exposure to the cancer-causing substance over a 70-year lifetime. There are no rail yards in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Additionally, there are no new residential land uses proposed next to freeways. As a result, there would be less than significant impacts related to TAC emissions from the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. (Draft PEIR p. 4.3-32). 2. Cumulative Impacts: An analysis of air pollutant emissions with regional impacts is provided in Section 4.3 of the Final PEIR The SCAB is designated non-attainment for ozone (VOC and NOx are ozone precursors), PM10 and PM2.5. The net change in emissions with implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update when compared to the Existing Conditions (2009) would decrease significantly for VOC and NOx, resulting in a less than significant direct and cumulative impact related to emissions of ozone precursors. Estimated net emissions of PM2.5 and PM10 would result in a significant and unavoidable direct impact. Therefore, because SCAB is designated non- attainment for particulates, this significant and unavoidable direct impact would also be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact for PM10 and PM2.5 after implementation of proposed 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies, MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2, as feasible. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project to attempt to lessen any potentially significant impact. More specifically, compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 identified below attempt to lessen cumulatively considerable net increases of any criteria pollutant for which the 2010 General Plan Update region is in non-attainment under an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS to the extent feasible. Nevertheless, there are no other feasible mitigation measures that would reduce this significant impact. Accordingly, specific economic, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures, including the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. MM 4.3-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that applicants of future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update implement the following measures, derived from the SCAQMD's AQMP, where feasible, in order to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions, primarily related to vehicular travel and energy. Potential measures for consideration in future 2010 General Plan Updates include: • Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. • Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. • Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off-peak hours. • Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. • Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. • Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. • Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV-MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. MM 4.3-2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that applicants of future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update implement the following measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions. These measures shall be verified either during review of 2010 General Plan Update plans and specifications. Measures to be enforced include: • All industrial and commercial facilities shall post signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. • All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. • All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. • All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. • All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. Supporting Explanation: Implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in a substantial reduction in net emissions of VOC and NOx compared to the Existing Condition (2009). This would be a beneficial impact, and as such would be a less than significant direct and cumulative impact related to emissions of ozone precursors. As discussed above, the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in a significant and unavoidable direct impact related to emissions of PM10 and PM 25 with implementation of identified 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies. MM 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-2, as feasible. Therefore, because SCAB is designated non-attainment for particulates, this significant and unavoidable direct impact would also be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact for PM10 and PM 2,5 (Draft PEIR p. 4.3-32). D. Climate Change 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is provided in Section 4.5 of the Final PEIR. The proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in an estimated gross increase of GHG emissions of 556,003 MTCO2e per year. Implementation of SCs, the 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies, and MMs 4.5-1 through 4.5-3 would reduce the GHG emissions; however, emissions would not be reduced to less than the 100,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year(MTCO2e) per year threshold. The impact would be significant and unavoidable. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project to attempt to lessen any potentially significant impact. More specifically, compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 through 4.5-3 identified below attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the extent feasible. Nevertheless, there are no other feasible mitigation measures that would reduce this significant impact. Accordingly, specific economic, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures, including the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Therefore, impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. MM 4.5-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga will review the proposed 2010 General Plan Update policies included in Section 4.5.4 with a goal of developing enforceable actions for reducing GHG emissions consistent with City practice and philosophy. The Attorney General states that a Climate Action Plan is reasonable mitigation. "To allow for streamlined review of subsequent individual 2010 General Plan Updates, we recommend that the CIimate.Action Plan include the following elements: an emissions inventory (to assist in developing.appropriate emission targets and mitigation measures); emission targets that apply at reasonable intervals through the life of the plan; enforceable GHG control measures; monitoring and reporting (to ensure that targets are met); and mechanisms to allow for the revision of the plan, if necessary, to stay on target.(Attorney General 2009)" Therefore, MM 4.5-2 will be incorporated into the 2010 General Plan Update, MM 4.5-2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga will develop, adopt, and implement a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that incorporates and is consistent with the GHG emissions reductions goals of the State, San Bernardino County, and the SCAQMD or alternatively, the City will adopt and implement the applicable portions of a higher level CAP, such as that of San Bernardino County or SANBAG. An acceptable CAP shall include an emissions inventory; emission targets that apply at reasonable intervals through the life of the plan; enforceable GHG control measures, monitoring and reporting, and mechanisms to allow for the revision of the plan, if necessary, to stay on target, and must be adopted in a public process following environmental review, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. MM 4.5-3 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall join the proposed Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to be called the San Bernardino Valley Clean Energy District. This JPA is being formed in response to California AB 811, and would allow property owners to finance renewable generation and energy efficiency improvements that are permanently fixed to the property owner's residential, commercial, industrial, or other real property through low-interest loans that would be repaid as an item on the property owner's property tax bill. The loans could not be used to finance the purchase or installation of appliances that are not permanently fixed to the real property. Supporting Explanation: Total GHG emissions are projected to be 3,597,312 MTCO2e per year for the Existing Conditions/Baseline (2009), 3,957,059 MTCO2e per year for the 2001 General Plan (2030), and 4,153,315 MTCO2e per year for the proposed 2010 General Plan Update (2030). Implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in a net emission increase of 556,003 MTCO2e per year when compared to the Existing Conditions/Baseline (2009), and 206,256 MTCO2e per year when compared to the Existing General Plan (2030). Approximately 68 percent of the estimated GHG emissions associated with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update are projected to be from motor vehicles. Electricity consumption would account for approximately 15 percent of the GHG emissions. The proposed 2010 General Plan Update's total net increase in GHG emissions would exceed the 100,000 MT per year de minimis threshold that CARB has set for transportation 2010 General Plan Updates and that has been applied to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. (Draft PEIR p. 4.5-39). The proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in a net increase of GHG emissions that would be considered cumulatively considerable and a significant and unavoidable impact. Adherence to identified SCs, 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies and MM 4.5-1 would further reduce GHG emissions; however, the reductions would not be sufficient to reduce emissions to below the 100,000 MTCO2e threshold, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Implementation of MMs 4.5-2 and 4.5-3 have the potential to reduce the GHG emissions impacts of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update to a less than significant level by substituting the targets and actions of a CAP for the thresholds used in this analysis as well as encouraging additional energy efficiencies. However, as the potential reduction of GHG emissions is uncertain, the GHG emissions impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update is considered significant and unavoidable. E. Mineral Resources 1. Regionally Important Mineral Resources: Designated aggregate resource sectors are located at the northern end of the City and in the SOI, where limited urban development is present and proposed. The majority of these areas are planned for Open Space, Conservation, Flood Control/Utility Corridor, or Hillside Residential uses, which allow low density developments. Buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update area would result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project to attempt to lessen any potentially significant impact. More specifically, compliance with Goal RC-7, Policy RC-7.1, RC-7.2, RC-7.3, RC-7.4, and RC-7.5 identified below attempt to lessen any significant impact. Nevertheless, there are no feasible mitigation measures other than these goals that would reduce any significant impact. Accordingly, specific economic, social, and technological, or other considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures, including project alternatives identified in the EIR. Therefore, the impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level. Goal RC-7 Protect aggregate mining resources that are sustainably mined and managed, and that minimize impacts to surrounding areas. Policy RC-7.1 Consider the community value and benefit of designated regionally significant aggregate resources prior to approving any such designated lands for other types of development. Policy RC-7.2 Minimize direct and indirect negative impacts of mineral extraction activity onsensitive and adjacent land uses. Policy RC-7.3 Ensure effective restoration of expended mining sites in a manner that is aesthetically attractive. Policy RC-7.4 Where the City has determined that urban use is a priority over the preservation of potential sites for aggregate recovery, the City shall seek the removal of such areas from SMARA maps. Policy RC-7.5 In areas that the State of California has designated as regionally significant aggregate resources, the City will require property titles to include notice of the presence of such resources, in accordance with SMARA. Supporting Explanation: Adherence to applicable goals and policies of the 2010 General Plan Update which call for the protection of aggregate mining resources, supported by policies to consider the value of the resources prior to approval of development, to minimize impacts on adjacent sensitive uses, to allow for future restoration of mined lands, to terminate designation of areas suitable for urban uses, and to include the presence of aggregate resources into property titles would reduce impacts related to the loss of regionally important mineral resources to the extent feasible. However, although compliance with goals and policies in the 2010 General Plan Update would limit the loss of these resources, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. SECTION 6 ALTERNATIVES The City of Rancho Cucamonga considered a range of reasonable alternatives for the proposed Project including the following: (1) Alternative 1 — No Project/No Development Alternative (2) Alternative 2 — No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative (3) Alternative 3 —Alternative Land Use Plan Alternative (4) Alternative Site Alternative— Not detailed in the EIR as discussed below. Section 15126.6(f)(2)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that, in determining consideration of an alternative location alternative, the key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR. Section 15126.6(f)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines further states that an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. Because the 2010 General Plan Update goals and policies are specific to, and encompass, the entirety of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and its Sphere of Influence, an alternative site where the City has no jurisdiction is not feasible. .Therefore, further analysis of an alternative site was not appropriate and was excluded from consideration in the EIR. A. Alternative 1 — No Project/No Development Alternative Description: CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires than an EIR evaluate a "no project" alternative, to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed 2010 General Plan Update with the impacts of not approving that 2010 General Plan Update. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3) describes the two general types of no project alternative: (1) when the 2010 General Plan Update is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan and (2) when the 2010 General Plan Update other than a land use/regulatory plan, such as a specific development on an identifiable property, the no project alternative is the circumstance under which that 2010 General Plan Update is not processed (i.e., no development). Alternative 1 represents the second option which is the no project alternative assuming that no additional development would occur in the City. This alternative assumes that no development will occur in the City and existing land uses and environmental conditions will remain as is, indefinitely. The No Project Alternative is not feasible due to private ownership of lands in the City and the need to protect individual property rights. Finding: Alternative 1 would result in less of an impact on most environmental issues than the proposed General Plan because Alternative 1 would not involve any new development. Alternative 1 would also avoid the significant unavoidable impacts that would occur with implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, including the conversion of farmland to other uses and cumulative loss of Important Farmland; loss of regionally important mineral resources and cumulative loss of mineral resources; changes in the visual quality of the hillsides and scenic vistas and cumulative changes to aesthetics; cumulative increases in noise levels; and cumulative contribution to climate change. For the remaining topical issues, the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts or potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. The City Council finds that, while Alternative 1 would result in less environmental impacts than the proposed 2010 General Plan Update on most environmental issues and would not result in unavoidable impacts that would occur with the proposed General Plan, this alternative would not meet any of the 2010 General Plan Update objectives. This alternative would also not protect the City's historical resources. Supporting Explanation: This alternative would have similar impacts as the 2010 General Plan Update related to the climate change. (Draft PER p. 5-4 — 5-7). All other impacts would be less than the 2010 General Plan Update. Alternative 1 would not result in any modifications to the agricultural uses in the City. No impacts related to the loss of agricultural resources would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Alternative 1 would not result in any changes to existing developments in the City and SOI (Study Area). No impacts related to aesthetics, including new hillside development, changes to scenic resources, scenic highways, or introduction of light and glare would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Alternative 1 would not involve any changes to the land uses in the City and SOI or generate new sources of pollutant emissions. No impacts to air quality would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Alternative 1 would have no impact on existing biological resources since no new development or redevelopment would occur in the City and SOI. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Alternative 1 would avoid any future impacts to known and unknown archaeological and paleontological resources since no future development and redevelopment activities would occur in the City and SOI. This alternative would not involve additional future development and would, therefore, not directly or indirectly impact any known historic resources through development and redevelopment activities. However, under this alternative proposed General Plan policies guiding the care and maintenance of existing historic structures would not occur, thus allowing neglect and deterioration of the City's historical resources. Therefore, implementation of the No Project/No Development alternative would not be as supportive of preservation efforts as the proposed General Plan. There would be no grading or building activities with Alternative 1; therefore, no impact on geology and soils would occur. This impact is less than the impacts associated with implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Under Alternative 1, the risk from existing hazards including wildland fires, aircraft hazards, and hazardous materials would remain the same as existing conditions. The No Project/No Development alternative would not increase the resident population; therefore, the number of people exposed to these existing hazards would remain the same. No impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Alternative 1 would not involve any changes to the hydrological conditions in the City and SOI. There would be no new sources of urban runoff or increases in stormwater pollutants; therefore, no impacts related to water quality would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Under Alternative 1, no changes to existing land uses or land use designations would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Alternative 1 would not result in any ground disturbance in the City and SOI. No impacts related to loss of access or demand for mineral resources would occur. This alternative would decrease the impact to less than significant. No new development would occur with Alternative 1, therefore, no new noise impacts would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Implementation of Alternative 1 would not create any new jobs, involve development of additional housing, or cause increases in the resident population; therefore, no impacts related to population, housing, and employment would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Alternative 1 would not involve any changes to existing land uses nor would it create new demand for public services. No impact to public services would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Alternative 1 would not create an impact on recreation since no new residential development or redevelopment, which may generate a demand for recreation, would occur in the City and SOI. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Alternative 1 would not involve any changes to the land uses in the City or SOI or generate additional vehicle trips. No impacts related to traffic and circulation would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. Alternative 1 would not involve any changes to existing land uses nor would it create new demand for utilities and service systems. No impact to utilities would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update and less than significant. B. Alternative 2 — No Project/Existing General Plan Alternative Description: As stated previously, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires than an EIR to evaluate a "no project" alternative, to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed 2010 General Plan Update with the impacts of not approving that 2010 General Plan Update. Alternative 2, which responds to the first "no project" alternative option when the 2010 General Plan Update is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan, represents the no project alternative that assumes continued development according to the existing General Plan. Because the proposed 2010 General Plan Update is the revision of an existing Land Use Plan (contained in the City's General Plan), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) this No ProjecUExisting General Plan Alternative considers the comparative environmental impacts of the continued implementation of the existing General Plan through the year 2030, (the projected build out year of the updated General Plan). In addition, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines specifies that the "No project analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the 2010 General Plan Update were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." This alternative assumes the existing General Plan would remain as the adopted long-range planning policy document for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and development pursuant to the City's existing General Plan goals and policies and Land Use Policy Map would continue to occur. Finding: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that continued implementation of Alternative 2 would create significant and unavoidable adverse impacts, including the conversion of farmland to other uses and cumulative loss of Important Farmland, loss of regionally important mineral resources and cumulative loss of mineral resources; changes in the visual quality of the hillsides and scenic vistas and cumulative changes to aesthetics; direct and cumulative impacts related to long-term regional emissions of PM10 and PM2.5; cumulative increases in noise levels; and cumulative contribution to climate change. For the remaining topical issues, the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts or potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. Alternative 2 would result in less environmental impacts related to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, public services and utilities than what would occur with implementation of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. This alternative would have the same impacts on agricultural resources, aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, land use and planning, mineral resources and population, housing, and employment. On the other hand, the exiting General Plan does not contain goals and policies for reducing greenhouse gases and for preserving historical resources. Traffic impacts would also be greater. Alternative 2 would result in lower environmental impacts than the proposed 2010 General Plan Update on some environmental issues. It would also meet most of the objectives of the City. However, this alternative would not protect the City's historical resources and does not include goals and policies for sustainability and energy conservation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions from future development and redevelopment. Supporting Explanation: This alternative would have similar impacts as the 2010 General Plan Update related to the following issues: agricultural resources, aesthetics, climate change, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, traffic/circulation, and utilities. (Draft PEIR p. 5-8 — 5-11). Alternative 2 would generate pollutant emissions from stationary and mobile sources that would accompany future development under the existing Land Use Plan. While this impact is the same as the proposed General Plan, Alternative 2 allows a different mix of land uses in the City, which is projected to result in less pollutant emissions than the proposed General Plan. The existing General Plan is also consistent with the AQMP. Thus, this alternative would have less impact on air quality than the proposed 2010 General Plan Update due to the lower potential for pollutant emissions. Alternative 2 would allow for development of the Study Area in accordance with the existing Land Use Plan in the 2001 Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Due to the overall similarities between the existing and proposed land use plans, this Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources as the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. The 2010 General Plan Update and Alternative 2 would each result in less than significant impacts related to biological resources. As with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, Alternative 2 would allow for continued development throughout the City and SOI. Potential impacts to historic resources would be similar to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update; however, under this alternative, the proposed General Plan policies would not necessarily be implemented, thus allowing for neglect and deterioration of historic resources rather than promoting preservation and rehabilitation. Therefore, implementation of the No Project/Existing General Plan alternative might not be as supportive of preservation efforts as the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Alternative 2 would set aside a slightly larger amount of conservation area (1,348 acres under Alternative 2 versus 1,336 acres under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update) that would not be subject to grading or development. Therefore, approximately 12 additional acres would be preserved and set aside for conservation. This slight reduction in conservation area would mean greater potential for disturbance of known and unknown cultural resources. However, Alternative 2 would be subject to the same standard conditions and mitigation measures regarding archaeological and paleontological resources as with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, and potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Impacts associated with hazards for Alternative 2 would be slightly less to those associated with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. As stated in Table 3-2, the number of residents at risk from wildland fires, aircraft hazards, or exposure to hazardous materials under Alternative 2 would be less than the those potentially at risk under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update due to the difference in projected population at buildout for Alternative 2 and the 2010 General Plan Update. However, as with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant due to compliance with applicable regulations. Alternative 2 would have less impact on recreation since buildout under the existing General Plan would result in a lower resident population in the City than the proposed General Plan. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. C. Alternative 3 —Alternative Land Use Plan Description: Alternative 3 describes an alternate Land Use Plan rather than the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Specifically, this alternative proposes a land use plan that would reduce some of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed General Plan. Alternative 3 includes a land use plan that calls for the preservation of existing agricultural areas and vineyards in the City, preventing the loss of Important Farmland. This alternative also calls for no development in areas identified to contain regionally significant mineral resources (along Cucamonga Creek, Day Creek, Deer Creek and San Sevaine Wash). To prevent changes in the visual quality of the hillsides and the preservation of scenic resources in the City, this alternative would redesignate Hillside Residential to Open Space, thus limiting development within the hillside areas to no more than one dwelling unit per 40 acres pursuant to the City's Development Code. Finding: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that implementation of Alternative 3 would avoid the significant and unavoidable adverse impacts related to the conversion of farmland to other uses and cumulative loss of Important Farmland; the loss of regionally important mineral resources and cumulative loss of mineral resources; changes in the visual quality of the hillsides and scenic vistas and cumulative changes to aesthetics. In addition, the decrease in residential development and buildout population would reduce exposure to cumulative increases in noise levels, as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its cumulative contribution to climate change. Alternative 3 would result in lower environmental impacts than the proposed General Plan on most environmental issues and would avoid and reduce the significant and unavoidable adverse impacts from the proposed General Plan. Since this alternative would include adoption of the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan and would comply with the standard conditions and mitigation measures called out in Section 4.0, it would generally meet the objectives of the proposed General Plan. However, the alternative Land Use Plan does not represent the mix of land uses and development that the residents, stakeholders, City staff and leaders envisioned at buildout of the City and SOI. It may also not provide the housing opportunities to meet demand and lifestyle choices. Thus, it does not respond to the objectives of the City for the 2010 General Plan Update to the same degree as the proposed General Plan. Supporting Explanation: Alternative 3 would not result in any modifications to the agricultural uses in the City. No unavoidable impacts related to the loss of Important Farmland would occur. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. -'Alternative 3 would reduce development in the hillside areas of the City, better preserving the undeveloped visual quality of the hillsides and protecting scenic vistas in the City. This will reduce unavoidable direct and cumulative impacts on aesthetics. However, infill development and redevelopment in the rest of the City will still occur, resulting in the introduction of new sources of light and glare. This impact is less significant and less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Alternative 3 would prevent development in existing agricultural areas and areas with regionally significant mineral resources and reduce allowable development in the hillside areas. Thus, less development would occur in the City ad SOI at buildout. This translates to less pollutant emissions and fewer residents. This impact is less than significant and less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Alternative 3 would have less impact on biological resources in the hillside areas since the allowable development density would be reduce to one dwelling unit per 40 acres for the all hillside areas. With more areas remaining undeveloped, this alternative would have less impact than the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. With less development capacity than the proposed General Plan, less greenhouse gas emissions would be generated at buildout of this alternative. This alternative also assumes that the goals and policies for sustainability and energy conservation would be adopted by the City, resulting in a lower contribution to global climate change. With future development in the hillsides reduced, impacts to known and unknown archaeological and paleontological resources would be less under Alternative 3 than the proposed General Plan. This alternative also assumes that the goals and policies for historic resource preservation would be adopted by the City, resulting in less impact on cultural resources than the proposed General Plan. With no new development in existing agricultural areas and areas with regionally significant mineral resources and with reduced development in the hillside areas, impacts related to geology and soils would also be less. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. The revised Land Use Plan for this alternative would not allow new development in agricultural areas, some of which are currently designated as Industrial Park and General Industrial. Thus, a lower potential for increased hazardous material users would result in the City. Also, reduced development density in the hillside areas would reduce exposure to wildland fire hazards in this area. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. With future development in the hillsides reduced and no new development in agricultural areas and areas with regionally significant mineral resources, changes in existing hydrology patterns and storm water pollutant sources would be less. This alternative assumes that future development would comply with standard conditions for hydrology and water quality and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the proposed General Plan. Alternative 3 proposes a different mix of land uses in the City at buildout than the proposed General Plan. Less residential and industrial development would occur under this alternative due to no new development in agricultural areas and areas with regionally significant mineral resources and reduce development in hillside areas. This difference does not change the level of impact between Alternative 3 and the proposed General Plan and impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 3 has been specifically designed to reduce unavoidable adverse impacts to regionally significant mineral resources. With no development allowed in and near the creeks that contain mineral resources, no significant impacts on mineral resources would occur under this alternative. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. This alternative would reduce residential development in the City, resulting in fewer residents at buildout (noise sensitive receptors) that may be exposed to traffic, railroad, airport, and stationary noise sources in the 2010 General Plan Update area. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. With no new development in agricultural areas and areas with regionally significant mineral resources and reduced residential development in the hillside areas, a decrease in the buildout population of the City could be expected under this alternative. Even with reduced housing capacity, future housing allocations under RHNA could still be met under this alternative. As with the proposed 2010 General Plan Update, impacts on population, housing and employment would be less than significant. Alternative 3 would generate additional demand for public services, however this demand would be less than the demands anticipated for the proposed 2010 General Plan Update due to the smaller buildout population. Despite the reduced demand, both Alternative 3 and the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts related to public services. Alternative 3 would have less impact on recreation since buildout under the existing General Plan would result in a lower resident population in the City than the proposed General Plan. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. With less development capacity than the proposed General Plan, less vehicle trips would be generated at buildout of this alternative. This impact is less than the impact of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. Alternative 3 would generate additional demand for utility services; however this demand would be less than those anticipated for the proposed 2010 General Plan Update due to the smaller buildout population. Despite the reduced demand, both Alternative 3 and the proposed 2010 General Plan Update would result in less than significant impacts related to public services. EXHIBIT B 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 2010 General Plan Update against any significant and unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the 2010 General Plan Update. If the benefits of the 2010 General Plan Update outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts are considered "acceptable." The City Council hereby declares that the Final PEIR has identified and discussed significant effects that may occur as a result of the 2010 General Plan Update. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the Draft PEIR, these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for the unavoidable and significant impacts as discussed in Exhibit A including those to Agricultural Resources (Conversion of farmland to other uses and cumulative loss of Important Farmland), Mineral Resources (Loss of regionally important mineral resources and cumulative loss of mineral resources), Aesthetics (Changes in the visual quality of the hillsides and scenic vistas and cumulative changes to aesthetics), Noise (2010 General Plan Update level and cumulative increases in noise levels) and Climate Change (Cumulative contribution to 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 2010 General Plan Update. 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 2010 General Plan Update 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 2010 General Plan Update, all other alternatives set forth in the Final PEIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of the 2010 General Plan Update 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 2010 General Plan Update, to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the 2010 General Plan Update and having weighed the benefits of the 2010 General Plan Update against its unavoidable significant impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the social, economic and environmental benefits of the 2010 General Plan Update outweigh the potential unavoidable significant impacts and render those potential significant impacts acceptable based upon the following considerations: • The 2010 General Plan Update promotes comprehensive, long-range planning that balances urban development practices to meet defined community needs with the community's objectives regarding resource conservation • The 2010 General Plan Update forwards the objectives of State law regarding climate change and coordination of land use and circulation planning, and specifically AB32 and SB375, by: a) promoting mixed use development; b) accommodating future bus rapid transit on Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue, as well as commuter rail travel; c) creating opportunities for new pedestrian and bicycle connections citywide to encourage non-polluting modes of travel, and d) promoting local jobs growth to provide alternatives to long work commutes. • The Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update will contribute toward preservation of the City's distinctive residential character and individual neighborhood identity by preserving existing residential densities in long-established neighborhoods and by supporting the maintenance and stability in these neighborhoods. • The Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update establishes well-defined objectives and programs for identifying and preserving historical buildings and landscapes in Rancho Cucamonga. • The Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update will continue to preserve Open Space within the Sphere of Influence and Hillsides. • The Managing Land Use, Community Design, and Historic Resources Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update provides residential development capacity sufficient for the City to satisfy its regional housing needs obligations, as defined by the Southern California Association of Governments, for the 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period. • The Community Mobility Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update establishes a multi-modal approach to transportation planning that readily accommodates alternatives to private automobile travel, thus reducing associated pollutant emissions and traffic volumes on the street network. • The Economic Development Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update provides policy direction for diversifying the City's economic base, accommodating a range of businesses and industries that provide jobs for persons of many education and skills levels, and creating a business-friendly environment. • The Community Services Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update includes policies that will work in concert with the Healthy RC program to promote community health and thereby guard against the negative economic and public health effects associated with poor health practices. • The Resource Conservation Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update promotes conservation of natural and visual resources in the community and in particular, encourages wise water use and energy conservation, practices which both work toward statewide goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. • The Public Facilities and Infrastructure Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update provides plans for infrastructure improvement and maintenance over the long term in a manner that responds to anticipated development. The Chapter also includes policies that look to maximize joint use of public facilities as an approach to maximizing expenditure of public funds. • The Public Health and Safety Chapter of the 2010 General Plan Update plans for safety facilities and response capabilities that balance with the level of anticipated growth; provides updated information and planning response with respect to fire, seismic, geotechnical, flood, and community noise hazards; and includes policies aimed toward reducing air pollutant emissions to achieve better air quality and work toward statewide goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. • The Implementation component of the 2010 General Plan Update provides a framework that will guide the City's annual budgeting process, help decision makers and City staff set priorities for community and infrastructure improvements, and allow for coordinated, comprehensive management of resources over the long term. • The General Plan Update will guide future development through comprehensive policies, conditions and design guidelines through zoning and development regulations and will reduce growth induced impacts. The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the 2010 General Plan Update outweighs the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the 2010 General Plan Update that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the 2010 General Plan Update benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final PER and, therefore, finds those impacts to be acceptable. Exhibit C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 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. The MMRP is as follows: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST Project File Name: Rancho Cucamonga 2010 General Plan Update Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga Prepared by: City of Rancho Cucamonga Date: April 21, 2010 Responsible for Monitoring Timing.of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No. Implementing.Action Monitoring . ,.Frequency Verification Verification D /Initials Non- . - .... . , e . on- on ate Compliance Aesthetics SC 4.1-1 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Grading Ordinance, as contained in the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (Title 19 Environmental Protection, of Chapter .19.04). This ordinance requires the submission of grading plans for PD B C approval by the grading committee to ensure that grading activities (1)retain the natural terrain; (2) preserve significant topographic features; and (3) limit construction on identified seismic or geologic hazard areas in the City's hillside areas. SC 4.1-2Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Hillside Development Regulations, which are found in Chapter 17.08 of the Development Code. These regulations require that development within the Hillside Residential District, in the Hillside Overlay Zone, or on sites with slopes 8 percent or PD A C greater comply with the Guidelines and development standards for site design, architecture, driveways/roadways, walls and fences, landscaping, grading, drainage, trails and corrals, public safety, and development density. These regulations seek to prevent the disturbance of natural slopes. SC 4.1-31n accordance with its Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, the City shall continue to evaluate proposed landscape and irrigation plans and to determine if they meet PD A C the requirements of the ordinance and can be approved. This ordinance will allow the establishment of landscaped areas that are visually appealing and drought resistant. 65 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) ;Responsible for Monitoring - Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No:/Implementing Action - Non- Monitoring Frequency .Verification Verification Date/initials - Compliance SC 4.1-4Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Tree Preservation A Ordinance in order to preserve mature trees in the City, which are considered scenic and cultural assets. SC 4.1-5Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Light and Glare regulations, which are found throughout the Development Code and require lighting to be directed away and shielded from adjacent residential areas. The regulations also prohibit the - creation of areas with intense light or glare. As discussed above, the regulations call for the use of fences, walls, PD A C berms, screens, and landscaping to reduce light and glare spillover. The regulations are included under the special development criteria, performance standards, general - design guidelines, special use regulations, and development standards for land uses in different development districts to prevent light and glare impacts on adjacent properties. SC 4.1-6The Foothill Boulevard/Route 66 Visual Improvement Plan and Mural Program shall be implemented through future development and A redevelopment along Foothill Boulevard to enhance the streetscape and to create a unified theme for this major corridor in the City. SC 4.1-7 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Beautification Master Plans for designated Special Boulevards, as well as design A guidelines for these Special Boulevards in existing and future specific plans. SC 4.1-8 The Rancho Cucamonga General Plan regulates all land uses in the City. Consistency with the goals, policies and programs related to community design in the Rancho PD A C Cucamonga General Plan, as amended, shall be required for all development projects. 