HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-081 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 09-081
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH#20010131028); ADOPTING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2008-0384, VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT
DRC2008-00383, VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER PLAN
AMENDMENT DRC2009-00146, VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER
PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00145, AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT DRC2008-00385, CONCERNING
THE VICTORIA GARDENS REGIONAL MIXED USE LIFESTYLE
CENTER, GENERALLY BOUNDED BY CHURCH STREET TO
THE NORTH, FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH, 1-15 TO
THE EAST, AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD TO THE WEST
A. Recitals.
1. Forest City Development California, Inc. filed applications for General Plan
Amendment DRC2008-0384, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00383, Victoria
Arbors Master Plan Amendment DRC2009-00146, Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendment
DRC2009-00145, and Development Agreement Amendment DRC2008-00385. Hereinafter in
this Resolution, the subject applications are referred to the "the project."
2. The project area is comprised of approximately 174 acres of land, generally
bounded by Church Street to the north, the 1-15 Freeway to the east, Foothill Boulevard to the
south, Day Creek Boulevard to the west (hereinafter, the "subject property").
3. Development of the subject property is governed by the Victoria Gardens Master
Plan, the Victoria Arbors Master Plan, the Victoria Community Plan, the City's General Plan,
and a development agreement between the City and the applicant.
4. On February 20, 2002 and in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City certified Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2001031028
(EIR), which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the original Victoria Gardens
Master Plan. As the Lead Agency, the City considered the information in the EIR before
approving the Victoria Gardens Master Plan. At that time, the City Council also adopted a
Statement of Facts and Findings and Overriding Considerations for the Victoria Gardens Master
Plan, which is hereby incorporated by this reference. The Statement found that the economic,
social, or other benefits of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan outweighed the significant and
unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR.
5. Subsequent to the 2002 approval of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan,
approximately 52% (36% built and 16% approved but not built) of the approved residential
dwelling units and 57% of the approved commercial, office, and civic uses included in the
Victoria Gardens Master Plan have been completed.
Resolution No. 09-081
Page 2 of 5
6. The purpose of the related applications is to allow the development of residential
uses in the Main Street Area of the Victoria Gardens Regional Mixed Use Lifestyle Center,
increase the average height in the Main Street Area to 120 feet, with a maximum of 160 feet,
amend the building setback requirements for the Main Street Area, and clarify permitted and
conditionally permitted uses within the project area.
7. The City caused to be prepared and circulated an Initial Study to evaluate the
project, and to determine whether additional environmental review is required under CEQA.
8. Under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162(a)(1), when an EIR has been previously
certified for a project, a lead agency may require the preparation of a subsequent EIR if
substantial changes are proposed to the project that will require major revision of the previous
EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects of a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects.
9. Under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163, the City may prepare a supplemental
EIR in lieu of a subsequent EIR if the changes to the project or the circumstances under which
the project would be undertaken require only minor revision to a previously certified EIR to make
the EIR adequately apply to the proposed project.
10. Based on an Initial Study, comments received during the public review of the
Initial Study, and comments received during the public scoping meeting, the City determined the
changes to the Victoria Gardens Regional Lifestyle Center entailed in the project are substantial
and required further environmental analysis with respect to aesthetics and air quality. The City
further determined that a supplemental EIR would make the previous EIR adequately apply to
the application.
11. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, the City published a Notice of
Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental EIR (SEIR) for the project, and circulated the NOP
to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the project,
including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants.
12. When the Draft SEIR was complete, the City circulated it for public review and
comment for 45 days.
13. The City has responded to the two sets of written comments regarding the Draft
SEIR that were ,received during the public review period. Those comments and the City's
responses are included as Appendix C to the Final Supplemental EIR/Response to Comments
document (SCH#20010131028) ("Final SEIR").
14. On April 8, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public
hearing on the project and concluded said hearing on that date, after which the Planning
Commission adopted Resolutions 09-10, 09-11, 09-12, 09-13, and 09-14, which recommended
certification of the Final SEIR, adoption of the Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations contained in Exhibit "A" to this Resolution, adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, as conditions of approval, and approval of the project.
15. On May 6, 2009, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
application, and all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written
evidence regarding the related applications and the Final SEIR and concluded said hearing on
that date.
Resolution No. 09-081
Page 3 of 5
16. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that will be less than
significant and that do not require mitigation are described in Section 5 of the proposed "Facts,
Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Environmental Effects
from the Victoria Gardens Project," which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution.
17. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that will be less than
significant after mitigation measures have been imposed are described in Section 6 of the
Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City has prepared a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included as Appendix D to the Final
SEIR and attached as Exhibit "B" to this Resolution, to assure compliance with the adopted
mitigation measures and is hereby incorporated by this reference.
18. Environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR that will be significant and
unavoidable despite the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures are described in Section 7
of the Exhibit "A" to this Resolution.
19. Alternatives to the project that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 12 of Exhibit "A" to this Resolution.
20. A proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental
impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level is located at Section 13 of
Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. The proposed Statement provides substantial evidence that the
environmental risks of the application have been balanced against its benefits.
21. 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. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the
above-referenced public hearing on May 6, 2009, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
2. All of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and
correct.
3. The Final EIR was presented to the Council, which reviewed and considered the
information contained therein prior to consideration of project.
4. The Final SEIR for the project has been completed in compliance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resource Code,
Sections 21000 et seq. (""CEQA"), the State and City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and
all other applicable laws and regulations.
5. The Facts and Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations set forth
in Exhibit "A" and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit "B" are
supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record and the Final SEIR, and the City
Council, based on its own independent review and judgment, hereby adopts them as its own
and incorporates them into this Resolution as if set forth in full.
Resolution No. 09-081
Page 4 of 5
C. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in this Resolution, and the totality of the
administrative record before it, the City Council certifies:
1. The Final SEIR to be in compliance with the provisions of CEQA, the State and
City Guidelines for implementing CEQA, and all other applicable laws and regulations.
2. The Final SEIR was presented to the City Council, which reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the project; and
3. The Final SEIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis.
4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
Please see the following page
for formal adoption,certification and signatures
Resolution No. 09-081
Page 5 of 5
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May 2009.
AYES: Gutierrez, Kurth, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
Donal J. AR , .D., Mayor
ATTEST:
Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
I, JANICE C. REYNOLDS, 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 6th day of May 2009.
Executed this 7th day of May 2009, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
�CU
�,/ J . ice C. Reynolds, City Clerk
Facts, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Regarding the Environmental Effects from the
Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendments Project
(SCH # 2001031028)
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The City Council of the City,of Rancho Cucamonga ('this Council") hereby adopts this entire
document, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 12 below, as Its findings
("Findings") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") for the Victoria Gardens
Master Plan Amendments Project ("Project") described in the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report ("Final SEIR") for the Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2001031028. The Project
as described in the Final SEIR includes all discretionary actions that will be considered by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga ("City"), the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, and other public
agencies that may have approval authority over aspects of the Project. City's discretionary actions in
approving the Project will include: 1) the General Plan Amendment, 2) the Victoria Arbors Master
Plan Amendment, 3) the Victoria Community Plan Amendment, 4) the Development Agreement
Amendment, and 5) the Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendment for the Victoria Gardens Master
Plan Amendments Project.
In considering the potential benefits of the Project, the City identified the following objectives that will
be achieved upon development of the Project site:
• Ensure that development of the site is in accordance with established functional standards and
design and aesthetic standards contained in the Victoria Community Plan, including the
incorporation of certain elements representative of community heritage styles found within the
City. Thus providing the City with a development, which creates a distinctive "downtown"
environment;
Implement the regionally oriented commercial development envisioned for the Project site in the
General Plan and Victoria Community Plan;
• Create a mixed-use neighborhood with public spaces, shopping, entertainment, and civic uses,
within walking distance;
• Augment the City's economic base by providing sales and property tax-generating uses;
• Create employment opportunities for citizens of the City and surrounding communities;
• Provide commercial development in conformance with applicable policies and programs included
in the City's General Plan, inclusive of the rezoning of a portion of the site;
• Create a vibrant and active downtown, which can accommodate the civic activities, commerce,
and public events resulting from interaction of businesses, residents, and visitors; and
• Capture retail sales that may currently be lost to adjacent cities.
These Findings are based upon the entire record before this Council, including the Final SEIR
prepared for the Project. The Final SEIR was prepared by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as
the lead agency under the CEQA.
1
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-1/52
SECTION 2
THE PROJECT
A. Project Description
The Project proposes to amend the approved Victoria Community Plan (VCP) by amending the
Development Agreement DA01-02 to include minor technical and conforming amendments to the
Victoria Gardens Master Plan (VGMP) and related documents to allow flexibility to construct the
remaining 290 dwelling units and undeveloped commercial office/retail space as approved within the
VGMP. The Victoria Arbors Master Plan is proposed to be amended to include references to the
VGMP and a General Plan Amendment amending Table IIIA to increase dwelling unit density within
the Residential Land Use designation for the Victoria Gardens Regional Mixed Use Lifestyle Center.
The amendments are designed to allow for the most efficient use of available land area within the
VGMP Project area, and to allow for creative and distinctive building design solutions in achieving
these goals.
The VGMP Project site is located within the boundaries of the City's VCP. As originally approved, the
VGMP allows the development of 600 residential units and approximately 2.45 million square feet of
Commercial/Office space, Civic uses, and associated infrastructure. A portion.of the VGMP has
already been built and consists of approximately 1,413,383 square feet of Commercial/Office uses,
approximately 90,850 square feet of Civic uses, 215 dwelling units with an additional 95 dwelling units
approved but,not yet constructed, and associated infrastructure and is considered the baseline
condition. Surrounding land uses consist of single-family residential uses located north of the Project
limits, north of Church Street. Commercial/retail uses are located to the south of Foothill Boulevard. I-
15 is located adjacent and to the east of the Project site,.and Residential and CommerciaVRetail uses
are located west of Day Creek Boulevard.
The site is bounded on the west by the approved Victoria Arbors Village project area. The Victoria
Arbors Village project envisions the development of commercial, residential, park, and school uses,
and required roadways and utility infrastructure within an area bounded by Base Line Road, Foothill
Boulevard, Etiwanda Avenue, 1-15, and Day Creek Channel.
The Project site is designated "Mixed Use" (MU) in the City's General Plan. The MU land use
designation is intended to stimulate and guide development in special opportunity areas where land
change is desired, which may occur in two ways. The first way in which such development might
occur would be as a combination of uses in a single development project on a single parcel of land.
Secondly, such uses are encouraged to occur as a combination of uses on multiple parcels within a
specified district of the City.' As previously noted, the VGMP Project site is located within the
boundaries of the VCP. The Project site is currently zoned Mixed-Use/Retail (MU) and Mixed-
Use/Office (MUO).
The Victoria Gardens Master Plan was prepared as the governing land use and design document for
an approximately 174-acre site within the eastern area of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The VGMP
was approved by the City in 2001. The 174-acre Project site included the combination of 147 acres of
land controlled by the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, 18 acres of undeveloped
property, and 9 acres of land previously dedicated for street rights-of-way. At ultimate build out, the
174 acres will be built with approximately 2.45 million square feet of retail, office, and civic uses as
well as up to 600 multiple-family residential units.
The development scenario for the Victoria Gardens Project envisioned development of a "new
downtown" consisting of an open-air mixed-use complex, which includes an attractive and compatible
blend of major retail tenants, specialty commercial uses, restaurant and entertainment outlets, office
' City of Rancho Cucamonga Goneral Plan,Section 2.5.3.6 Developing the Community,Pg,III-29.
2
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-2/52
uses, residential dwellings, and community facilities. These uses are built along a setting that is
reminiscent of a traditional"Main Street" with interesting streetscapes exhibiting individually designed
storefronts, wider sidewalks, street furniture, and landscaping including pocket parks. Second-story
office space is built above portions of some retail uses to accommodate professional uses
(medical/dental offices, accountants, lawyers, etc.). The Project includes a variety of sit-down
restaurants, cafes, and coffeehouses. The Project includes civic and cultural uses that include a
branch library, community playhouse, performing arts theater, and community center. The use of
landscaping, awnings, canopies, sun shelters, misting systems, and other architectural elements
serve to help shield patrons of the shopping district from extreme weather conditions.
The area located between Foothill Boulevard and Victoria Gardens Lane will be developed with fast
food uses, automobile service station(s), restaurants, and retail uses. This area will be oriented
toward vehicle traffic. The area of the Victoria Gardens Project that directly abuts 1-15 may be
developed with either retail or office/hotel uses.
The Victoria Gardens Project includes the development of up to 600 multiple-family residential units.
These dwelling units were envisioned to be located north of the "new downtown," within walking
distance of commercial, public, and civic uses. The residential component of the Project may include
clubhouse facilities, recreational features, or open space reserved for the exclusive use of Project
residents. There are currently 215 dwelling units with an additional 95 dwelling units approved but not
yet constructed north of the "new downtown."An additional 290 residential units are approved but not
currently built and are the subject of the amendments to the VGMP.
The applicant is proposing to amend the approved VGMP and related documents to allow flexibility to
construct the remaining number of dwelling units and undeveloped square footage of office/retail
space..The Victoria Community Plan and the Victoria Arbors Master Plan would be amended to
include references to the VGMP. The General Plan amendment would amend Table-111-4 to increase
dwellingunitdensity within the Residential Land Use designation for.the Victoria Gardens Regional
Mixed Use Lifestyle Center. The amendments are designed to allow for the most efficient use of
available land area within the VGMP Project area, and to allow for creative and distinctive building
design solutions in achieving these goals.
The primary Project objectives are as follows:
• Ensure that development of the site is in accordance with established functional
standards and design.and aesthetic standards contained in the Victoria Community Plan,
including the incorporation of certain elements representative of community heritage
styles found within the City, thus providing the City with a development, which creates a
distinctive'downtown" environment.
• Implement the regionally oriented commercial development envisioned for the Project site
in the General Plan and Victoria Community Pian.
• Create a mixed-use neighborhood with public spaces, shopping, entertainment, and civic
uses,within walking distance.
• Augment the City's economic base by providing sales and property tax-generating uses.
