HomeMy WebLinkAbout790 - OrdinancesORDINANCE NO. 790
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE RANCHO
WORKFORCE HOUSING PROJECT, AND ADOPTING
FINDINGS OF FACT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT DRC2006-00634, A
REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP
FROM COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) TO MIXED USE (MU)
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) FOR 17
ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN CENTER AVENUE AND
HERMOSA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 1077-601-02, 03, 04, O5, 06, 11, 13, AND 14
A. RECITALS.
1. On January 23 and continued to February 13, 2008, the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed
public hearing with respect to the above referenced Development District
Amendment DRC2006-00634 and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted
its Resolution No. 08-05, recommending that the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga adopt said Draft Ordinance.
2. On March 5, 2008, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Development District Amendment
DRC2006-00634.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. ORDINANCE.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council
during the above-referenced public hearing on March 5, 2008,
including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 17 acres of land,
basically a rectangular configuration, located on the north side
of Foothill Boulevard between Center Avenue and Hermosa
Ordinance No. 790
Page 2 of 31
Avenue, and is presently improved with existing commercial
(The Whole Enchilada, Espinoza Tire, Route 66 Memories,
Twins Club, Shop & Go) and residential (single-family and
apartment) land uses, agricultural uses, and vacant land. Said
property is currently designated as Community Commercial
(CC) Foothill Boulevard District (Subarea 3); and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Low
Residential and is developed with existing single-family
residences; the property to the west is designated General
Commercial and Low Residential and is developed with
existing commercial and residential uses; the property to the
east is designated General Commercial and Industrial Park
and is developed with an automotive service station and
industrial uses; and the property to the south is designated
General Commercial and is developed with restaurant, day
care, and office uses; and
c. This Amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies
of the General Plan and will provide for development, within
the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and
with related development; and
d. This Amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the
Land Use Element; and
e. This Amendment would not be materially injurious or
detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a
significant impact on the environment, nor the surrounding
properties; and
SECTION 3: Based upon the facts and information contained in the
Environmental Impact Report, together with all written and oral
reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the City Council makes the following findings under
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act:
a. Pursuant to Section 15063 of the State Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA, 14 California Code of Regulations
§15000, et seq. (the "Guidelines"), the City prepared an Initial
Environmental Study (the "Initial Study") for the Project. The
Initial Study concluded that there was substantial evidence
that the Project might have a significant environmental impact
on several specifically identified resources, including air
quality, noise, and traffic. Pursuant to Guidelines Section
15064 and 15081, and based upon information contained in
Ordinance No. 790
Page3of31
the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an
environmental impact report ("EIR") for the Rancho Workforce
Housing Project. On October 1, 2007, the City prepared and
sent a Notice of Preparation of the EIR to responsible, trustee,
and other interested agencies and persons in accordance with
Guidelines Section 15082(a) fora 30-day review period. The
City circulated the Draft EIR to the public and other interested
parties fora 45-day review period from November 15, 2007
through December 31, 2007, consistent with the 45-day public
comment period required by Guidelines Section 15087(c) and
15105. During this public comment period, the City received
six (6) written comment letters regarding the adequacy of the
Draft EIR. The City also received an additional two (2) letters
after the 45-day review period, for a total of eight (8) written
comment letters. The City prepared written responses to all
the comment letters received on the Draft EIR in accordance
with Public Resources Code §21092.5 and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15088.
b. The City Council is the decision-making body for General Plan
Amendment DRC2006-00635 and Development District
Amendment DRC2006-00634 for the Rancho Workforce
Housing Project. For purposes of making its
recommendations on these applications, the City Council has
received and reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report
("FEIR") for the Rancho Workforce Housing Project along with
the oral and written testimony received thereon during the
hearing prior to any action on the Project. Based on that
review, the City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR was
completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and
the Guidelines and that it adequately addresses the impacts
and provides for appropriate mitigation measures for General
Plan Amendment DRC2006-0635, Development District
Amendment DRC2006-00634, and Development Review
DRC2006-00633, and all other approvals necessary to carry
out the Rancho Workforce Housing Project. The City Council
further finds that that the modifications to the FEIR that have
been made since circulation of the DEIR, do not constitute the
addition of new significant information to the FEIR within the
meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
c. The City Council finds that based on the FEIR, additional
public comments, and the written and oral staff report, and
Exhibit A to this Ordinance, that the Project will not cause
significant environmental impacts except with respect to
interior noise level impacts, short-term construction noise
Ordinance No. 790
Page 4 of 31
impacts, long-term operational noise impacts, cumulative
noise impacts, and traffic impacts with regard to opening year
2009 with commercial conditions, residential conditions, and
entire project (commercial and residential) conditions. With
respect to all of these potentially significant impacted areas
and resources, the FEIR identifies feasible mitigation
measures for each impact that reduce the level of impact to
less than significant.
d. In response to each significant impact identified in the FEIR,
and listed in Section 4. b. of this Resolution, changes or
alterations are hereby required in, or incorporated into the
Project, which avoid the impacts identified. The specific
changes and alterations required are contained in Appendix F
of the FEIR, which are hereby incorporated herein by
reference. The mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, contained in Appendix F of the FEIR,
avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant impacts of
the Project as explained in Exhibit A to this Ordinance. The
City Council finds that the mitigation measures and Mitigation
Monitoring Program will avoid or mitigate all significant
environmental effects of the Project.
e. The City Council finds that the FEIR describes a reasonable
range of alternatives to the Project that might fulfill the basic
objectives of the Project. These alternatives include the
required no project alternative, the reduced intensity
alternative, the all residential portion of the project alternative,
and the off-site location alternative. For the reasons explained
in Exhibit A, the alternatives identified in the FEIR are not
feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives
of the Project or would do so only to a much lesser degree,
and therefore leave unaddressed significant social and
economic goals the Project was designed to achieve, and are
thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations,
and/or they are infeasible because they would not eliminate
the significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed
Project. Accordingly, and for the reasons set forth herein, the
City Council finds that each of the alternatives is determined to
be infeasible.
f. The City Council further finds that the Mitigation Monitoring
Program has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The
Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council adopt each of the mitigation measures set forth in the
FEIR and incorporate those measures into the Project. The
Planning Commission also recommends that the City Council
adopt the "Mitigation Monitoring Program" contained in
Appendix F of the FEIR and incorporated herein by reference.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program will be used to monitor
compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions that
have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval.
Ordinance No. 790
Page 5 of 31
g. The custodian of records for the FEIR, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program and all other materials which constitute
the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's
decision is based is the Planning Director of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. Those documents are available for
public review in the Planning Department of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California 91730, telephone (909) 477-2750.