66 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring' Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Noii- Compliance SC 4.1-9 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Development Code, which provides development standards and design guidelines for PD A C different development districts. Future development and redevelopment projects shall comply with applicable design guidelines in the Development Code. SC 4.1-10 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Design Guidelines for Residential and Commercial-Industrial land uses that promote quality development in new development and redevelopment projects. These design guidelines address PD A C site planning, subdivision layout, architecture, grading, landscaping, fencing, trails, sign programs, and master planning requirements. They are used in the design review of individual development proposals that are submitted to the City for approval. SC 4.1-11 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Sign Ordinance in order to limit the visual clutter and improve streelscapes in the CE - A C City by regulating the size, color, location, number, design, lighting, and types of signs that are installed in the City. SC 4.1-12 As part of the City's Landscape Maintenance Districts, parkways and public landscapes in the City shall CE E be continually maintained to enhance the City's positive visual image. SC 4.1-13 Future development and redevelopment within the City shall comply with the City's Wireless Communication Ordinance to avoid the visual incompatibility of communication towers and antennas with the local slreetscape or with views of the City from freeways CE E and major roadways. Siting, design, and configuration standards shall limit the number of communication towers and antennas in the City and/or screen them from public views. 67 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Moniteririg liming of Method of Verified Sanctions for ,Mitigation Measure No./implementing AcUon Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance SC 4.1-14 A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a - photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by Prior to the the Planning Director and Police Department (477-2800) PD/PO B issuance of C prior to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall grading permits indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. SC 4.1-15 Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration of Restrictions for the Recordation of subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the CE E the final map or 1/2 recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, issuance of whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the permits casting of shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures, or any other object, except for utility wires and similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. Agricultural Resources 4L MM 4.2-1 Should a future project propose to develop designated Important Farmlands (Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and/or Farmland of Local Importance) pursuant to the current Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program map, the Project Applicant shall implement measure(s) to reduce impacts related to the loss of farmland to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Feasible mitigation measures may Prior to the include, but no be limited to, the 1) purchase of land within a PD A issuance of D permanent agricultural conservation easement, as approved grading permits by the Planning Director, or at least equal quality and size as partial compensation for the direct loss of agricultural land. 2) donation of mitigation fees to a local, regional, or statewide organization or agency whose purpose include the acquisition and stewardship of agricultural conservation easements; or 3) direct conservation of a portion of designated Important Farmlands on the future project site. Should a project contribute to growth-inducing or cumulative impacts related to the loss of agricultural land, adequate 68 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for, Monitoring - - Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action . Non- Monitoring FrequencyVerification Verification Date/Initials Compliance compensation values in the form of permanent agricultural conservation easements shall be evaluated on a project- specific basis. Air Quality SC 4.3-1 All new development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga would be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 445, Wood Burning Devices. Rule 445 was adopted in March 2008 to reduce A emissions of PM2.5 and precludes the installation of indoor or outdoor wood burning devices (i.e. fireplaces/hearths) in new development on or after March 9,2009. SC 4.3-2 All future development and redevelopment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be required to comply with the recommendations set forth in the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, prepared A by California Environmental Protection Agency and California Air Resources Board (April 2005), for siting new sensitive land uses. SC 4.3-3 All future development and redevelopment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 212, A Standards for Approving Permits, related to permitting projects based on the anticipated output of air contaminants and proximity to sensitive receptors. SC 4.3-4 All future development and redevelopment in the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 1402, A Control of Toxic Air Contaminants from Existing Sources, related to reducing the health risk associated with toxic air contaminants from existing sources. MM 4.3-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that applicants of future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update implement the following measures, derived from the SCAQMD's AQMP, CE E C where feasible, in order to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions, primarily related to vehicular travel and energy. Potential measures for consideration in future projects 69 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of, -Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No.I Implementing Action Non- . ;,- Monitoring Frequency. *Verification Verification Date/Initials Compliance include: • Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbsides. • Provide preferential parking to high occupancy vehicles and shuttle services. • Schedule truck deliveries and pickups during off- peak hour. • Improve thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. • Landscape with native and/or drought-resistant species to reduce water consumption and to provide passive solar benefits. • Provide lighter color roofing and road materials and tree planning programs to comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources MSC-01 measure. • Comply with the AQMP Miscellaneous Sources PRC-03, and Stationary Sources Operations Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance and ADV- MISC to reduce emissions of restaurant operations. MM 4.3-2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that applicants of future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update implement the following measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions. These measures shall be verified either during review of project plans and specifications. Measures to be enforced include: • All industrial and commercial facilities shall post CE E C signs requiring that trucks shall not be left idling for prolonged periods(i.e., in excess of 10 minutes). • All industrial and commercial facilities shall designate preferential parking for vanpools. • All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 or more employees shall be required to post both bus and Metrolink schedules in conspicuous areas. All industrial and commercial site tenants with 50 70 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) r Responsible for', - .Monitoring Timing of,. Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No:/Implementing Action- . - Monitoring Frequency Verification .Verification Date/lmNon- Compliance or more employees shall be required to configure their operating schedules around the Metrolink schedule to the extent reasonably feasible. • All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate high efficiency/low polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters. • All residential and commercial structures shall be required to incorporate thermal pane windows and weather-stripping. MM 4.3-3 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that future projects to be developed under the proposed 2010 General Plan Update implement the following construction- period measures to reduce criteria pollutant emissions, - including, but not limited to, compliance with SCAQMD , Rules as described below. These measures shall be verified either during review of project plans and specifications and/or during construction. Construction-period measures to be enforced include: • All construction equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition so as to reduce operational emissions. Contractor shall ensure that all construction equipment is being properly Review of serviced and maintained as per manufacturers' BQ B/C project plans/ C specifications. Maintenance records shall be during available at the construction site for City construction verification. • Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall submit Construction Plans to the City denoting the proposed schedule and projected equipment use. Construction contractors shall provide evidence that low-emission mobile construction equipment will be utilized, or that their use was investigated and found to be infeasible for the project. Contractors shall also conform to any construction measures imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) as well as City Planning staff. 71 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring! Timing of Method of -Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No:/Implementing Action, None Monitoring Frequency 'Verification Verification -Date/Initials Compliance • The construction contractor shall utilize electric or clean alternative fuel-powered equipment where feasible. • The construction contractor shall ensure that construction-grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. • All construction equipment shall comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 (Nuisance) and Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust Control). • All asphalt shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt). • All paints and coatings shall meet or exceed performance standards noted in SCAQMD Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). Paints and coatings shall be applied either by hand or high-volume, low-pressure spray. B�iological Resources ol SC 4.4-1 Special status plant and wildlife species have the potential to occur within the proposed General Plan Update Study Area. Any CEQA project that involves the removal of habitat must consider if any special status species (e.g., Threatened or Endangered species, CNPS List 1 B and 2 plants, or species protected under Section 15380 of CEQA) are potentially present on the project site and if the project impacts could be considered significant by PD - B City review of D the City. If potential habitat is present in an area, focused focused survey surveys shall be conducted prior to construction activities in - order to document the presence or absence of a species on the project site. Botanical surveys shall be conducted during the appropriate blooming period for a species. If no special status species are found on the project site, no additional action is warranted. If special status species are found, appropriate mitigation would be required in coordination with the City. 72 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) onsible for '. Monitoring Timin Sanctions for Res Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action p 9 g of, Method of Verified Non, ,'-% Frequency Verification' Verification Date/Initials No Compliance �r�� 'l SC 4.4-2 Any project within the proposed General Plan Update Study Area that impacts a Federally listed species shall be required to secure take authorization through Section 7 or Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) prior to project implementation. Compensation for impacts to the listed species and their habitat shall be mitigated at a ratio no less than one to one (one acre restored for every acre impacted). Project applicants shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and maintain the mitigated habitat according to the requirements of the Biological Opinion (Section 7)or Habitat PD - D Prior to the D Conservation Plan (Section 10) for the project. Prior to issuance of issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow permits for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the USFWS, and shall include: (1)the responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and planting implementation, (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements. &r SC 4.4-3 Any project within the proposed General Plan Update Study Area that impacts a State-listed Threatened or Endangered species shall be required to obtain take authorization (through an Incidental Take Permit) pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. If the species is also listed under the FESA, a PD D Prior to the D consistency finding per Section 2080.1 of CESA is issued issuance of when a project receives the USFWS Biological permits Opinion. Compensation for impacts to the listed species and their habitat shall be mitigated at a ratio no less than one to one (one acre restored for every acre impacted). Project applicants shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and maintain the mitigated habitat according to the 73 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for �Monuonng `.'yTiming of ,- r Method of - Verified Sanctions for. Mitigation Measure No:/Implementing Action Monitoring - Frequency -Verification Verification" Date/Initials Non- Compliance requirements of the 2080 CEQA process. Prior to issuance of the first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed Mitigation Plan shall be prepared by a qualified Biologist for approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and shall include: (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3)site preparation and planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) a maintenance plan/guidelines, (6) a monitoring plan; and (7)long-term preservation requirements. SC 4.44To avoid conflicts with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald/Golden Eagle Protection Act, construction activities involving vegetation removal shall be conducted between September 16 and March 14. If construction occurs inside the peak nesting season (between March 15 and September 15), a pre-construction survey (or possibly multiple surveys) by a qualified biologist are recommended prior to construction activities to identify any active nesting locations. If the biologist does not find any active nests within the project site, the construction work shall be allowed to proceed. If the biologist finds an active nest within the project site and determines that the nest may be impacted, the biologist shall delineate an appropriate buffer PD B/C Prior to D zone around the nest; the size of the buffer zone shall construction depend on the affected species and the type of construction activity. Any active nests observed during the survey shall be mapped on an aerial photograph. Only construction activities (if any) that have been approved by a biological monitor shall take place within the buffer zone until the nest is vacated. The biologist shall serve as a construction monitor when construction activities take place near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. Results of the pre-construction survey and any subsequent monitoring shall be provided to the CDFG and the City. 74 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for. Monitoring' .,• Timing of. Method of Verified SanctionsNo . -for r4.4-4) shall itigation Measure No:/.Implementing Action Non [(SC Monitoring i , Frequency Verification ' ' Verification DatellnitialsCompliance -5 To avoid conflict with Sections 3503, 3503.5, and f the California Fish and Game Code, the Standard ion outlined above for the Migratory Bird Treaty Act .4-4) shall be implemented. The Migratory Bird Treaty PD B/C D irrors the requirements for CDFG code relative to the tion of migratory birds and prohibits taking and ssion of any migratory nongame bird, as designated Migratory Bird Treaty Act. C 4.4-6 A jurisdictional delineation shall be cted if a project will impact jurisdictional resources. ts from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional WaterQuality Control Board (RWQCB) shall be required for impacts on areas within these agencies' jurisdiction. Acquisition and implementation of the permits may require mitigation. Compensation for impacts to jurisdictional resources shall be mitigated at a ratio no less than one to one (one acre restored for every acre impacted). Project applicants shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and maintain the mitigated jurisdictional PD D Prior to the D resource according to the requirements of USACE and issuance of RWQCB approval requirements. Prior to issuance of the permits first action and/or permit that would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan shall be prepared by a qualified Biologist for approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the appropriate resource agencies, and shall include: (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and planting implementation; (4) - a schedule; (5) maintenance ' plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements. 