Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
94-28 - Resolutions
RESOLUTION NO. 94-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. There has been presented to this Commission, in conjunction with this Commission's consideration of the recommended adoption of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, and related General Plan Amendment No. 93-02A, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 93-03, and Tentative Parcel Map 14647, a Final Environmental Impact Report. 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report referred to in this Resolution consists of that document dated January 1994, entitled "Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, " together with the draft Final Environmental Impact Report dated April 1994, including written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report and written responses thereto submitted by staff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and testimony presented during the hearings on the recommended adoption of the said Specific Plan insofar as that testimony pertained to the environmental matters, as well as the revised Executive Summary, including revisions to mitigation measures, as well as the mitigation monitoring plan. Hereinafter, the above-referenced documents will be referred to as the "Final Environmental Impact Report. " The entirety of the Final Environmental Impact Report is hereby incorporated in this Resolution by this reference. 3. On January 26, February 23, and April 27, 1994, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed public hearings concerning environmental impacts of the proposed Subarea 18 Specific Plan and the companion amendments to the City's General Plan and Industrial Area Specific Plan (collectively, along with the approvals and actions described therein, the "project") and the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project ("Draft EIR") . 4. The public comment on the Draft EIR was duly and lawfully closed on March 10, 1994, following due notice to the public and all applicable public agencies. 5. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental documentation prepared to evaluate the proposed project, including the Final Environmental Impact Report. 6. 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: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94-28 FINAL EIR - GENERAL DYNAMICS April 27, 1994 Page 2 1. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the Planning Commission and that the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report has been independently reviewed and considered by members of the Planning Commission. The Final Environmental Impact Report and each of its components reflect the independent analysis and judgment of the City. 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt: (i) the Statement of Findings (EIR) attached hereto as Attachment A; (ii) the Statement of General Plan Consistency attached hereto as Attachment B; (iii) the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Attachment C; and (iv) the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached hereto as Attachment D, based on the following recommended findings: a. The facts and findings set forth in the Statement of Findings (EIR) , Statement of General Plan Consistency, and Statement of Overriding Considerations are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and the Final Environmental Impact Report. b. The Final Environmental Impact Report has identified all significant environmental effects of the project; there are no known potentially significant environmental impacts not addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report. c. Although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can feasibly be mitigated or avoided have been reduced to an acceptable level by the imposition of mitigation measures on the project. These mitigation measures are attached hereto as part of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and incorporated herein by this reference. d. Potential mitigation measures or project alternatives not incorporated into the project (including the "no-project" alternative) were determined to be infeasible based upon the considerations set forth in the Statement of Findings (EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report and other substantial evidence in the administrative record. The cumulative impacts of the project in relation to other projects in the area have been considered, and, except with respect to those unavoidable impacts described in the Statement of Findings (EIR) , mitigation measures are incorporated into the project to reduce such impacts to insignificant levels. e. The unavoidable significant impacts of the project that have not been reduced to a level of insignificance, as identified in the Statement of Findings (EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report, have been substantially reduced in their impacts by the imposition of mitigation measures. The remaining unavoidable significant impacts are outweighed by the economic, social, technological, legal, and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 94-28 FINAL EIR - GENERAL DYNAMICS April 27, 1994 Page 3 f. The Final Environmental Impact Report has described a reasonable range of alternatives to the project (including the "no-project" alternative) , even though these alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might create other significant economic, social, legal, technological, or environmental impacts. A good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR, and reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final Environmental Impact Report and the ultimate decisions on the project. 3. This Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared on the Subarea 18 Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. ("CEQA") with State and City Guidelines for implementing CEQA and all other regulations promulgated with respect thereto, and with all other applicable laws and regulations thereunder. Further, that the Council certifies that it has considered the contents of the Final Environmental Impact Report in considering the adoption of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan, together with General Plan Amendment No. 93-02A, Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 93-03, and Tentative Parcel Map 14647; 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED ���,,,P���(PROVED A • ..:= _ • "' 27TH DAY OF APRIL 1994. PLANN e \ SSION OF THE CIA O^ RANCHO CUCAMONGA I+ �=1�' BY: s � __ E. Day ATTEST: � ��� Brad ■fir, Seery I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of April 1994, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ATTACHMENT A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS (EIR) This Statement of Findings and Facts for the Sub- Area 18 Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR") is divided into three sections . Section A sets forth the City' s findings with respect to the environmental impacts of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, the concurrent amendments to the City' s General Plan and Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) , and all other approvals and actions necessary to implement the foregoing as described therein (collectively, the "project" ) . This section has been further divided into ten subsections, addressing each of the areas of potential impact identified in the EIR. Section B sets forth the City' s findings with respect to significant unavoidable adverse impacts, and has been divided into three subsections - - one for each area of potential unavoidable impact . Section C sets forth the City' s findings with respect to alternatives to the proposed project, and has been divided into five subsections, one for each of the alternatives considered in the EIR. This Statement of Findings and Facts (EIR) is based upon the entire administrative record for the project, which is hereby incorporated by reference, and includes, without limitation, the EIR, the conditions of approval of the Sub- Area 18 Specific Plan, and testimony provided by members of the public, as well as comments by the Planning Commission and the City Council, during the hearings on the project before the Planning Commission and the City Council . The findings contained herein and in the Statement of General Plan Consistency (Attachment B) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment C) are not inclusive, but rather are intended to supplement the findings set forth in the attached Resolution. The statement of facts in support of the City' s findings are also not inclusive, but rather are intended to identify certain of the principal facts in the administrative record which support the findings contained herein. Additional facts in support of the City' s findings may be found in the EIR, the conditions of approval of the Subarea 3 Specific Plan, the Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment D) , the various staff reports prepared for both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the minutes from the various public hearings on the project, and the