SECTION 4: The Development Districts Map is hereby amended to change
from Community Commercial (CC) Foothill Boulevard District
(Subarea 3) to Mixed Use (MU) Foothill Boulevard District
(Subarea 3) for 17 acres of land, located on the north side of
Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center
Avenue, in words and figures, as shown in the attached Exhibits B
and C and in accordance with the condition shown below:
Planning Department
1) The applicant shall agree to defend at his sole expense
any action brought against the City, its agents, officers,
or employees, because of the issuance of such
approval, or in the alternative, to relinquish such
approval. The applicant shall reimburse the City, its
agents, officers, or employees, for any Court costs and
attorney's fees which the City, its agents, officers, or
employees may be required by a court to pay as a
result of such action. The City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the
defense of any such action but such participation shall
not relieve applicant of his obligations under this
condition.
SECTION 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of
this Ordinance is, for any reason, deemed or held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, or preempted by legislative enactment, such decision
or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this
Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause,
phrase, or words thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or
more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or words might
subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional or preempted
by subsequent legislation.
Ordinance No. 790
Page 6 of 31
SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and
shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its
passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a
newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario,
California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
Please see the /ollowing page
/or /ormal adoption, certi/i[ation and signatures
Ordinance No. 790
Page 7 of 31
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19`h day of March 2008.
AYES: Gutierrez, Kurth, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
Donald J. Kurth, M. D., Mayor
ATTEST:
~~L~-d/}a.Qi
De ra J. Adam , AMC, City Clerk
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting
of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 5'" day of March 2008, and was
passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the
19'" day March 2008.
Executed this 20'h day of March 2008, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Debra J. Ada CMC, City Clerk
Ordinance No. 790
Page S of 31
EXHIBIT A
TO RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUINCIL
ORDINANCE NO. 08 **
Findings and Facts in Suoport of Findings
Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines (the
"Guidelines") provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project far which an
environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects
on the environment that will occur if a project is approved or carried out unless the public
agency makes one or more of the following findings:
A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project,
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified
in the EIR.
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency
and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by
such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
C. Specifc economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga makes the following environmental findings in connection with the proposed
Rancho Workforce Housing Project. These findings are based upon evidence presented in the
record of these proceedings, both written and oral, the FEIR and all of its contents, the
Comments and Responses to Comments on the FEIR, and staff and consultants' reports
presented to the City Council.
II. Project Objectives
As set forth in the FEIR, the objectives of the project (the "Project Objectives') are as
follows:
A. Locate development in infill and redevelopment areas that will minimize any
potential environmental impacts;
B. Provide residential development that is attainable for low and moderate income
segments of the community;
C. More fully utilize the availability of existing public improvements, thereby
providing maximum benefit to the general public;
D. Augment the City's economic base by increasing tax-generating retail uses within
the City; and
]1231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 9 of 31
E. Promote balanced, efficient development that is functional, safe, attractive,,and
convenient to users, and which will strengthen the 'local economy.
III. Effects Not Studied in the EIR and Found to Be Insignificant
The City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted an Initial study to determine significant
effects of the Project. In the course of this evaluation, certain impacts of the Project were found
to be less than significant due to the inability of a project of this scope to create such impacts or
the absence of project characteristics producing effects of this type. The following issue areas
were determined not to be significant for the reasons set forth in the Initial Study, and were not
analyzed in the Draft EIR: (A) Aesthetics; (B) Agricultural Resources; (C) Biological Resources,
with the exception of those potential impacts noted in Section 4 below; (D) Cultural Resources,
with the exception of those potential impacts noted in Section 4 below; (E) Geology and Soils;
(F) Hazardous and Hazardous Materials; (G) Hydrology and Water Quality, with the exception of
those potential impacts noted in Section 4 below; (H) Land Use and Planning; (I) Mineral
Resources; (J) Population and Housing; (K) Public Services; (L) Recreation; and (M) Utilities.
IV. Effects Not Studied in the EIR and Found to Be Less Than Significant, and Will
Remain Insignificant Through Mitigation
A general biological resources assessment/field study was conducted as part of the
Initial Study to aid in the determination that the following issue areas would result in a less than
significant impact. However, there still remains the potential for a significant impact to result to
the following issue areas. As a result, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
Project to ensure any potential impact remains less than significant.
A. Biological Resources
Burrowing Owl
The Project site is located in an urbanized area and has been previously used for
agricultural purposes. Because of this, there is a lack of suitable habitat on the Project site and
no probability for the occurrence of any sensitive species except with regard to the burrowing
owl. Although the probability of the occurrence of the burrowing owl is low, the EIR has
identified a mitigation measure to ensure any potential impact remains less than significant.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifcally, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
BIO-1: A precondition survey for the burrowing owl is required to confirm
presence or absence of the species on the proposed project site. The pre-construction survey
for the burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days prior to the commencement of grading
activities. If it is determined that the project site is occupied by this species, Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 shall apply. Conversely, if the project site is not occupied, Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 shall not be required.
II?31-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 10 of 31
BIO-2: Any western burrowing owls identified on site shall be relocated
prior to the commencement of grading activities. The relocation of any specimen shall be
conducted per applicable California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) procedures. Relocation of on-site burrowing owls .shall not
be permitted during the nesting season for this species.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Currently, the northwest and center portions of the proposed project site
provide marginally suitable habitat for the burrowing owl. Although a Field Study was conducted
as part of the Initial Study, apre-construction survey for the owl is required to confirm the
presence or absence of the owl from the site to avoid impacts to any owl(s). Vegetation in these
areas is low to moderate in height and interspersed with debris piles, thus providing a potential
for owl occupancy. Vegetation within the northeastern portion consists of remnant vineyards,
overgrown with ruderal vegetation. This portion of the project site would provide marginally
suitable habitat as well, should conditions change (i.e., with vegetation removal). The burrowing
owl is a mobile species; therefore, apre-construction survey is required to ensure no impact to
burrowing owls that may occupy the proposed project site. With the implementation of
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 impacts related to this issue would be reduced to less
than significant.
2. Raptors
The Project site contains a few large ornamental trees which could be suitable
roosting or nesting trees for raptors. During the Feld survey conducted as part of the biological
resources assessment conducted as part of the Initial Study, no nest for raptors were observed.
