Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-242 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 04-242 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2003-00410, TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL (.1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW RESIDENTIAL (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND CONSERVATION FOR 168.77 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED NORTH OF THE LOWER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) CORRIDOR BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 0225-083-05,06, 07, 10,22, 23,25,AND 26 AND 0225-084- 02. A. RECITALS. 1. Traigh Pacific (the "Applicant") seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unincorporated San Bernardino County into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of a General Plan Amendment, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and associated Development Agreement. The actions also include the development of approximately 168.77 acres with 269 single-family housing units(99.26 acres), park area (3.1 acres), equestrian park (2.7 acres), equestrian trail (0.44 acres), and drainage channel (1.77 acres). The development would have a gross density of 1.59 dwelling units per acre,and a net density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre. The remaining 61.49 acres will continue to be used for flood control purposes. The proposed annexation action encompasses a total of 240 acres and includes the development site plus adjacent parcels owned by Southern California Edison and San Bernardino County Flood Control District. These series of actions and approvals are hereinafter defined in this Resolution as the "Project." 2. The Applicant submitted the following applications relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2003-01051, General Plan Land Use Amendment DRC2003- 00410, Etiwanda North Specific Plan Amendment DRC2003-00409, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, and Development Agreement DRC2003-00411 (collectively the "Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT14749, constitute the matters involving the Project,which are submitted to the City Council for decision and action. 3. The Applicant's request for General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410 is as described in the title of this Resolution and depicted on Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. 4. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Hillside Residential and is comprised of vacant land, utility corridors, and scattered single-family residences. The property to the west is designated Resolution No. 04-242 Page 2 of 16 Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) and is the site of the previously approved Rancho Etiwanda Estates. The property to the east is designated Conservation and Very Low Residential (.1-2 dwelling units per acre)and is the proposed site of Tentative Tract Map 16324— Henderson Creek. The property to the south is designated Flood Control/Utility Corridor, Conservation, and Very Low Residential and is comprised of a SCE power line corridor, and the Etiwanda Creek Flood Control basins and conservation area. 5. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project,and after receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing on that date. On June 9, 2004, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 04-77, recommending approval of General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410 along with other associated applications. 6. On July 21, 2004,the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project, and after the receipt of public testimony, closed the hearing. 7. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon the facts and information contained in the record of this Project,the City Council makes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA') (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the lead agency, prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("EIR")for the Project, including certain technical appendices (the "Appendices") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2003081085). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period from December 5, 2003 through January 28, 2004. Comments were received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been included in the Final EIR,as well as the revisions to the Draft EIR. Those documents, together with the Draft EIR and Appendices, comprise the Final EIR. b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000, et. seq. ("the Guidelines"). By Resolution No. 04-240, the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Resolution No. 04-242 Page 3 of 16 c. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with respect to the Project and as to whether and how to approve the various components of the Project approvals. d. The City Council finds that the Final EIR represents the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and imposes appropriate mitigation measures for the Project. e. Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: I. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report. ii. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. iii. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. f. The City Council finds, based upon the Final EIR, public comments, public agency comments, and the entire record before it, that the Project may create significant impacts in the areas of Earth Resources, Water Resources, Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Hazards, Noise, Public Services, Utilities, Aesthetics, and Cultural Resources. However, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project, which will mitigate and in some cases, avoid the significant impacts. The specific changes and alterations required,and a brief explanation of the rationale for the findings with regard to each impact, are contained in the"CEQA Findings"for the Project(Exhibit 7"to the July 21, 2004 City Council Staff Report)and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the rationale and explanation contained in the "CEQA Findings,"the City Council makes the following additional findings regarding the impacts of the Project on the resources and services listed in this paragraph: L Earth Resources. The Final EIR finds that development of the Project would expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic ground shaking produced by numerous regional