administrative record as a whole. All references to "project design considerations" shall include, without limitation, the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, the 211880[25757]1 -1- 13-APR-94 09:52:43 corresponding amendments to the City' s General Plan and the IASP, and all conditions of approval of the Specific Plan. A. Effects Determined Not To Be Significant or Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance. With respect to each of the ten areas in which potentially significant environmental effects could occur, the City finds, as provided below, that these potential impacts have been avoided or substantially lessened by virtue of project design considerations and the mitigation measures described in the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, each of which are hereby incorporated by reference. The following facts and conclusions reflected in the EIR and the administrative record support these findings : 1 . Land Use. The current General Plan and IASP designations for the project site ( "General Industrial" and "Industrial Park") have been amended to "Open Space" (with respect to the Golf Course) and "Mixed-Use" (with respect to the remainder of the project site) . Development of the project site under these designations would include a broader mix of uses, particularly commercial, office, retail, and recreational uses, and greater development flexibility than is allowed under existing land use designations . The changes proposed are consistent with the general objectives and policies of the General Plan, as described further in the Statement of General Plan Consistency (attached hereto as Appendix B) , and the expansion of uses, including the addition of commercial and recreational uses, would enhance the project ' s compatibility with the approved commercial uses in areas south of the project site. The project includes vacating and reclassifying portions of Cleveland Avenue. Cleveland Avenue is not considered a key roadway within the City circulation system due to its limited existing and planned access points . Conforming amendments to the General Plan and the IASP ensure consistency with the City' s circulation system. No substantial traffic impacts will occur as a result of the street vacations contemplated by the project. The Project will have a significant unavoidable impact on the loss of agricultural lands . These impacts are discussed further in Section B below. 211880]25757]1 -2- 13-APR-94 09:52:43 2 . Traffic and Circulation. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) has been prepared for the project in accordance with the standards set forth in the San Bernardino County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) . The TIA has been incorporated in the EIR and is consistent with and conforms to the requirements set forth in the CMP. Based upon maximum buildout of the project site at the full density permitted under the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, the project would generate approximately 64 , 600 vehicle trip ends and approximately 7, 800 p.m peak hour trips. This level of traffic represents only an incremental increase over the traffic that would arise under a full build out pursuant to existing IASP land use designations. The project will incrementally exacerbate potentially deficient levels of service at a number of intersections within and outside the City, and will also contribute to potential level of service deficiencies at two additional intersections, Haven Avenue/Fourth Street and I- 15 southbound ramps/Fourth Street. However, roadway improvements sufficient to maintain acceptable levels of service are identified in the EIR and mitigation measures have been incorporated to require full frontage and intersection improvements as well as payment of city-wide transportation development fees to offset the project's impacts to both the City circulation system and offsite intersections and interchanges. Because the project will contribute to cumulative impacts to the regional circulation system, resulting in reductions of levels of service, these impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable and are discussed further below. 3 . Noise. The project may result in temporary short-term construction noise impacts. Mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce the noise generated from construction activity. Given the distance between the project site and the nearest residential area, the residual noise impacts remaining after mitigation are not considered significant. The cumulative vehicular traffic, rail, and stationary source noise adjacent to Sixth Street has the potential of resulting in significant noise impacts on outdoor golf course areas that are used on an ongoing basis (i.e. , eating areas) in conjunction with structures located on the golf course (i.e. , the club house) . To the extent these outdoor activity areas are impacted beyond the 70 dBA 211880 (25757] 1 -3- April 27, 1994 Ldn, mitigation measures are identified to reduce noise to levels deemed acceptable under the General Plan. 4 . Air Ouality. The grading and construction activities associated with the development of the project site will result in emissions of CO, NOx, PM10, and ROC which exceed the threshholds of significance established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) . Numerous mitigation measures have been identified to reduce construction related emissions to the extent feasible; however, insofar as construction-related emissions still exceed SCAQMD thresholds for CO, NOx, and ROC, they are identified as significant and unavoidable. These impacts are discussed further in Section B below. Project operational emissions, due principally to emissions from vehicle trips, would be comparable to those produced under current IASP designations. The project ' s incremental increase in regional emissions would only exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for CO. However, according to the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) , which is incorporated in the EIR, regional emissions of CO will meet Federal and State ambient air quality standards by the target year 2010 after application of identified mitigation measures on a regionwide basis. Air modeling results indicate that the project will not produce local CO concentrations in excess of State and Federal standards. The project is in conformity with the 1991 AQMP. It will contribute to the attainment of subregional job/housing performance targets and will implement regional growth management objectives and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle trips (VT) through the application of transportation demand management strategies . Mitigation measures have been incorporated which reduce VMT and VT to the greatest extent feasible. 5 . Soils and Geology. The project site is not located in the vicinity of known active or inactive faults, and the potential for seismic or geologic related impacts is not considered significant . The potential for subsidence and differential compaction will be addressed through mitigation requiring subsurface geotechnical investigations prior to issuance of grading permits . 211880 12575711 -4- 13-APR-94 09:52:45 6 . Hydrology, Drainage, and Water Quality. Due to the proposed Golf Course, development of the project site would result in approximately 40% less impervious surface than under the existing IASP designations . Storm drain improvements will be installed as development progresses to convey the post-development on- site stormflows into the existing storm drain facilities adjacent to the site. Identified mitigation measures require compliance with applicable storm water quality requirements . 7 . Biological Resources . A biological survey of the site, including focused surveys for the Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly, San Diego Horned Lizard and Orange-Throated Whiptail, were conducted and indicate that no significant habitat will be impacted by development of the project . The project site has been substantially disturbed from decades of agricultural activities, uses of the existing building parcels, and grading associated with previous subdivision activities . Although further development will result in an incremental addition to the on-going regional conversion of open space to urban uses and related loss of foraging/nesting opportunities for human-tolerant species, this loss is likely to be less than that associated with the current IASP (due to the presence of the Golf Course) , was contemplated in the General Plan and IASP as a product of the conversion of agricultural lands, and is not considered significant due to the site' s isolation from other large natural open-space areas by existing urban development . 