However, because raptors are mobile and there is the possibility that nests may have been
established during the period since the Initial Study, there is the potential for a, significant
impact. With the incorporation of the mitigation measure articulated below, any impact will be
reduced to less than significant levels.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
BIO-3: Any large trees on site shall be removed between September 1
and January 31, outside of the typical nesting season for raptors. If vegetation removal is to
take place during the breeding/nesting season (i.e., February 1 through August 31), then pre-
construction nest surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that active nests
are protected. The last survey day shall be scheduled three days prior to the start of
construction work. If nesting birds are found, a qualified biologist shall be consulted regarding
the relocation or extent of the buffer area around those nesting areas.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Because any raptor nests in the trees located on the project site may
have been established after the Initial Study field survey, there is the potential for a significant
impact with regard to raptors. However, with the incorporation of the above identified mitigation
11231-0001V1031054vidoc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 11 of 31
measure, any impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure
specifies the pre-construction nest surveys shall be conducted, and that removal of trees shall
be limited to the period outside the nesting season for raptors. Further, the mitigation measure
requires that a qualifed biologist be contacted if raptor nests or nesting birds are located.
These measures will ensure a less than significant impact.
B. Cultural Resources
Archeological Resources
There are no known archeological sites or resources recorded on the Project
site. Further, through compliance with Senate Bill 18 which requires notification of the Project to
potentially affected Native American Tribes, only one Tribe responded indicating that there was
no knowledge of any specific cultural or sacred resources on the site. Nevertheless, the
potential to uncover an archeological resource may be present.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
CUL-1: In the event a cultural resource is uncovered during the course of
grading or construction of the project, ground-disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find shall
be redirected until the nature and extent of the find can be evaluated by a qualified archeologist
(meeting Secretary of Interior Standards). Any such resource uncovered during the course of
project-related to grading or construction shall be recorded and/or removed per applicable City
and/or State regulations.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Although the site is located in a developed area where significant ground
disturbance has occurred, the potential may still exist to uncover an archeological resource.
With the incorporation of the above identified mitigation measure, any impact to an
archeological resource will be less than significant. Specifically, if any archeological resource is
found, any ground-disturbing activities will be relocated and a qualified archeologist will be
consulted. Further, the archeological resource will be recorded and/or removed per City and
State regulations. This will ensure that any impact is reduced to a less than signifcant level.
2. Paleontological Resources
The project site is located in an area containing extensive existing development.
The development of the existing roadway,. .curbs, sidewalks, infrastructure, and nearby
structures would have required a large amount of ground disturbance that would have likely
resulted in the discovery of or destruction of existing paleontological resources. While there
have been no paleontological resources recorded within the City and the project area has
previously been disturbed, the potential to uncover a paleontological resource may still be
present.
a. ,Findings
4
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 12 of 31
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
CUL-2: In the event that paleontological resources are encountered
during construction excavation, the project proponent shall halt excavation in the vicinity of the
discovery and call a qualified paleontologist to evaluate the significance of the find and make
recommendations for further mitigation.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
With the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, any potential
impact on paleontological resources will be less than significant. The measure will ensure that
any excavation of the Project site will be halted when paleontological resources are
encountered and that a qualifed paleontologist be consulted, thereby ensuring a less than
significant impact.
C. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Structures Other than Residential in 100-year Flood Hazard Area
Because a portion of the Project site is located within a 100-year flood hazard
area, and because a small portion of Hermosa Avenue (adjacent to the Project site) is prone to
flooding, there is the potential for a significant impact to result. However, with the
implementation of the identified mitigation measures, any potential impact will be less than
significant.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
HYD-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the western
approximately five acres, the project applicant shall submit and receive approval from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") a Conditional Letter of Map Revision -Fill
(CLOMR-F) to remove property from the 100-year flood zone map.
HYD-2: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the western
approximately five acres, the project applicant shall submit to the City of Rancho Cucamonga
supporting evidence of compliance with FEMA CLOMR-F specifications and requirements
including the discussion and analysis of fill material placement, elevation changes, and hydro-
modification impacts.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMS) identify areas subject to 100-year flooding. An area along Hermosa
Avenue is shown within the 100-year flood hazard area on the FIRMS. The conceptual plan for
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 13 of 31
the western portion of the project site includes commercial, office space, and a restaurant. The
'structures associated with the western portion of the project site may fall within the 100-year
flood hazard area. Proper storm drainage facilities shall be constructed on the project site as
part of the drainage plans to be reviewed and approved by the Building. Official and City
Engineer. Implementation of the features and facilities contained in the approved drainage plan
will help to ensure that impacts associated with flooding or redirection of flood water flows are
less than significant. In addition, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 and
HYD-2, impacts related to this issue would be reduced to less than significant.
V. Effects Studied in the EIR and Found to Be Insignificant
A. Noise Impacts
Certain noise impacts were studied in the EIR and found to be less than significant.
Specifically, noise construction associated with groundbourne vibration was determined to be
less than significant, as was the potential for the Project to expose people in the Project area to
excessive noise levels based on the proximity to an airport. Further, the Project is not
anticipated to cause excessive off-site traffic noise impacts. Although these noise impacts were
found to be less than significant, other noise impacts, as articulated below, were found to be
significant requiring mitigation:
B. Air Quality Impacts
Certain air quality impacts were studied in the EIR and also found to be less than
significant. Specifically: (1) the proposed Project is consistent with the most recent Air Quality
Management Plan; (2) the Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to
construction emissions, with the exception of fugitive dust articulated below; (3) the Project will
have a less than significant impact with regard to operational emissions; (4) the proposed
Project will have a less than significant impact with regard to exposing sensitive receptors to
pollutant concentrations from architectural coatings; (5) the proposed Project will not impose
short-term health risk impacts on sensitive receptors;. and (6) the proposed. Project will not
create objectionable odors.
VI. Effects Studied in the EIR But Which Have the Potential to Become Significant,
But Will Remain Insignificant Through Mitigation
A. Air Quality
1. Fugitive Dust Emissions
The proposed Project is not anticipated to have a significant impact with regard
to construction related fugitive dust emissions. Nevertheless, to ensure this impact remains less
than significant, mitigation measures have been identified.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the signifcant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
6
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 14 of 31
4.1.1A During project construction the construction contractor shall
implement the following measures to reduce fugitive dust.
(A) Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible
(B) All excavating and grading operations shall be
suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous
gusts) exceed 25 mph.
(C) All streets shall be swept once per day if visible soil
materials are carried to adjacent streets
(recommend water sweepers with reclaimed water).
(D) Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit
unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks
and any equipment leaving the site each trip.
(E) All on-site roads shall be paved as soon as
feasible, watered periodically or chemically
stabilized.
(F) The area disturbed by clearing, grading,
earthmoving, or excavation operations shall be
minimized at all times.