faults. Additionally, Resolution No. 04-242 Page 4 of 16 development of the project would require removal of vegetation to prepare for grading;this would create a short-term increased potential for topsoil erosion. Potential erosion in the long-term would result from increased surface runoff rates due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures. Mitigation measures are imposed which require a detailed geologic and geotechnical investigation for each lot prior to the grading of the Project site. Specifically,the developer must:demonstrate that each lot is buildable and complies with recommendations and specifications found in the geotechnical investigation report included in Appendix C of the Final EIR (Mitigation Measure 3-1); identify potential geologic and soil limitations and recommend appropriate engineering and design measures to adequately protect structures and inhabitants (Mitigation Measure 3-2); and identify these construction measures on applicable grading plans, and implement them to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Further, mitigation measures are imposed on the project that require preparation and approval of a Dust Control Plan and a Landscape and Irrigation Plan to reduce the likelihood of erosion (Mitigation Measures 3-4 and 3-5). Based on these mitigation measures, and the additional ones contained in the Final EIR,the City Council finds that the effects of seismic shaking on persons and structures and the possibility of erosion will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. ii. Water Resources. The Final EIR identifies that conversion of the Project site to urban uses would increase the amount of sediment, suspended debris, landscape maintenance or associated chemicals (e.g., fertilizers, herbicides, etc.), and materials related to automotive wear (e.g., tire rubber, oil, antifreeze, etc.) that would reach the local drainage system due to run-off caused by grading or by being washed off streets during storm events or street-sweeping activities. Mitigation measures imposed on the applicant would require the Project developer to apply for and receive a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and, if necessary, to obtain Clean Water Act Section 401 and 404 permits (for water quality certification for dredge and fill operations); additionally, the developer will be required to implement all applicable Best Management Practices(BMPs)to prevent construction of the Project from polluting surface and ground waters. The City Council finds that implementation of this mitigation measure will mitigate impacts on water quality to a level of less than insignificant. Additionally, the Final EIR identifies that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified the Project site as within a flood zone designated "Flood Zone D." Mitigation measures will require the developer to install a revetment along the East Etiwanda Channel adjacent to the Project site, and implement on- and off-site drainage system improvements outlined in the Project Drainage Study(Appendix D of the draft EIR). The City Council finds that the revetment and drainage improvements will reduce flood impacts associated with the Project to a level of less than significant. Resolution No. 04-242 Page 5 of 16 iii. Transportation and Circulation. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed Project would increase vehicle trips and impact the level of service along arterial streets and intersections; specifically,the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 2,956 daily vehicle trips at build-out. Further, it is assumed that at build-out 68 percent of the Project traffic would enter/exit the site along Etiwanda Avenue,while 32 percentwould use East Avenue; this distribution would cause some roads to be more intensely affected than others. Additionally, the Final EIR found that the level of service at the intersection of Etiwanda and Highland Avenues could be reduced to a"D"level during the morning peak hour at full build- out. Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the developer to contribute a fair share to the traffic signal mitigation program of the County of San Bernardino and/or the City of Rancho Cucamonga to help fund the construction of traffic signals at the intersections of: Day Creek Boulevard/Banyan Avenue; Day Creek Boulevard/SR-210 West-bound ramp; Day Creek Boulevard/SR 210 East-bound ramp; Etiwanda Avenue/Banyan Avenue; Etiwanda Avenue/Wilson Avenue; and East Avenue/Banyan Avenue. Further,the developer will be required to pay a "fair share" contribution towards off-site impacts to linked roadways and intersections as outlined in the Project traffic report; this 'fair share" amount is approximately$63,818 as of the date of the traffic study. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures, traffic at the study intersections will be reduced to operate at a level of service of D or better (with all but one intersection operating at level of service C or better) and that the impacts of the Project on Traffic and Circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. iv. Air Quality. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Air Quality. Specifically,the Final EIR identifies that emissions from construction-related activities are likely to exceed the threshold of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). These impacts are short-term and can cause nuisance impacts to adjacent land uses in the local area by way of fugitive dust produced by grading of the site. In addition, construction-related emissions, particularly from architectural coatings (painting) and off-road diesel equipment, are anticipated to produce significant levels of reactive organic compounds (ROC) and nitrogen oxides(NOx)that would exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance and result in significant short-term air pollution impacts. Comprehensive mitigation measures(Mitigation Measures 6-1 -6-10)are imposed on the Project which will require various dust control measures,emission control measures, and off-site actions. Included in those measures are requirements to ensure that all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained and that trucks are not left idling for prolonged periods (i.e., in excess of 10 minutes), reestablishment of ground cover through seeding and watering, phased grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time, Resolution No. 04-242 Page 6 of 16 suspension