8 . Public Services and Utilities . Although the project would incrementally increase the level of water consumed and wastewater generated, the impacts of the project would be less than those under existing IASP designations, and the Cucamonga County Water District has adequate capacity to provide water and accept wastewater discharges . Appropriate water conservation measures have been incorporated. The project would increase the generation of solid waste, but adequate facilities would be available to accept this waste, and the inclusion of source reduction and recycling mitigation ensures that no significant impact will occur. Because the project will help address an existing jobs/housing imbalance in the region, it may not have any 211880 12575711 -5- 13-APR-94 09:52:46 readily identifiable effect on schools . To the extent the project has indirect, incremental impacts on schools, these impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance through payment of school mitigation fees and participation in the tax increment pass through arising as a result of the project ' s location within the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Plan area. 9 . Energy Demand and Conservation. The project will result in less electrical and natural gas demands than that which would arise under existing IASP designations . Existing and planned utility facilities are available to adequately serve the planned growth within the district, and mitigation has been incorporated to require appropriate conversation measures . 10 . Hazardous Materials . Development of the project site may introduce industrial land uses that could generate hazardous materials; however, due to the overall reduction in hazardous material-related uses compared to the current IASP, the proposed project would likely have a beneficial impact in reducing hazardous material-related risks . Residual impacts of historic pesticide use are not considered a significant constraint on development . Any health risks associated with potential asbestos-containing materials in the existing buildings will be addressed by compliance with applicable SCAQMD notification and removal requirements . B. Significant Unavoidable Impacts. The EIR identified three areas in which potentially significant impacts would remain after mitigation. With respect to each of these impacts, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified. Additional mitigation of cumulative regional impacts is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies, and not the City. With respect to any remaining impacts within the City' s jurisdiction, specific economic, social, environmental, legal , and technological considerations make infeasible additional mitigation measures . The following facts and conclusions reflected in the EIR and the administrative record support these findings : 211880(2575711 -6- 13-APR-94 09:52:47 11. The Loss of Agricultural Lands. The loss of agricultural lands within the project site was anticipated and accepted in the City's General Plan and the IASP. The project would not result in any new impacts from the development contemplated in the IASP. The loss of open space values associated with the conversion from agricultural use has been mitigated by the inclusion of the Golf Course, which will constitute the largest contiguous open space area within the IASP district. 12 . Cumulative Traffic. As noted in Section A.2 , the project will contribute to cumulative impacts to the regional circulation system, resulting in reductions of levels of service. The EIR identifies regional circulation improvements which, when constructed, would preserve CMP levels of service (i.e. , LOS E) . With respect to those improvements located within the City, a mitigation measure requires the project proponent to install full frontage improvements, including ultimate intersection geometrics, upon development and to pay the City's Transportation Development Fee as contribution toward city-wide impacts. With respect to improvements outside of the City, a mitigation measure requires participation, on a fair-share basis, in a regionally-adopted mitigation fee program. Further mitigation of cumulative regional impacts is beyond the control of the City or the applicant. The residual project traffic impacts are considered an incremental change from those that would arise under the IASP. 13 . Air Quality. As noted in Section A.4 , air emissions from certain phases of construction and operation of the project are anticipated to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Mitigation measures designed to reduce the level of construction and vehicle emissions have been incorporated to the extent feasible. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR, no local exceedances of Carbon Monoxide will occur, and the application of mitigation measures set forth in the 1991 AQMP on a region- wide basis will mean that the project will not contribute to any violations of Federal and State standards. The project is in conformity with the policies and goals of the 1989 Growth Management Plan and the 1991 AQMP. Any remaining cumulative impacts are beyond the jurisdiction and control of the applicant or the City to mitigate further. • 211880 (25757) 1 -7- April 27 , 1994 C. Project Alternatives . The EIR identifies a total of five alternatives to the proposed project . The City finds that the range of alternatives discussed in the EIR is reasonable. With respect to each of the alternatives identified, the City finds that : (i) such alternatives cannot feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project; (ii) specific economic, social , environmental , legal, or technological considerations make the proposed alternatives infeasible; and (iii) these same factors are overriding considerations which warrant rejection of the alternatives in favor of the proposed project . The following facts and conclusions reflected in the EIR and the administrative record support these findings : 1 . No-Project/No Development Alternative. Although this alternative could reduce the potential for significant unavoidable local impacts in the three areas were project mitigation would not be fully effective in doing so - - loss of agricultural lands, cumulative traffic impacts, and exceedances of SCAQMD emission thresholds - - the benefits produced by retention of the project site in its existing undeveloped state are considered minimal, and, as described further in the Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated herein, are outweighed by more compelling and substantial social , economic, and legal considerations . The project-specific impacts cited in the EIR as "unavoidable" all reflected a cumulative diminution or exacerbation of regional resources. These impacts would not be fully addressed even under the no project alternative. The substantial loss of agricultural lands acknowledged and accepted at the time the City adopted its General Plan would occur with or without development on the proposed project site . The failure to develop the project site would merely shift absorption of commercial and industrial uses, and associated traffic generation, to other properties either within or outside the City, and perhaps do so in a manner less compatible with the growth management objectives of the 1991 AQMP and the 1989 Growth Management Plan. For the same reason, the reduction of air pollutant emissions would not be expected to have any material impact on the regional emission inventory (and the project ' s local air quality impacts have already been mitigated to a level of insignificance) . 211880[25757 11 -8- 13-APR-94 09:52:48 Conversely, preservation of the project site in an undeveloped state would be expected to have substantial socio-economic and legal repercussions . This alternative would perpetuate existing uneconomic agricultural activities in direct contravention to the goals and objectives stated in the City' s General Plan and the IASP. Assuming such preservation is accompanied by a down-zoning of the project site, the project applicant would undoubtedly raise legal concerns about the deprivation of economically beneficial uses of the project site. More generally, the project site comprises a substantial percentage of the remaining undeveloped portion of the IASP area and would, if left undeveloped, deprive the City of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue, including tax increment to be used by the City' s Redevelopment Agency to achieve the important redevelopment objectives set forth in the City' s Redevelopment Plan. Because this alternative could not reasonably attain any of the basic objectives of the project, which contemplate improving planning flexibility so as to facilitate development and better promote the job and revenue-generating objectives of the General Plan, it is considered infeasible. 