75 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for. - Monitoring 'Timing of "Method of;. Verified n Sacttonsfor Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Non-, - Monitoring.' - Frequency .Verification VerificationDatellnitials Compliance SC 4.4-7 The Porter-Cologne Act and Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code protect "Waters of the State". Agreements (Streambed Alteration Agreements) from the CDFG shall be required for impacts on areas within the CDFG jurisdiction. Acquisition and implementation of the agreement may require mitigation. Compensation for impacts to CDFG resources shall be mitigated at a ratio no less than one to one (one acre restored for every acre impacted). Project applicants shall be required to plan, implement, monitor, and maintain the mitigation areas PD D Prior to the D according to CDFG requirements. Prior to issuance of the issuance of first action and/or permit which would allow for site disturbance (e.g., grading permit), a detailed mitigation plan permits shall be prepared by a qualified biologist for approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and CDFG, and shall include: - (1) the responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan; (2) site selection; (3) site preparation and planting implementation; (4) a schedule; (5) maintenance plan/guidelines; (6) a monitoring plan; and (7) long-term preservation requirements. SC 4.4-8 The County of San Bernardino's Code of Ordinances (Title 8, Division 8, Chapter 88.01 — Plant Protection and Management) provides regulations and guidelines for the management of plant resources in the PD B Prior to removal D unincorporated areas of the County on property or combinations of property under private or public ownership. Prior to the removal of a protected tree or plant within the unincorporated SOI, a removal permit shall be obtained. SC 4.4-9 The City's Tree Preservation Municipal Code (Title 19, Environmental Protection — Chapter 19.08) states that eucalyptus, palm, oak, sycamore, pine and other trees growing within the City are a natural aesthetic resource and PD B Prior to removal D are worthy of protection. Prior to removal of a Heritage Tree within the City limits, a Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained from the Planning Director and replacement trees may be required consistent with the City code. 76 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No:/Implementing Action--' Non- "Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/initials Compliance Climate Change SC 4.5-1The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall actively participate in the development of the Sustainable Communities Strategy(SCS)within San Bernardino County, being prepared by SANBAG pursuant to SB 375, and agree A to comply with the requirements of the SCS, including preparation of a Climate Action Plan for the City. SC 4.5-2The City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance No. 823 (Chapter 17.42 of the Municipal Code), Water Efficient Landscaping in December 2009. This ordinance, following the requirements of AB 1881, was developed to improve both water conservation and water retention. Methods include but are not limited to (1) A maximizing the use of recycled water and other water conserving technology, (2) promoting the use of low water use plants, (3) designing and managing landscapes so that water demand can be decreased, and (4)promoting public education about water conservation and efficient water management. SC 4.5-3The City has adopted and is implementing the Green Team Sustainability Action Matrix. This program is applicable to the City's Municipal Operations and demonstrates the City's direction towards sustainability. Elements of the program that contribute to GHG emissions reduction include the following (Rancho Cucamonga 2010). Climate Protection • Complete and maintain tree inventory with goal of increasing amount of trees in city. • Put City services, including permitting and class registration, online to minimize,trips and paper. • Prohibit wood-burning fireplaces in new development. Green Buildings • Develop a program, goals and timeline to move City operations towards net-zero and grid neutral. • Explore LEED certification for future public buildings. Energy Efficient Appliances, Electrical, and 77 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST .(Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action MonitoringFrequency _ Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- compliance Mechanical Equipment Program allows for permit fee waiver for installation of energy efficient appliances and other mechanical equipment and provides for green building certification for two inspectors.ARRA funded. • Home Improvement Program Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan providing low-income residents with loans for energy efficient upgrades. Energy • Adopt a resolution requiring at least 20% of City energy electricity purchases to be renewable by 2010 and 33% by 2020. • Retrofit city red traffic signal lights with LEDs. • Retrofit green and yellow city traffic signal lights with LEDs as replacements are needed. • Design all new City buildings to maximize cost- effective energy efficiency. • Retrofit all City facilities with energy-efficient lighting and lighting controls. • Complete an HVAC Comprehensive Study to ensure facilities' HVAC systems run at maximum efficiency. As part of this effort, replace large City building pumps and electric motors with "variable speed drives" which respond to demand, and modernize the Civic Center's system to replace the . old and inefficient compressors. • Offer RCMU customers energy audits of their facilities. • Offer RCMU customers rebates for lighting retrofits, HVAC tune-up, and solar installations. • Replace gas-powered grounds maintenance mowers with electric whenever possible. • Retrofit park lighting with efficient fixtures. • Generate a baseline of City energy usage and cost; develop a plan, including goals and a timeline, to maximize energy efficiency and the use of cost-effective alternate sources of energy. Explore additional opportunities for the use of 78 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Mitigation Measure No:/Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of - Verified Sanctions for - Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance renewable energy sources, including solar electricity, solar hot water and wind, especially , near the Cajon Pass. • Research energy efficiency of City street lights (solar and LED). • Monitor developing energy efficiency technologies, including LEDs for lighting and new solar systems. Water Install a computerized irrigation control system to manage irrigation on over 400 individual parks and landscaped parkways. • Amend code to allow use of artificial turf and encourage use at city facilities where appropriate. • Test high efficiency urinals, toilets and other fixtures and install those that are viable in all City facilities Waste Management • Reduce amount of paper waste. Reduce number of agenda packets produced. Post financial documents online. Transition to electronic format for City Manager's Weekly. • Enact an ordinance requiring construction and demolition projects to divert 50% of waste. Require permittees to pay a diversion deposit. • Provide residents with three collection containers (recyclables, green waste, and trash). Provide programs for businesses, multi-unit residences, and school programs to meet the needs of the facilities. Transportation • Implement 4/10 work schedule to reduce employee driving. • Install electric vehicle charging stations (The City installed 21 electric vehicle charging stations in high traffic City facilities and parks, including the Civic Center and the Metrolink Train Station.) Replace gas-powered utility carts with electric carts (15 replaced so far). 79 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of - Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Non- Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Compliance • Replace City vehicles with new energy and/or fuel efficient models such as hybrid electric vehicles when replacing vehicles or increasing the City's fleet (City has 6 hybrids, and plans to acquire 22 more). • Replace diesel-powered vehicles with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles, including street sweepers, dump trucks, heavy trucks, fire equipment, and tractors. (Anticipates all to be replaced by 2020). • Build a CNG fueling station to serve the new Green fleet. Explore options of extending access to other public agencies and public. • Utilize automatic vehicle locator (AVL) technology to optimize City vehicle routing. • Expand the partnerships with all local and regional transit and transportation agencies and other organizations to maintain and enhance local transportation options. • Partner with local transit agencies to promote use of public transportation. • Explore employee bicycling programs. • Explore providing shuttle linking hotels, commercial centers and civic center. • Provide carpool and explore vanpool opportunities for City employees. Procurement • Use of online/electronic procurement • Fleet optimization: assisting Fleet to procure vehicles that includes providing gas efficient vehicles, replacing vehicles when needed, etc. • When opportunities arise, reconfigure office space to create better working environments, i.e., views and natural light. • Electronic bidding to reduce paper. • Develop a policy to only purchase Energy Slar- rated or higher energy-efficient equipment. Education 80 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring- Frequency a Verification Verification batelinitials Non- Compliance • Educate all City Employees on current and future sustainability policies. • Promote the City's green efforts to the community and other stakeholders. • Facilitate partnerships with the city's businesses to encourage the implementation of green practices. • Explore all appropriate partnerships with public agencies, school districts, utility companies, and other organizations in order to maximize sustainability education initiatives (essential partners). • Report annually on the status of the Sustainability Action Plan. • Develop a Recognition Program to honor local businesses and others who practice sustainability initiatives. • Take advantage of City events to promote sustainability. MM 4.5-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga will review the proposed 2010 General Plan Update policies included in A Section 4.5.4 with a goal of developing enforceable actions for reducing GHG emissions consistent with City practice and philosophy. Ir MM 4.5-2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga will develop, adopt, and implement a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that incorporates and is consistent with the GHG emissions reductions goals of the State, San Bernardino County, and the SCAQMD or alternatively, the City will adopt and implement the applicable portions of a higher level CAP, A such as that of San Bernardino County or SANBAG. An acceptable CAP shall include an emissions inventory; emission targets that apply at reasonable intervals through the life of the plan; enforceable GHG control measures; monitoring and reporting; and mechanisms to allow for the revision of the plan, if necessary, to stay on target, and 81 MITIGATION MONITORING•AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring FrequencyVerification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance must be adopted in a public process following environmental review, as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. r , `' MM 4.5-3 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall join the proposed Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to be called the San Bernardino Valley Clean Energy District. This JPA is being formed in response to California AB 811, and would - allow property owners to finance renewable generation and energy efficiency improvements that are permanently fixed A to the property owners residential, commercial, industrial, or other real property through low-interest loans that would be repaid as an item on the property owner's property tax bill. The loans could not be used to finance the purchase or installation of appliances that are not permanently fixed to the real property. Cultural Resources r `s SC 4.6-1 If a future project pursuant to the 2010 General Plan Update contains a designated Historical Landmark, the site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the applicable Historic Landmark Alteration Permit. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, BO A D reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. 82 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring. Frequency Verification - Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance SC 4.6-21f human remains are discovered on-site before or during grading, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section PD/BO C During grading A 5097.98 and California Health and Safety Code Section and construction 7050.5. MM 4.6-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any future development within the General Plan Study Area, project applicants shall ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, direct or indirect impacts to any known properties that are deemed eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), or a local designation be avoided and/or preserved consistent with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Should avoidance and/or preservation not be a feasible option, a qualified architectural historian shall develop a mitigation program which may include, but not be limited to, formal documentation of the structure using historical narrative and photographic documentation, facade - preservation, or monumentation. Properties are not equally PD B Prior to the D significant, and some retain more significance than others. - issuance of Therefore, prior to development decisions being made, a grading permits qualified architectural historian shall be retained to evaluate the circumstance regarding the property and planned development, and to make management decisions regarding documentation of the property. MM 4.6-2 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any future development within the 2010 General Plan Update Study Area, the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to assess if any of the 18 known archaeological sites identified within the Study Area, or other unknown archaeological sites, may be within the PD/BO B Prior to the A/D proposed construction impact or buffer zone areas. To the issuance of maximum extent feasible, known archaeological sites shall grading permits be avoided through project design modifications. If avoidance is not feasible, those sites that will be impact 83 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./.Implementing Action Monitoring . Frequency ..Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance shall be subjected to a Phase II evaluation, which may include further archival research and ethnographic research as well as subsurface testing to determine (1)the horizontal and the vertical extent of a resource; (2) the stratigraphic integrity of a resource; and (3) the density and diversity of artifactual material. The Phase II evaluation shall include a report describing the findings and recommendations for further evaluation if required. Should the Phase II evaluation identify a significant resource where avoidance and/or preservation are not feasible, a Phase III mitigation or data recovery phase shall be conducted. The Phase III work shall provide sufficient scientific information to fully mitigate the impacts of development on these sites and shall be performed in accordance with the standards of the State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO). Excavated finds shall be offered to the City of Rancho Cucamonga or its designee on a first refusal basis. If the artifacts are refuse, the landowner may retain said finds if the project applicant provides written assurance that they will be properly preserved in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, unless (1) said finds are of special significance or (2) a museum in the City of Rancho Cucamonga indicates a desire to study and/or display them, in which case the items shall be donated to the City or its designees. If the project applicable provides no such assurance, the City shall retain the artifacts and shall be subject to the same stipulations set forth in this mitigation measure for disposition of artifacts. Final mitigation shall be carried out based upon the recommendations in the Phase II Report, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Director shall make a determination as to the site's disposition based on the recommendation of the qualified archaeologist. Possible determinations include, but are not limited to, preservation, salvage, partial salvage, or no mitigation necessary. 84 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible'for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Monitoring - Compliance MM 4.6-3 If any prehistoric archaeological resources are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. With the assistance of the archaeologist, the City of Rancho Cucamonga will: . • Enact interim measures to protect undesignated sites from demolition or significant modification without an opportunity for the City to establish its archaeological value. • Consider establishing provisions to require incorporation of archaeological sites within new developments, using their special qualities as a theme or focal point. PD/BO BIC During grading A/0 • Pursue educating the public about the and construction archaeological heritage of the area. • Propose mitigation measures and recommend conditions of approval to eliminate adverse project effects on significant, important, and unique prehistoric resources, following appropriate CEQA - guidelines. • Prepare a technical resources management report, documenting the inventory, evaluation, and proposed mitigation of resources within the project area. Submit one copy of the completed report, with original illustrations, to the San Bernardino County Archaeological Information Center for permanent archiving. MM 4.6-4 If any paleontological resource (i.e. plant or animal fossils) are encountered before or during grading, the developer will retain a qualified paleontologist to monitor construction activities, to take appropriate measures to protect or preserve them for study. The paleontologist shall submit a report of findings that will also provide specific recommendations regarding further mitigation measures (i.e., paleontological monitoring) that may be appropriate. PD/BO During grading Where mitigation monitoring is appropriate, the program 6/C and construction A/D PD/BO must include, but not be limited to, the following measures: 85 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Mitigation Measure No.I Implementing Action Non- Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Compliance • Assign a paleontological monitor, trained and equipped to allow the rapid removal of fossils with minimal construction delay, to the site full-time during the interval of earth-disturbing activities. • Should fossils be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-disturbing activities elsewhere until the monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. • Prepare, identify, and curate all recovered fossils for documentation in the summary report and transfer to an appropriate depository (i.e., San Bernardino County Museum). • Submit summary report to City of Rancho Cucamonga. Transfer collected specimens with a copy to the report to San Bernardino County Museum. Geology and Soils SC 4.7-1 In accordance with the Natural Hazards Disclosure , Act, agents and sellers of real property located within a designated Alquist Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone shall A D disclose to any prospective purchaser that the property is within an Earthquake Hazard Zone pursuant to the requirements of the Act. SC 4.7-2In accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, development within the designated Earthquake Fault Zone for the Red Hill Fault and Cucamonga Fault are required to prepare detailed geotechnical investigations for land subdivisions and A D developments of four units or more. The California Geological Survey (CGS) has developed general guidelines for fault hazard evaluations, as contained in CGS Note 49. Compliance with the A-P Act would reduce hazards from surface rupture along the Red Hill and Cucamonga Faults. 86 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Mitigation Measure No:/9mplementing Action Responsible.for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- - Compliance SC 4.7-3 Development of projects pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update shall comply with the City's modifications to the Alquist-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act that call for geotechnical investigations for all proposed structures designed for human occupancy within the _ expanded A-P Zones, including a zone along a splay of the A D Cucamonga Fault and another zone along the scarp at Red Hill. Also, geotechnical investigations are required for essential and critical facilities along the buried/uncertain segment of the Red Hill Fault, with a setback requirement of at least 50 feet. SC 4.741n accordance with the City's Building Regulations, as contained in Title 15, Buildings and Construction of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, which includes adoption of the 2007 California Building Code (CBC), all construction shall comply with the DBC and the C A/D amendments and exemptions to the CBC that the City has adopted. This Title requires site-specific investigation and establishes construction standards and inspection procedures to ensure that development does not pose a threat to public safety. SC 4.7-51n hillside areas, residential developments shall be graded and constructed consistent with the standards C A contained in the Hillside Development Regulations Section 17.24.070. SC 4.7-6 Development projects pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update shall comply with the City's Grading Ordinance which is contained in Title 19, Environmental Protection — Chapter 19.04 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and requires the submission of B City review of C grading plans for approval by the grading committee to grading plans ensure that grading activities retain the natural terrain; preserve significant topographic features; and limit construction on identified seismic or geologic hazard areas in the hillside areas of the City. 87 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of - Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action MonitoringFrequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non Compliance SC 4.7-7 Development of projects pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update shall comply with Title 8, Health and Safety — Chapter 8.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code which adopts the County's Soil Erosion Control Ordinance, as contained in Chapter 88.02 the San Bernardino County Development Code and requires individual property owners within designated soil erosion BO C A hazard areas to make reasonable efforts to prevent dust blowing from their property. Exhibit 4.7-4, Soil Erosion Hazard Area, shows the designated soil erosion hazard area in and near the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Dust- control measures are required for various ground-disturbing activities to prevent dust and debris from affecting adjacent properties during high wind conditions. SC 4.7-8AII future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be submitted for PO A Prior to the C Planning Department approval prior to the issuance of issuance of building permits. building permits ui .� SC 4.7-9 A geological report shall be prepared for PD A At plan check C an individual project by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of application for grading plan check. SC 4.7-10 The final grading plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and BO D Prior to the C approved by the Building and Safety Official prior to the issuance of issuance of building permits. building permits SC 4.7-11 A separate grading plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate CE A D 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The grading plan shall be prepared, stamped, and signed by a California registered Civil Engineer. 88 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for ., Monitoring Timing of .Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance SC 4.7-12 A soils report shall be prepared by a CE B D qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. SC 4.7-13 As required under Article 4 of Title 3, Division 3, Chapter 1 of the San Bernardino County Code, the installation, use and maintenance of sewage holding tanks shall be regulated by the County Division of Environmental Health Services (DEHS) so that tanks do not affect public health or safety. The DEHS is responsible for issuing BO E D permits to construct and use septic tanks, as well as to routinely inspect the tanks for proper operation. Under this regulation, if a sewage collection line becomes available to a property served by a septic tank, the property owner shall connect to the sewer line within 90 days and to abandon the septic tank in accordance with County regulations. SC 4.7-14 Development of projects pursuant to the proposed 2010 General Plan Update shall comply with Chapter 5 of the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan which states that the use of septic systems within the Santa Ana River E watershed shall be limited to lots developed with no more than two dwelling units per acre and prohibits these systems in specific areas with water quality problems and where public sewer systems are in place. SC 4.7-15 For projects using septic tank facilities, written Prior to the certification of acceptability, including all supportive issuance of information, shall be obtained from the San Bernardino BO E Septic Tanks B County Department of Environmental Health and submitted Permits/building to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank permits Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. Hazards and Hazardous Materials SC 4.8-1 Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and E which governs the transport of hazardous materials, such as contaminated soil, asbestos, or lead-containing materials. Vehicles transporting hazardous waste materials 89 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring `'Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Non- Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Compliance are required to comply with the regulations, as implemented by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). SC 4.8-2Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regarding the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste; the management of non-hazardous solid wastes; and underground tanks that store petroleum and other hazardous substances.As part of BO E this Act, corrective action by the owner or operator of the leaking underground storage tank (LUST) or clean up of LUSTS by the USEPA would reduce hazards associated with ground and water contamination by tank leaks, spills, or accidental releases. SC 4.8-3Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, which regulates facilities that generale Or treat hazardous wastes. Permits for individual facilities allow the Department FC E B of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and/or the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA, in this case the San Bernardino County Fire Department) to inspect the facilities for compliance and to enforce the provision of the Act. SC 4.8-4As the designated CUPA, the San Bernardino County Fire Department shall implement the Slate and Federal regulations for all future development and redevelopment related to: • Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventories (Business Plans); • California Accidental Release Prevention Program; FC A B • Underground Storage Program, • Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act Program; • Hazardous Waste Generator and On-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs; and • California Uniform Fire Code: Hazardous Material Management Plans and Hazardous Material Inventory Statements. 90 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for. " : Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./ImplementingAction Monitoring .,Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance SC 4.8-5Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CaIARP), which prevents the accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances. It does so by requiring stationary sources using hazardous materials that D exceed a threshold quantity to develop and submit a Risk Management Plan that addresses the potential impacts of accidental hazardous materials releases and that includes measures to reduce hazards through prevention, response, and remediation measures. SC 4.8-6Future development and redevelopment shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1403, which provides guidelines for the proper removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials. In accordance with Rule 1403, structures that may contain asbestos are required to be subject to an asbestos survey by a Certified Asbestos Consultant BO E A (certified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA]) to identify building materials that contain asbestos. Asbestos removal should include prior notification (to the SCAQMD) and compliance with removal procedures and time schedules; asbestos handling and clean-up procedures, and storage, disposal, and land filling requirements under this rule. SC 4.8-7Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1532.1),which requires removal of lead-based paint or other materials containing lead to be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from E A the California Department of Health Services. All demolition that could result in the release of lead must be conducted to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. SC 4.8-8Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the California Health and Safety CodeC Prior to A (Sections 39650 et seq.) and the Califomia Code o/ renovation or Regulations (Title 8, Section 1529), which prohibit 11 demolition 91 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification - Date/Initials Nom- Compliance emissions of asbestos from asbestos-related demolition or construction activities; require medical examinations and monitoring of employees engaged in activities that could disturb asbestos, specify precautions and safe work practices that must be followed to minimize the potential for release of asbestos