• Create employment opportunities for citizens of the City and surrounding communities.
• Provide commercial development in conformance with applicable policies and programs
included in the City's General Plan, inclusive of the rezoning of a portion of the site.
• Create a vibrant and active downtown, which can accommodate the civic activities,
commerce, and public events resulting from interaction of businesses, residents, and
visitors.
• Capture retail sales that may currently be lost to adjacent cities.
3
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-3/52
SECTION 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City initiated the environmental process with the completion of an Initial Study, The City used an
Initial Study to determine which impacts would be less than significant and did not warrant further
environmental review, while identifying those issues that required further analysis in an EIR. The City
circulated the Initial Study with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Amendments to the Victoria
Gardens Master Plan Draft SEIR to State, regional, and local agencies on September 8, 2008, for a
30-day review period? The Initial Study was made available to the public during and after the
comment period. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse, as well as agencies,
organizations, and persons who may provide appropriate comment on the proposed project as well
as the potential environmental impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the
proposed on-site uses.
Comments received regarding the NOP were used to help identify impacts that could result from
implementation of the proposed project. The City received five comment letters to the NOP.The NOP
and Initial Study, as well as the comment letters received regarding the NOP, are included in
Appendix A of the Draft SEIR.
A joint workshop with the Planning Commission and the City Council was held at the Rancho
Cucamonga City Hall, Tri Communities Room on August 29, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. In addition to
Planning Commissioners, City Council members, and City staff, a representative from the Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department was present. The project proponent described the project to those in
attendance and displayed conceptual plans of .the proposed project site, landscaping, and
.architectural details. Following.a.brief explanation of the environmental review process, comments
from the public were solicited.No communication was received from the,public.
A aublio scoping meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga City Hall, City Council Chambers on
September 24, 2008, at 7;00 p.m. Comments were received by the Planning Commission and were
related to the following issues: traffic, air quality, parking, noise, ingress/egress to freeways, public
safety, fire protection services, water services, law enforcement, healthcare, internal circulation,
connectivity of perimeter uses with internal uses, walkability/livability, and the desire for more open
area/green space/park areas. Following a brief explanation of the environmental review process,
comments from the public were solicited. No communication was received from the public.
The Draft SEIR was distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and
interested parties. Additionally, in accordance with Public Resources Code §21092(b)(3), the Daft
SEIR has been provided to all parties who have previously requested copies. During the 45-day
public review period, the Draft SEIR and technical appendices had been made available for review at
the City and at the Paul A. Kiane Library, The Daft SEIR was distributed for a 45-day public review
period on December 23, 2008, with the comment period expiring on February 6, 2009. Three
comment letters were received during the public comment period.
After the 45-day public review period, written responses to all significant environmental issues raised
were prepared. These responses were made available for review for a minimum of 10 days prior to
the public hearing before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council, at which time the certification of the
Final SEIR was considered. The Final SEIR (which includes the Draft SEIR, the public comments and
responses to the Draft SEIR, and findings) were included as part of the environmental record for
consideration by the City decision-makers.
' The Notice of Prepaa on 30-day public review period was from September a to October a,2D08.
4
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-4/52
SECTION 4
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND FINDINGS
City staff reports, the Final SEIR, written and oral testimony at all relevant public meetings or
hearings, and these Fact, Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations and other
information in the administrative record serve as the basis for the City's environmental determination.
The detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the
Project are presented in Section 4_0 of the Draft SEIR. Responses to comments and any
revisions/omissions to the Draft SEIR are provided in Appendix C, or indicated by strikethrough
(deletions)or double-underline (additions) in the Final SEIR, respectively,
The Draft SEIR evaluated two major environmental categories (aesthetics and air quality) for potential
significant adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts. Both project-specific, short-and long-term,
and cumulative impacts were evaluated, In addition to the two major environmental categories
addressed in the Draft SEIR, fourteen other major categories were found to be insignificant in the
Initial Study prepared for the Project. Except as may be otherwise expressly provided herein, these
Findings incorporated the conclusions on these categories as outlined in the Initial Study(Appendix A
of the Draft SEIR) and the City finds that no sionificant impacts have been identified as to those
categories identified in the Initial Study and no further analysis is required.
At a meeting assembled on May 6, 2009, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
determined that, based upon all of the evidence presented, Included by but not limited to the Final
SEIR, written and oral testimony given at the meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony
from the public, organizations and regulatory agencies, the following impacts associated with the
Project are: (1) less than significant and do not require mitigation; or (2) potentially significant and
each of these impacts will be avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance through the identified
mitigation measures and/or implementation of an environmentally superior alternative to the. Project;
or (3) significant and cannot be fully mitigated to a level of less than significant but will be
substantially lessened to the extent feasible by the identified mitigation measures.
SECTION 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The following issues were found in the Final SEIR as having no potential to cause significant impact
and therefore require no project-specific mitigation. The City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less
than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures,
A. Aesthetics
1. Impacts to Scenic Resources and Scenic Highways:
Implementation of the.Project would not result in impacts to scenic resources and scenic
highways.
Finding: An analysis of scenic resources and scenic highways is provided in Section 4.1 of the
Final SEIR. This analysis concluded that the Project site does not contain any scenic
resources (including trees and rock outcroppings) or any historic buildings within a
State Scenic Highway or local scenic road. No impact to scenic resources or scenic
highways would occur. No mitigation is required.
5
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-5/52
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Them are no State Scenic Highways within the
City of Rancho Cucamonga (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-11). The City of Rancho Cucamonga General
Plan recognizes the San Gabriel Mountains as the most prominent scenic feature in the City.
The City also designates Day Creek Boulevard (adjacent and west of the project site) as a
scenic corridor. None of the potential development locations are located adjacent to Day
Creek Boulevard, a City-identified scenic corridor. Therefore, because these structures would
not be placed adjacent to Day Creek Boulevard, the views of the San Gabriel Mountains to
the north of the City would be preserved as well as the Day Creek Boulevard scenic corridor.
B. Air Quality
1. Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan:
Implementation of the Project would not result in inconsistency with the current Air Quality
Management Plan.
Finding: An analysis of Air Quality Management Plan consistency is provided in Section 4.2 of
the Final SEIR. This analysis concluded that the Project would not conflict with
implementation of the current Air Quality Management Plan. No mitigation is
required.
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Although the Project would include a General Plan
Amendment.(GPA) to change the existing residential density of 30 dwelling units per acre to
100 dwelling units per acre within the general areas proposed for mid-rise building
construction, the total number of dwelling units to be constructed under the Project (290
units) would not exceed the total number of dwelling units approved under the Victoria
Gardens Master Plan (VGMP) (600 units of which 215 are completed or are being
constructed with an additional 95 approved for development). Additionally, there is no
increase in commerciaYoffice development as part of the Project.Therefore, while the Project
would result in a more intense land use within the general areas proposed for mid-rise
building construction, the total number of units envisioned in these areas would not exceed
the previously approved amount and the Project area would not contribute to the growth
projections assumed in the currently adopted(2007)AQMP (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-22—4.2-23).
2. Long-Term Microscale (CO Hot Spot) Impacts:
Implementation of the Project would not result in long-term microscale (CO Hot Spot)
impacts.
Finding: An analysis of long-term microscale (CO Hot Spot) impacts is provided in Section 4.2
of the Final SEIR. This analysis concluded that the Project would exceed federal or
State CO concentration standards.
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: An assessment of Project-related impacts on
localized ambient air quality requires that future ambient air quality levels be projected.
Ambient CO concentrations monitored at the Upland Station (1350 San Bernardino Road,
Upland), the closest station with monitored CO data, showed a highest recorded 1-hour CO
concentration of 2.7 ppm (the state AAQS is 20 ppm)and a highest 8-hour concentration of
1.90 ppm (the state AAQS is 9 ppm) during the past three years. The one-hour CO
concentration near all 11 intersections analyzed ranges from 3.0 to 4.5 ppm, much lower than
the 20 ppm state standard. The eight-hour CO concentration ranges from 2.1 to 3.1 ppm,
also lower than the 9.0 ppm State standard (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-23—4.2-24).
6
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-6/52
3. Air Quality Impacts to Nearby Sensitive Receptors and On-Site Future Development:
Implementation of the Project would not result in air quality impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors and on-site future development.
Finding: An analysis of air quality impacts to nearby sensitive receptors and on-site future
development is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. This analysis concluded
that the Project would not expose nearby sensitive receptors or on-site future
development to significant air quality impacts.
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: On-site grading and construction activities will likely
generate temporarily increased levels of particulates and emissions from construction
equipment. Subsequent to construction, an increase in air pollutant emissions will occur as a
result of increased traffic volumes associated with operation of the proposed on-site uses. The
closest residential uses are north of and adjacent to the project site (approximately 550 feet)
and considered to be receptors sensitive to air pollutant emissions generated during the
construction and operation of the proposed on-site uses. This analysis provides the most
conservative analysis. As the Project was included in the VGMP Final EIR PMip analysis, the
Project would have no greater emission impacts than those previously analyzed in the VGMP
Final EIR. The projected 57,312 vehicle trips associated with the VGMP would also apply for
the Project as no additional uses or square footage is proposed. As the Project was included in
the VGMP Final EIR operational analysis and the Project will comply with mitigation measures
proposed in the VGMP Final EIR, the Project would have no greater emission impacts than
those previously analyzed in the VGMP Final EIR. Nearby sensitive receptors would not be
exposed to significant air quality impacts greater than previously identified in.the FEIR and a
less than significant impact would occur(Draft SEIR p. 4.2-23—4.2-24).
4. Odor Impacts:
Implementation of the Project would not result in odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.
Finding: An analysis of odor impacts to nearby sensitive receptors is provided in Section 4.2
of the Final SEIR. This analysis concluded that the Project would not,expose nearby
sensitive receptors to significant odor impacts.
Supporting Explanation of the Finding: Odors typically associated with the proposed uses
include those associated with the preparation of food products, as.well as temporary and/or
short-term odor releases associated with construction activity (e.g., clues, paint, asphalt)
necessary to build and maintain the site. The control of such odors is typically achieved
through the sanitary storage and disposal of organic waste and the utilization of equipment
and/or measures to contain and/or neutralize objectionable odors. The Project does not
include land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable long-tern odors. Adherence
to the standard regulatory conditions identified in the SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1113 would
reduce temporary odor impacts to a less than significant level(Draft SEIR p.4.2-26).
7
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-7/52
SECTION 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The following impacts related to Aesthetics and Air Quality were found to be potentially significant,
but, unless otherwise noted below, can be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level with the
imposition of mitigation measures. The City finds that, except as stated to the contrary, all potentially
significant Project impacts listed below can and will be mitigated, reduced or avoided by imposition of
the mitigation measures, and these mitigation measures are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program Plan adopted by the City.
Specific Findings of the City for each category of such impacts are set forth in detail below. Public
Resources Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which
an Environmental Impact Report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects
unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
3, Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible
the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final EIR
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that the following environmental impacts
identified in the Final SEIR are potentially significant but can be mitigated to less than significant
levels through the implement imposition of mitigation measures and or conditions identified in the
Final SEIR and summarized below.
A. Aesthetics
1. Light and Glare: The proposed project will create new sources of light in the project area and
may create glare that affects surrounding land uses that may be determined to be significant.
The amount of glare (if any)generated from implementation of the proposed project would vary based
on the type, amount, and reflectivity of building material as well as the manner in which any such
material is installed. While the VGMP discourages the use of materials that cause unwanted glare,
the possibility exists that development of the proposed mid-rise buildings would create glare that
affects surrounding land uses.
Finding: An analysis of light and glare impacts is provided in Section 4.1 of the Final SEIR,
This analysis concluded that adherence to the City's Development Code and design
guidelines in the Master Plan would ensure that any building or parking lighting would
not significantly impact adjacent uses.Therefore, lighting impacts associated with this
issue are less than significant and no mitigation would be required. However, while
the VGMP discourages the use of materials that cause unwanted glare, the
possibility exists that development of the proposed mid-rise buildings would create
glare that affects surrounding land uses. The following mitigation measure has been
identified to reduce any potential glare-related impacts that may result from the
development of the proposed mid-rise structures to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.1.1A: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project
8
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-8/52
proponent shall submit to the City for review and approval, plans, designs, or other
information detailing the type, amount, location, and type of installation of the
materials that will face the exteriors of the proposed mid-rise structures. The
information submitted to the City shall be sufficient to demonstrate that the proposed
facing material does not create glare of a quality or a'uantity that would adversely
affect surrounding uses. Any determination of adverse effect (or lack thereof) shall be
made by the Community Development Director(or designee).
Implementation of this mitigation measure is feasible and the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project.
Supporting Explanation: Development of the Project would introduce a new source of light
and glare in the form of signage, building lighting, parking lot lighting, security lighting, and
reflections from windows (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-7). Existing sources of light from surrounding
areas similarly include streetlights, exterior lighting from the residential and commercial uses
and vehicle headlights from motorists driving along 1-15. Existing sources of glare within the
project site include reflections from cars parked in surface parking lots, and windows and
building finishes on structures within the project site (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-26). All development
within the City is required to adhere to lighting requirements contained in the City's
Development Code (Title 17). The Development Code states that any on-site lighting shall be
provided to ensure.a safe environment while at the same time not causing areas of intense
,light or glare. Because development that would occur with the proposed amendments is
required to adhere with the adopted Master Plan, the proposed project is not expected to
significantly increase the amount of daytime glare in the project area. Implementation of the
mitigation measure will reduce glare impacts to a less than significant level because the
potential glare originating from the proposed mid-rise structures and/or affecting surrounding
properties would be minimized. The review and approval by the City would limit the amount ,
and extent of materials that could produce glare from on-site uses.
B. Air Quality
1. Global Climate Change Impacts: The primary greenhouse gas generated by the project would
be carbon dioxide. The proposed project's total unmitigated carbon dioxide equivalents for carbon
dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide would be 0.098 Tg CO2 Eq (Draft SEIR, p.4.2-33).