2 . Development Under Current IASP Designations . On the whole, this alternative would have substantially the same environmental impacts as the proposed project . The impacts from this alternative were analyzed in the EIR based upon assumed development at a level less than the "worst case" build-out assumptions used in assessing impacts from the proposed project . In this respect, a comparison of the proposed project with the current IASP likely overstates the actual differences between the two. In some areas, most notably biological resources, energy consumption, and public facilities, the proposed project is likely to produce incrementally fewer impacts than this alternative due to the presence of the Golf Course and the de-emphasis of industrial uses . To the extent this alternative would produce any substantial environmental benefits over the proposed project, the substantial social and economic benefits noted below, which are described further in the Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated herein, substantially outweigh these benefits . With respect to the feasibility of this alternative, changing market conditions have led to the reevaluation of the type of zoning within the project site that would best achieve some of the principal objectives 211880 12575711 -9- 13-APR-94 09:52:49 identified in the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan: (i) encouraging opportunities to mix different, but compatible land uses and activities; (ii) providing recreational, cultural, and employment opportunities to meet the needs of the community; (iii) coordinating industrial development to encourage an integrated industrial area with maximum flexibility and access to the regional circulation network; (iv) promoting land use patterns that encourage non-motorized modes of transportation; and (v) organizing 'land uses to promote maximal opportunity for transit usage. While the existing IASP designations could, in theory, have achieved these objectives (at least in part) , changes in market conditions due to a glut of industrial warehouse space and increased competition, along with substantial constraints arising as a result of the project ' s location in three separate subareas within the IASP, greatly diminished the prospects for attracting end-users and thereby impaired the development potential of the site. The introduction of the Golf Course, along with (i) a more coordinated integration of uses between planning areas, (ii) more advantageous use of the rail lines to the north (chiefly in conjunction with a proposed Metrolink Station) and the major roadway arterials adjacent to the site (Milliken, Fourth Street, and Sixth Street) , and (iii) a more flexible mix of uses with greater emphasis on commercial , office, retail, and recreational uses, are all features of the proposed project which improve the project site ' s ability to achieve the above-stated goals . The IASP alternative would not be likely to achieve these goals within any forseeable time period. 3 . IASP With Re-Use of Existing On-Site Buildings . This alternative would have substantially similar environmental, social, and economic impacts and benefits as the second alternative analyzed above. Due to the more intense development associated with the re-use of the existing building parcels, environmental impacts of this alternative would be greater than those associates with Alternative 2 . For the same reasons noted above, it is questionable whether this alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project . Although this proposed alternative would improve the marketability and development potential of the 75 acre existing building parcels, it would not alter the IASP land use designations for the remainder of the project site and would, therefore, suffer from the same constraints discussed in Section C.2 above. Thus, for the same reasons noted 211880 12575711 -10- 13-APR-94 09:52:50 above, this alternative could not reasonably attain the principal objectives of the project within reasonably foreseeable time periods . Additionally, to the extent that any minimal environmental benefits exist under this alternative, they are substantially outweighed by the socio- economic factors identified earlier. 4 . Residential Development Alternative. Under this alternative, the project site would be primarily developed with residential dwelling units surrounding an 18 hole public golf course. The introduction of such a substantial number of dwelling units (over 2 , 500) over such a substantial portion of the remaining industrial lands within the City could result in significant incompatibilities with on-site and surrounding land uses and would represent a significant departure from the land use objectives currently identified in the General Plan, the IASP, and the Redevelopment Plan. Although this alternative would result in fewer vehicles trips, and would potentially reduce the level of air emissions, noise, and energy consumption, the substantial incompatibilities resulting from the introduction of so many sensitive receptors to an area already developed with industrial uses would offset any perceived environmental benefits of this alternative and render it environmentally inferior to the proposed project . To the extent that any environmental benefits accrue under this alternative, such benefits would be substantially outweighed by the socio-economic factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations . Additionally, because this alternative would not achieve the job-generating objectives identified by the City, it is considered "infeasible. " 5 . Alternative Site. As described more fully in the EIR, the ability to select an alternative site for implementation of the type of golf course-oriented multi-use project contemplated by the City would be significantly constrained by the remaining area available for industrial development and by the amount of contiguous acreage necessary to implement these objectives . The largest piece of undeveloped land in the IASP encompasses only approximately 160 acres, and would be barely adequate enough to construct an 18 hole golf course . Other sites within the City would either be too small or would require substantial zoning and General Plan amendments to preserve land use consistency. For these and other reasons, an alternative site for the project could not 211880[25757]1 - 11- 13-APR-94 09:52:51 reasonably achieve the project ' s objectives, and are therefore considered infeasible . 211880[2575711 -12- 13-APR-94 09:52:51 ATTACHMENT B STATEMENT OF GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY This Attachment assesses how the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan and the proposed amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan and General Plan (the "project" ) furthers the objectives and policies of the General Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and whether the project will obstruct the attainment of these objectives and policies . Rather than attempt to analyze each individual objective, policy, or program set forth in the General Plan - - a process which would detract from understanding how the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan relates to the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan as a whole - - the relationship between the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan is discussed within the context of each of the principal components comprising the General Plan - - Land Use and Development, Environmental Resources, and Public Health and Safety - - with more detailed discussion reserved for those specific policies and objectives that are particularly germane to assessing the changes proposed relative to the current Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) and General Plan land use designations . A. Land Use and Development . 1 . General Land Use Objectives. The General Plan identifies a number of key land use objectives that "are aimed at creating a City that functions efficiently, is exciting to leave in, and makes the best use of its various resources. " A number of these objectives have been incorporated as principal objectives of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, including: (i) encourage opportunities to mix different, but compatible land uses and activities; (ii) provide recreational, cultural , and employment opportunities to meet the needs of the community; (iii) coordinate industrial development to encourage an integrated industrial area with maximum flexibility and access to the regional circulation network; (iv) promote land use patterns that encourage non-motorized modes of transportation; and (v) organize land uses to promote maximal opportunity for transit usage. The project promotes these important objectives by establishing a more flexible, better integrated array of proposed land uses within the context of a Specific Plan. The expanded variety and mixture of uses established under the Sub-Area Specific Plan, in conjunction with changes in market demand and increased commercial development on the southern edge of the IASP, are expected to promote the land 214569 (2575711 -1- 13-APR-94 09 : 50 : 23 use objectives identified in the General Plan, including those enumerated above . 