of grading operations during periods of high wind (i.e.,wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), and regular washing and sweeping of the site. The Final EIR also indicates that the Project would produce long- term impacts on Air Quality as a result of the additional external vehicle trips that will be generated, and their attendant production of NOx and PM10 in excess of SCAQMD standards. Further, secondary impact potential would derive from energy consumption by on-site residential heaters, stoves, water heaters, and similar consumptive appliances. Mitigation measures imposed on the Project to reduce long-term impacts include requiring the developer to demonstrate that all residential structures have incorporated high-efficiency/low-polluting heating, air conditioning, appliances, and water heaters (Mitigation Measure 6-11), and that all residential structures have incorporated thermal pane windows and weather-stripping (Mitigation Measure 6-12). Further, the developerwill be required to make a fair share contribution to a"park and ride" facility along the I-15 or 1-10 freeways, as well as construct a bus stop/shelter at the trailhead park, if directed by OmniTrans. The City Council finds that with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures directed at both short- and long-term impacts, emissions will be reduced and the Project's contribution to regional emission of criterial pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all of these comprehensive mitigation requirements, the Project will produce significant short- and long-term impacts on Air Quality due to emissions, and that these impacts will remain significant after mitigation. v. Biological Resources. The Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire in October 2003, the Project site contained approximately 109 acres of sage scrub (including white sage), along with California buckwheat, California filago, valley lessingia, popcorn flower, and common phacelia; the Project will eliminate this vegetation through development of the area. Further, the Project will impact sensitive plant species present on the site (as determined before the 2003 wildfire) including Plummer's mariposa lily, Pious daisy, and four separate types of spineflowers (Ramona, prostrate, California, and Parry's). Development of the site will also impact wildlife corridors and will remove habitat that supports a number of sensitive species that were either observed onsite or have a moderate to high potential to occur onsite, including the sharp-shinned hawk, Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, red-shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, Cooper's hawk, San Diego horned lizard, and orange-throated whiptail. The Final EIR indicated that the California gnatcatcher(a federally listed threatened species) has not been observed on-site and has a low probability of occurring on the site due to the type of vegetation present. Also, the Final EIR found that while a portion of the Project site (the Etiwanda Creek channel)is within the historical range of the endangered San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR), since the creek channel is not Resolution No. 04-242 Page 7 of 16 proposed for development,the Project will not cause direct impacts to the SBKR. The Final EIR further found that development of the site will remove 0.48 acres of land in four small drainages that are under Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)jurisdiction, but that none of these areas is considered a wetland. The Final EIR found that the Project is not consistent with the goals of the North Etiwanda Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program(NEOSHPP)since it does not include any on-site preservation of open space lands. Mitigation measures have been imposed on the project to require the Project developer to acquire and convey to the County approximately 164 acres of land as off-site mitigation land. This 164-acre area is intended to accomplish a 1.5 to 1 ratio to mitigate for the loss of the approximately 109 acres of sage scrub and to mitigate the potential loss of habitat for sensitive plants and animal species. The City finds that the recommended mitigation measures will help reduce potentially significant impacts regarding the loss of habitat, but that the impacts will remain significant after mitigation. A. Hazards. The Final EIR identifies that the Project would expose people and structures to potential hazards due to the possibility of hazardous materials spills on nearby state highways, and due to the minor use of chemicals and other materials typical of suburban uses. Additionally,the Project would expose more people and structures to potential wildfire hazards, and would expose more people to potentially dangerous wildlife/human encounters. Mitigation measures imposed will require submission of a plan detailing proper clean-up efforts for any hazardous or toxic substance that is discovered or released during construction (Mitigation Measure 9-1); development of fuel modification zones, and the requirement of "firewise" landscaping and the use of fire-resistant building materials to reduce fire hazards(Mitigation Measures 9-2-9-4); and the posting of signs warning of the potential risk of wildlife/human interactions on the site (Mitigation Measure 9-8). The City Council finds that after implementation of these measures, potentially significant impacts relating to Hazards will be reduced to a level of less than significant. vii. Noise. The Final EIR identifies the likelihood of short-term impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equipment associated with construction activities; earth-moving equipment is anticipated to create noise up to 90-dB. A mitigation measure has been imposed that will require the construction contractors to adhere to the City's Development Code for hours of construction activity—6:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measure 10-2). Based on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that the short term noise impacts from the Project will be reduced to less than significant levels. The Final EIR also identified that noise levels would increase in the long-term due to additional motor vehicle noise and from general human activity. In the Resolution No. 04-242 Page 8 of 16 opening year(2005), noise levels at fifty feet from the centerline of area roadways would range from a low of 58.1 CNEL along