Finding: - An analysis of global climate change impacts is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final
SEIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.2.2A through 4.3.2E will reduce the
potential impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4,3.2A: The project shall comply with Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations or City requirements regarding energy conservation standards.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.213: Use of transportation demand measures (TDM), such
as preferential parking for vanpooling/carpooling, subsidy for transit pass or
van pooling/carpooling, flextime work schedule, bike racks, lockers, showers, and on-
site cafeterias, shall be incorporated in the design of the commercial land uses.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2C: Houses shall be prewired for electrical charging EV cars
unless such facilities are either not commercially available or not economically
feasible for purchase or use on this project. Conduits for fiber optics shall be installed
for residential and non-residential uses.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2D: Install EV chargers or alternative fuel stations (natural
gas) for communitywide use at key commercial and public location(s).
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2E: The developer shall contract with a mitigation monitor to
ensure compliance with and implementation of the mitigation monitoring program.
. 9
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-9/52
Implementation of these mitigation measures is feasible and the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga adopts and incorporates these mitigation measures into the Project.
Supporting Explanation: The proposed project is consistent with the strategies to reduce
California's emissions to the levels proposed by Executive Order S-3-05. In addition, the
impacts on climate change of a project of this size, considered in isolation, would be
analytically indistinguishable from the background. It is not possible to specifically quantify
the reduction in greenhouse gases that will result from implementation of the identified
mitigation measures. With adherence to the identified mitigation measures, on a project level,
no global climate change impact would result from the development of the proposed on-site
uses.
SECTION 7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Based upon information in the Final SEIR,.in the record, and based upon testimony provided during
the public hearings on this project, the following adverse impacts of the Project as more particularly
discussed below are.considered to be significant and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively:
Aesthetics and Air Quality. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds the following
environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR remain significant even after application of all
feasible mitigation measures: Aesthetics(as.to scenic vistas and changes to existing visual character) ..
and Air Quality (as to short-term and .long-ter area source and mobile source air pollution
emissions, localized construction and operational area source and mobile source air pollution
emissions, cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, and cumulative impacts as to failure to meet State
and federal ambient air quality standards for Ozone, PM1o,and PM,.,).
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)(2), the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga cannot approve the Project unless it first finds (1) Under CEQA Section
21081(a)(3), and state CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(2)(3), that specific economic, legal, social
technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities to highly
trained workers make infeasible mitigation measures of the Project alternatives identified in the Final
SEIR; and (2) Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b), the remaining significant affects are
acceptable due to overriding concems described in the state CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and,
therefore, a statement of overriding considerations is included herein as Section 10.
A. Aesthetics
1. Scenic Vista Impacts: An analysis of scenic vistas is provided in Section 4.1 of the Final SEIR.
The Project will result in the development of mid-rise structures that will partially obstruct views of the
San Gabriel Mountains that have been identified by the City as a scenic resource. This is a significant
impact. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would be available to reduce the obstruction
of the San Gabriel Mountains caused by the implementation of the proposed project. Since there is
no feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts related to the loss of this viewshed, impacts
associated with this issue would remain Significant and unavoidable(Draft SEIR P. 4.1-21).
Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures available that the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga can adopt or incorporate to reduce project-related impacts
10
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-10/52
associated with the obstruction of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are a City-
identified scenic resource. Therefore, the impact cannot be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Currently, there are unobstructed views of the San Gabriel
Mountains available to passing motorists along 1-15 north and Victoria Gardens Lane.
Existing views while travelling along Victoria Gardens Lane (south of the Main Street Area)
include the roadway .and parkway landscaping in the foreground, existing surface parking
areas and existing commercial retail structures in the midground, and views of the San
Gabriel Mountains in the background. With development that would occur under the Project,
mid-rise buildings, associated parking structures/lots, and landscaping would be built and
placed on the Project site, This would change existing views in the northern direction of the
passing motorists heading east or west along Victoria Gardens Lane, south of the Main
Street Area. (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-13). The placement of a mid-rise structure would substantially
block views (up to approximately 80% of that previously visible)of the San Gabriel Mountains
to the north. Because previous views of the San Gabriel Mountains from this vantage point
were unobstructed, and a loss of the majority of this existing scenic vista would occur (i.e.,
approximately 75%of the ridgeline is fully blocked).
2. Existing Visual Character Impacts: An analysis of visual character is provided in Section 4.1 of
the Final SEIR. The proposed project will result in the construction of mid-rise structures that will alter
the existing visual character of the project site and the surrounding area. This is a significant impact.
There is no feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts related to the degradation of the visual
character or scenic quality of the site and its surroundings, impacts associated with this issue would
remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-25),
Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures available that the City Council of the City
of.Rancho Cucamonga can adopt or incorporate to reduce project-related impacts
associated with the obstruction of the San Gabriel Mountains, which are a City-
identified scenic resource-Therefore, impacts to visual character cannot be reduced
to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Development occurring under the Project would change the
character of the Project site. Currently the site is developed with commercial, office,
residential, and civic uses. The development of mid-rise buildings would change the
character of the site by adding faller buildings, double the height of the existing buildings in
the Project vicinity. The proposed mid-rise buildings, as with all development within the
VGMP, would be subjected to the City's design review approval and required 'to adhere to
City standards as defined in the Master Plan related to construction and design for this area.
The Project would not conflict with policies related to design. However, certain policies
identified in the General Plan are in place to protect, preserve, and/or minimize impacts to
sensitive land resources, including significant views of scenic resources and natural
landforms. The development of mid-rise buildings would result in substantial obstruction of
views of the San Gabriel Mountains to the north. Therefore, based on the context of
degradation described in the Draft SEIR, a significant impact to visual character and/or
quality of the site and surroundings would occur.
Although the visual characteristic of the project site would change, the Project would replace
the existing parking area with a development that would include the use of architectural
elements, landscaping, and design criteria per the adopted VGMP which was based on City
Municipal Code and General Plan standards,-Nonetheless,.because development of mid-rise
structures would result in the obstruction of the San Gabriel Mountains, a City-identified
scenic resource, the Project would conflict with policies related to the
11
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-11/52
preservation/minimization of scenic features and impacts are significant. Since there is no
feasible mitigation available to reduce impacts related to the degradation of the visual
character or scenic quality of the site and its surroundings, impacts associated with this issue
would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft SEIR p. 4.1-25).
B. Air Quality
1. Short-term Construction Emissions Impacts: An analysis of short-term construction emissions
is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Peak grading and construction emissions would exceed
the SCAQMD thresholds for the criteria pollutants of NOx, PM,o, and PMz s, which are 100 pounds per
day, 150 pounds per day, and 55 pounds per day, respectively. These impacts would be significant.
Emissions of other criteria pollutants would be below the standards.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1A through 4.3.1 would reduce NOx,
PM, and PM2.5 impacts resulting from grading/construction activities to the extent
feasible:
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1A The Construction Contractor shall select the
construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy
efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans
include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 B The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or
altemative-fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel-powered engines
unless the Contractor determines, and the City concurs, that electric or alternative-
fuel powered equipment is either not commercially available or not economically
feasible for purchase or use on this project.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1C The Construction Contractor shall ensure that
construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off
equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall
length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of
the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the
same time.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1D The Construction Contractor shall time the
construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize
obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson
shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1E The Construction Contractor shall support and
encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1F Dust generated by the development activities shall
be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures
listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from
leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used.to keep all
areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site.
At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the late morning
and after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles
per hour.
C. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire
area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately with soil bonding agents until
12
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-12/52
the area is landscaped, paved, or otherwise developed so that dust generation
will not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated
with soil binders to prevent dust generation,
e, Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction debris to
or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
4.3.1G The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as possible
precoated/natural colored building materials, water-based or low VOC coating, and
coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as a high-
volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application such as
paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge as defined is
SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Implementing these mitigation measures is feasible. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. However, the mitigation
measures Identified would not necessarily reduce the impact to a less than significant level. .
Supporting Explanation: Short-term emissions after mitigation would exceed the
SCAQMD's daily thresholds for the criteria pollutants of NOx, PM,o, and PMIS. Although
fugitive PM,o emissions are greater per square foot using URBEMIS2007, the total amount of
emissions analyzed is within the volume of emissions identified in the Final SEIR. Emissions
of other criteria pollutants resulting from the continued development of the VGMP area would
be below the standards.As stated in the Final SEIR, short-term construction emissions would
remain significant with implementation of mitigation measures. While the Project would alter
the type, location, and density of development, no greater level of development would occur.
Therefore, no greater impact would occur than that previously analyzed in the Final SEIR.
Adherence to SCAQMD rules/regulations and the identified mitigation measures would
reduce emissions of NO, PM,p, and PM,,s; however, impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable with implementation of the Project. (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-31).
Fugitive dust emissions are generally associated with demolition, land clearing, exposure,
vehicle, and equipment travel on unpaved roads, and with cut and fill operations. Dust
generated during construction activities would vary substantially depending on the level of
activity, the specific operations, and weather conditions. Nearby sensitive receptors and
workers may be exposed to blowing dust, depending upon prevailing wind conditions. Peak
grading day construction equipment emissions would exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds
for the criteria pollutants NOx, PM,o, and PM2.5. Emissions of other criteria pollutants would
be below the standards established by the SCAQMD (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-27).
Building erection or construction would involve different types of equipment being used on the
project site. Similarities do exist in terms of equipment exhaust emissions and fugitive dust
emissions, however, it is anticipated that emissions during the building erection phase would
be below peak grading day emissions (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-29).
Architectural coatings contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which are similar to
reactive organic compounds (ROCs) and are part of the ozone precursors. Because there is
insufficient information at this time for the proposed residential units and
office/commerciaVresidential uses, the VOC emissions associated with architectural coatings
are not calculated. Emissions associated with architectural coatings can be reduced by using
precoated/natural-colored building materials, water-based or low VOC coating, and using
coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency. For example, the high-
volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray method is a coating application system operated at air
pressure between 0.1 and 10 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) with 55 percent transfer
13
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-13/52
efficiency. Manual coating applications, such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula,
dauber, rag, or sponge, have a 100 percent transfer efficiency. Furthermore, SCAQMD Rule
1113, Architectural Coating, restricts the amount of VOC allowed in architectural coating to
control VOC emission in the Basin, therefore, the combination of low VOC architectural
coating and utilizing high transfer efficiency coating equipment would reduce this potential
impact to less than significant(Draft SEIR p. 4.2-29).
2. Air Pollutants with Regional Impacts: An analysis of air pollutant emissions with regional
impacts is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Long-term air pollutant emission impacts are
those associated with changes in permanent usage of the project site. Area sources include on-site
emissions such as natural gas consumption and emissions associated with consumer products.
Mobile source emissions result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. These
impacts would be significant.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.2A through 4.3.2.E would reduce
impacts to long-term air quality from mobile sources to the extent feasible:
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2A The project shall comply with Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations or City requirements regarding energy conservation
standards.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.26 Use of transportation demand measures (TDM),
such as preferential parking for vanpooling/carpooling, subsidy for transit pass or
vanpooling/carpooling, flextime work schedule, bike racks, lockers, showers, and on-
site cafeterias, shall be incorporated in the design of the commercial land uses.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2C Houses shall be prewired for electrical charging EV
cars unless such facilities are either not commercially available or not economically
feasible for purchase or use on this project. Conduits for fiber optics shall be installed
for residential and non-residential uses.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2D Install EV chargers or alternative fuel stations
(natural eas)for communitywide use at key commercial and public location(s).
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2E The developer shall contract with a mitigation
monitor to ensure compliance with and implementation of the mitigation monitonng
program.
Implementing these mitigation measures is feasible. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. However, the mitigation
measures identified would not necessarily reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: The Project may result in the additional development of up to
approximately 978,800 square feet of commercial/office space and up to 290 dwelling units.
These land uses would consume natural gas and electricity. There would be 26,811 daily
vehicular trips associated with the Project.Total emissions of CO, ROG, NO,, PM1o, and PMZ.6
would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for long-tens operations. Emissions of SOX would not
exceed the SCAQMD operational threshold (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-31 through 4.2-32).
Total emissions from long-term project operations would include stationary sources added to
the mobile sources. The emissions for CO, NOx, ROC, PM1p, and PM25 would exceed the
SCAQMD thresholds for daily operations emissions. It is not feasible to quantify the emission
reductions achieved through the mitigation measures identified. Therefore, long-term regional
air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of
mitigation measures. Although implementation of the Project would result in significant and
unavoidable impacts related to long-term regional emissions, the Project consists of
approximately half of the total development envisioned under the VGMP and does not propose
14
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-14/52
additional square footage or dwelling units from that previously approved. No greater
operational air quality impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project than that
previously analyzed (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-33 through 4.3.34).
3. Localized Construction Equipment Exhaust Impacts: An analysis of localized construction
emissions is provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. The emissions rates for the proposed
construction activities are below the localized construction threshold for CO and NOx emissions rates.
However, the localized construction emission thresholds for PMS,, and PM,., are exceeded. These
impacts would be significant.
Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1A through 4.3.1G would reduce
impacts from localized construction equipment exhaust to the extent feasible:
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1A The Construction Contractor shall select the
construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high, energy
efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans
include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.16 The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or
altemative-fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel-powered engines
unless the'Contractor determines, and the City concurs, that electric or alternative-
fuel powered equipment is either not commercially available or not economically
feasible for purchase or use on this project.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1C The Construction Contractor shall ensure that
construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off
equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall
length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of
the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the
same time.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1D The Construction Contractor, shall time the
construction activities se as not to interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize
obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site; if necessary, a flagperson
shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1E The Construction Contractor shall support and
encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1F Dust generated by the development activities shall
be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures
listed below.
a. During clearing, grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from
leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all
areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At
a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the late morning and
after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per
hour.
c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area
of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately with soil bonding agents until the
area is landscaped, paved, or otherwise developed so that dust generation will
not occur.
15
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-15/52
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated
with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, and/or construction debris to
or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.113 The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as
possible precoated/natural colored building materials, water-based or low VOC
coating, and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as
a high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application
such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge as defined is
SCAQMD Rule 1113.