2 . General Land Use Policies . a. Industrial . The General Plan currently establishes three categories of industrial land uses : Industrial Park, General Industrial , and Heavy Industrial . The General Plan specifically reflects that the policies relating to industrial uses are "elaborated in the City' s Industrial Area Specific Plan which outlines a much more detailed development program for this area. " The General Plan describes "Industrial Park" uses as "planned grouped concentrations of industrial and research and development offices, " which are "typically labor intensive, meaning that the number of employees per acre is high. The General Plan contemplates that these uses will be organized along major thoroughfares, including 4th Street, and "along the periphery of the industrial area and with convenient access to public transit. " That portion of the project site currently located within IASP Sub-Area 12 is designated as Industrial Park under both the IASP and the General Plan. The IASP currently permits a variety of commercial uses within this Sub-Area, including professional/design services, administrative and office, research services, business support services, financial , insurance and real estate services, hotel, commercial and recreation facilities, including a golf course. The General Plan describes "General Industrial" land use as permitting a wide range of industrial activities including heavy commercial, and office uses . The General Plan states that "this land use is appropriate as a buffer between non-industrial uses and heavy industrial uses . " That portion of the project site within current Sub-Areas 10 and 11 are designated "General Industrial" under the IASP and the General Plan. The IASP permits, or conditionally permits, office professional, design and research, indoor wholesale/retail commercial , and recreational facilities within this zone. Although all of the industrial uses and many of the commercial uses proposed under the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan are permitted or conditionally permitted under the current IASP Industrial Park, and General Industrial designations, one of the express objectives of this project is to eliminate what are perceived as artificial and arbitrary divisions between the three existing Sub-Areas (for example, 216569 [2575711 -2- 13-APR-94 09 : 50 : 24 a number of uses which may be permitted in Sub-Area 12 may be prohibited or only conditionally permitted in Sub-Area 10 or 11) . Specifically, by expanding the variety of commercial and recreational uses contemplated within the project site, the Property Owner intends to inject more creative and imaginative employment-generating designs and to help better integrate this portion of the southern boundary of the IASP with anticipated regional market trends . As a result, the Property Owner is proposing an amendment to the IASP ( "IASP Amendment" ) to specifically incorporate the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan and to concurrently amend the General Plan to reflect the IASP Amendment . While an amendment to the General Plan to reflect the IASP Amendment and the adoption of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan would, alone, appear to ensure consistency, it was also felt that the three categories of industrial use currently identified in the General Plan, while specifically acknowledging the need to provide for labor intensive office and commercial uses and non- industrial transitions within the industrial category could be construed narrowly, and thereby discourage the General Plan objectives (noted above) to promote planning flexibility and the mixture of different, but compatible land uses . As a result, the Property Owner has proposed an additional amendment to the General Plan to add a new category of land use entitled "Mixed-Use. " The Mixed-Use category permits a wide range of a commercial and industrial activities including, medium, light, and custom manufacturing, research and development, office, recreation, mixed-use commercial , retail , and general commercial . Because the proposed uses within the areas designated Mixed-Use under the Sub-Area Specific Plan will also be designated Mixed-Use under the General Plan Amendment, consistency will be ensured. b. Open Space. The General Plan provides that open space areas must be maintained "in order to protect valuable natural resources, and to prevent development in areas considered unsafe because of environmental constraints" . The General Plan contains a variety of "written and mapped policies to ensure that the resources are managed so that posterity can enjoy them. " The IASP currently does not contain any open space district designations, although the IASP does permit, or conditionally permit, golf course uses within each of the three Sub-Areas currently comprising the project site. 214569 [25757]1 -3- 13-APR-94 09 : 50 : 25 Although the applicant ' s proposed amendment to the General Plan to reflect the IASP Amendment and the adoption of the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan would itself ensure consistency with the General Plan' s policies relating to open space, the City has requested that instead of designating the Golf Course "Mixed-Use" along with the remainder of the Sub-Area 18 , that this portion of the site be designated "Open Space" . Because the current description of open space uses within the General Plan may be construed to refer specifically to the conservation of natural resources, an additional amendment to the definition of "Open Space" has been proposed to clarify that the Open Space designation may also include man-made open spaces, including golf course uses, within designated areas adjacent to residential, commercial, or industrial uses . The clarifying amendment will ensure project consistency with the General Plan. 3 . Circulation. The General Plan establishes a circulation system for the City as a whole and the IASP area. The Circulation Plan established under the Sub-Area Specific Plan preserves this circulation system in all principal respects. However, the proposed vacation of a portion of Cleveland Avenue south of 6th Street and the redesignation of Cleveland north of 6th Street from a secondary arterial with an 88-foot right-of-way to a 66-foot local industrial collector, does require a corresponding amendment to the General Plan Circulation Plan. Because the project EIR indicates that no traffic impacts will occur as a result of the vacation and redesignation of Cleveland, the conforming General Plan amendment will ensure consistency with the policies and objectives of the General Plan. 4 . Public Facilities . The General Plan contains a variety of objectives and policies designed to ensure that adequate public facilities and services will be maintained as the City develops. The proposed project is not expected to have any substantial impact on the City' s Parks and Recreational Plan, or on schools . The establishment of a golf course as a central feature of the Specific Plan will promote a number of General Plan policies concerning the encouragement of recreational uses . 5 . Community Design. The primary design goals identified in the General Plan are to promote the functional efficiency of the 214569 [2575711 -4- 13 -APR-94 09 : 50 :26 City, improve the City' s image and appearance and to use development to express community character. The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan promotes these primary objectives and the more detailed community design elements set forth in the General Plan by providing a unifying character to the project site through the adoption of a Specific Plan which incorporates a variety of land uses around a central golf course feature . Consistency is further ensured through the retention of existing City policies relating to performance standards , site development criteria, subdivision, master planning, and development and design review. Additionally, preservation of the principal features of the City Circulation Plan ensures that the objectives associated with maintaining travel routes will be promoted. The incorporation of project design features adjacent to the proposed Metrolink station further promotes these objectives . B. Environmental Resources . 1 . Land Resources . This section of the General Plan contains a number of objectives and policies designed to promote proper soil management techniques and to prevent the premature elimination of agricultural land whenever feasible. The Sub-Area Specific Plan will not change the impact of development on the existing grape vineyard uses on the site. The loss of this agricultural use was previously acknowledged as inevitable when the IASP was first adopted. By requiring subsequent development to comply with applicable City policies and procedures concerning soil management and grading activities, the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan ensures compliance with the General Plan land resource objectives and policies . 2 . Water Resources . The General Plan contains several objectives and policies designed to protect and enhance water resources . Compliance with applicable City policies and procedures as a condition to subdivision and Design Review approval ensure compliance with these policies and objectives . The EIR for the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan concludes that no significant impacts to water resources will occur. 