fibers; and require notice to Federal and local government agencies prior to beginning renovation or demolition that could disturb asbestos. The standards were developed to protect the general population and construction workers from respiratory and other hazards associated with exposure to these materials. SC 4.8-9Future development and redevelopment shall comply with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), which requires notification the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to be notified of any project that may encroach upon established navigable airspace. Once notified, the FAA is responsible for the review of site and building plans to determine the effects of proposed construction on air navigation. Measures are then identified to ensure the continued safety of air navigation. Likewise, FAA notification, review, and approval are required for any construction or alteration of a temporary or permanent structure, equipment, highway, railroad, roadway, or natural growth that: BO A Prior to C Is more than 200 feet in height construction • Extends into an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway that is 3,200 feet or longer • Extends into an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway that is less than 3,200 feet long. 92 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency ' Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance r SC 4.8-10 Future development shall prepare a Fire Protection Plan that includes measures consistent with the unique problems resulting from the location, topography, geology, flammable vegetation, and climate of the proposed development site. The Plan must also address water FC A D supply, access, building ignition fire resistance, fire protection systems and equipment, defensible space, and vegetation management. Maintenance requirements for incinerators, outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbeques and grills, and firebreak fuel modification areas are imposed on new developments. SC 4.8-11 The State Board of Forestry and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) shall continue to implement the California Fire Plan for all Future development, redevelopment, and existing development FC A within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the City's Sphere of Influence, to reduce wildland fire hazards at the San Bernardino National Forest and foothills in Rancho Cucamonga. SC 4.8-12 The City shall implement its Fire Protection District Strategic Plan to increase fire protection and emergency services in the northern end of the City. The Strategic Plan calls for continued efforts to assess and identify high risk areas in the community, development of seasonal programs to communicate the mitigation program FC E goals and objectives to the public, development of fuel modification/brush abatement programs, and a gates and lock access program. The District's Wildland Fire Team shall continue to hone their skills on wildland firefighting techniques, as well as test preparation plans and inter- department communications. MM 4.8-1 Future development and redevelopment shall comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code (CBC), which includes building standards for the Wildland- g0/FC A Urban Interface Fire Area. The standards call for the use of ignition-resistant materials and design to inhibit the intrusion of flame or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire 93 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for ' Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No:/implementing Action Monitoring - frequency . Verification. Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance and help reduce losses resulting from repeated cycles of interface fire disasters. These standards shall apply to the areas within the designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone at the northern end of the City and Sphere of . Influence(SOI). Hydrology and Water Quality SC 4.9-1 Chapter 19.20 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is the City's Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, which provides regulations to comply with the CWA, the California Water Quality Control Act, and the City's NPDES permit. BO E This ordinance prohibits the discharge of specific pollutants into the storm water; regulates connections to the storm drain system; and requires development projects to implement permanent BMPs on individual sites to reduce pollutants in the storm water. SC 4.9-2The Santa Ana RWQCB implements the Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin through the through issuance of individual WDRs; discharge prohibitions, water quality certifications; programs for salt management, non-point sources, and storm water; and monitoring and regulatory enforcement actions, as A B necessary. Individual developments are required to obtain water quality certifications and/or WDRs and comply with the discharge prohibitions,TMDLs, and various programs of the Board. SC 4.9-31n compliance with the terms of the adjudications for the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins, the CVWD and other participating entities shall pump A groundwater according to their prescriptive water rights as managed by the Chino Basin Watermaster. SC 4.94The City's Floodplain Management Regulations (Chapter 19.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code) require all structures and land uses within the designated floodplains to be reasonably safe from flooding and not increase the base flood by more than one foot where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has 94 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) .Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency' Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance not been designated. This is accomplished by the CE A implementation of flood hazard reduction measures, which would include anchoring; flood-resistant materials; drainage around structures; elevation of lowest floor above base flood elevation; flood proofing; elimination of infiltration of floodwater or discharges from water and sewer lines; prohibition of floodway encroachment, and mobile home and recreational vehicle standards. SC 4.9-5Storm drainage system improvements in the City are constructed in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage-Westside Area and the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area Drainage Policy, with its associated Etiwanda Area Master Plan of Drainage. These drainage master plans address the flood control needs of a fully developed drainage area and identify the regional and local facilities needed to adequately convey a 100-year storm event. Storm drainage system improvements in other areas of the A D City are constructed in accordance with the storm drain plan in the applicable Specific Plan or Community Plan. Buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update shall comply with the applicable drainage master plans. SC 4.9-tiThe Santa Ana River Mainstream Project will provide increased flood protection to the communities within Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties by constructing structural improvements at dams, levees, creeks, street drains, and the Santa Ana River; restoring marshland; and protecting canyon areas. Implementation of A B this project is being coordinated between the flood control districts of the three counties (as local sponsors) and the USACE. The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall continue coordination and cooperation with the USACE and local sponsors for the ongoing implementation of this project. SC 4.9-7A final drainage study shall be submitted to and City approval of approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or final map/ the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All CE D issuance of D drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City building permits Engineer. 95 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency - Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance SC 4.9-8Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from E adjacent areas. SC 4.9-9The San Bernardino County Department of Public Works owns and maintains the channelized creeks, debris basins, levees, and spreading grounds located in and north of the City, which reduce storm water flows in canyons and flood hazards. Buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan A Update shall be subject to the County's ongoing maintenance of debris basins, channels, and spreading grounds reduces hazards associated with flooding, mudflow, and debris flows from the mountains(Eke 2009). SC 4.9-10 The proposed 2010 General Plan Update shall comply with requirements set forth by the USACE in the Emergency Action and Notification Subplan for the San A Antonio Dam, which identifies actions and responsibilities for warning, evacuation, and post-disaster recovery that will be followed in the event of dam failure. MM 4.9-1 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the permit applicant shall submit to Building Official for approval, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices(BMPs)that shall be BO B Prior to the D used on-site to reduce pollutants during construction issuance of activities entering the storm drain system to the maximum grading permits extent practicable. MM 4.9-2 Prior to issuance of grading or paving permits, applicant shall obtain a Notice of Intent(NOI) to comply with obtaining coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge _ Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control BO B Prior to the D Board. Evidence that this has been obtained (i.e., a copy of issuance of the Waste Discharger's Identification Number (shall be grading/paving submitted to the City Building Official for coverage under the permits NPDES General Construction Permit. 96 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring; Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Datellnitials Non- Compliance MM 4.9-3 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), including a project description and identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs)that will be used on-site to reduce pollutants into the CE D Prior to the D storm drain system to the maximum extent practicable. The issuance of WQMP shall identify the structural and non-structural grading permits measures consistent with the current Guidelines for New Development and Redevelopment adopted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. MM 4.9-4 The developer shall implement the BMPs identified in the Water Quality Management Plan prepared by (name/date) to reduce pollutants after construction D entering the storm drain system to the maximum extent practical. MM 4.9-5 An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, included in the Grading Plan, and implemented for the proposed project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. This Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum: a) Specify the timing of grading and BO C A/D construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California, and b) An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified time frame. MM 4.9-6 During construction, temporary berms such as sandbags or gravel dikes must be used to prevent C During discharge of debris or sediment from the site when there is construction rainfall or other runoff. MM 4.9-7 During construction, to remove pollutants, street cleaning will be performed prior to storm events and after C During the use of water trucks to control dust in order to prevent construction discharge of debris or sediment from the site. 97 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Responsible for Monitoring Timing of .` Method of Verified Sanctions for Monitoring` Frequency Verification Non- on- Verification Date/Initials Compliance, MM 4.9-8 Landscaping plans shall include provisions for controlling and minimizing the use of fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides. Landscaped areas shall be monitored and maintained for at least two years to ensure PD B Prior to the C adequate coverage and stable growth. Plans for these issuance of areas, including monitoring provisions for a minimum of two grading permits years, shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. Land Use and Planning SC 4.10-1 As the primary land use policy document for the City, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan regulates all future development and redevelopment in the City. All future development projects must be consistent with the goals; A policies and programs of the 2010 General Plan Update, as amended. SC 4.10-2 The City's Development Code provides development standards and design guidelines for the development or redevelopment of individual parcels in the City. Future development and redevelopment projects shall be required to comply with pertinent zoning regulations. / '_ MM 5.10-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department shall monitor all development that takes place within the Study Area against the projected target densities detailed in Tables LU-16, LU-17, and LU-18 of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update. As buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update Study Area approaches 80 percent of the total additional development allowed, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall initiate environmental PD A analysis to address full buildout of the proposed 2010 General Plan Update or prepare an update to the General Plan to be completed prior to reaching the established target densities herein. 98 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring• Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance Noise SC 4.12-1 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or prior to issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that noise-generating project construction Prior to the activities shall not occur between the hours of 8:00 PM and issuance of 6:30 AM and on Sundays and national holidays. This BO C grading C requirement is identified under item 4 of the Special plans/building Provisions paragraph in Chapter 17.02.120 of the Municipal permits Code. SC 4.12-2 Future development and redevelopment in the City shall comply with Section 17.02.120 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Municipal Code, which sets limits for A interior and exterior noise levels. SC 4.12-3 Future development and redevelopment in the City shall comply with Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, which requires that residential structures (other than detached single-family dwellings) be designed such that the interior community noise equivalent A C level (CNEL) with windows closed shall not exceed 45 A- weighted decibels (d BA)in any habitable room. MM 4.12-1 Prior to the issuance of any grading plans, the City shall condition approval of subdivisions that are adjacent to any developed/occupied noise sensitive land uses by requiring applications to submit a construction- related noise mitigation plan to the City for review and approval. The Plan shall depict the location of the PD C Prior to the C construction equipment and how the noise from this issuance of project. equipment would be mitigated during construction of the grading plans MM 4.12-2 Construction or grading noise levels shall not exceed the standards specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120-D, as measured at the property line. Developer shall hire a consultant to perform weekly noise level monitoring as specified in Development Code Section 17.02.120. Monitoring at other limes may be required by the Building Official. Said consultant shall report their findings to BO C During grading A the Building Official within 24 hours; however, if noise levels and construction 99 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- - - Compliance exceed the above standards, then the consultant shall immediately notify the Building Official. If noise levels exceed the above standards, then construction activities shall be reduced in intensity to a level of compliance with the City's noise standards or construction halted. MM 4.12-3 The