Implementing these mitigation measures is feasible. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. However, the mitigation
measures identified would not necessarily reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Although of the identified mitigation measures would reduce
localized emission rates up to 50 percent, the localized construction thresholds are exceeded
at the nearest residences for PM,o and PM2.5. Therefore, even with implementation of the
identified mitigation measures impacts associated with localized construction emissions for
PM10 and PM2,5 would remain significant and unavoidable (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-35). Although
implementation of the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to
localized construction equipment emissions, the Project consists of approximately half of the
total development envisioned under the VGMP and does not propose additional square footage
or dwelling units from that previously approved. No greater operational air quality impact would
occur with implementation of the proposed project than that previously analyzed.
4. Localized Operational- Emissions Impacts: An analysis of localized operational emissions is
provided in Section 4.2 of the Final SEIR. Long-term emissions of PMS, and PM2.5 would result in
exceedances of the LST thresholds.These impacts would,be significant.
Finding: Implementation. of Mitigation Measures 4.3.1A through 4.3.113 would reduce
impacts to localized operation emissions to the extent feasible:
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1A The Construction Contractor shall select the
construction equipment used on site based on low emission factors and high energy
efficiency. The Construction Contractor shall ensure that construction grading plans
include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.16 The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or
altemative-fuel powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or diesel-powered engines
unless the Contractor determines, and the City concurs, that electric or alternative-
fuel powered equipment is either not commercially available or not economically
feasible for purchase or use on this project.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1C The Construction Contractor shall ensure that
construction grading plans include a statement that work crews will shut off
equipment when not in use. During smog season (May through October), the overall
length of the construction period should be extended, thereby decreasing the size of
the area prepared each day, to minimize vehicles and equipment operating at the
same time.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1D The . Construction Contractor shall time the
construction activities so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic and minimize
obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site: if necessary, a flagperson
shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways.
16
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-16/52
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1E The Construction Contractor shall support and
encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 F Dust generated by the development activities shall
be retained on site and kept to a minimum by following the dust control measures
listed below.
a. During clearing; grading, earthmoving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill
materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from
leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease.
b. During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all
areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site.At
a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the late morning and
after work is completed for the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15 miles per
hour.
c. After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area
of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately with soil bonding agents until the
area is landscaped, paved, or otherwise developed so that dust generation will
not occur.
d. Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated
with soil binders to prevent dust generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cut or fill materials, ,and/or construction debris to
or from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1G The Construction Contractor shall utilize as much as
possible precosted/natural colored building materials, water-based or low VOC
coating,and coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as
a high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application
such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge as defined is
SCAOMD Rule 1113.
Implementing hese mitigation measures is feasible. Therefore, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga adopts and incorporates this mitigation measure into the Project. However, the mitigation
measures identified would not necessarily reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Supporting Explanation: Although.of the identified mitigation measures would reduce
localized emission rates, the localized operational thresholds are exceeded at the nearest
residences for PM%and PM2,5. No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce long-
term air quality emissions from project related vehicles to a less than significant level.
Therefore, even with implementation of the identified mitioation measures impacts associated
with localized operational emissions for Plvt,a and PM2,5 would remain significant and
unavoidable (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-35). Although implementation of the Project,would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts related to localized operational emissions, the Project
consists of approximately half of the total development envisioned under the VGMP and does
not propose additional square footage or dwelling units from that previously approved. No
greater operational air quality impact would occur with implementation of the proposed project
than that previously analyzed.
17
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-17/52
SECTION 8
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts refer to one or more individual effects which considered together compelled or
increase the environmental impact of the Project. State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of the
cumulative impacts of a Project "when the Project's incremental effects are cumulatively
considerable." For example, when the incremental effects of an individual Project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Proiects, and
the effects of probable future Projects. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds and
determines that the discussion of cumulative impacts in the Final SEIR provides adequate and
sufficient discussion of the cumulative impacts of the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15130. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Chapters 2.0, 4.0 and in 5.0 of the SEIR. The City
Council further finds that the cumulative impacts addressed would be less than significant, as set
forth in Section 3 herein, or mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporation of mitigation
measures into the Project, as set forth in Section 4 herein, with the exception of the following
environmental impacts that remain significant even with the implementation of mitigation measures as
set forth in Section 5 herein: Air Quality; (long-term Project related emissions and cumulative air
emissions-failure to meet State and Federal ambient air quality standards).
While on a project-level, no global climate change impact would occur, the Project will contribute to
cumulative greenhouse gas emissions in California. However, without the necessary science and
analytical tools, it is not possible to determine with certainty, whether the Project's emissions of
greenhouse gases will be cumulatively considerable, within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15065(a)(3) and 15130. The CARB is currently in the process of designing regulations to
monitor, limit, and ultimately reduce California greenhouse gas emissions but there are as yet no
clear standards for assessing the signiFicance.of cumulative impacts from projects. Given the findings
of AS 32 and the requirements of CEQA, the lead agency must determine whether a project will or
will not have a cumulatively considerable contribution. Due to the lack of guidance for determining the
significance of cumulative impacts to climate change from projects, and out of an overabundance of
caution, the effect of 0,098 Tg CO2 Eq is considered cumulatively considerable (Draft SEIR p 4.2-33).
This determination.is based uoon a lack of clear scientific and regulatory criteria for determining the
level of significance of the Project's contribution.to global climate change.
At this time, ft is unknown if global warming can be reversed through the use of greener technology,
economic regulations and social practices. Project-related CO2 emissions and their contribution to
global climate change impacts in the State of California are less than significant and less than
cumulatively considerable because the project's impacts alone would not cause or significantly
contribute to global climate change. .
SECTION 9
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination
of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little
possibility of restoring them. Development of the proposed project would result in the use of non-
renewable resources during construction and operation. Construction would require the consumption
of natural resources and renewable and non-renewable materials, including building materials (e.g.,
stone and metal) and fossil fuels (e.g., gasoline, diesel, fuel, and natural gas). Once operational, the
proposed project would require some consumption of natural resources and renewable and non-
renewable materials such as electricity, natural gas, potable water, and fossil fuels for operational
18
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-18/52
systems such as pumps, airconditioning, lighting, and monitoring equipment. Currently, these
resources are readily available and are expected to remain available in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, the commitment of these resources to the proposed project is not considered significant.
(Draft SEIR p. 5-3)
While it is anticipated that design, construction, and maintenance of the proposed mid-rise buildings
would follow established City standards to ensure compatibility with existing uses, the development
that may result from implementation of the proposed amendment would nonetheless permanently
alter views of the San Gabriel Mountains from selected vantage points on and adjacent to the project
area. Views of the San Gabriel Mountains have been identified as significant visual resource by the
City; therefore, changes to the amount, breadth, and quality of view achieved from areas adjacent to
the project site would be significant. (Draft SEIR p. 5-3)
SECTION 10
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of ways in which the Project could be growth inducing specifically
Section 15126.2(d) as State CEQA Guidelines states that SEIR's must describe the ways in which
the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing either
directly or indirectly in the surrounding environment. The proposed project is consistent with the City
of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and with .Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) projections. The proposed amendments would not alter the amount of residential
development permitted within the VGMP area; rather, it alters the location and/or density of
residential development. In the absence of an increase in the amount or change in the type of
residential development, no increase in population beyond that previously forecast in the Final EIR
would occur. The proposed project does not foster growth or a concentration of population in excess
of what is assumed in the Final EIR, Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, nor does the proposed
project provide infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently
permitted by the General Plan. (Draft SEIR o. 5.4).
Growth inducement may result from the removal of obstacles to growth, usually in adjacent areas,
through creating opportunities to extend infrastructure that could support development of areas where
development is not planned or expected to occur. However, infrastructure elements such as sewer
and water lines, roads, and drainage facilities are already provided in the project area. The project
site is located in an urbanized developed area which has been previously developed with commercial,
service, office, and residential uses. Utility and service systems have already been fully extended to
the project area. Because the amount and type of development that could be result from
implementation of the proposed amendments would not increase beyond that previously identified,
and because the utility and service demands of the VGMP have been fully integrated into the long-
term plans of utility and service,providers, the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing
facilities that could accommodate additional new growth would not occur. The proposed project would
not create or encourage growth through the provision of new and essential public services or access
opportunities. Therefore, no adverse effect from the removal of obstacles to growth would occur.
(Draft SEIR p. 5-4)
SECTION 11
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines describes the energy conservation information and analyses that
should be included in an EIR, including emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, wasteful, and
19
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-19/52
unnecessary consumption of energy. Energy conservation, if defined in terms of decreased reliance
on natural gas and oil, decreases per capita energy consumption and increases reliance on
renewable energy sources. (Draft SEIR p. 5-4)
The electricity usage for the Project was determined using data from the United States Department of
Energy's (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA).' For the entire VGMP project area, the
expected annual electricity usage would be 55,000 megawatt-hours (MWh), which Includes electricity
used for all direct uses (lighting, appliances, etc.), for potable water delivery, treatment, and
distribution, and for treating wastewater. This was combined with the GHG emission factors for
California power plants, also from the DOE,' of D.61 Ib of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), 0.067 to of
CH4 per MWh, and 0.0037 Ib of N20 per MWh. The natural gas usage was also determined using
data from the EIA. For this project, the expected natural gas usage would be 110 million standard
cubic feet (mscf) per year. This was combined with natural gas combustion emissions factors from
the EPA's AP-42 Volume I, Chapter 1.4, Table 1.4-2 of 120,OOD lbs of CO2 per mscf of natural gas
combusted,2.3 lbs of CH, per mscf, and 2.2 lbs of N20 per mscf. (Draft SEIR p. 5-5)
The project proponent would be required to meet the service requirements of these utility providers,
which would ensure that a less than significant impact related to the provision of power would result.
Additionally, the proposed project would be required to adhere to Title 24, Part 6, of the California
Code of Regulations, which identifies energy efficiency standards for residential.and nonresidential
buildings. These standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation
of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The most recent standards were adopted and
went into effect October 1, 2005. The 2005 standards for residential and non-residential buildings are
expected to reduce the growth in electricity use by 478 gigawatt-hours per year(GWh/y) and reduce
the growth in natural gas use by 8.8 million therms per year (therms/y). The savings attributable to
new nonresidential buildings are 163.2 GWh/y of electricity savings and 0.5 million therms of gas
savings.' Such standards include the provision of cool roofs, demand control ventilation, skylights for
day-lighting in buildings, thermal breaks for metal building roofs, and lighting power limits,
Compliance with such standards would be reviewed before the issuance of a building permit by the
City. Because the proposed project would be required to adhere to standards contained in Title 24 in
addition to requirements set forth by the respective utility providers, development of the proposed
project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, .or unnecessary consumption of energy.
Consequently, impacts associated with this issue are considered to be less than significant and no
mitigation would be required. (Draft SEIR p. 5-5)
The methodology used in the SEIR to analyze the project's potential effect on global warming includes a
calculation of GHG emissions. The purpose of calculating the emissions is for informational purposes,
as there is no quantifiable emissions threshold established by any judicial decision or CEQA regulation
or statute as indicated in the public policy rationale underlying AS 32 and SB 97. A detailed analysis of
the project's GHG emissions has been provided in Section 4.2 Air Quality of the SEIR. (Draft SEIR p. 5-
5)
SECTION 12
ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that a SEIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a Project, or the location of
the Project,which:
' Table C14:Electricity Consumption and Expenditure Intensities,
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbegs/cbem2003fdetaile tables 20031detalled tables 2003 html,website accessed April 10,2008.
Updated Stele- and Regional-level Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Nectricity (March 2002),
www.etadoeoov/owfll 6051ee-factors htm,website accessed April 14,2008.
' Nonresidential Compliance Manual for Cefifomia's 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards, California Energy Commission,
April 2005,
20
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-20/52
1. offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project Proposal, and
2. may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable amount of
time considering the economic, environmental, social, and technological factors
involved.
A SEIR must only evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project that could feasibly obtain most of the
Project objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the
consideration of the alternatives is to be judged against a rule of reason. The lead agency is not
required to choose an environmentally superior alternative identified in the SEIR if the alternative
does not provide substantial advantages over the Project, and
A. Through the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of the
Project can be reduced to an acceptable level; or
B. There are social economic technical or other considerations that make the alternative
infeasible.
The State CEQA guidelines direct agencies to consider the feasibility of alternative locations. The
development that would result from the implementation of the Project is within the development
envelope addressed in the certified Final EIR for the VGMP. The intent of the Project is to allow the
on-site development of the remaining commercial square footage and residential dwelling units
entitled for the site. Because the Project is the amendment of the approved VGMP, it is not practical
to consider an alternative location outside of the limits of the VGMP; therefore, further consideration
of an Off-Site Location Altemative was not warranted.
The objectives for the Project areon page 3-9 of the Draft SEIR (which are stated here in Section
2B).The following alternatives were analyzed in the Draft SEIR.
A. Alternative 1 —No Project Alternative .
Description: Pursuant to CEQA (§15126.6[e][3][a]), when the project is the revision of an existing
land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the No Project Alternative should discuss
what would reasonably be expected to occur through the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or
operation into the future. It is currently infeasible to implement the remaining level of residential
development that is entitled within the portions of the VGMP available for development unless
demolition of the existing residential uses within the Residential Area occurs. Under the existing
VGMP development standards, there are areas defined as "Permissible Building Areas" within four
districts that comprise the total Victoria Gardens Regional Center. The Residential Area is located in
the northern portion of the project site and is bounded by Day Creek Boulevard, Church Street, Eden
Avenue, and Cultural Center Drive. This area is currently developed with 215 dwelling units with an
additional 95 dwelling units approved but not yet constructed. The ultimate development of these 310
dwelling units would occupy the entire "Permissible Building Area" within the Residential Area. The
existing VGMP does not allow the construction of residential uses in areas outside of the designated
Residential Area; therefore, the construction of an additional approved 290 dwelling units could not
occur within the project site unless the demolition and/or reconfiguration of the residential uses occurs
and additional residential uses at a higher density are constructed. The development of an additional
approved 996,617 square feet of commercial/office space could occur within the project site within
existing surface parking areas. The loss of existing surface parking necessary for the development of
the approved amount of commercial uses would necessitate the construction of multiple-level parking -
structures. For the purpose of this alternatives analysis, it is assumed that these parking structures
will not exceed the height of existing structures developed within the Main Street Area of the VGMP.