3 . Open Space. The conforming amendments to the General Plan ensure consistency with the General Plan' s policies and objectives concerning the preservation of open space. The 214569 [25757]1 -5 - 13-APR-94 09 : 50 : 27 establishment of a golf course will result in an increase in open space areas within the project site. 4 . Energy. The General Plan identifies the objective of encouraging more efficient use of energy resources . The project EIR incorporates a number of mitigation measures specifically intended to promote this objective. Compliance with applicable City policies and regulations as a condition to subdivisions and Design Review approvals further ensures consistency with the General Plan' s energy objectives and policies . C. Public Health and Safety. The General Plan sets forth a broad number of objectives and policies designed to ensure that subsequent development within the City will be sensitive to geologic, seismic, flood, fire, noise, air quality, crime, and emergency service concerns and hazards . The Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan preserves development and regulatory procedures from the IASP and the City Development Code as a means to mitigate potential impacts in each of the areas identified in the General Plan. Additionally, each of these areas are explored in more detail in the project EIR, which indicates that the changes from the current designations under the IASP will not result in any substantial additional impacts to the environment . Although the EIR indicates that development of the project site (under either the proposed Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan or the current IASP designations) will result in new sources of construction and operational air emissions, the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan contemplates the adoption of a transportation demand management strategy consistent with the policies identified in the General Plan. In particular, the location of industrial and commercial uses in proximity to the proposed Metrolink station provides a mechanism to ensure that non-motorized transportation policies will be achieved. The incorporation of numerous mitigation measures dealing with the suppression of particulate emissions and the promotion of energy conservation further ensures consistency with the General Plan air quality objectives and policies . 214569 (25757I 1 -6- 13-APR-94 09 : 50 :27 ATTACHMENT C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City of Rancho Cucamonga proposes to approve the proposed Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan and related amendments to the General Plan and Industrial Area Specific Plan (along with the other actions and approvals described therein, the "project" ) . A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the project , and certain project-related environmental impacts have been identified which cannot be completely avoided through mitigation : i . e . , the loss of agricultural lands, cumulative traffic impacts, and exceedances of SCAQMD air quality emission thresholds . Based upon the EIR and other information in the administrative record, the following overriding considerations are provided against which these unavoidable adverse effects are balanced in reaching a decision on this project . On balance, the remaining unavoidable adverse effects are found acceptable given the overriding considerations contained herein. The City finds that implementation of the project will : 1 . Help implement a number of key objectives in the General Plan by encouraging an integrated industrial area with maximum flexibility and access to the regional circulation network, promoting land use patterns that encourage non-motorized modes of transportation, and organizing land uses to promote maximum opportunity for job creation and transit usage . 2 . Improve the City' s fiscal balance, thereby enabling the City to provide and enhance public services and facilities . 3 . Help implement the City Redevelopment Plan by substantially improving the development potential of the project site, integrating such development in a highly- amenitized setting which includes an 18-hole public golf course, and improving the potential to generate tax increment revenues which may be used to achieve other important objectives of the Plan. 4 . Help improve the overall quality of life within the community by promoting a more dynamic mix of recreational, cultural , and employment opportunities . 214550 [2575711 -1- 13 -APR-94 10 : 50 : 58 5 . Substantially increase the amount of open space within the City' s industrial area by introducing an 18-hole public golf course . 6 . Assist in achieving a major local and regional planning goal by providing jobs within a jobs-poor subregion. The City also finds on the basis of the EIR and other information in the record referenced in Attachments A and B to the accompanying Resolution (which are hereby incorporated by reference) , that additional mitigation measures or alternatives which might further reduce or eliminate the significant impacts of the project cannot be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner considering the various economic, environmental, social , legal and technological factors involved. In this regard, any unavoidable impacts which would result from project implementation are principally a product of cumulative and regional growth trends, would occur under implementation of the current IASP land use designations, and would be unlikely to be avoided in the long term even if no further development on the project site occurred. This factor is an additional consideration in weighing the substantial benefits outlined above and provides an additional basis for concluding that the project ' s unavoidable impacts are overriden by the significant benefits offered by the project . 214550 [25757] 1 -2- 13-APR-94 10 : 50 : 58 ATTACHMENT D DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUB-AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN EIR State Clearinghouse Number 93102055 Submitted to: City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Contact: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates Carnegie Centre 2530 Red Hill Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 Contact: Thomas E. Smith, AICP, Project Director Michael E. Houlihan, Project Manager May 4, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pace 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 1 2.1 Roles and Responsibilities 1 2.2 General Procedures 2 Attachment A Sample Reporting and Implementation Form 1&19090001.MMP 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Section 21081.6 to the Public Resources Code requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or carries out a project where an environmental impact report has identified significant environmental effects to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required changes to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects." The City of Rancho Cucamonga is the lead agency for the Rancho Cucamonga IASP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan EIR. A draft environmental impact report has been prepared for this project and addressed potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, . recommended measures to mitigate these impacts. As such, a mitigation reporting or monitoring program is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are implemented. The project is located at the southern boundary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is within the existing Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP). The project site is bounded by Fourth Street to the south, on the east by Milliken Avenue, on the north by the AT&SF railroad, and on the west by Utica Street and Cleveland Avenue. The proposed Sub-Area Specific Plan would include a broad mix of • uses that could include a hotel/conference center, retail, restaurant, and entertainment, as well as office, research and development, and light industrial uses centering around an 18-hole golf course. 2.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT The mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) for the Rancho Cucamonga IMP Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan EIR will be in place through all phases of project approval. Enforcement of the MMP will be the responsibility of a Project Manager (PM). 2.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: PROJECT MANAGER The PM is assigned by the Community Development Department Director. The PM assigned to the proposed project will supervise the MMP through all phases of project approval and is responsible for the overall management of the MMP. The mitigation measures identified in the MMP fall into two categories: 1. Measures that need to be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits, and 2. Measures that are implemented with subsequent levels of development through conditions of approval. The PM is thoroughly familiar with the project and qualified to determine if an adopted measure is being properly implemented. The PM oversees the MMP and reviews the Reporting and Implementation (R&I) Forms to ensure they are filled out correctly and proper action is being taken on each measure. The PM and/or an assignee will also be responsible for the filing and updating of the R&I Forms during all phases of the project. The PM will determine the need for a measure to Ian I9090001.M MP 1 be modified and ensure the use of a mitigation specialist if technical expertise beyond the PM's is required. If it is found that an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the PM would require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. The responsibilities of the PM include the following: 1. An MMP Reporting Form will be prepared for each potential significant impact and its corresponding mitigation identified in the list of mitigation measures attached hereto. 