4.1.18 The construction contractor shall select the construction
equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy efficiency. The
construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans include a statement that all
construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications.
4.1.1C The construction contractor shall utilize electric or diesel powered
equipment in lieu of gasoline powered engines where feasible.
4.1.1D The construction contractor shall ensure that construction grading
plans include a statement that work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. During smog
season (May through October), the overall length of the construction period will be extended,
thereby decreasing the size of the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment
operating at the same time.
4.1.1E The construction contractor shall time the construction activities so
as to not interfere with peak-hour traffic and minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes
adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to
existing roadways.
4.1.1E The construction contractor shall support and encourage
ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 15 of 31
Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with land clearing and
exposure of soils to the air and wind, and cut-and-fill grading operations. Dust generated during
construction varies substantially on aproject-by-project basis, depending on the level of activity,
the specific operations, and weather conditions at the time of construction. The project is
required to comply with regional rules that assist in reducing short-term air pollutant emissions.
South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust
be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not
remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source. In addition,
SCAQMD Rule 402 requires implementation of dust suppression techniques to prevent fugitive
dust from creating a nuisance off site. Applicable dust suppression techniques from Rule 403
are summarized below. Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce the
fugitive dust generation (and thus the PM10 component): Compliance with these rules would
reduce impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. The following are the applicable Rule 403
Measures
• Apply nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers'
specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas
inactive for 10 days or more).
• Water active sites at least twice daily. (Locations where grading is to
occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving).
• All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil,
covered or should maintain at least
with the requirements of California
(freeboard means vertical space be'
the trailer).
or other loose materials are to be
two feet of freeboard in accordance
Vehicle Code (CVC) section 23114
ween the top of the load and top of
• Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the
main road.
• Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be reduced to 15 mph or less.
Additional dust suppression measures in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook are
included as Mitigation Measures 4.1.1A through 4.1.1E to ensure that impacts remain less
than significant. In sum, through compliance with Rule 402 and 403 as well as the additional
measures incorporated as mitigation measures, this impact will be less than significant.
VII. Effects Studied in the EIR and Found to be Significant, But Reduced to a Level of
Insignificance Through Mitigation
The following impacts were analyzed in the EIR and found to be significant. However,
with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures, these impacts will be reduced to a
level of insignificance.
The City Council finds that the feasible mitigation measures for the Project identified in
the Final EIR (and below) would reduce the Project's impacts to a less than significant level.
A. Noise
Interior Noise Levels
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 16 of 31
The analysis in the EIR demonstrates that construction of the proposed project
would result in noise levels at the.on-site proposed residences exceeding the maximum noise
level allowed.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation. measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than signifcant levels:
4.2.1A Residential units located within 358 feet of the centerline of
Foothill Boulevard shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning
system. Second-story balconies or decks on these units with a line-of-sight to Foothill
Boulevard would require an additional 6-foot-high wall. In addition, any ground-level outdoor
uses, such as patios or park/recreation areas with aline-of-sight to Foothill Boulevard and within
358 feet of the centerline of Foothill Boulevard, shall be equipped with a sound wall or sound
wall/berm combination with an effective height of 8 feet.
4.2.1 B Residential units located within 90 feet of the centerline of Center
Avenue shall be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air conditioning system.
4.2.1C For the possible commercial/retail use on the western 5-acre .-
parcel, delivery truck activity shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.).
4.2.1D For the possible restaurant use on the western 5-acre parcel,
restaurant deliveries shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:OD p.m.) unless the
proposed on-site residences will be equipped with mechanical ventilation, such as an air
conditioning system.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The proposed residential uses would potentially be exposed to high traffic
noise from Foothill Boulevard. Therefore, mitigation measures are required to ensure that the
sensitive receptor locations are not exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding the City's
standards. Whether or not a specific apartment building is subject to the established mitigation
measures depends on the building's location within the project.
For residential units within the project site, the implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures would result in the construction of sound walls and mechanical
ventilation. The sound walls would provide a 5 to 7 dBA or more in noise reduction for ground-
floor receptors. With a combination of walls, doors, and windows, standard construction for
southern California residential buildings would provide more than 20 dBA in exterior-to-interior
noise reduction with windows closed and 12 dBA with the windows open. However, with
windows open, there is a potential for interior noise on the ground floor units to exceed the 45
dBA Ldp standard (i.e., 63 dBA - 12 dBA = 51 dBA). Therefore, the implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4.2.1A would be required to ensure that windows can remain closed for a
prolonged period of time. Further, with the implementation of all the identified mitigation
measures, noise levels would be reduced to a level that would be consistent with the City's
General Plan noise standards. Therefore, impacts associated with this issue would be mitigated
to level that is considered to be less than signifcant.
11231-0001\10310543.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 17 of 31
2. Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
Construction noise impacts resulting from the proposed Project will be potentially
adverse requiring mitigation.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
4.2.2A The construction contractor shall implement the following
mitigation measures during project construction. Construction will be limited to the hours of 6:30
a.m. to B:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, in accordance with City standards. No
construction activities are permitted outside of these hours or on Sundays and federal holidays.
4.2.26 The project contractor shall place all stationary construction
equipment sb that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project
site.
4.2.2C The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in
areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and
noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.
4.2.2D During all site excavation and grading, the projecU construction
contractor shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and
maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers' standards.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Noise levels from demolition, grading, and other construction activities for
the proposed project may range up to 85 dBA Lmax at the closest residential uses to the north of
the project site for very limited times when construction occurs near them. Construction noise
impacts of the proposed project would be potentially adverse.
Typical noise levels range up to 91 dBA Lmax at 50 feet during the noisiest
construction phases. The site preparation phase, which includes site excavation and grading,.
tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is
earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as
backfillers, dozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment
includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of
construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 to 4
minutes at lower-power settings.
Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of
earthmovers, bulldozers, and water and pickup trucks. Noise typically associated with the use
of construction equipment is estimated between 79 and 89 dBA Lma, at a distance of 50 feet
from the construction effort for the grading phase. This equipment would be used on site. Each
dozer would generate a maximum of 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, and water and pickup trucks would
generate approximately 86 dBA Lm,x at 50 feet. Each doubling of the sound spurces with equal
10
II?31-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 18 of 31
strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction
equipment operates as an individual noise source, the worst-case composite noise level during
this phase of construction would be 91 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active
construction area. As these noise sources are point sources, the noise decreases at a rate of 6
dB per doubling of distance.