21
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-21/52
Finding: The City Council finds that under the 'No Project" altemative, the Project's objectives
would still be met through the development of residential and commercial/office uses.
This alternative would restrict residential uses, commercialloffice uses, and parking
structures to the current height limits within the Main Street Area. Development under
this alternative would also have a building height and scale similar to other existing
buildings in the area and would not result in a greater obstruction of views of the San
Gabriel Mountains. Therefore, impacts related to the obstruction of a scenic vista or
change in visual character would be reduced in magnitude when compared to the
Project. Such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impacts
related to short-term construction-related air quality would be similar to the Project.
While demolition activities would occur and a greater amount of land would be
disturbed, which would result in a greater amount of emissions, the level of impact
would not differ from what was identified for the Project. Long-term operational air
quality impacts would be similar when compared to the project as the same level of
development would occur, but would remain significant and unavoidable. While
demolition activities would result in the temporary displacement of approximately 989
people; the level of impact would not differ from what was identified for the Project as
the No Project Alternative would ultimately add additional housing to the City's
existing housing stock. Therefore, impacts associated with population and housing
would remain less than significant.
Supporting Explanation: This alternative would have similar impacts as the Project related to the
following issues: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral
resources, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities. (Draft SEIR P. 6-6).
With implementation of the No Project Alternative, the development of mid-rise buildings would not
occur. Buildings under this alternative would be similar in height to the existing buildings in the
surrounding area. Because the height of the ,proposed buildings under this alternative would not differ
from those existing in the project area, no greater obstruction of the San Gabriel Mountains than that
which currently exists would occur(Draft SEIR p.6-6).
The installation of on-site lighting to accommodate nighttime activities and for safety purposes would
be required under the No Project Alternative. Similar to the proposed amendments, potential impacts
from spillover light may occur on adjacent properties. However, each of the alternatives would be
required to submit a lighting plan that includes evidence that the on-site lighting adequately adheres
to City standards. Due to the absence of mid-rise buildings constructed (or potentially constructed)
with large areas of reflective surfaces, no significant glare-related impact would occur under this
alternative. Development occurring under the No Project Alternative would be required to comply with
design standards, such as setbacks, building height, lot dimensions, and maximum lot coverage
contained in the VGMP and City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning and Municipal Codes (Draft SEIR p.
6-6).
Rather than three proposed mid-rise structures, it is anticipated the commercial development
occurring under this alternative would be similar to that already developed within the Main Street
Area; that is, two-story single-and multiple-tenant structures. This would necessitate that construction
activities would occur over a broader development footprint, thereby (compared to the Project)
necessitating a extensive disturbance of existing parking areas and of underlying soils. The amount of
land to be disturbed under this Alternative would be greater than that which would be graded under
the Project. A similar mix of equipment as identified for the proposed amendments would operate
during earthmoving activities and construction; therefore, like the proposed amendments, significant
and unavoidable impacts associated with the emission of NOx, PM,o, and PM,, would occur.
Because the area disturbed under this alternative is increased, the duration of construction-related
emission impacts would likely be extended beyond that required for the development of the structures
envisioned under the Project. Additionally, to construct the denser residential development assumed
under this Alternative, the existing residential uses would either be demolished and/or reconfigured to
22
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-22/52
incorporate the additional dwelling units permitted by the VGMP in the Residential Area. Increasing
the density of residential uses within the Residential Area would require construction activities not
associated with the proposed amendments (Draft SEIR p. 6-6 through 6-7).
Because the total development permitted under this Alternative is similar to that envisioned under the
Project, the operational emissions associated with this alternative would be similar to those of the
Project.
This Alternative would result in the demolition of the existing 215 dwelling units within the Residential
Area and the reconfiguration of an additional 95 dwelling units approved but not yet constructed
within the Residential Area. The No Project Alternative would ultimately result in the construction of
600 dwelling units within the "Permissible Building Area" of the Residential Area and an additional
966,617 square feet of commercial/office space within the VGMP. Because the No Project Alternative
would require the demolition and the reconfiguration of 310 dwelling units, a temporary displacement
of approximately 989 people'would occur. When compared to the proposed project, population and
housing impacts are greater in magnitude as this alternative would displace approximately 989
people. However, like the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in an increase to
the City's existing housing stock(Draft SEIR p. 6-7).
Similar to the Project, this alternative would contribute toward long-term air quality operational
emissions of CO, ROG. NOx, PM,O. PM2.5, and greenhouse gases. Because there are no feasible
mitigation measures to reduce the cumulative impacts associated with long-term operational air
pollutant emissions, long-term air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Draft
SEIR p. 6-7).
a. Alternative 2 - Reduced Development Alternative
Description: This Alternative includes an amendment to the VGMP to allow residential development
within the Main Street Area. The amount of development that would occur would be reduced to
500,000 square feet of commercial/office uses and up to 150 residential dwelling units. Existing
height restrictions would be maintained in the Main Street Area. To replace existing surface parking
along Victoria Gardens Lane, multiple-story parking structures would be constructed between future
and existing commercial uses. The amount of parking provided in structures would be sufficient to
provide for lost parking spaces and parking spaces required for any new commercial/residential uses
(Draft SEIR p. 6-6).
Finding: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that the construction of a
Reduced Development Alternative would still be partially meet the Project's
objectives through the development of residential and commercialloffice uses. This
Alternative would restrict residential uses, commercial/office uses, and parking
structures to the current height limits within the Main Street Area. Development under
this Alternative would also have a building height and scale similar to other existino
buildings in the area and would not result in a greater obstruction of views of the San
Gabriel Mountains. Therefore, impacts related to the obstruction of a scenic vista or
change in visual character would be reduced in magnitude when compared to the
Project. Such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impacts
related to short-term construction-related air quality would be similar to the Project as
a similar amount of land would be disturbed and the same mix of equipment would be
utilized. Long-term operational-related air quality impacts would be reduced in
magnitude when compared to the Project as less development would occur, but
would remain significant and unavoidable.
° 310 dwelling units x 3.19 people per dwelling unit (Average from Department of Finance Table E-5 City/County
Population and Housing Estimates,January 1,2008)=909 people.
23
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-23/52
The decrease in commercial/office uses would result in a reduction of permanent jobs
that would be created. This Alternative would have a reduced demand on public
services, recreation, and water use as fewer job opportunities and residences would
result. However, similar to the Project, the payment of fees, dedication of parkland,
and adherence to utility requirements would reduce these impacts to a less than
significant level. Water use for this alternative would be less than the Project and
would generate less wastewater and solid waste .
Under this Alternative, the Proiect objectives are partially met as commercial/office
and residential uses would still be built, but on a smaller scale, thus reducing the
magnitude of impacts.
Supporting Explanation: This alternative would have similar impacts as the Project related to the
following issues: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral
resources, and noise. (Draft SEIR p, 6-8).
With implementation of the Reduced Development Alternative, the development of mid-rise buildings
would not occur. Buildings under this Alternative would be similar in height and scale as the existing
buildings in the surrounding area. Because the height and scale of the proposed buildings under this
Alternative would not differ from those existing in the Project area, no greater obstruction of the views
of the San Gabriel Mountains would occur than currently exists. Therefore, impacts related to.
obstruction of a scenic vista and change in visual character would be reduced in magnitude
compared with those identified for the Project. (Draft SEIR, p, 5-8).
The installation of on-site lighting to accommodate nighttime activities and for safety purposes would
be required for the Reduced Development Alternative, Similar to the Project potential impacts from
spillover light may occur on adjacent properties. However, each of the Alternatives would be required
to submit a lighting plan that includes evidence that the on-site lighting adequately adheres to City
standards. Development of this Alternative would be required to comply with design standards, such
as setbacks, building height, lot dimensions, and maximum lot coverage contained in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Zoning and Municipal Codes (Draft SEIR p. 6-8).
The amount of land to be graded under this Alternative would be comparable to that which would be
graded under the project even though the amount of potential development is reduced, because the
same amount of surface area would be required under both scenarios. Therefore, a similar mix o`
equipment as identified for the proposed amendments would operate during earthmoving.activities
and construction emissions from the development of Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project,
which is significant and unavoidable for NOx, PM,o, and PM2.5. Similarly, because the amount of land
to be graded with Alternative 2 would be equal to that of the Project, PM,, and PM2.5 LST emissions
would be similar to the Project and would be significant and unavoidable. However, because a
reduction in the total amount of commercial/office square footage and dwelling units to be developed
under this Alternative would occur, the corresponding air emissions that may occur would be
proportionally reduced as the amount of vehicle trip generation, commercial/office square footage,
and residential dwelling units would be reduced.Therefore,operational air quality emissions would be
reduced when compared to the Project, as a reduction in vehicle trip generation, commercWtoffice
square footage, and residential dwelling units would occur, but remain significant. Similarly,
operational LST emissions of PM,S and PM2.5 would be proportionally reduced as the amount of
vehicle trip generation, commercial/office square footage, and residential dwelling units would be
reduced. However, given that the Project would result in operational LST emissions of approximately
49 pounds per day of PM, and 9.4 .pounds per day of PMzs, and this Alternative would result in
approximately half the development potential envisioned under the Project, it is reasonable to assume
that approximately half the operation LST emissions would occur. Based on this assumption,
approximately 24.5 pounds per day of PM,S and approximately 4.7 pounds per day of PM2,5 would be
emitted under this Alternative and would still exceed the operational LST emissions. Therefore,
24
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-24/52
operational LST emissions of PM, and PM2.5 would be less than the Project, but would remain
significant(Draft SEIR p. 6-8 through 6-9).
Because the amount of development envisioned under this Alternative is approximately half of the
potential development that would occur under the Project, a decrease in 'population and housing
would occur compared with that previously analyzed in the FEIR. Therefore, similar to the Project,
impacts related to population and housing would remain less than significant as this alternative would
not result in an increase in population or housing (Draft SEIR p. 6-9).
Compared to the Project, this Alternative would result in a reduction of approximately 50 percent of
proposed commercial/office and residential uses. Similar to the Project, demands on schools, parks,
other public facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection services would be reduced in magnitude as
no greater commercialloffice square footage or residential dwelling units are proposed under this
Alternative. Like the Project, development under this alternative would require payment of
development impact fees for schools, police services, and fire services. The payment of development
impact fees would offset any impacts to these public services that may result from the development of
this Alternative(Draft SEIR p.6-9).
Under this Alternative, a reduction of approximately 50 percent of proposed commercial/office and
residential uses would occur than what is already permitted. Therefore, there would be no increase in
existing population and no increase in demand for park and recreation facilities. Because no increase
in demand for recreational facilities would occur, impacts associated with recreation under this
Alternative would remain less than significant(Draft SEIR p. 6-9).
Based on trip generation rates utilized in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 7" Edition, this
Alternative would generate approximately 26,287 daily vehicle trips, which is approximately 46
percent less than what was identified for the VGMP FEIR. With such a reduction in daily trips, it is .
reasonable to conclude that traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections would be reduced
from levels associated with the Project. Although the volume of traffic is reduced under this
Alternative, impacts to LOS levels at nearby intersections and roadway segments would still occur
and.would require mitigation as identified%in the VGMP.Final EIR. The addition of traffic volumes
associated with this alternative could result in a deficient LOS.level at one,or more of the intersections
in the project vicinity during the lifetime of the development. While significant traffic impacts.may .
occur under this Altemative, these impacts would be mitigated in a manner similar to those of the
Project: However, despite the identification of mitigation measures, certain roadway improvements
would not be under the jurisdiction of the City and cannot be guaranteed to be in place when
development under Alternative 2 would become operational(Draft SEIR p. 6-9 through 6-10).
Existing utility infrastructure for stormwater and wastewater are present in adjacent roadways or
parcels. Like the Project, development under this Alternative would connect to existing utility
infrastructure subject to the terms and conditions of the City and IEUD. When compared to the
Project, this alternative's demands on wastewater treatment and capacity at existing wastewater
treatment facilities would be reduced in magnitude due to reduced development of commercial/office .
square footage and residential dwelling units(Draft SEIR p.6-10).
The development of the commercial/office and residential uses associated with this Alternative would
also require the installation of water supply infrastructure. When compared to the Project, water usage
demands would be reduced due to reduced development of commercial/office square footage and
residential dwelling units. However, similar to the Project, development under this Alternative would be
required to obtain verification from the water purveyor that water is available to serve the development.
Since this Alternative would utilize less water than the Project and since water supply for the Project is
available, it is reasonable to conclude that if this Alternative was built instead of the Project, adequate
water would be available(Draft SEIR p. 6-10).
Like the Project,Alternative 2 would also generate solid waste. Demands on solid waste seRices and
landfill capacity would be reduced in magnitude due to reduced development of commerciallofice
25
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-25/52
square footage and residential dwelling.unts. However, similar to the Project development under
Alternative 2 would be required to adhere to the provisions of the solid waste provider that would
service the project site(Draft SEIR p.6-10).
C. Alternative 3—Second-Floor Residential Alternative
Description: With the intent of avoiding or substantially reducing significant impacts created by the
Project, the Draft SEIR has considered a Seccnd-Floor Residential Alternative, Under this alternative,
the VGMP would be amended to permit the construction of residential units within the Main Street
Area, on top of existing commercial uses. Areas along Victoria Gardens Lane would be developed
with a combination of multi-story commerciallotfice uses and parking structures. Commercial/office
uses would be developed along the perimeter of Victoria Gardens Lane, with parking structures
located between the future and existing commercial uses. Commercial/office and parking structures
would be restricted to the current height limits within the Main Street Area. The total amount of
development permitted under this alternative is equal to that anticipated with the proposed
amendments (approximately 1,000,000 square feet of commercial/office uses, and up to up to 290
high-density residential units).