2. Appropriate specialists will be retained, as needed, to monitor specific mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the PM. 3. The PM and/or an assignee will approve, by signature and date, the completion of each action item that was identified on the MMP Reporting Form. 4. All MMP Reporting Forms for an impact issue requiring no further monitoring will be signed off as completed by the PM and/or an assignee at the bottom of the MMP Reporting Form. 5. Unanticipated circumstances may arise requiring the refinement or addition of mitigation measures. The PM is responsible for approving any such refinements or additions. An MMP Reporting Form will be completed by the PM and/or an assignee. The completed form will be provided to the appropriate design, construction, or operational personnel. 6. The PM has the authority to stop the work of construction contractors if compliance with any aspects of the MMP is not occurring after written notification has been issued. The PM also has authority to hold certificates of occupancies if compliance with a mitigation measure attached hereto is not occurring. The PM also has authority to hold the issuance of a business license until all mitigation measures are implemented. 2.2 GENERAL PROCEDURES MMP Proeram Definitions The MMP consists of key program elements. The definitions of these elements are summarized below. MMP Files Files are established to document and retain records of the MMP. The file organization is established by the PM according to mitigation measures and project phases. 79/19o900oi.MMP 2 R&I Forms R&I Forms are designed to record the monitoring activity in a consistent manner with appropriate approvals. The R&I Form is placed in the MMP files. A suggested copy of the form is in this program description as Attachment A. Environmental Compliance Verification At the completion of construction contracts that are part of the overall development of the project, a verification of environmental compliance is executed by the PM. The verification concludes the construction monitoring process for the contract. Mitigation Monitoring Program Procedures The policies and procedures for the MMP described herein are intended to provide focused, yet flexible guidelines for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the draft EIR. Table 1 lists each mitigation measure and the implementor, the responsible party for monitoring, and the timing of implementation for each mitigation measure for the proposed project. Table 1 also provides the PM a verification of compliance for each mitigation measure during each applicable phase of the project. An R&I form (see Attachment A) is prepared for each potential significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure. After each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase. The PM shall initial and date the measure on Table 1. Program EIR A Program EIR has been prepared and certified for the Rancho Cucamonga Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan, within the meaning of 14 California Administrative Code Section 15168, and is intended to analyze and cover the project as a whole. Each discretionary project application within the Sub-Area Specific Plan area will need to include any and all initial studies and assessments required by CEQA. To the extent permitted by CEQA, no further environmental assessment beyond the Program BR is considered necessary. In the event CEQA requires any additional environmental review, the City may impose additional measures (or conditions) to mitigate adverse impacts which were not considered at the time the Sub-Area 18 Specific Plan was approved, and which are otherwise consistent with the provisions of any development agreement between the City and the property owner. Disposition of Monitoring Fonni All active and completed R&I Forms are kept in the MMP file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga during the pre-design, design, construction, and operational phases of the project. Reports will be available from the city upon request at the following address: City of Rancho Cucamonga (Lead Agency) Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 JR/19o9000I.MMP 3 O S< O ❑ Z 0 I.a 0 U .. 0 g e 0 00 m 5 p to a < a` > z OD " U. 0 C 0 p c l21) ta CI a 8 < 2 F F- Z g' Os m a ki z w w VI s0 Cq 0 0 e r m o z Z c t. p m U F C Q 0 0 C U E < c.tg 0 w z < a et ' 1 u 0 Op 9 a .s u u .' '5 o f $ � a pa. s a i S f.. E >. .g 3 c .5 '� u e� E .5 u aci mg °u o a� b y N p Rr `o Z 0 E a. 0 c 0 E .E h e r.. i ..1. 3 Oi o '4 r• ° $ to $ 5 0 0 a itl $ .c u 0 < �• m 'o `1 y 0 m r 3 0 8 .5 b � .5 Fa rrs c .5 pro a m 7. . ❑ ; -E a d 0+ :5 .� 's .a '° ' .2 5 3 ;;�� 5 0 e <_ c °i 0 § C Z g C l .0 0 c o o E `S S e .c .5 u y 0 " • e a E a 0 a u e p m .2 0 0 4. `o Q `Od .4 °J E 9.v d E o.5 p' ° '� �y 'a m .s E a e '3 °' �, — S.�° o o a c g > °� b gC,' 2 e 'g g .= rrO. :? — 'o £ a .a i 't c '7, u .5aO C c c. c c F .c u u E 3 rh 9u h u e ❑ SB g'�, +� a Le o �5 0 0 c E r p U to S m U u 04 0 b 0 E (y 0 a) E e u 0 0 J7 E .9 2 .- `g t, ell a " 7 h .o m e ° 0 r T $ [�i6 m $ z "e peon 4) U, Q. 2 u cS E I = a �`2 .q '�° C Ep .a `rJ' C ` 9 X 0 .5 c a g c "' .D u.a < `_ . a 0 o U 3 .5 — U a a C dd.. • 0..E 00 .] i .a 'S .� F .� C m �, 0 0 \ � i ! / > a } \k , to . !\ . 'a 2 f . 00 . $ ) ! / ! i t ! ± ! ¥ - \} . 0 VI 14$ f f( § ! ! 2 � 0 ■ \ ){$ g \ k i) ! _ ! loa • kjv ) 2 ` g � 2132 g ` `± § § ! a i00 111th ! g k | # � ! § � a ` 7 \ E § ! ■ § ; ! ° f3 . . cu ! § = ± 22 . lit , ! § , , - .2 ! 2 0 > \ � � }}) \ � k { �] k \ \/ {� ( ! ) j 00 l � � a ; ■ � gi . & ! | I > \ • � 2tE 22 ! ! 2 laa ; � ! § / - a ! £ !. \ ; �, ` | % / ; } ■ t2g } ƒ\i a | { , , § k ! 2 \f f7 t ; �, , i ! | , • ! ! a # � a � a ) C ; ,• l2 • . ! � ! ) 0f« ! at4ia § ; t � ¥ § 0 / § .cE W •sl € a . , laa22 , ) u � 2 ; c , a ` " 0 § 2 \ § \ \ \ o } a4 > - � } ! \ \ }0 ƒ/ \� el ,© ! ! K ! ! ! � au C V cm o 6a to } g o J i i cn . O `Q k ! ° | 1 « | - { % - k44 2 i ) Z ! j Z ! C 0 0 -g | ] a /s ! ! g ` � gkn § ■ ! ) \ • � a 33 1 -- 27 . 0.C4 — c . � a 2i. t , , . , y , , ! y, 4a . .s El 2 ! , > ! l ; � ■ l ,9Ei; — � � � � § ! co E $ \a24 — l , ! / ! ! . f | J § § ` ! ! � § k 0. 0 it a $ i0. k \kf ; lli� g ■ t0E | > � i § � 2 k ! } ) % i § § a � i � \ ° | ` ° ~ ` ° ice ` - | _ - 2 � ` # � 21i@ ` ! 2 � # tf2 \i § / � ! \ ] 7 { \ � / � lgR | ; ! ! l9a2aa � ! ' ? » au | ) > a51 ) f � | 7 ] 7] ) cc44 .1 ! J \ � ) ! fk § a f , , � / 6 | � , £ § ; , ° la . 2 , � v . � ! / $ s O M 0 O U W. 0 g o '- i u o = a a g a.. u ea C h O G 0 2 C o s.. r. on a a3 ao ._ oa Qa 2 p� t- ? E DE rg. s o s o E. km u `0G u Q 0. 6 v 6 U L U o ^ e n' o GA Y e o ..r y y C I. a. N a W ¢ 0 O 0 E bo U U F C o S C� C 6s '[}Y o E a s E' '§, 3 • .a • £ u _°°— 'o C S �' 2 1 .5 k s m'l .u. e• at $ = 0 .01 = sa � 3 q o 1 -E111 � 3 99 a ` -1 .5 c a 8 � , a s m 00 '� .c o u 3 a $ °w ' a0. 3 9 m � m • `d ? £ 3 : u Cu aCi o > m U ;r. 9 m .0 E ` c E c 0 v ' u m u uEE S = 3 ° `o 1 u C 0 •g 000 >43 .8 - 0 .2E00` { 0 . o f ° a _ 0 0 E -5 0 .5 2 £ m U .5 m u u la 'a E S � s m0 .c '� v o°' u4 a". � 0 >, 8 0 .a ig9 —5 2 3 t E `0 g g m e 0 u s u 0 S $ g 0 9 y s u > .2 a. 3 a ; C >, >, g 8g .; . ' fi f u mwy - 0 o on 0 u .'v - '^ o a. 9 ^o u o a a. 6 a € a � y u o u .5 -a as ? f an g aka -. d6 u a 0 . 40 ° C1. 032.a C C = v .5 u 7 C u aC = 'o m u s .�, g 3 . 3 J rr. e e € C C)va u E 0 > u 0 u ra >qq. > m.a $ . 'm qT '0 < 0 0 u C dC y a -s a 0 = S e .5 < .5 &a 0 0 0 0 0C d= .5 v .h g `$ °u a c .p r ti. O 0 2 asc Uo. ■ / / k § OA � } u. 0 ) � | � | Ca ea () D - § a !i a !k$ ) ) , ] GA k ) / � « ~ � } 5 [J E. - $ f U C 0 ■ O. ! | o a � 0 a a o - i 2 c 2 / ) ] g , $ . g $ R3 ; ga | ) ) 7 _ Q g u0 ] | u .E o.le § kt4 io PI g gal . § ■ ! • . � # , l0 ,, a0a -ig . ] .2 ! . . - e . O g -0 2X5, 4az ° ¥ ; a ■ s ` ! . eu - . co § � 2 C fp \ l � � ) � }- ! ) )} ! © ƒ/ - § � 22 ƒ j ! ) t ) ! \ ! ! ° | ) j2 .8 0.,• I >' C T. ± , � ■ i4 ) ! ® ` ■ aEle = � - f = _ = ; § r ■ « 357 _Io ,„a § ' ! � § / i ( k \S )7 { 8 § } B5 \ \ ) ) k2 � }7k ! }) \ \ \ ) u ■ \ 00 / | / } C. o ) v }! \ \ } ° _ / a 2 ¢ | | a ■ k ! f ) J« i Et I ! ! % i § %ea k ed j la , . 0 Cam ; CN i4 t a— - / f . uc o ` \, $ \ \ �{ | l 2a 4a ) ) /! I/ `� � }- § 7 \E ) ! ; ! . . k, § .\ | � f � � l k\ � § / �) ; « ■ \! ? ; .5 - C � ! s J as .a § , . Eg ! ® a t ] a , , l [ | \ � ) � \9f | ! � ® � | ! ! | 2 2 kf � ! ea 00 {0 7 �•g § � oC) . fk § )a0s5.| c.§ § ... .2 .-7) ! ! 