The nearest residences are located to the north of the project site along
Stafford Street. These residences are approximately 25 feet from the project boundary and may
be subjected to short-term noise reaching 97 dBA Lma, intermittently generated by construction
activities on site. Additionally, demolition of the existing buildings on the western 5-acre parcel
may occur after the project apartments are occupied; however, these will be no closer than the
existing residences. This level of hoise is comparable with vehicular traffic noise on Foothill
Boulevard. Construction-related noise impacts of the proposed project would be potentially
adverse; however, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, the impact would be
reduced to a less than significant level. To minimize the impact of the construction noise on
residences adjacent to the project area, compliance with the City's Noise Control Ordinance
would be required.
Because Construction of the proposed project would result in noise levels
at the closest residences exceeding the maximum noise level allowed, the above identified
mitigation measures will be implemented to reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
More specifically, by limiting construction hours, using noise mufflers on construction
equipment, and placing construction equipment and staging areas away from residential uses,
this signifcant impact will be mitigated to a less than significant level.
3. Long Term Operational Noise Impacts
The EIR found that the proposed Project would cause a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels associated with long-term operations of the proposed Project.
This significant impact will be reduced to a.less than significant level with the imposition of
mitigation measures.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measures have been imposed to mitigate any
potential impacts to less than significant levels:
4.2.3A For any commercial/retail use located directly adjacent to a
residential use, delivery truck activity shall be restricted to daytime hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00
p.m.).
4.2.36 In the event that the on-site residential uses are constructed and
occupied prior to the scheduled demolition of the tire shop, a 6-foot-high wall surrounding the
tire shop will be required in order to reduce impacts on adjacent residential uses to a less than
significant level.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
11
1 1 23 1-0001A1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 19 of 31
Potential long-term stationary noise impacts would be associated
primarily with operations at the on-site commercial uses. These commercial uses would
generate noise from truck delivery, loading/unloading activities, and other activities at the
parking lot. These activities are potential point sources of noise that could affect noise-sensitive
receptors adjacent to the loading areas, such as the proposed residential uses on site.
For example, there is an auto tire shop located on the project site near
the center of the Foothill Boulevard frontage that would project noise to the surrounding
proposed residences. This business is scheduled to be removed; however, it is possible it will
continue operation for some period after the apartment portion of the project is built. Noise
sources from the auto tire shop include customer-generated noises as well as noises associated
with auto services, such as pneumatic drills, hydraulic lifts, and other machinery or equipment
typically used in such operations.
It is anticipated that the closest project residences will be located no less
than 100 feet from the auto service area. Peak noise levels associated with the auto service
activities would range up to 80 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Noise attenuation from a point source will
drop off at 6 dBA per doubling of the distance, resulting in a noise reduction of 6 dBA at 100 feet
from the source. Therefore, the homes 100 feet from these auto service activities would
experience noise levels up to 74 dBA Lmax. This range of maximum noise levels is lower than
the daytime exterior noise standards of 75 dBA Lmax; however, even with windows closed, it
exceeds the daytime interior noise standards of 45 dBA Lmax. A 6-foot-high concrete masonry
wall surrounding the tire shop would provide a minimum of 6 dBA in noise attenuation to the
nearby residences, thus reducing the daytime interior noise levels to below the standard (80
dBA - 6 dBA - 24 dBA - 6 dBA = 44 dBA). It is assumed that the auto service operations do
not occur after 10:00 p.m.
Further, delivery trucks for the anticipated.on-site office/retail/restaurant
uses would result in a maximum noise similar to noise readings from loading and unloading
activities for other projects, which generates a noise level of 75 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Based on
the site plan, the restaurant will be located in the southwest corner of the site, more than 400
feet from the nearest proposed on-site residence and more than 600 feet from existing
residences to the north. Therefore, with the distance divergence, loading/ unloading noise
would potentially reach up to 57 dBA Lma, at the ground level of the nearest residences to the
east and 53 dBA Lmax at the ground level of the nearest residences to the north. This potential
maximum noise level would not exceed the daytime exterior noise standard of 60 dBA;
however, it would exceed the nighttime exterior 55 dBA Lz5 standard at the nearest proposed
on-site residence if the noise lasts more than 15 minutes in any hour. Although a typical truck
unloading process takes an average of 15-20 minutes, this maximum noise level occurs in a
much shorter period of time, (i.e., in a few minutes). As long as the maximum noise level occurs
in a time period less than 15 minutes in any hour, a nighttime exterior 60 dBA L,~ standard will
not be exceeded. Therefore, noise associated with loading and unloading activities at the
restaurant would not result in noise levels exceeding either the daytime or nighttime exterior
standards at the nearest residences to the north or the east.
Standard building construction in southern California would provide 24
dBA or more in noise reduction from exterior to interior with windows and doors closed and 12
dBA or more with windows and doors open. With windows closed, the maximum interior noise
attributable to the restaurant loading/unloading activities would be reduced to 33 dBA Lmax With
windows open, it would be reduced to 45 dBA Lmax. Thus, only with windows open could the
12
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 20 of 31
nighttime interior noise standard of 40 dBA Lma„ be exceeded. Therefore, the restaurant
deliveries must be restricted to daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.).
In sum, because the tire shop may operate for a time after the residential
units of the Project are constructed and occupied, Mitigation Measure 4.2.36 will be
implemented to reduce any potential significant impact to a less than significant level. Further
because the maximum interior noise attributable to the retail/office loading/unloading activities
would only be reduced to 41 dBA Lma„ at the existing residences to the north (which exceeds the
nighttime interior noise standard of 40 dBA Lma„), Mitigation Measure 4.2.26 will be
implemented which will require delivery hours to be restricted ensuring the nighttime interior
noise standard will not be exceeded by the operations of the Project.
Traffic
Opening Year 2009 with Commercial Conditions Traffic and Level of
Service Impacts
The EIR examined traffic impacts at Opening Year 2009 with Commercial
Conditions of the Project and determined that a significant impact will result with regard to
Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
4.3.1A The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of
Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City
begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall
pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a minimum level of service
standard of D. With the addition of the cdmmercial portion of project traffic .to the year 2009
baseline scenario, the intersection level of service at the following intersection would result in
less than the minimum service standard:
Hermosa AvenuelChurch Street. The intersection would result in
LOS F conditions in the P.M. peak hour..
As identified above, the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection is
forecast to exceed the satisfactory level of service of D in 2009 with the commercial conditions
of the project. However, in the 2009 without project scenario, the Hermosa Avenue/Church
Street intersection would also operate at LOS F during the P. M. peak hour which is an
unsatisfactory level of service, and at 2007 existing conditions, this P.M, peak hour is at LOS E.