Finding: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that reduction of impacts on
the aesthetic character of the site and scenic vistas would be achieved though the
construction of buildings that would have a building height and scale similar to other
existing buildings in the area. With implementation of this alternative, views of the
San Gabriel Mountains would not be obstructed. Change in visual character would be
reduced in magnitude when compared to the proposed amendments and would be
reduced to a less than significant level. With the Second-Floor Residential
Alternative, potential impacts associated with short-term construction-related and
long-term operational-related air quality impacts would remain similar to those
identified with the Project. However, like the proposed Project, the significance of
short-term construction-related and long-term operational-related air quality impacts
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Alternative 3 (Second Floor Residential Alternative) allows the development of
employment and revenue-generating uses as well as provide additional housing
opportunities in City. Additionally, the Second-Floor Residential Alternative meets all
of the City's stated project objectives, while at the same time reducing the aesthetic
impacts associated with the proposed amendments. Therefore, Alternative 3 has
been determined to be the environmentally superior alternative because it would
satisfy the most of the project objectives without creating additional impacts as
indicated in Table S.A. Although Alternative 3 has been identified as the
environmentally superior alternative, Alternative 3 would not provide for the level of
commercial and residential development to which the project applicant is entitled
through the previous approval of the VGMP. Therefore, the altemative was rejected
in favor of the Project.
Supporting Explanation: Under this alternative, the same amount of commercial/office square
footage and residential dwelling units as that envisioned under the proposed amendments (i.e.,
1,000,000 square feet of commercial[/office uses and 290 high-density residential units) would occur.
While the intensity of development would not differ from the proposed amendments, the size and
scale of the buildings would adhere to the previously approved design guidelines established for the
VGMP (i.e., maximum height of 70 feet and maximum density of 30 units per acre). The development
of mid-rise buildings would not occur under this alternative. Because the height and scale of the
proposed buildings under this alternative would not differ from those existing in the project area, no
greater obstruction of the view of the San Gabriel Mountains would occur than currently exists and
impacts related to obstruction of a scenic vista and change in visual character would be reduced in
26
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-26/52
magnitude when compared to the proposed amendments. Since there would be no greater
obstruction of a scenic vista or a significant change in visual character of the surrounding area,
impacts are considered less than significant. (Draft SEIR p.6-11).
The installation of on-site lighting to accommodate nighttime activities and for safety purposes would
be required for the Alternative 3. Similar to the proposed amendments, potential impacts from
spillover light may occur on adjacent properties. However, each of the alternatives would be required
to submit a lighting plan that includes evidence that the on-site lighting adequately adheres to City
standards. Development of the proposed amendments would be required to comply with design
standards, such as setbacks, building height, lot dimensions, and maximum lot coverage contained in
the City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning and Municipal Codes. (Draft SEIR p. 6-12).
Similar to the proposed amendments, Alternative 3 would contribute to long-term operational air
pollutant emissions of CO, ROG, NOx, PMro, and PM2.5. Since Alternative 3 would result in the same
level of development envisioned under the proposed amendments, the amount of operational air
pollutant emissions would be similar in magnitude. Additionally, this alternative would contribute
toward greenhouse gas emissions and increased traffic operations on local roadways and at local
intersections. Because there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the cumulative impacts
associated with long-term operational air pollutant emissions and increased traffic, long-term air
quality and traffic impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft SEIR p. 6-12).
The remaining fifteen environmental issues (agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources,
cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land
use/planning, mineral resources, noise, populationlhousing, public services, recreation,
transportation, and utilities/service systems)would have similar impacts as identified for the proposed
amendments. (Draft SEIR p. 6-11).
D. Alternative 4—Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative
Description: Under this alternative, the VGMP would be amended to permit the construction of
residential units within the Main Street Area. The residential units would be constructed on .the
second and/or third floors of multi-story structures located along Victoria Gardens Lane. No increase
in the permitted height limit within the Main Street Area would occur. Surface parking lost through the
development of commercial/residential structures would be replaced by multi-level parking structures
to be located between future and existing commercial uses. The total amount of development
permitted under this alternative is equal to that anticipated with the proposed amendments
(approximately 1,000,000 square feet of commercialloffice uses and up to up to 290 high-density
residential units). (Draft SEIR p. 6-12).
Finding: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that under the Mixed
Commercial-Residential Building Alternative, potential impacts related to short-term
construction-related air a'uallty would be greater when compared to the proposed
amendments as a greater amount of land would be disturbed to accommodate the
proposed uses. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Long-term
operational-related air quality impacts would be the same when compared to the
project and would remain.significant and unavoidable. This alternative would restrict
residential uses, commercial/office uses, and parking structures to the current height
limits within the Main Street Area. Development under this alternative would also
have a building height and scale similar to other existing buildings in the area and
would not obstruct views of the San Gabriel Mountains. Therefore, impacts related to
the obstruction of a scenic vista or change in visual character would be reduced in
magnitude when compared to the proposed amendments. Such impacts would be
reduced to a less than significant. The Mixed Commercial-Residential Building
Alternative would meet all of the identified project objectives while reducing aesthetic
impacts. However, the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative would
27
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-27/52
result in greater air pollutant emissions as the same intensity of development would
occur without the building height amendments, thereby requiring more area to
develop the same intensity. Air quality impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Supporting Explanation: This alternative would have similar impacts as the Project related to the
following fourteen issues: agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources,
geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral
resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities/service
systems. (Draft SEIR p. 6-12).
Development under the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative would result in the same
amount of commercial/office square footage and residential dwelling units as that envisioned under
the proposed amendments. While the intensity of development would not differ from the proposed
amendments, the size and scale of the buildings would adhere to the previously approved design
guidelines established for the VGMP. The development of mid-rise buildings would not occur under
this alternative. Because the height and scale of the proposed buildings under this alternative would
not differ from those existing in the project area, no greater obstruction of the views of the San
Gabriel Mountains would occur and impacts related to obstruction of a scenic vista and change in
visual character would be reduced in magnitude when compared to the proposed amendments. Since
there would be no greater obstruction of a scenic vista or a significant change in visual character of
the surrounding area, impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Additionally, the existing
parking lots visible from Victoria Gardens Land would be shielded by the new structures, thus
improving the visual character as views would be of compatible structures and not of vast parking.
areas. (Draft SEIR p. 6-13).
The installation of on-site lighting to accommodate nighttime.activities and for safety purposes would
be required for the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative. Similar to the proposed
amendments, potential impacts from spillover light may occur on adjacent properties. However, each
of the alternatives would be required City standards regarding,the proper placement and design to
avoid light intrusion into adjacent properties and residential areas. Development of the proposed
amendments would be required to comply with design standards, such as setbacks, building height,
lot.dimensions, and maximum lot coverage contained in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Zoning acid
Municipal Codes. (Draft SEIR p. 6713)-
The amount of land to be graded with the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative would
be greater than that of the proposed amendments because the same level of development is
envisioned without the proposed amendment to building height (i.e., a greater area is required to
accommodate the same level of development), Therefore, construction emissions from the
development of this alternative would be greater when compared to the proposed amendments,
which is significant and unavoidable for NOx, PM,o, and PMZ,S. Similarly, because the amount of land
to be graded with the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative would be oreater to that of
the proposed amendments, PM10 and PM,.,LST emissions would be greater when compared to the
proposed, amendments and would be significant and unavoidable. However, because the total
amount of commercialloYce square footage and dwelling units to be developed under this alternative
would be the same as the proposed amendments, the operation air emissions that may occur would
be the same as that analyzed for the proposed amendments and no greater impact would occur.
Therefore, operational air quality emissions would be the same when compared to the proposed
amendments during operations. Similarly, operational LST emissions of PM15 and PM2,5would be no
greater than that analyzed for the proposed amendments. However, operational LST emissions of
PM,v and PM2.5 would remain significant and unavoidable. (Draft SEIR p.6-13).
Similar to the proposed amendments, the Mixed Commercial-Residential Building Alternative would
contribute to construction emissions of NOx, PM10, and PM2,5 and long-term operational air pollutant
emissions of CO, ROG, NO,, PM,,, and PMIS. Because a greater amount of area would be disturbed
to accommodate the same level of development without an amendment to building height,
28
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-28/52
construction air quality impacts are cumulatively significant and unavoidable. Since the Mixed
Commercial-Residential Alternative would result in the same development envisioned under the
proposed amendments, the amount of operational air pollutant emissions would be the same in
magnitude. Additionally, this alternative would generate greenhouse gas emissions and increase
traffic volume on local roadways and at local intersections. Like the proposed amendments, mitigation
measures would be implemented to reduce the cumulative impacts associated with long-tens
operational air pollutant emissions and increased traffic; however, impacts would not be reduced to a
less than significant level and long-term air quality and traffic impacts would remain significant and
unavoidable. (Draft SEIR p. 6-13).
SECTION 13
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council hereby declares that, pursuant to State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against any
significant and unavoidable environmental.impacts in determining whether to approve the Project. If
the benefits of the Project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts
are considered "acceptable."
The City Council hereby declares that the Final SEIR has identified and discussed significant effects
that may occur as a result of the Project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures
discussed in the Draft SEIR, these impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except
for the unavoidable and significant impacts as discussed in Section 7 herein (Aesthetics (scenic
vistas and changes to existing visual character)and Air Quality (short-term and long-term area source
and mobile source air pollution emissions, short-term and tong-term localized area source and mobile
source air pollution emissions, cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, and cumulative impacts as to
failure to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards for Ozone, PMS,,and PM,.,).,
The City Council hereby declares that.it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Project.
The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended to
the City are not incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose
restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other
benefits that this City Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts.
The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the
Final SEIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of the Project objectives and/or
specific economic, social or other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental
benefits of the alternatives.
The City Council hereby declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental
affects of the Project, to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having
considered the entire administrative record on the Project and having weighed the benefits of the
Project against its unavoidable significant impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined
that the social, economic and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential
unavoidable significant impacts and render those potential significant impacts acceptable based upon
the following considerations:
• The Project would ensure that development of the site is in accordance with established
functional standards and design and aesthetic standards contained in the Victoria Community
Plan, including the incorporation of certain elements representative of community heritage
29
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-29/52
styles found within the City. Thus providing the City with a development, which creates a
distinctive "downtown"environment;
• The Project would implement the regionally oriented commercial development envisioned for
the project site in the General Plan and Victoria Community Plan;
• The Project would create a mixed-use neighborhood with public spaces, shopping,
entertainment, and civic uses, within walking distance;
• The Project would augment the City's economic base by providing sales and property tax-
generating uses;
• The Project would create employment opportunities for citizens of the City and surrounding
communities;
• The Project would provide commercial development in conformance with applicable policies
and programs included in the City's General Plan,
• The Project would create a vibrant and active downtown, which can accommodate the civic
activities, commerce, and public events resulting from interaction of businesses, residents,
and visitors; and
• The Project would capture retail sales that may currently be lost to adjacent cities.
The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through
approval and implementation of the Project outweighs the identified significant adverse environmental
impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that each of the Project
benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final SEIR and,
therefore,finds those impacts to be acceptable.
SECTION 14
CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The City Council finds that it has: reviewed and considered the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report in evaluating the Project, that the Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and that the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent
judgment of the Planning Commission.
The City Council declares that no significant new impacts or information as defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the City Council after the circulation of the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that would require recirculation. All of Ire information
added to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report merely clarifies, amplifies or makes
insignificant modifications to an already adequate Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b).
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby certifies the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report for the Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendments is adequate and
complete in that it addresses the environmental effects of the Project and fully complies with the
requirements of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines and City of Rancho Cucamonga Local CEQA Guidelines
for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, The Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report is composed of:
a. The backup file material for the Project;
b. The Notice of Preparation;
c. The Initial Study and the studies it relies upon;
30 I
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-30/52
d. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 23, 2006;
e. The comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and responses
thereto;
f. The staff report for the public hearing before the City Council held on May 6, 2009.
g. The minutes of the hearing and all documentary and other testimonial evidence
submitted thereat;
h. The Statement of Facts and Findings in support thereof, and
I. The Statement of Overriding Considerations.
A. Findings:
1. CEQA Compliance: As the decision-making body for the Project, the City Council
has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Findings and supporting
documentation. The City Council determines that the Findings contain a complete and accurate
reporting of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project, as well
as complete and accurate reporting of the unavoidable impacts and benefits of the Project as detailed
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the SEIR was prepared in
compliance with CEQA and that the City Council complied with CEQA's procedural and substantive
requirements.
2. Independent Judgment of Lead Agency: The City retained the independent
consulting firm of LSA Associates, Inc. to prepare the SEIR for the Project. The SEIR was prepared
under the supervision and directions of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department staff.
The City Council is the final decision making body for the entitlements listed below. The City Council
has received and reviewed the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prior to certifying the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and prior to.making any decision to approve or
disapprove the Project.
Finding: The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's
independent iudgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public
Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant, directing the
consultant in preparation of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report as well as
reviewing, analyzing and revising material prepared by the consultant.
3. Significant Unavoidable Impacts/Statement of Overriding Considerations: The
Project would have significant adverse impacts even following adoption of all feasible mitigation
measures which are required by the Planning Commission. The following significant environmental
impacts have been identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and would require mitigation
but cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance as set forth in Section 7 of these Findings
Aesthetics (scenic vistas and changes to existing visual character) and Air Quality (short-term and
long-term area source and mobile source air pollution emissions, short-term and long-term localized
area source and mobile source air pollution emissions, cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, and
cumulative impacts as to failure to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards for Ozone,
PM,o, and PM2,5).The Project has eliminated or substantially reduced environmental impacts where
feasible as described in the Findings, and the City Council determines that the remaining unavoidable
significant adverse impacts are acceptable due to the reasons set forth in the preceding Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
B. Conclusions:
1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Project have been
identified in the Final SEIR and, with the implementation of the mitigation measures defined herein
and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, will be mitigation to a less-than-
significant level, except for the impacts listed in Section A(3) above.