2aS | ! ) f{ } • � ° ` - ! - »�- ® i 4 « 2i § ) ; -] ! § f ; % k } ! t 42 § E - - l � $ a. $, , � # | & f , ;a ` L! E | 4B � f � , ! $ ! • \. ) [ , • . F f ; . / ! ; 3 ;& ■ f) C3eal / , , , ; a . , , , _J . a , 4 ! «� , lt . � aaa ! ■ , E! / § ! - o § o m 0e 0 b 0 0 0 t.. 0 F 0 ,3 0 o =a a` -c W > c cn 0 c 0 m 00 gm • `o `o `0 = a= `0 4`po o m 00 m 0 O o 0 0 S � � U � y 2 F & .3 $ S0 .o $ 1S5 .g 52 3 m 3 m 3 r S 3 c 3 a 9 3 ° a £ 4 gm Lit Li � I & w a s ` � ea u .. Q C .8 `o .2E `o .2E `0 .2E o .2E `0 .2 E `o .2E C iW.l Sg ° g 9 °E2 g' 8;{{ ° �'' 3g ° o Sgg ° g' ay a u H 5 • u S o u 5 0 5 u •5 0 5 o 0 F m 600 0 0 o Cum 0 hum mum 0 0 o c 0 a 1• 2 gg C..) 0 = = o▪ C E c e 2 t U E a a a S a c as c a S a c S: S a c 0 o < < < m m•a < m.a < m 0.0 < m e.0 U 14'a s :F1 •2 as -8,11 ta• c: it pt ctOm0 SUU LU m' 0 kUCU q= o t C • 0• A 0 u E ° .L- ° 0 E p 0 c -8 -o E aY g. o Cq 2 E :57• .47882 .5_ Co 0 E a 0°�0 el C7 I � — < E m a 'v' a2 •fa u 0 S , a• Ep, 2 .� a OS o � '2 o u o aY S la 00 g > CO o E > 7C E os Oc e .a •&< 5 c -a o c s C o £ o o m.• • �° a— 8 ; n a ,2 g0 0 0 0 u .c' e m E Co E gc e 3 .a o 3 9 -a > e t 4.5.a g .- '610 s g y •8 gu o f y c 0 om u U S `o a r ul r.5 c' �.5. 0 0 S 1i ti f ° 3 D o 0 i d u m C Si LL m ! § ° / ■ | / k 2 ® ) co 0 , {q 0 = - � { ea / \ j $ \ � 1 ( ` C a r i a ! { g II [ ! tk I4 as§ § E cc c. } - , a . i A � ! Pa g — X \ ) t \ E i § > coo Coo Coo E" 120 C ! ) 7 ! o C �\ | )� \ | / o - .rtC . - w & ow ° l ; , u ± \ . E k � � a ! ] { ° ) ) ;§ ` ��{ 2 § ! � ) � _ ± § ; � ± £ k ± ® > 32 .8_ca /� _ c.o. | 0 ca EN ! scj § ileato ` ` ) i ! lae � "5 0 (! ) a »ova ! � . am � � , � ; OA } c ; � tg 0 ' , a . o )! {} (% %ata 3 ? ] Ef ° ! � � ) a -=sa "lac . '8 ir . ! I- a | 0 � aa. Bn0 * a e a , ' e - . 0 - , �n .. \\ § \ l ■ i» g Wg'-cc E/7a'30 ,§ 1 § ( § 2 . ; ® 1 = Q2I] ! t ƒ g � f ! ! !} } ` % E \7 ] ! }§ \ ) j � EE / ia , , \c � �l � . . . v . lRi � w � l � ■ co § 2 § 18§ C \ E 0 ER c 4". 2 \ « LI ) C \ / \ g } | ) � > . - - cT4 A,A, i ° CNI cn = Et C 0 § t J § \ _ ) ' aafu ! § = ! 2 ) & /� }° ! 77 E. \ ' \ � ! ` | ' — } § , £• ) $ ) \ \ © a ` a of CI 9999 - � 4• . . w ) § t} ® a ! g ! 7 ; § .- ma ! 02 • & 'C | • ) = ) t � - § ' ° � « > ,s ) � ; § % § § aF }) I "8 ƒ \- &ƒ'a .°15 0 ; ! ! � f ° � ! ■ ) �i21 � . � \ \ . | § f) ! 4 � ! O. a . . - °- JBai0. aC.& I d ) l q ) ƒ! ! ) ! § { ! a8E • • • \ % o 2 S 0 E 0 E U 0 0 g o m °m 2 o te° a v C C z .0 0 C 0 c 0 .� 00 to 2 1 Fs E N U o w- d ° c c.) i. ° c G) L 'C .— W Q ° = ° c• m 0 I I.. U E o EU I cC "H b° 41 I u C a yU Y . &y 0 o C e e ° 0 f a ° .5..4 S z , •r •�, L E ° m q m u 'a .S u ` m „` 7 ` 3 m 2 ° : .� m 7C t7 a`i c y -i u6 3a o p1 13 m 5 m ,. a, m y ° t u o 6 aci o `o 4 .5 £ f 0 .. ray „” ` °° m °O t=3§ e m g3 0 0 c Z. v0 002 T) 6149 1 „° g 1 K £ .8 ° W 2 „°. 1I 0 m s '? ° ° a • F o `d o c `o ° s' r .°. ° ° e0 ° ee e0 ° x .337 a a , ° . d2 ' 0> • 8 5s2 (A5 2 • • • • • • • • y e 0 ° m la. u 1 5 0 a. E a U .. 0 g c a o bO m b. O to a C.' 0 m C N O G 0 2 U o `o `o C. `o `o aV `0 0 000 m a U g V 9 0 g u m u 9 � Qc � ' 51 5 ; H 51 i- E .5 x. .51 .38. a & Cog Co eo a ° . Co r I. L e 6. o a L a G� .0 6 it.G ? m .o Val Y°. mq '7 7 'c 7 .w ¢ '� 2 `o .2 E O O o `o .2 Ey O W1 of g ' g m m By 'al 0 m p� V, g E > 'C 4 `', a > d �d CU ❑ no m 0 5 6 0 0 m eo 0 0 S S 9 a S a U '2 > > > a c. _ 2' O (ui 0 E g. e g a� . 0 a & E . & £ e^ cE F e3 2 5 w a w • C 5 u $ v ch-, .. a 0 0 y u �'� o m ma y E C 0 0 _ T m u R u o.. s 9E .211 N a u m 3 � .. ` ° a o o > y. u o 3 a 0 'a ' 5 0 D a •a 5 a m . F i c s a u y 0 ' a 0. Oa S t 0 3 e ca 4 x .0 r E a o m p a ° V m .0 e 2 • .5 u u a 0 0 .5 5 0 oo m o E € .a u �..D $a CO.2 7 L f u m u a u u 5 3 u ' 5 o • 0 a s a re Sao S'. r ,3 £ E 2C4 c 8 / E � g e i E 0 CA QQ a E� C E a E .0 3 'S _° a° us 32 pa° U c — ei = 4 e 0 —' 0 m LL o Sas \ § / . OA o § / # ) ] ` ) } ! C ! a Li 2 DO / II ( | . � k ) ! f ! £ ! } ! f k \ ) 2 ! i ) 2 ! ] 2 8 } t f > @ ! ) § ) % f | , f | U { — 6) £ ■ f a ' ± } ! ! k ! ] � \ a § ! ) | ! | 0 4, ) \ \ \ ƒ k 2 % 2 ) ± ƒ ! / k s e I f ° E . ) 2 .k j\ \\ ) \ /\ � � \ \/ \� �) k � � { ° a ^ ` 07 ) / C ] ; * A ■ ® 00 ) ) % � § | ) 3 9� \ a « \ ba \\\ l ) k) \- 1 € . fl a 0 � 0 | 7t 0 \ - ... ƒ § , , Fa \a a § \{ ) -2 � §4 � 0i i2 ® 2 & 24 � } 1 � 1 f- | [ i) ! / • // ; E ] ( ( m » ! ,\ f 2 k a2 /ƒ §Cal o o ] \ § 1 \ \ } _ 22 ) { § A , ! ak ; 3 C ! o I ) t ) i § \ ! � a 3 o = ' e § - w � 0 ° § 4 ƒ! f u c « \ 0 § $ ) ! J | = % 2 ) Z# ƒ 9 ! ! . , ! ! a _ 2 ° ] � ; $ l $ - , v , ■ l �. , ; 2 ' - 0 k �f - ) -s ■ ) 121, 8 ` @! { 6 g kGi | § a /a ; ` ! ; g ; a | �lu , bo a. .2l =.2, 1 f ; ! ! 8.0; -t cE a) ] � ikaal � ! ` | � 2 ..9_ , r , 0 y ! , \ • | kf ! ` % § • , ! g 1 1112 / q , . # . ! ! § ] - Elt� ) § ¥ . C ! ) Bill - , ! � e ■ ! - aaa % , f ! 9 § , 2 ! \� ia # 2 ■ § ! \% ! 2 � / \ ) . ai 17222 �P.1 1O0§ § a , ; ) {\ ! ! \ ! ) \§ $ e 7 ] ) \4f {! } | ] 2 ) $ ; _ § q a W. § • 0§ c 1 ct / § ) / > . co C ) C #w � \ \ , ) § a ) . | | § 4 / . ({ ({ k � t8. k ! f ! f ! 4 1 ! f a. H I ] ! ] ! \ ) 7 § C (\} # % { ! ) co )} It 0 0 ) | \) 12 � 0 ® . 6u ! z b a.b _ tec — k £ ) 0 0 0 0 0 C ) $ \ ) \ )5. j ) . / / / � / ! � ) &) } = 2 7 • kk ! 0 o-. le , , ■ i .n. tg § c i ] eu if ) f§ | i/ Eh ) ) w . 2 ! : aaf �y o 2 . ] C / ) ! } { | ) ) a ! ! } E ! ; & ; ° e ! #g ■ e E 14 K ! - . , � ! • ) « ° � ! f ! .a. Q § 2 § � ! _ § aE ! { | 2 ; . »! ) ! ! § T. | � , w ; . ; ` }) k § § ! ! 40.04 § § ! ® BE , 4) _ ` a I « , l P. .0 ; 0 / a « ± a / • Ii7§ ( 2 — „ : ; § I. i ! i § ! ! io , ` ! ! , ■) � } � a ; § } § § r, k4 7 \ $ ƒ � § l 466 . 0 a / . ! § ; - ) i 3 ! � , « , (4 z S . . S , , ,.ti , LL.. ! ! § 0 { a ■ ) / k) en oa el ) t . � . 7 } \ k { r { | Q . a ) f Si. $ u ! ) ! 2 ! ! § u � C ) — } % ! , ti o � fk oo a� k § ! § | f 2 boo to 0u0 caa o 0 ! ) ! q 0 a ) \ \ ƒ k \ \ ) ) & S . ■ ! ! a ; » C.) | | }) 1a ! $ aE ! ] \} ■ \ ! ! } k0 ; ! i § a % \ " k ` ( 0 \ 2 \ ' ` .. .0 ■ .. | 7 ® . ! 2 � l � ■ 00 20 0. • & ; ! ! • 0. t PO \{E \ ! � � k/ $ ( k \ � 2 § l \\f! � � / ; �� � 42 � | . . / 2! ! \ » ] \k\ | @ k § }f .12 { � � ! v 2 k }! ss ! � g � § g % J ƒ /! ] ! , Oa utO 0 = ! ! % ! 2 / ! 8 ] £BL • • • ) §■ 0 o / a U | | o f ! \ co o ) w o\ \ \ § . 0 F \ A ; t ` k ! f j = - 1 0. ! l ! ! ! 7 \ 8 2 ! to @ co l l ON § ) k \ ao )] � { \\ a � a C 0 § ) ) `ell 0 E ) \ \ o i a • ) ! •) 2 6 ® ` ! ao tel C.) }) � — $ ! ! � ! I) ; ] § ! 10 • _ ± 155132 ! \ iE ■ e ! ) | ƒ � ) IN 2 /! ! { . � 7 ` } � 0 6im [; . }! OD ƒ i 7 � ) j \§ }/ ; § & 000 . {\ ) 0. 2 ( k � 2 - 2 ea \ / =� � \ k � |! ! ; /} } ! \ L 7 l | u E" co ) § § k ! ! ! ! � a ! a 80 ) t g k` ) T.-e— § � E ; / \ % 32 %] 7 ] ; ! fi • \ (} \ $ ! ! ! R 0 § § 0 . \ ■ ) 100 c 0 la Co 0 2 2 /J C I C C \ $ � # k ) C 8 . = � / , 0 - \ \} m 2 es C ! E 2 \ * GA !/ ■ 4 ru �c• § 12 ! !l b Q a, " o ;'M ; ! ! ! § • \0 ! ƒ�J � ! £ }j • | !M 2 g la f i\k1dgi ■ C , « ) ! E $! !, a ! ! | a t .g a a . h ) B § a _ / 4. 413 A 'A 0 0 a � m 0 a 0 tia E $ U m c dm 0 G Y ° w ° o Y w E 0 W s C m m r c.) o q o ..M E 'a c .... 0 S U y c C w ° o 0 C C 0 ti • a •a m o 0 s !� E a w o 0 m 1 0 m 3 5 m a E E Ew 1 K O` C aw 2 S c • `° c o o a C. N a U Y w' `O U 1 w C > h t 0 .0 0, C5 > 3 •Y, .5 E a 9 w 00 .Y°.. �°. £ c 0 i I 74 w s ° c $ m a i 0 E rv' 0 3 w C i e on q5q U '0 3 9 IS Ca 08 D 9 9 ea R W t C w m 0 0 m i 2 F 9 i a 'a 0 0 -a '° 3 0 o � � 1 a g eCd m 'a 0 0 .0 • m m C 1 a= 3 u 's �' a E a 0'S 0� >. e ° tE 3 > w .0 > — ' �. °� Y E o ul °` 0 0 O0s p a o s 'C $ c e o o tO 4 3 e m a m a >, tok0 . C 2E • R p d .0 > m p, Y m s > N W ¢' oo. 00 E > E. s �'n t E °m° t0 °° m U y .a £ NFa x v a .� E 8 V1 w 0 T ° R S 'Q .3 .5 u .^ >''°9 L' 2 C • ° ■ F G tj 1 3 •` = •Y 1 • o s w . °yg° e3 ` s °> o m co v .0 1.1 0 0 Y u j V y `� ,S igsl 0 C C v U Co ° d 4 $ Ga 8 ° D ,� °' ° 'b . E u $Y T 3 w u m e� .5 ° r a ° 5 1 ° s e 'm 3 � 0s '� 's U E .w. m a o o I a F= ta s u m t.ce E o � 2 u r° ° w E '= o2 ° + L 9 Ey8 E .e ° 3 3 .°. non i > y m w 2 0 a ce cG 0 I 4p g })0 s O y N0p , o 3 9C .° O L$ C eO Y' 3 8 ° A s s a.0 m O .£ `a 9 f _ ` a j� `� ° �C '� oo m 3 so 0 3 E s A3 � � w awmeEwY3o rm .. . E C u v m c c s s 3 E $ '3 w 7 y c o C7 '5 9 8 w C ° o g .D o a 3 o n° S s . -. 5 S ea a 0 0 $ o u s 1 o 0 0 •2 01 ,4 a o 0 0 'sI z ao .5 `� c7 . IY3E � aac3ue0 ' 3302baI. a E .o o qC� h E yqy 'o u o o, v., o C ;-. C a w .2. C o o '3 0 '•'� ° E la ° e' o o S 0q. 0 2 c o J" ° E s s m o o 2 u 2 m Yu s 4.:, Z u a la m.a £ S0 o 83 E 1 :0 7 : 7 7 = g gum =m = • c w a ° < IL. 5 < esOggao0 3au • z a • - .. ., R m ATTACHMENT A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REPORTING AND IMPLEMENTATION FORM RANCHO CUCAMONGA IASP SUB-AREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM REPORTING AND IMPLEMENTATION FORM Project File: # Phase: # Mitigation Measure: Location: Onsite Offsite Impact Issue: Land Use and Planning Traffic and Circulation Noise Air Quality Earth Resources Hydrology/Drainage and Water Quality Biological Resources Public Services and Utilities Energy Hazardous Materials Description of Activity/Method of Implementation: Disposition: Mitigation measure for the above-noted project phase implemented. No further action is required. Mitigation measure for the above-noted project phase is not fully implemented. Further action required. (Please explain below) The mitigation measure for the above-noted project phase is not in compliance. Further action required. (Please explain below) Comments/Revisions: Completed by: Approved by: Name: Name: Title: Title: Date: Date: 113/19090001.MMP A-I