Wilson Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue to a high of 78.3 CNEL along Highland Avenue east of Etiwanda Avenue. A mitigation measure will be imposed to require the developer to document that exterior residential areas will have exterior noise levels of less than 65 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-5), and that interior living area noise levels are less than 45 dB CNEL (Mitigation Measure 10-6). Further, the developer will be required to incorporate site designs and measures to help reduce proposed noise levels over the long-term. The City Council finds that based on these mitigation measures,the potential noise impacts of the Project on current and future residents will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. viii. Public Services. The Final EIR identifies that due to population increases associated with the Project, the proposed Project would incrementally increase the need for public services in the areas of fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, medical services, and roads. A mitigation measure is imposed to require the developer to pay all legally established public service fees, including police,fire, schools, parks,and library fees(Mitigation Measure 11-1). Additionally,in order to reduce the number of fire incidents requiring response by the City's Fire Department, the project developer would be required to obtain approval from the Fire Department with regard to adequate fire flow and installation of acceptable fire-resistant structural materials in project buildings (Mitigation Measure 11-3). Additionally, the developer will be required to post a bond in an amount sufficient to ensure installation and maintenance of public and private roads, and drainage facilities necessary for each phase of the project(Mitigation Measure 11-5). The City Council finds that the imposition and implementation of these mitigation measures will mitigate the Project's impacts on Public Services to a level of less than significant. ix. Utilities. The Final EIR identifies thatthe Projectwould create potentially significant impacts as a result of new residential water requirements of approximately 602,819 gallons of water per day; this water would be provided from an existing two million gallon water reservoir via an existing water main, however, as growth continues in the Project area, additional offsite water storage facilities would be required. Further, the Final EIR indicates that based on an estimate of 270 gallons of wastewater per unit per day being produced, the Project would require construction of a sewer main to transport the wastewater to an existing sewage treatment plant. Additionally, the Project would generate the need for increased electricity, natural gas, and telephone and television cables, and would increase the amount of solid waste produced. A mitigation measure imposed requires the contribution of funds for sewer service (Mitigation Measure 12-1). Further mitigation measures require submission of development plans to Southern California Edison,the Gas Resolution No. 04-242 Page 9 of 16 Company, and Verizon in order to facilitate engineering design and construction of improvements necessary to provide electrical, natural gas, and telephone service to the Project; these companies must also provide"will-serve"letters in orderfor building permits to issue. The City Council finds that imposition of these mitigation measures will reduce the impacts of the Project on Utilities to a level of less than significant. x. Aesthetics. The Final EIR identifies that the Project may create significant and unavoidable impacts on Aesthetics. In the short-term,the landscape would be altered by grading and clearing, and views of the Project site would include the heavy construction equipment and machinery used to prepare the Project site for construction of new homes. Long-term impacts would occur due to a fundamental change in the visual and aesthetic character of the area, and would transform the existing natural terrain into a developed and planned community. Additionally, the presence of homes would mean more lighting at night, as well as increased glare due to additional windows in the community. Mitigation measures will require that outdoor lighting comply with the requirements of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan design guidelines and the City's General Plan (Mitigation Measure 13-1), and that a detailed landscaping and wall treatment plan be prepared (Mitigation Measure 13- 5). Even with the imposition and implementation of these and other mitigation measures,the City Council finds that the impact of the Project on Aesthetics will remain significant after mitigation. xi. Cultural Resources. The Final EIR identifies thatwhile the existence of paleontological resources is unlikely on the Project site, such resources may be discovered during construction of the Project. Also, one historic archeological site was previously recorded on the property, CA-SBR- 3131 H. This prior survey found what appeared to be the remains of a construction camp used by the Etiwanda Water Company in the 1880s; the structure consisted of rock walls,hand-forged metal barrel hoops and nails, barbed wire, and glass fragments. Mitigation measures imposed require that a qualified paleontologist conduct a preconstruction field survey of the Project site and submit a report of findings and specific recommendations for further mitigation measures (Mitigation Measure 14-1). Should any prehistoric archaeological resources be found before or during grading,a qualified archaeologist would be retained to monitor construction activities, and take appropriate measures to protect or preserve the resources. The City Council finds that with the implementation of these mitigation measures,the Projectwill have a less than significant impacton paleontological,archaeological,and historical resources. xii. Cumulative Impacts — Air Quality, Biological Resources. and Aesthetics. The Final EIR provides that this Project, together with the construction of other development projects in the vicinity, would create cumulative short-term impacts to air quality during construction. This Resolution No. 04-242 Page 10 of 16 Project would also create a significant cumulative impact to regional air quality due to additional vehicle emissions adding incremental pollutants within the South Coast Air Basin. With respect to biological resources, the Final EIR concluded that the Project would contribute to cumulatively considerable biological impacts with loss of habitat and restriction of wildlife movement in the fan area due to encroachment of human structures and activities. With respect to aesthetics,the proposed project will contribute incrementally to cumulatively considerable aesthetic impacts related to the visual character of the area going from largely vacant, rural terrain to low density suburban development. g. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR,that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant:air quality(short-term impacts, and short and long-term cumulative impacts), biological resources related to the loss of habitat, and aesthetics related to short- term views (i.e. construction activities and dust) and long-term views related to transforming the existing natural terrain into a residential community. h. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill basic objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the required "No Project-No Development' alternative, and the 'Rural Density Alterative,"development under the existing land use designation. Other alternatives that were considered and rejected included the alternative location alternative and the alternative land use alternative. As set forth below, the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefore, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure,and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate the adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly,each of the alternatives is infeasible. In making this finding,the City Council determines as follows: i) The objectives of the Project are: a) To be consistent with, and implement, the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City development guidelines; b) Annexation of approximately 240 acres including the 168.77-acre Project site and adjacent utility easements and corridors into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; c) To Integrate the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establish a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; Resolution No. 04-242 Page 11 of 16 d) To establish a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; e) To provide a system of publictcommunity facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; f) To provide backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities)to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; g) To minimize impacts to, and generate revenues in excess of costs for various public service agencies; and h) To provide quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands. ii) Under the "No Project-No Development Alternative" the project site would remain vacant which would avoid all significant project specific impacts,although cumulative impacts including traffic, noise,and air quality would eventually occur, but not to the same degree as if the proposed Project were built. This alternative would eliminate essentially all of the adverse impacts of the proposed Project and is, therefore, an environmentally superior alternative. This alternative does not meet the Project's basic objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iii) Under the "No Project — Open Space Alternative" the site would remain vacant but be acquired, fenced, and maintained for open space and biological habitat as part of the NEOSHPP plan. This alternative would avoid all the significant impacts of developing the property, however,cumulative impacts including traffic,noise,and air quality, will eventually occur regardless of whether the site is developed or preserved, although perhaps not to the same degree as with the proposed Project. This is an environmentally superior alternative but does not meet the Project's basic objectives, and indeed all other objectives, of developing a project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. iv) Under the"Reduced Intensity Alternative"almost all of the significant or potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project would be eliminated. The remaining significant impact (i.e., construction emissions) could probably not be eliminated or significantly reduced by the implementation of any feasible altemative or mitigation measures at this time, unless the project were to support all custom lots of one acre or more where only building pads are graded when needed. However, the Project fiscal report Resolution No. 04-242 Page 12 of 16 indicates that fewer, larger residential lots/units would not generate sufficient public revenues to offset costs to provide services. While this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project,it does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio for the City and generates a reasonable return on investment. Also, since this alternative does not fully implement the City's goal of providing adequate park facilities for City residents. v) The "Modified Site Plan Alternative" would create a 300-foot wide buffer along the west bank of the East Etiwanda Creek to better buffer wildlife movement and create more open space. It would cluster the residential development in the southwestern portion of the site and would have 200 units with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and a height limit of one story. It would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed project-related long-term air quality (NOx and ROG emissions). However, potentially significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions (ROG)and loss of biological resources would remain. Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio forthe City and generates a reasonable return on investment. This alternative is marginally superior to the proposed Project in terms of environmental impacts, but it does not meet the Project objectives. vi) The"Rural Density Alterative"would development the site under the City's currently designated of Very Low density residential (VL)which allows a maximum of 2 units per acre of developable land with minimum 20,000 square foot lots. This alternative would locate approximately 75 units on 37 acres in the southern portion of the site, while the remaining 70 acres would be set aside as open space and biological habitat. This alternative would eliminate the significant impacts of the proposed Project related to biological resources related to loss of alluvial fan habitat and long-term air quality from NOx and ROG emissions. This alternative still has significant impacts related to short-term air pollutant emissions(ROG)and does not provide the benefits of two parks. Also, this alternative does not meet the Project's economic objectives of developing a residential project that has a positive cost/benefit ratio forthe City and generates a reasonable return on investment. As such, it does not meet the Project's goals. This alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but it does not meet the Project objectives. i. Mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. Further, the environmental, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Project, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhibit "F" to the July 21, Resolution No. 04-242 Page 13 of 16 2004 City Council Staff Report), which is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse impacts that may occur as a result of the Project, including short-term impacts on air quality from construction-related emissions and cumulative impacts to air quality related to vehicle emissions; impacts to biological resources related to removal of habitat; and short-term impacts to aesthetics (i.e. construction dust obscuring views) and long-term impacts to aesthetics (changes to the natural terrain). Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the alternatives identified in the Final EIR are not feasible, as discussed in paragraph j above, the City Council hereby finds that any unavoidable impacts of the Project, including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts to short-term and long-term impacts on air quality and aesthetics, and project related and cumulative impacts to biological resources, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in the "CEQA Findings" for the Project. This determination shall constitute a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEQA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Final EIR and the record of the City Council's proceedings: i) Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Etiwanda North Specific Plan, City Development Code, and all other City Development guidelines; ii) Annexation of approximately 240 acres including the 168.77-acre Project site and adjacent utility easements and corridors into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; iii) Integration of the Project with the character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results in logical, coordinated growth; iv) Establishment of a Project-wide circulation system that meets regional and local transportation needs and accommodates both vehicles and pedestrians; v) Provision of a system of public/community facilities, including trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Project and surrounding area in an efficient and timely manner; vi) Provision of backbone public infrastructure (i.e., roads, utilities) to serve Project residents and the surrounding community; vii) Minimization of impacts to, and generation of revenues in excess of costs for, various public service agencies; viii) Provision of quality housing opportunities compatible with existing and planned development that responds to market demands; Resolution No. 04-242 Page 14 of 16 ix) The addition of housing units in accomplishment of the City's Housing Element Goals and fulfillment of regional housing needs; x) City control over the developing lands on the City's perimeter; and A) Advancement of the regional trail system by the links to be completed by the Project. j. The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental impacts which may result from the Project are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or incorporated into, the Project. The City Council also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as Exhibit "H" to the July 21, 2004 City Council Staff Report for this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of this Resolution and in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. k. Pursuant to provisions of the California Public Resources Code Section 21089(b),the findings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative, vested orfinal until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4,together with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of the County of San Bernardino. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on July21,2004, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The proposed change in density of residential development allowed on the project site is consistent with neighboring properties, including the City's proposed 300 acre (Etiwanda Creek) annexation, and is consistent with General Plan Policy 2.5.2.2, which expresses an intention to apply the Low Density designation to portions of Etiwanda and into the City's Sphere of Influence where the level of services, including roads, shopping and recreational opportunities, are not sufficient to justify higher densities. b. The proposed change in land use designation will promote housing opportunities and help achieve the City's regional share of housing needs. c. The amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties because the land uses and intensities of residential uses allowed are consistent and compatible with the type of housing and open space conservation areas abutting the proposed development. d. The proposed change in designations are also consistent with the provisions of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan which encourages retention of open space and the extension of the image of Old Etiwanda into this area, with relatively large lots and opportunities for an equestrian lifestyle. Resolution No. 04-242 Page 15 of 16 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, this Council hereby approves General Plan Amendment DRC2003-00410. 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of July 2004. AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Howdyshell, Kurth, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: Non"J. d&r—, ATTEST: Debra J. Adam MC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Council held on the 21"day of July 2004. Executed this 22nd day of July 2004, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ebra J. Adam , MC, City Clerk Resolution No. 04-242 Page 16 of 16 18.64 102.81 •mss. 4 v v 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet ® PROPOSED LOW ® PROPOSED RESOURCE CONSERVATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT"Pt" DRC2003-00410