However, because the forecast level of service at this intersection exceeds the minimum service
standard of D in the year 2009 plus commercial scenario, a significant impact will result.
13
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 21 of 31
To ensure that potential impacts to the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street
intersection is reduced to less than significant levels, the above articulated mitigation measure
shall be'put in place. With these improvements, the P.M. peak hour LOS level for the Hermosa
Avenue/Church Street intersection operating under 2009 Project with Commercial Conditions
will be reduced to LOS C and will be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance.
2. Opening Year 2009 with Residential Project Conditions Traffic and Level
of Service Impacts
The EIR examined traffic impacts at Opening Year 2009 with Residential
Conditions of the Project and determined that a significant impact will result with regard to
Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
4.3.1A The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of
Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City
begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall
pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a minimum level of service
standard of D. With the addition of the residential portion of the project traffic to the year 2009
baseline scenario, the intersection levels of service at the following intersection would result in
less than the minimum service standard:
Hermosa Avenue/Church Street. The intersection would operate
at LOS F conditions in the P.M. peak hour.
However, even without the project (i.e., with just the 2009 baseline), the'
above intersection would operate at LOS F during the P.M. peak hour, which is an
unsatisfactory level of service. Further, at existing 2007 conditions, the P.M. peak hour LOS
level is at LOS E. Impacts to this intersection are considered a significant impact of the
proposed project.
To ensure that potential impacts to the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street
intersection is reduced to less than significant levels, the above articulated mitigation measure
shall be put in place. With these improvements, the P.M. peak hour LOS level for the Hermosa
Avenue/Church Street intersection operating under 2009 Project with Residential Conditions will
be reduced to LOS C and will be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Opening Year 2009 with Entire Project (Residential and Commercial)
Traffic and Level of Service
14
II?31-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 22 of 31
The EIR examined traffic impacts at Opening Year 2009 with Entire Project
(Residential and Commercial) of the Project and determined that a significant impact will result
with regard to Hermosa Avenue/Church Street intersection.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR. Specifically, the following mitigation measure has been imposed to mitigate any potential
impacts to less than significant levels:
4.3.1A The developer shall construct a traffic signal at the intersection of
Hermosa Avenue and Church Street with Transportation Fee Credits. In the event that the City
begins construction of the traffic signal prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall
pay the City Transportation Fee in accordance with the number of units in the development.
Facts in Support of Findings
With the addition of the entire project (commercial and residential) traffic
to the year 2009 baseline scenario, the level of service at the following intersection would result
in less than the minimum service standard of LOS D:
Hermosa Avenue/Church Street would operate at LOS F
conditions in the P.M. peak hour.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set a minimum level of service
standard of D. The level of service deficiency at the Hermosa Avenue and Church Street
intersection is also forecast to occur in the year 2009 without the project; thus, the project would
not produce the LOS deficiency by itself. Nonetheless, the project does contribute to the level
of service deficiencies, resulting in a significant impact, and mitigation is required.
To ensure that potential impacts to the Hermosa Avenue/Church Street
intersection are reduced to less than significant levels, the above articulated mitigation measure
shall be put in place. With these improvements, the P.M. peak hour LOS level for the Hermosa
Avenue/Church Street intersection operating under 2009 Project with Entire Project Conditions
will be reduced to LOS C and will be fully mitigated to a level of insignificance.
VIII. Project Alternatives
A. Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in the EIR.
The City considered a range of reasonable alternatives as more fully discussed in the
EIR. Some of these alternatives were rejected outright and were not analyzed in the EIR
because they would not fulfill the basic project objectives. This range included: (1) No Build
Alternative; (2) the Business Office Alternative; and (3) the Residential Portion of the Project
Alternative.
With regard to the No Build Alternative, no development would take place on the site,
and the project site would be retained in its current condition. The existing fire shop,
residences, strawberry fields, and commercial uses would remain on the property. Disallowing
development of the site, as suggested by this alternative, would impose conditions that conflict
15
11231-0001\1031054v3.dac
Ordinance No. 790
Page 23 of 31
with the existing vision of the City of Rancho Cucamgnga for the site and the project area. The
No Build Alternative does not represent the highest or best.use of the site. Furthermore,
retention of the project site in its current condition would not fulfill the primary objectives of the
proposed project and would not provide residential development that is attainable for low and
moderate income segments of the community or augment the City s economic base by
increasing tax-generating retail uses within the City: The substantial economic and land use
benefits derived from the development of the proposed project would be forfeited.
Consequently, the No Build Alternative was rejected from further consideration in the EIR.
With regard to the Business Office Alternative, the Business Office Alternative consists
of the development of the project site entirely with office rises. The development of the entire
site with such uses would not provide the varied retail, residential, and service uses associated
with the proposed project. Additionally, the development of office uses would not provide the
additional municipal revenues expected to be generated from the proposed project; nor would it
provide residential development that is attainable for low and moderate income segments of the
community. Thus, this alternative was rejected because it would not provide the basic City
objectives for development of the project site.
Third, the Residential Portion of the Project Alternative would only consist of the
development of 166 apartments that are proposed as part of the project. The office and
commercial portions would not be developed as part of this alternative. The development of a
portion of the site with residential uses would not provide the varied retail and service uses
associated with the proposed project. Similar to the alternative for office uses, the development
of apartments alone would not provide the additional municipal revenues expected to be
generated from the proposed project; nor would it bring new revenue-generating uses in the
City. Additionally, the development of the residential portion alone would fail to achieve the
objectives of the proposed project, in particular including promotion of "balanced, efficient
development that is functional, safe, attractive and convenient to users, and which will
strengthen the local economy," and providing "additional jobs to the local economy." This
alternative was rejected because it would not provide the basic City objectives for development
of the project site.
B. Alternatives Analyzed in the EIR.
The EIR however did undertake an analysis of three other potential project alternatives.
These three alternatives were also rejected for the various reasons stated below.
No Project, Existing Zoning Alternative
a. Summary of Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes what would reasonably be expected
to occur, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services, in the foreseeable future. The project site is currently zoned Community Commercial
and designated for General Commercial uses. Given the goals and objectives of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga and the continuing trend of infill development in the project area, it is highly
reasonable in the event the proposed project were not approved, that the site would be
developed with some type of commercial use. Within the Commercial zone, uses including
offices, retail commercial, and general services are allowed. With the No Project Alternative,
development of a retail commercial use is assumed at a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) of 25
percent, allowing up to 185,000 square feet of commercial floor space.