31
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-31/52
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Project that could feasibly achieve the basic
objectives of the Project have been considered and rejected in favor of the Project.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from
the development of the Project override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Project or further
mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Project.
SECTION 15
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit A. In the event of
inconsistencies between the mitigation measures set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program,the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control
SECTION 16
RESOLUTION REGARDING CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and material that constitute the final record of proceedings on which these
Findings have been based,are located at the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The custodian for these
records is the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This information is provided in
compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
SECTION 17
RESOLUTION REGARDING STAFF DIRECTION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of San Bernardino within five (5)
working days of final Project approval.
32
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-32/52
APPENDIX D
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared for use in implementing
mitigation for the:
Amendments to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan
The program has been prepared in compliance with State law and the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2001031028) prepared for the project by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires adoption of a reporting or monitoring
program for those measures placed on a project to mitigate or avoid adverse effects on the
environment(Public Resource Code Section 21081.6).The law states that the reporting or monitoring
program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.
The monitoring program contains the following elements:
1) The mitigation measures are recorded with the action and procedure necessary to ensure
compliance. In some instances, one action may be used to verify implementation of several
mitigation measures.
2) A procedure fcr compliance and verification has been outlined for each action necessary. This
procedure designates who will take action,what action will be taken and when, and to whom and
when compliance will be reported.
3) The program has been designed to be flexible.As monitoring progresses, changes to compliance
procedures may be necessary based upon recommendations by those responsible for the
program. As changes are made, new monitoring compliance procedures and records will be
developed and incorporated into the program.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program includes mitigation identified in the Initial Study,
Draft SEIR and the Revisions to the Draft SEIR.
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-1
Resolution No. 09-081 - Page 5 of 5-33/52
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CHECKLIST
Project File Name: Amendments to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan EIR Applicant: City of Rancho Cucamonga
Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. Date: February 2009
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Datel Sanctions for
Im lementIng Action fotoonitoring Frequency Verification Virificatlon Initials Non-Compliance
AESTHETICS
4.1.1A Prior to the issuance of Building Prior to Prior to Issuance Plan Review Withhold Building Permit
building permits, the project proponent Official/Planning Building of Building
N shall submit to the City for review and Director Permits Permit
0 approval, plans, designs, or other
.C:. information detailing the type, amount,
0 location, and type of installation of the
=3 materials that will face the exteriors of
Zthe proposed mid-rise structures. The
information submitted to the City shall be
0 sufficient to demonstrate that the
Dproposed facing material does not create
00 glare of a quality or quantity that would
adversely affect surrounding uses. Any
determination of adverse effect for lack
thereof) shall be made by the City's
N Development Review Committee
(D
m AIR QUALITY
p 4.3.1A The Construction Contractor Building Official Prior to Prior to Issuance Review of Withhold Grading Permit
I shall select the construction equipment or designee grading of Grading- construction
Cn used on site based on low emission Permit documents
to factors and high energy efficiency. The and on-site
Construction Contractor shall ensure that inspection
Nconstruction grading plans include a
statement that all construction equipment
will be tuned and maintained in
accordance with the manufacturer's
specifications
4.3.1B The Construction Contractor Building Official Prior to Prior to Issuance Review of Withhold Grading Permit
shall utilize electric or altemalive-fuel or designee grading of Grading construction
powered equipment in lieu of gasoline or Permit documents
diesel-powered engines unless the and on-site
Contractor determines, and the City inspection
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program U-2
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Date/ Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Initials Non-Compliance
concurs, that electric or alternative-fuel
powered equipment is either not
commercially available or not
economically feasible for purchase or
use on this project. .
4.3.1C The Construction Contractor Building Official Prior to Prior to Issuance Review of Withhold Grading Permit
T7 shall ensure that construction grading or designee grading of Grading grading plans,
eD plans include a statement that work Permit construction
p crews wilt shut off equipment when not in documents
E use. During smog season (May through and on-site
October), the overall length of the inspection
:3 construction period should be extended,
Z thereby decreasing the size of the area
O prepared each day, to minimize vehicles
O and equipment operating at the same
(D lime.
O
OD
4.3.11) The Construction Contractor Planning Throughout Prior to Issuance Review of Withhold Grading/Building
i shall time the construction activities so Director/City construction of Grading construction Permits/Issuance of a
-p as not to interfere with peak hour traffic Engineer Permit and documents Stop Work Order
N and minimize obstmclion of through throughout and on-site
Ntraffic lanes adjacent to the site; if construction inspection
01 necessary,a llagperson shall be retained
O to maintain safety adjacent to existing
I roadways.
(P
6 4.3.1E The Construction Contractor Building Official Throughout Prior to Issuance Review of Withhold Grading Permit
Cri
I shall support and encourage ridesharing ordesignee construction of Grading construction
N and transit incentives for the construction Permit documents
crew.
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-3
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of i Method of Date/
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification �Viirlflcatlon Initials Non-Compliance
4.3.1F Dust generated by the Building Official Throughout Prior to Issuance On-site Revoke Grading Permit/
development activities shall be retained or designee construction of Grading inspection Issuance of a Stop Work
on site and kept to a minimum by Permit and Order
following the dust control measures listed throughout
below. construction
a. During clearing, grading,
earthmoving,excavation,or transportation
of cut or fill materials, water trucks or
N sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent
W dust from leaving the site and to create a
O
crust after each days activities cease.
O b. During construction, water tacks or
sprinkler systems shall be used to keep
Z all areas of vehicle movement damp
enough to prevent dust from leaving the
O site. At a minimum, this would include
(O welling down such areas in the late
W morning and after work is completed for
00 the day, and whenever wind exceeds 15
r miles per hour.
0
d a After clearing, grading,
� earthmoving,or excavation is completed.
the entire area of disturbed soil shall be
tr treated immediately with soil bonding
0 agents until the area is landscaped,
01 paved, or otherwise developed so that
(.J dust generation will not occur.
m
� d. Soil stockpiled for mate than two
N days shall be covered, kept moist, or
Treated with soil binders to prevent dust
generation.
e. Trucks transporting soil, sand, cul
or fill materials, and/or construction
debris to or from the site shall be tarped
from the point of origin.
4.3.iG The Construction Contractor Building Olficial Throughout Prior to Issuance Review of Revoke Building Permit/
shall utilize as much as possible or designee construction I of Grading construction Issuance of a Stop Work
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-4
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.i ble Monitoring Timing of 1 Method of Date/
Im' lamenting Action =ring Frequency, Verification -Verification Initials Non-Compilahce
precoated/natural colored building Permit dowmenls Order
materials, water based or low VOC and on-site
coating, and coating transfer or spray inspection
equipment with high transfer efficiency,
such as a high-volume low-pressure
(HVLP) spray rnethod, or manual
coatings application such as paint brush,
hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag,
or sponge as defined in SCAQMD Rule
N 113,
0 4.3.2A The project shall comply with Building Official Throughout Prior to Issuance On-site Revoke Building Permit/
E Title 24 of the California Code of or designee construction of Building inspection Issuance of a Stop Work
O Regulations or City requirements Permit Order
regarding energy conservation
Z standards.
O
O
(O 4.3.28 Use of transportation demand Building Official At Plan Prior to Issuance Review of Revoke Building Permit/
O measures (TOM), such as preferential or designee submittal and of Building construction Issuance of a Stop Work
co
parking for vanpoolinglcarpooling, upon Permit documents Order
r subsidy for transit pass or construction and on-site
vanpooling/carpooling, flextime work completion. inspection
N schedule, bike racks, lockers, showers,
(O
(p and on-site cafeterias, shall be
Oh incorporated in the design of the
O commercial land uses.
(n
r
W 4.3.2C Prewire houses for electrical Building Official Throughout Prior to Issuance Review of Revoke Building Permit,
charging EV cars, unless the applicant or designee construction of Building construction Issuance o/a Stop Work
01
N determines, and the City concurs, that Permit documents Order
pre-wiring housing units for electrical and on-site
charging EV cars is not economically inspection
feasible or practical for the type of _
housing or site design of the units.
4.3.2D Install EV chargers or Building Official Throughout Prior to Issuance Review of Revoke Grading Permit/
alternative fuel stations (natural gas) for or designee construction of Building construction Issuance of a Stop Work
communitywide use at key commercial Permit documents Order
and public location(s). and on-site
inspection
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-5
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Datel Sanctions for
lm�lementlng Action for,Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Initials Non-Compliance
4.3.2E The developer shall contract with Building Official Prior to Prior to Issuance On-site Withhold Grading Permits
a mitigation monitor to assure or Designee grading of Grading inspection
compliance with and implementation of Permits
the mitigation monitoring program. -
CAD NOISE ... .. - .. . .
O 4.2.1A Construction shall be limited to Building Official Throughout Throughout On-site Issuance of a Stop Work
C the hours of 630 a.m. through 8:00 p.m. or designee construction Wnslruchon inspection Order
p on Monday through Saturday, excluding
=1 national holidays. No construction shall
Z be allowed an Sundays.
O
�
4.2.1B There shall be proper muffling Building Official Throughout Throughout On-site Revoke Grading/Building
mo of and maintenance of all internal or designee conslmclion construction inspection Permit and Issuance of a
co combustion engines for construction Stop Work Order
equipment and vehicles used on the site.
4.2.1C All stationary noise generating Building Official Throughout Throughout On-site Issuance of a Stop Work
to sources, such as air compressors and or designee construction construction inspection Order
portable power generators,. shall be
M located as far away as possible from
0 existing sensitive receptors.
to
W 4.2.2A Residential units located within Building Prior to Prior to Issuance Plan Review Withhold Building Permit
1 86 to 172 feet of the centerline of Day OfficiallPlanning Building of Building
N Creek Boulevard shall be equipped with Director Permits Permit
building facade upgrades, such as
double paned (or dual glazing)windows,
and mechanical ventilation, such as an
air conditioning system.
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-6
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of i N:lethod of Date/
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification 'Verification Initials Non-Compliance
4.2.28 Residential units located within Building Prior to Prior to Issuance Plan Review Withhold Building Permit
364 feet of the centedine of Day Creek Official/Planning Building of Building
Boulevard or within 1,321 feet of the Director Permits Permit
centerline of 1-15 shall be equipped with
mechanical ventilation. such as an air
conditioning system. Additionally,
residences facing 1-15 shall also include
noise-attenuating sound barriers (e.g.,
,Z7 double-paned or dual glazing windows)
(D to further reducz traffic related noises
N
o from 1-15.
E_
O 4.2.3A On-site residences located Building Prior to Prior to Issuance Plan Review Withhold Building Permit
=1 within 250 feet of any loading dock shall OfficiallPlanning Building of Building
Z be equipped with mechanical ventilation, Director Permits Permit
O
such as an air conditioning system.
O
4.2.36 In accordance with City Code Code During On-going On-site Issue Citation
Co Section 17.10.050 of the Performance Enforcement Occupancy inspection
' Standards, no loading or unloading Officer
activities. including truck idling shall
pr occur between the hours of 10 p.m.to 7
f0 a.m. within 250 feet of any residential
(D development-
0
1
Ut
(a
(D
(r
N
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-7
Verified
Date/Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of
Implementing Action for.Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Initials Non-Compliance
PUBLIC SERVICES
4.6.2A As stated in the General Planning Prior to Prior to Final Plan Review Withhold Building Permit
Requirements and Approval for the Director/City Building Map Approval/
Police Department for the City, a signed Engineer Permits Issuanceof
consent and waiver form to join and/or Building Persil
form the Law Enforcement Community
Facilities District shall be filed with City
Engineering prior to final map approval
or the issuance of building permits,
CD
N whichever occurs first for any projects
0 within the project area. Formation costs
.C» shall be bome by fhe developer. The
O developer shall submit to the City a
Public Safely and Security Plan, which
Z identifies the developers intent to
o provide safely services to the project to
0 supplement normal City Police Services.
O
00
4.6.3A The developer shall join Planning Prior to Pnor.to Issuance Written Withhold Building Persil
Community Facilities District ICED) 85-1 DirectodCity Building of Building Evidence
_U to provide fire protection services to the Engineer Permits Permit
°f site.
rD
to
p 4.6.38 The developer shall install full, Building Oficial Priorto Prior to Issuance Plan Review Withhold Building Permit
Iautomatic fire sprinklers systems in all or Designee Building of Building
Ln commerciallretail, office and residential Permits Permit
units in accordance with Rancho
Cucamonga Fire District Ordinance No.
N3 15 and Rancho Cucamonga Fire District
Ordinance No.22.
4.6.3C The Fire District shall be Planning Prior to Final Prior to Issuance Plan Review Withhold Final Maps
consulted on street name assignments to Director/City Map approval of Final Maps
assure compliance With response plans. Engineer
TRAFFIC
4AAA The project shall make a fair Building Official Prior to Prior to Issuance Evidence of Withhold Building Permit
shale contribution to following ordeslgnee construction of Building Payment of
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-8
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I
Im lamenting Action for ResponsibleMonitoring
improvements: Permit Development
• Day Creek Boulevard/SR-210 Impact Fees
Westbound Ramps-Addition of a
free southbound right tum lane.
Day Creek BaulevardNicteria
Gardens Lane -Addition of a free
northbound right turn lane. Short
.Z1 eastbound green phase will
N necessitate prohibition of
Opedestrian crossing of Day Creek
C Boulevard on the south leg of this
pintersection.
7
Z Day Creek Boulevard/Foothill
0 Boulevard - Addition of a free
Owestbound right tum lane, which
will continue to become the free
6 northbound right turn lane at Day
pp Creek BoulevardNictoda Gardens
Lane. Conversion of one
' northbound left turn lane to a
northbound through lane. Addition
(O of a free northbound right turn
(D lane, which will continue to
cn become a dedicated right turn lane
0 at 1-15 Southbound Ramps/Foothill
(T Boulevard. Addition of a third
southbound left tum lane.