constriction-related noise mitigation plan required as part of the previous noise mitigation measure shall specify that haul truck deliveries be subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment (i.e., Monday through Saturday, 6:30 AM and 8:00 PM and not allowed on Sundays and national holidays).Additionally, the plan shall denote any construction traffic haul route where heavy trucks would exceed 100 daily trips (counting those both to and from the construction site). To the extent BO C A feasible, the plan shall denote haul routes that do not pass sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. The construction-related noise mitigation plan shall also incorporate any other restrictions imposed by City staff. MM 4.12-4 If a perimeter block wall is required for a project, the wall shall be constructed as early as possible during theC During C first phase of construction. construction MM 4.12-5 Applicants for new proposed land uses shall specify increased setbacks such that land uses do not lie within the 65 dBA CNEL overlay zone for commercial, office and sensitive uses (60 dBA CNEL for residential use). This would ensure that proposed land uses are not exposed to excessive noise from roadways, railroads and other nearby noise sources and that exterior and interior noise levels do not exceed the goals of the 2010 General Plan Update Public Health and Safety Chapter and the City's noise standards. If increased setbacks are not provided, an applicant may provide barriers between the noise source and the proposed development; site design that reduces the noise levels at exterior living areas; and/or sound insulation or specialized construction methods to block out exterior noise. Prior to the Development Application CEQA review, a 100 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for - Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for '.Mitigation Measure No.I Implementing Action Non- Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Compliance developer shall contract for a site-specific noise study for the specific project that identifies existing and projected PD B Prior to final D noise levels and measures to maintain noise levels within occupancy City standards. The noise study shall be performed by an release acoustic consultant experienced in such studies and the consultant's qualifications and methodology to be used in the study must be presented to City staff for consideration. The final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the report. The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction, including measurements of interior and exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be submitted to the Building & Safely Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected homes. Noise levels shall be monitored after construction to verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures, with noise levels monitored by actual noise level readings taken on- and off- site. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to final occupancy release. The final report shall make a determination that the mitigation measures have reduced noise levels to below City standards, such as, residential exterior noise levels to below 60 dBA and interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA. 101 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance r MM 4.12-6 No industrial facilities shall be constructed within 500 feet of any commercial land uses or within 2,800 feet of any residential land uses without preparation of a noise analysis. This analysis shall document the nature of PD A D the industrial facility, as well as noise producing operation associated with the facility. Noise control measures shall be incorporated into the development of the facility to ensure compliance with the City's noise standards. MM 4.12-7 Restrictions on commercial, industrial and other non-residential activities shall be imposed by the City, so as not to create any noise that would exceed exterior and interior noise standards. This may include restrictions on . business operations to maintain noise levels at 60 dB or less during the hours of 10 PM until 7 AM and at 65 dB or less during the hours of 7 AM until 10 PM; establishment of BO E set hours of operation; and regulations on loading and unloading activities such that no person shall cause the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or other similar objects between the hours of 10 PM and 7 AM unless otherwise specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise disturbance to a residential area. r MM 4.12-8 Residential developments and redevelopments at the southern edge of the City shall prepare an acoustical study to determine site exposure to airport noise and identify noise control measures that would be incorporated into the project to achieve compliance with the City's interior and exterior noise standards for residential uses. These noise control measures may include locating outdoor living areas at the northern section of the site or north of the proposed structure; enclosed common recreational areas; provision of a wall, berm or other barrier PD D Prior to the D to the noise source; and sound insulation or specialized issuance of construction methods to block out exterior noise. building permits The acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning 102 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- compliance Director review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The report shall discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the building materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the report. . The applicant shall submit certification from an acoustical engineer that all recommendations of the acoustical report were implemented in construction, including measurements of interior and exterior noise levels to document compliance with City standards. Certification shall be submitted to the Building & Safety Department prior to final occupancy release of the affected homes. Noise levels shall be monitored after construction to verify the adequacy of the mitigation measures, with noise levels monitored by actual noise level readings taken on- and off- site. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to final occupancy release. The final report shall make a determination that the mitigation measures have reduced noise levels to below City standards, such as, residential exterior noise levels to below 60 dBA and interior noise attenuation to below 45 dBA. Public Services SC 4.14-1 Prior to issuance of the first building permit for a specific project, the Property Owner/Developer shall comply with all applicable codes, ordinances and standard conditions, including the current edition of the California Fire Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, regarding fire prevention and suppression measures, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire access, and water availability, among other measures. 103 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance SC 4.14-2 Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a specific project, the Property Owner/Developer shall pay applicable developer's fees to the impacted school district(s) pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code. Under State law, payment of the Prior to the developer fees provides full and complete mitigation of the BO D issuance e D project's impacts on school facilities. Evidence that these fees have been paid in compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 50 building permits - shall be submitted to the Building Department. SC 4.15.1 For residential development, recreation areas/facilities shall be provided as required by the A Development Code. SC 4.15.2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan Update shall comply with the City's Local Park Ordinance, as contained Chapter 16.32 (Park and Recreational Land) of the City's Municipal Code, which requires developers of residential projects to dedicate land and/or pay in-lieu park A fees for the provision of parkland at a standard of 3 to 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Trra�ns po rtati ontTraffic � SC 4.16-1 Future development applications in the City shall be required to provide traffic impact analyses for review and approval by the City during the permit process to identify the traffic impacts of the project and the needed roadway and intersection improvements. Any identified on- site improvements and improvements to abutting roadways would need to be made part of the development. Coupled CE/PD D with the payment of DIF for the improvement of off-site roadways and intersections, traffic impacts would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis. SC 4.16-2 All future work within streets, sidewalks, and public places in the City shall comply with Title 12 of the Municipal Code, which requires an encroachment permit from the City and compliance with set standards that include those in the Work Area Protection and Traffic CE/PD B At plan check/ C Control Manual. Application for the permit shall be made as prior to work 104 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Date/Initials Non= Compliance part of the City's plan check process and prior to any work on public areas or rights-of-way. SC 4.16-3 Improvements to the City's transportation network are planned as part of the SCAG's Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP); the SANBAG's Measure 1 2010-2040 Strategic Plan; and the City's Nexus Improvement/development impact fee (DIF) Program. Future development and redevelopment shall pay applicable DIF during the plan check process. The DIF, CE/PD B C along with the use of State and Federal funds, is expected to implement various freeway, highway, roadway projects in and near Rancho Cucamonga. SC 4.16-4 All future roadway improvements shall comply with the City's Roadway Functional Design Guidelines, which include the number of lanes, median improvements, access restrictions, intersection spacing, curbside parking, required rights-of-way, and easement access based on the roadway designation. Closely related to roadway design would be the provision of adequate line of sight, in accordance with the City's Intersection Line of Sight design guidelines and General Design Guidelines that address points of access, reduction of conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, minimal impacts on adjacent properties, adequate maneuvering areas, separation of CE/PD B C vehicular and pedestrian traffic and interconnected public and private sidewalks. Roadway improvement plans shall show compliance with these standards, as reviewed by the City's Building and Safety Department during the plan check process. SC 4.16-5 The City shall continue to implement Title 10 of the Municipal Code, which establishes various responsibilities and programs to regulate vehicles and traffic in the City. The enforcement of traffic regulations would promote safety on streets, sidewalks and driveways through E speed limits, parking permits, truck routes, pedestrian rights and duties, intersection controls, and other restrictions. 105 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency -`-.Verification Verification Date/Initials Non- Compliance SC 4.16-6 Future development and redevelopment shall comply with the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance, which calls for the provision of amenities or programs to encourage the use of alternative modes of travel by - employees; patrons; and visitors of commercial, industrial, office, and mixed use developments. These include shower PD A C facilities, preferred parking, bicycle storage, video conference facilities, transit improvements, and other measures to reduce vehicle.trips in the City. These facilities shall be shown in the site improvement and building plans submitted to the City during the permit process. SC 4.16-7 Future developments with 250 employees or more shall comply with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAOMD's) Rule 2202, which requires the implementation of trip reduction measures as a BO E B . means of reducing pollutant emission in the air basin. An employer subject to this Rule shall annually register with the SCAOMD to implement an emission reduction program, in accordance with this Rule. SC 4.16-8 The City shall develop trails in accordance with the Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan to provide opportunities for hiking, riding, and bicycle use throughout the City. Concurrently, the City shall also implement its Bicycle Plan for the development of bikeways, bike lanes, and bike routes throughout the City. Future development A and redevelopment on sites where hiking, riding, and bicycle trails are planned shall provide the necessary improvements and/or land dedication to facilitate the implementation of the Hiking and Riding Trails Master Plan. SC 4.16-9 Future development and redevelopment shall comply with SANBAG's Long Range Transit Plan, which calls for improvements to the transit systems that serve the County, including the provision of premium transit service, bus transit improvements and rail system improvements. A Accommodations for bus bays, bus stops, transit centers, and other facilities shall be provided by future development and redevelopment in accordance with the Long Range Transit Plan, and in consultation with SANBAG. 106 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for .Monitoring. Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No:l Implementing Action Monitoring Frequency Verification-, Verification Datellnitials Non- Compliance Implementation of this plan is expected to encourage greater transit use in the County. Utilities and Service Systems r SC 4.17-1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that all future projects implemented pursuant to the 2010 General Plan Update that are subject to SB 610 A and/or SB 221 shall comply with all applicable requirements in order to demonstrate the availability of an adequate and reliable water supply. SC 4.17-2 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that all future projects implemented under the 2010 General Plan Update that result in a new or modified point source A comply with all applicable San Bernardino County Slormwater NPDES Permit rules. SC 4.17-3 Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district FC D Prior to final map B within 90 days prior to the final map approval in the case of approval/ subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of issuance of all other residential projects. permits SC 4.17-4 The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall ensure that all future projects implemented under the 2010 General Plan Update shall comply with all State Energy Efficiency Standards and City of Rancho Cucamonga codes in effect at the time of application for building permits. (Commonly referred to as Title 24, these standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of .new energy efficiency technologies and methods. Title 24 covers the use of energy-efficient building PD D Prior to the C standards, including ventilation, insulation, and construction issuance of and the use of energy saving appliances, conditioning building permits 107 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST (Continued) Responsible for Monitoring,.-. Timing of Method of Verified Sanctions for Mitigation Measure No./Implementing Action. Monitoring Frequency;.: Verification Verification bate/Initials Non- Compliance systems, water heating, and lighting.) Plans submitted for building permits shall include written notes demonstrating compliance with energy standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to building permit issuance. SC 4.17-5 For existing structures, underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans PD A C submitted for building permit application. SC 4.17-6 Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric, power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in A accordance with the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. SC 4.17-7 The developer shall be responsible for the A relocation of existing utilities as necessary. 108