16
11231-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 79C
Page 24 of 31
b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
With the No Project, Existing Zoning Alternative, the project site is
assumed to be developed with a cbmmercial use consistent with the City's General Plan and
Zoning. With this alternative, significant unavoidable air quality impacts would occur that do not
occur with the proposed project. In addition, impacts related to aesthetics, traffic, and noise
would be increased over those of the proposed project. The No Project, Existing Zoning
Alternative has been rejected because it would have greater impacts to air quality, noise, and
traffic than the proposed project. In addition this alternative would not meet all of the City's
objectives, which includes the failure of the alternative to "provide residential development that
is attainable for low and moderate income segments of the community."
2. Reduced Intensity Alternative
a. Summary of Alternative
Under this alternative, the project site would be developed with
approximately 75 percent of the residential, commercial, office, and restaurant uses envisioned
under the proposed project. This alternative would result in 125 apartment units, a 3,750-
square foot restaurant, an 18,750-square foot office building, and 12,000 square feet of retail
shops.
b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
With the Reduced Intensity Alternative, visual resource impacts would be
similar. Impacts related to short-term construction-related air quality and noise impacts would
be reduced although similar to those identified with the proposed project. Further, long-term air
quality operational emissions under this alternative would remain less than significant, although
reduced in magnitude. Because of the reduction in vehicle trips achieved under this alternative,
impacts to the operation of local roadways and intersections would be proportionally reduced
from the proposed project. Under this alternative, the proposed project objectives are met,
although to a lesser degree. Reducing the amount of commercial square footage would
decrease the amount of revenue forecast to be generated by the proposed project. This
Reduced Intensity Alternative has been rejected, because it limits employment opportunities by
limiting commercial and office square footage and housing opportunities would be decreased
when compared to the proposed project.
3. ,All Residential Project Alternative
Summary of Alternative
With the All Residential Alternative, development of apartment units
similar to those in the proposed project would occur. This alternative assumes that the existing
restaurant on the southeastern 1.5-acre corner of the project (the Whole Enchilada) would
remain. Residential apartment uses would take place on 15.54 acres of the site and would be
developed at the same density as the proposed project with 15.75 units per acre, resulting in
245 apartment units. This alternative would result in the same removal of all other existing uses
on the property as the proposed project.
b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
17
11?31-0001\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 25 of 31
With the All Residential Project Alternative, potential impacts associated
with short-term construction related air quality and noise impacts would remain similar to those
identified with the proposed project. Impacts related to traffic operations would be proportionally
reduced in relation to the reduction in trip generation between the All Residential Project
Alternative and the proposed project. The volume of pollutants emitted during operation of the
project under this alternative would-be reduced and would be less than significant. The change
in the vehicle noise achieved under this alternative would not be perceptible. With the reduction
of traffic resulting from the development of the All Residential Project Alternative, air emissions
and noise levels would be correspondingly reduced; however, the significance of air, noise, and
traffic impacts would remain similar to those of the proposed project and would be less than
significant. New housing opportunities would be created with the additional residential
apartments planned for this alternative, however, the absence of retail uses from the project site
would most likely reduce (sales tax) revenue to the City and therefore not meet all project
objectives.
4. Off Site Alternative
a. Summary of Alternative
The Off-Site Location Alternative analyzes the impacts of the proposed
project in a different location. This alternative would be composed of the same intensity and the
same uses in an alternative location. An alternative site would require adequate land, access,
and services, and must be compatible with adjacent uses. The selected location for the off-site
alternative is southeast of the proposed project, at the southwest corner of Arrow Route and
Haven Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This site is currently zoned for industrial park
uses and is approximately 17 acres.
b. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
The Off-Site Alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed
project in all impact areas with the exception of Hydrology and Water Quality which would be
reduced. The Off-Site Alternative is not in a redevelopment area and does not meet the City's
objective of locating development in infill and redevelopment areas that will minimize any
potential environmental impacts and therefore has been rejected.
5. Environmentally Superior Alternative
The EIR has identified the Reduced Intensity Alternative as the environmentally
superior alternative. However, because this alternative would meet the project objectives to a
lesser degree than the proposed Project, the alternative has been rejected. More specifically, it
limits employment opportunities by limiting commercial and office square footage and housing
opportunities would be decreased when compared to the proposed project.
C. The Project As Proposed
Summary of Project
The Project is described in detail in the EIR.
2. Reasons for Selecting Project as Proposed
18
11231-000]\1031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 26 of 31
The City Council has carefully reviewed the attributes and environmental impacts
of the Alternatives described in the EIR and has compared it with those of the proposed Project.
The City Council finds that the various Alternatives are infeasible for various environmental,
economic, technical, social, or other reasons as discussed above. The City Council further finds
that the Project as proposed is the best combination of features to serve the interests of the
public and achieve the project goals.
More specifically, the proposed Project locates development within the Rancho
Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency project area designated for redevelopment, and as
analyzed in the FEIR, minimizes any potential environmental effects. The proposed Project also
provides 166 apartment units as workforce housing. Further, the proposed Project will make
use of the availability of existing public improvements by locating the Project in a developed
area, thereby providing maximum benefit to the general public. The proposed Project also will
help augment the City's economic base by increasing tax-generating retail uses within the City
with the addition of 16,000 square feet of retail shops, and a 5,000 square foot restaurant.
Finally, the proposed Project will be an example of balanced, efficient development that is
functional, safe, attractive, and convenient to residents and other users, and will strengthen the
local economy by the addition of 25,000 square feet of office space, as-well as retail and
restaurant uses. For all of these reasons, the City Council has selected the proposed Project.
19
11231-0001\I031054v3.doc
Ordinance No. 790
Page 27 of 31
ZONING MAP - EXISTING
m' Low Residentia Low Residential
Industrial Park
a
N
N
i Low Residential ~~
0
J
Y pp ~
.~A M1 v7 iY~G ' d~ i M y L
k~s
SUB,lECTPROPERTY~~; , °~±
_ * ~ r~kc t b`h - j f 3 ` "`~' """ s ~' ~APtJ 107760702 n SF,J i
m ~- .- . ,` ~ ~ v' .. Industrial Park
Low Residential
..y >;. ,c ~n~'~P w~$~ ~iit ~s !?Xi~'Pt '` 1i"~~sxh Community
Commercial Office ~ ~ - ~ ° r s n~ '" ~~n) ~ ' '~ ei ~ ~ Ja nk F ~, Commercial
r _4 Wirt ni urx r n to Z )yyn
ri _7 < h~ if hF' t;'~d Y i t J ~ i'r, l4aNN
;...(.n ..wFk rv~Aµ.4.4. +~(4S v. iNVV vr>~ ~ 1-sJf.v ft vti}GA.~•
L
FO
Community
Commercial Commercial Office Mizetl
Use
Low Medium ~ Low Residential
Residential -Low Medium ,
GnciAuntiel
0.06 0 0.06 0.12 Miles
EXHIBIT B-1
Ordinance No. 790
Page 28 of 31
ZONING MAP - PROPOSED
Industrial
Low Residential Low Residential Park
c
v
w Low Residential
v
3
J ~ ~ n ..