Conversion of soullibourtd shared -
Ut though/right turn lane to a
N dedicated southbound right turn
lane.Modification of signal phasing -
to provide right turn overlap
phasing for southbound right tum
movement.As an alternative to the
overlap phasing, a free
(uncontrolled) right turn for this
movement would improve overall
.intersection operations slightly and
permit eastbound U-turns,
although a LOS calculation will
Appendix D Mitigalion Monitoring and Reporting Program D-9
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Date/
Implementing Action fot�Monitoring Frequency Verification, Verification Initials Non-Compliance
she greater average delay for
controlled movements. This signal
will need to be operated 'Split
phase' northbound and
southbound to allow three
southbound lanes to turn lett. _
Coordination of signal timing with
Day Creek BoulevardNictoiia
�f Gardens Lane shall be
(D implemented to provide maximum
puse of southbound green time.
C Signal timing must consider
opedestrian crossing of the east leg
7 of the intersection in order to
Z conriect a pedestrian trail from
O north to south. Short northbound
C:) through green phase will require
t,0 pedestrians crossing Foothill
p Boulevard on the east leg of this
00 intersection to cross to the median
on one phase and then continue
on a subsequent phase. A
N countdown pedestrian signal and
an eight-foot wide raised median to
fb serve as a pedestrian refuge must
0 be provided in the east leg of the
intersection.
Victoria Gardens Lane/Base Line
N Road - Conversion of planned
northbound shared throughlright
N _ turn lane to a free right turn lane.
Additinn of a dedication eastbound
Tight turn lane.
• Victoria Gardens Lane/Church
Street - Modification of signal
phasing to provide right turn
overlap phasing for northbound
right turn movement.
• Etiwanda Avenue/Arrow Route -
Addition of a second northbound
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-10
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Wortitoring Timing of Method of Date/ Sanctions for
Im ementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Nerification Initials Non-Compliance
through lane.
• Etiwanda Avenue/Stover Avenue
-Addition of a second southbound
left turn lane and a free westbound
right turn lane.
• 1-15 Southbound and
Northbound Ramps/Base Line
;(J Road-Freeway interchange must
N be reconstructed to include
O southbound and northbound loop
C on-ramps. Plans for the
reconstmction of this interchange
7 are currently being prepared by
Z Caltrans,SANBAG,and the City of
O Rancho Cucamonga. The
p
reconstruction of this interchange
will include the reconstruction of
o the intersection of East Avenue
W and Base Line Road.
' Cherry Avenue/Foothill
Boulevard - Addition of a second
fo southbound left tum lane. This
(D mitigation will maintain the level of
C1t service at this intersection at its
O 2001 level, which did not meet the
cn City of Fontana's LOS C standard.
W
N
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D_11
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Cartel Sanctions for
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Initials Non-Compliance
10
4.1.2A As shown in Table 4.1.M Building Official Prior to Prior to Issuance Evidence of Withhold Building Parm0
(VOMP Final EIR), the addition of the or designee construction of Building Payment of
following freeway lanes would maintain Permit Development
freeway operations under year 2007 with Impact Fees
project conditions at acceptable levels of
service:
• Interstate 15 from Jurupa
A Street to 1-10 - Addition of one
N northbound HOV lane.
to
D Interstate 10 from Archibald
E Avenue to 1-15-Addition of one
o eastbound mixed-flow lane.
D
Z Interstate 10 from Etiwanda
p Avenue to Valley Boulevard -
� Addition of one eastbound HOV
tD lane.
6 Interstate 10 from Valley
tb
Boulevard to Cherry Avenue-
Addition of one eastbound mixed
flow lane and one eastbound
N HOV lane.
Q
0)
(n 4.1.3A The project shall make a fair Building Official Prior to Prior to Issuance Evidence of Withhold Building Permit
o share contribution to the following or designee construction of Building Payment of
cn improvements: Permit Development
P
Archibald AvenuelFoothill Impact Fees
� Boulevard - Addition of a
N dedicated eastbound right turn
lane, a dedicated northbound
right turn lane, and a second
southbound left turn lane.
Haven Avenue/Base Line
Road - Addition of a third
eastbound through lane and a
second eastbound left turn lane.
• Milliken Avenue/SR-210
Eastbound Ramps-Addition of
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-12
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Date/ Sanctions for
implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification !Verification Initials Non-Compliahce
a free northbound right tum lane.
• Milliken AvenuelBase Line
Road - Addition of a third
eastbound through lane.
• Milliken Avenue/Foothill
Boulevard - Addition of a third
eastbound through lane, a third
;7 and a fourth southbound through
(D lanes, and a dedicated
W
northbound right tum lane.
c
Milliken Avenue/Arrow Route-
O Addition of a second eastbound
7
Z left turn lane, a third eastbound -
O through lane, and a fourth
northbound through lane.
c0 Milliken Avenue/4th Street -
6 Addition of a third southbound
OD left turn lane. Modification of
i signal phasing to provide night
-p turn overlap phasing for
N northbound right turn movement.
(D Rochester AvenuelArrow
Cn Route - Conversion of second
northbound left turn lane to a
Cn second northbound through
lane.
CCnn
1-15 Southbound Ramps/4th
N Street - Addition of a free _
southbamd right turn lane.
Modification of signal phasing to
provide right tum overlap
phasing for northbound right turn
movement.
Day Creek Boulevard/Summit
Avenue - Addition of dedicated
northbound and southbound
right turn lanes.
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-13
Verified
Mitigation Measure No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of i Method of Date/
Intolementing Action forMonitonng Frequency Verification Verification Initials Non-Compilance
Day Creek Boulevard/SR-210
Westbound Ramps -
Cooslrudion of a loop off-ramp
for westbound SR-210 traffic
exiting south onto Day Creek
Boulevard.
Day Creek BoulevardISR-210
Eastbound Ramps-Addition of
m a free northbound right turn lane.
rn Conversion of eastbound shared
O left tmnllhrough/right turn lane to
a shared through/right tum lane.
Day Creek Boulevard/Highland .
Z Avenue - Addition of dedicated
O northbound and southbound
right turn lanes. Conversion of
tD westbound shared through/right
p turn lane to a dedicated right
W turn lane. Modification of signal
phasing to provide right tum
overlap phasing for westbound
01 right tum movement
lO
(0 Day Creek Boulevard/Base
Cn Line Road - Addition of a
O second eastbound left tum lane
and a second westbound left
turn lane.
W - Day Creek BoulevardNictorla
tr
Ln Gardens Lane - Addition of a
free northbound right tum lane.
Short eastbound green phase
will necessitate prohibition of
pedestrian crossing of Day
Creek Boulevard on the south
leg of this intersection.
Day Creek Boulevard/Foothill
Boulevard - Addition of a free
westbound right turn lane,which
will continue to become the free
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-14
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Date/
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Initials Non-Compllance
northbound right turn lane at Day
Creek BoulevardMctona
Gardens Lane. Conversion of
one northbound left tum lane to
a northbound through lane.
Addition of a free northbound
right turn lane, which will
continue to become a dedicated _
:0 right turn lane at 1-15 _
in Southbound Ramps/Foothill
O Boulevard. Addition of a third
C southbound left turn lane.
0' Conversion of southbound
7 . shared thcugldright tum lane to
Z a dedicated southbound right
O turn lane. Modification of signal
0 phasing to provide right turn
c0 ovedap phasing for southbound
O right turn movement. As an
W alternative to the overlap
phasing, a free (uncontrolled)
right turn for this movement
N would improve overall
� intersection operations slightly
N
(T and permit eastbound U-tums,
0 although a LOS calculation will
show greater average delay for
controlled movements. This
signal will need to be operated
"split phase" northbound and
Cn
N southbound to allow three
southbound lanes to turn left.
Short westbound through green
phase will require pedestrians
crossing Day Creek Boulevard
on the north leg of this
intersection to cross to the
median on one phase and then
continue on a subsequent
phase. A countdown pedestrian
signal and an eight-foot wide
raised median to serve as a
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-15
Verified
Mitigation Measure No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Date/
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Initials Non-Compliance
pedestrian refuge must be
provided in the north leg of the
intersection. Southbound left -
tum lanes must be side-by-side
with the northbound left tum lane
at Victoria Gardens Lane to
provide sufficient queuing
capacity for southbound left turn
movements. Coordination of
CIDN signal timing with Day Creek
O BoulevardNictoria Gardens
E Lane shall be implemented to -
oprovide maximum use of
:3 southbound green time. Signal
Z timing must consider pedestrian
O crossing of the east leg of the
CD intersection in order to connect a
t0 pedestrian trail from north to
p south. Short northbound through
W green phase will require
pedestrians crossing Foothill
Boulevard on the east leg of this
pt intersection to cross to the
median on one phase and then
(n continue on a subsequent
phase. A countdovm pedestrian
signal and an eight-foot wide
(A raised median to serve as a
.61 pedestrian refuge must be
00
provided in the east leg of the
Or intersection.
N
1-15 Southbound
Ramps/Foothill Boulevard -
Addition of a free eastbound
right turn lane.
• Victoria Gardens Lane/Base
Line Road - Conversion of
planned northbound shared
through/right tum lane to a free
right turn lane.
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-16
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Datel Sanctions for
Implementing Action forilillonitoring Frequency Verification Verification lni tials Non-Compliance _j
Victoria Gardens lane/Church
Street - Addition of a second
westbound left tum lane.
Modification of signal phasing to
provide right turn overlap
phasing for northbound right turn
movement.
Etiwanda Avenue/Church
ip Street-Addition of a dedicated
N northbound left turn lane,
- resulting in a single left tum lane
c
o. and a single shared through/right
turn lane.Addition of a dedicated
eastbound left turn lane,
0 resulting in a single left tum lane
and a single shared through/right
O
0 turn lane.Addition of a dedicated
QD
6 westbound left turn lane,
Co resulting in a single left turn lane
--' and a single shared through/right
' turn lane.
06) Etiwanda Avenue/Foothill
N Boulevard - Addition of a
ui second southbound through
0 lane, a second northbound
M through lane, and a second
northbound left turn lane.
Modification of signal phasing to
I provide right tum overlap
N phasing for the northbound right
turn movement.
Effwanda Avenue/Arrow Route
- Addition of a second
northbound through lane, a
second southbound through
lane. a second eastbound
through lane, a second
eastbound left turn lane, a
second westbound left tum lane,
and a dedicated northbound
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-17
Verified
Mitigation Measure No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of od of Date/
Implementing Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Initials Non-Compliance
right tum lane.
• Etiwanda Avenue/San
Bernardino Avenue - Addition
of a second eastbound left tum
lane.
Etiwanda Avenue/Slover
Avenue-Addition of a third and
a fourth northbound through
N lane, a second eastbound left
O turn lane, a second southbound
left turn lane, a second
p westbound left turn lane, and a
D free westbound right turn lane.
Z These mitigations will maintain
O the level of service at this
O intersection at its 2001 level,
O which did not meet the City of
O Ontario's LOS O standard-
Co
1-15 Southbound and
' Northbound Ramps/Base Line
d
Road — Freeway Interchange
t0 nwsl be reconstructed to include
southbound and northbound
(n loop on-ramps. Plans for the
1 reconstruction of this
U1 interchange are currently being
6 prepared by Caltrans, SANBAG,
0 and the City of Rancho
NCucamonga. The reconstruction
of this interchange will include
the reconstruction of the
intersection of East Avenue and
Base Line Road.
• East Avenue/Base Line Road—
Mitigation at this intersection is
Included as part of I-15/Base
Line Road interchange
reconstruction.
• Cherry Avenue/Foothill
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-18
Verified
Mitigation Measure No.I Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Date/ Sanctions for
ImplementIng Action for Monitoring Frequency Verification Verification Initials Non-Compliance
Boulevard - Addition of a
second eastbound left turn lane,
a dedicated eastbound right turn
lane, a second southbound left
turn lane, a dedicated
northbound right turn lane, and a
dedicated westbound right turn
lane. These mitigations will
Z7 maintain the level of service at
N this intersection at its 2001 level,
U)
which did not meet the City of
C_ Fontana's LOS C standard.
O
n 4JAA. As shown in Table 4.1.Q Building Official Prior to Prior to Issuance Evidence of Withhold Building Permit
Z (VGMP Final EIR), the addition of the or designee construction of Building Payment of
0 following freeway lanes would maintain Permit Development
C) freeway operations under year 2020 with Impact Fees
(O project conditions al acceptable levels of
O service:
co
r Interstate 15 from SR-60 to
Duncan Canyon Road-Addition of
N one northbound mixed-Flow lane
and one northbound HOV lane.
N
cn Interstate 10 from Vineyard
O Avenue to Archibald Avenue -
N Addition of one eastbound mixed-
flow lane.
NInterstate 10 from Archibald
IV Avenue to Milliken Avenue -
Addition of two eastbound mixed-
flow lanes.
• Interstate 10 from Milliken Avenue
to 1-15-Addition of two eastbound
mixed-flow lanes and one
westbound mixed-flow lane.
Interstate 10 from Etiwanda
Avenue to Cherry Avenue -
Addition of two eastbound mixed-
now lanes and one eastbound
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-19
Verified
Mitigation Measure No. Responsible Monitoring Timing of Method of Date, Sanctions for
Implementing Action for�Monitoringl Frequency Verification, Verification Initials Non-Compliance
HOV lane.
Stale Route 210 from Carnelian
Street to Day Creek Boulevard -
Addition of one eastbound mixed-
flow lane.
State Route 210 from Cherry
Avenue to East Avenue - Addition
of one eastbound mixed-flow lane_
N
O 4A.5A. Prior to issuance of each Planning Prior to Prior to Issuance Plan Review Withhold Building Permit
C_
building permit for all subsequent Director/City construction of Building
O residential or commercial structures, the Engineer Permit
7
Z project applicant shall submit to the City
O Planning and Engineering Departments
Oand receive approval of. a parking
to demand study. the objective of the
O parking demand study will be to
W demonstrate that adequate parking will
be provided for the subsequent
structures while maintaining adequate
parking for existing uses. The parking -
(� demand study will be based on a shared
parking analysis utilizing acceptable
N parking demand rates. The parking
0 demand analysis will address the
it proximity of existing and future structures
(!n to existing and future parking locations to
N ensure that reasonable walking
(T distances are maintained for existing and
N future residents, retail, and Cultural
Center customers,and employees.
Appendix D Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program D-20