- Industrial
... ~ Park
Low Residential
Commercial Office I ~ ,:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~ I Commercial
Community ' I I Commercial Office /
Commercial / i"t11Q
Use
Low Medium 1~ t Low Residential ' Low Medium Residential
Residential f ~
r~ n
N
0.06. 0 0.06 0.12 Miles
EXHIBIT B-2
Ordinance No. 790
Page 29 of 31
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code
Section 17.32.080
Q «g
a
a W
V)
w ~
u ~. ~ m O
J
m m ~ Z
y ~ a t
~ a ~
M
Q
Q~.
\I
I~
r~
~ I'
17:32-71
w
U '
W J
p 5
a ~
~ o
~ ¢
W w Z
~ ~ ' O y =
a ~ O U
0
O ~ O ~ = J
J
K u
.
W
U ` . K
_
¢
w . w w
', °w, a
o'
~ ~ g o: :~
U
~ ~ ~~ °
~
Q. Y
Y
F >
~~ Q d,
0,0 6
¢
.
' K U:: ~: 7' tt'~.10~
.
W ~ C
W ~ r~~.
¢
'
~ a' o ¢ .
N
.~ u m
~ N U
. Q~~.w
in.o~
~ U U~ ~
U N~ U C' ~(
J J
Q Q'
F
F
~ O W
' Q
N N F W ~
~ ~ ~ K a4a
H J 1~ ~ Q
OO$
J
N
O W. . ~
2
pr?rv
~
Z ' ~ j ~ w~r
O ~
~
W W ~ ~ '^ ¢uptt
W
~ E6
O J ~ ' 0Q
W W
J
~
~ ~ ~ ~
2/08
EXHIBIT B-3
Ordinance No. 790
Page 30 of 31
Rancho Cucamonea Development Code Section 17 08 030
Land Use Mix Percent Ranae Acreaae Ranae
Medium-High Residential 0% - 100% 0 - 3.24 acres
Office 0% - 100% 0 - 3.24 acres
The land use categories within the Mixed Use area shall be of the character and intensity
as defined in Development Code Chapters 17.08 and 17.10. All uses that may be
authorized under the Offce designation are subject to Conditional Use Permit approval.
The corresponding development standards, as listed in Chapters 17.08 and .17.10, for
each permitted land use shall be applicable within the Mixed Use District.
2. Foothill Boulevard and' Haven Avenue Site: This 31.5 acre site is located on the
southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue. The following table specifies
the uses and range of development that may be permitted on the site:
Land Use Mix Percent Range Acreage Range
High Residential 40%-45% 12.6-14.2 acres
Office 55% - 60% 17.3 -18.9 acres
The land use categories within the Mixed Use area shall be of the character and intensity
as defined in Development code Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.30. .All uses and
activities that are permitted, or may be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit, under the
High- Residential, Office/Professional, General Commercial, and Industrial Park
designations are subject to the same permitting processes and development standards
as listed in Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.20, shall be applicable to any development
within the Mixed Use District, or shall be subject to a Master Plan of Development
approved by the Planning Commission specifically for this site.
3. Foothill Boulevard-Cucamonea Channel Site: This 7.24-acre site is located at the base
of "Red Hill" on the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and the Cucamonga Channel.
The following table specifies the uses and range of development that may be permitted
on the site.
Percent Acreage
Land Use Mix Range Range
Medium Residential 0% - 100% 0 - 7.24 acres
8-14 dwellin units er acre `
Office 0% - 100% 0 - 7.24 acres
The land use categories proposed within the Mixed Use area shall be of the character
and intensity as defned in the Development Code Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.32. All
uses that may be authorized under ofce designations are subject to a Conditional Use
Permit approval. The corresponding development standards, as listed in Chapters 17.06,
17.10, and 17.32 for each permitted land use shall be applicable to the development
within the Mixed Use District."
• This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium-High
Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre) if developed in conjunction with a Senior
Housing Overlay District (SHOD).
EXHIBIT C n.os-1o zloa
Ordinance No. 790
Page 31 of 31
Rancho Cucamonga Develooment Code Section 17 08 030
4. Haven. Church and Center Site: This 14.77-acre site is located on the south side of
Church Avenue, between Center and Haven Avenues. The following table specifes the
uses and range of development that may be permitted on the site.
Percent Acreage
Land Use Mix, Range Range
Medium Residential 0% - 100% 0 - 10.95 acres
8-14 dwellin units er acre *
Office 0% - 100% 0 - 3.36 acres
The land use categories proposed within the Mixed'Use area shall be of the character
and intensity as defined in the Development Code Chapters 17.08, and 17.10. All uses
that may be authorized under office designations are subject to Development Code
Chapter 17.10. The corresponding development standards, as listed in Chapters 17.D8,
and .17.10, for each permitted land use shall be applicable to the development within the
Mixed Use District, or shall be subject to a Master Plan of Development approved by the
Planning Commission specifically for this site.
This Mixed Use site may be considered with a base zoning of Medium Residential (6-14
dwelling units per acre).
5. Foothill Boulevard, between Hermosa Avenue and Center Avenue Site: This 17-
acre site is located on the north side of Foothill Boulevard between Hermosa
Avenue and Center Avenue. The following table specifies the uses and range of
development that may be permitted on the site.
Land Use Mix Percent
Range Acreage
Range
MediumlMedium High 0% - 62% 0 - 10.54 acres
Residential
(Up to 20 dwelling units per
acre
Commercial -Retail, Office 0% - 100% 0 - 17 acres
(commercial-and professional),
and Restaurant
The land use categories proposed within the Mixed Use area shall be of the
character and intensity as defined in the Development Code Chapters 17.08, 17.10,
and 77.32: Al~uses that may be authorized under the commercial designation are
subject to Development Code Chapter 17.32. The corresponding development
standards, as listed in Chapters 17.08, 17.10, and 17.32 for each permitted land use
shall be applicable to the development within the Mixed Use District, or shall be
subject to a Master Plan of Development approved by the Planning Commission
specifically for this site.
• This Mixed Use site may consist of a mix of Medium to Medium High Residential
uses, which may include Multiple Family Residential land uses of up to 20 dwelling
units per acre developed subject to the applicable density range requirements.
17.08-11 2/04