Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12 - Resolutions RESOLUTION NO. 09-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VICTORIAARBORS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00146 MODIFYING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER PLAN TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE AMENDMENTS TO THE VICTORIA GARDENS MASTER PLAN PROPOSED BY DRC2009-00145, 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; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. 1. Forest City Development California, Inc,filed an application for Victoria Arbors Master Plan Amendment DRC2009-00146 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Community Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On April 8, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. Recitals. The Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Findings. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on April 8, 2009, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The property subject to the application (hereinafter,the"subject property")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. Said property is currently designated as Mixed Use. b. 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. C. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Mixed Use, and is partially developed with a winery and single-family residential development. The property to the west is designated Mixed Use, and is developed with multi-family residential units. The 1-15 Freeway lies immediately to the east with the land further east designated Low-Medium Residential and Medium Residential within the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and Regional Related Commercial. The property to the south and beyond Foothill Boulevard is developed with commercial uses and is designated Regional Related Office/Commercial. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-12 VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00146 - FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. April 8, 2009 Page 2 d. 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 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. 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. e, Subsequent to the 2002 approval of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan, approximately 52% 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. f. Concurrent with this application, the applicant has also applied for Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendment DRC2009-00145, Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00383, General Plan Amendment DRC2008-00384 and Development Agreement Amendment DRC2008-00385. The purpose of these other applications is to allow the development of residential uses in the Main Street Area, 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 Victoria Gardens Master Plan area. g. As shown in the attached Exhibit'A"the application proposes to amend the Victoria Arbors Master Plan to accommodate the proposed amendments to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan. h. The City caused to be prepared and circulated an Initial Study to evaluate this application and the proposed changes to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan, and to determine whether additional environmental review is required under CEQA. i. 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. j. Under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163, the City may prepare a supplemental EIR in lieu of a subsequent EIR if the changes to 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. k. Based on the Initial Study, comments received during the public review of the initial Study, and comments received during the public scoping meeting,the City determined that this application and the proposed changes to the Victoria Gardens Master Plan are substantial and require 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-12 VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00146 - FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. April 8, 2009 Page 3 I. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15082, the City published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Supplemental EIR (SEIR)for the application, and circulated the NOP to governmental agencies, organizations, and persons who may be interested in the application, including nearby landowners, homeowners, and tenants. M. When the Draft SEIR was complete,the City circulated it for public review and comment for 45 days. n. 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 the Final Supplemental EIR/Response to Comments document ("Final SEIR"). o. On April 8, 2009, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the application and the Final SEIR, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to present oral and written evidence regarding the application and the Final SEIR. P. 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 Exhibit "B" to this Resolution. q. 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 "B"to this Resolution. In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City has prepared a mitigation monitoring and reporting program to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. r. 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 "B" to this Resolution. S. 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 "B" to this Resolution. The proposed Statement provides substantial evidence that the environmental risks of the application have been balanced against its benefits. t. Based on the totality of the administrative record, the Planning Commission finds that the Final SEIR complies with the requirements of CEQA and recommends that the City Council certify the Final SEIR as being prepared in compliance with CEQA and that the City Council also adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. U. Subject to the City Council's approval of the related applications (General Plan Amendment DRC2008-00384,Victoria Community Plan Amendment DRC2008-00383,Victoria Gardens Master Plan Amendment DRC2009-00145, and Development Agreement Amendment DRC2008-00385), the application does not conflict with the policies and provisions of the General Plan or any specific plan applicable to the subject property. V. Approval of the application would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-12 VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00146 - FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. April 8, 2009 Page 4 W. The findings set forth in this Resolution reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission. C. Recommendation. On the basis of the foregoing and the totality of the administrative record before it, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final SEIR, adopt the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in Exhibit B, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as conditions of approval, and approve Victoria Arbors Master Plan Amendment DRC2009-00146. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2009. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Richard B. Fletcher, Chairman ATTEST: Jam R. Troyer, AICP, Secilletary I, James R. Troyer,AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 8th day of April 2009, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, HOWDYSHELL, MUNOZ, STEWART NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: WIMBERLY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-12 VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00146 - FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. April 8, 2009 Page 5 Exhibit A Text Amendments to the Victoria Arbors Master Plan The first paragraph of Chapter 3, Section I.B (Mixed Use Multi-family Residential) is hereby amended to read as follows: "There are three density levels of multi-family residential proposed for Victoria Arbors: Medium High Density (MH), High Density (HD), and that density allowed by the Victoria Gardens Master Plan." Chapter 3, Section I.B (Mixed Use Multi-family Residential) is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a new subsection 3 to read as follows: "3. Victoria Gardens. The density of multi-family residential areas in Victoria Gardens, located within the Victoria Arbors Village of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan, shall be in conformance with the adopted provisions of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan as such plan is amended from time to time." The first paragraph of Chapter 3, Section I.0 (Mixed Use Commercial) is hereby amended to read as follows: "Mixed use areas that are primarily commercial will fall into one of three categories: Regional Related Commercial — those parcels that are proximate to the Regional Commercial and provide services to a regional market;Village Center Commercial—those parcels that will primarily serve the surrounding community; and Victoria Gardens—those parcels located in the Victoria Gardens area of the Victoria Arbors Village." Chapter 3, Section I.0 (Mixed Use Commercial)is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a new subsection 3 to read as follows: "3. Victoria Gardens Victoria Gardens located within the Victoria Arbors Village, shall be in conformance with the adopted provisions of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan as such plan is amended from time to time." The first sentence of Chapter 3, Section I.D.a.(1) is hereby amended to read as follows: "The following uses shall be permitted within Residential and Commercial Land Use area in Victoria Arbors, except where such uses conflict with the Victoria Gardens Master Plan" Chapter 3, Section I.D.b.(2) is hereby amended to read as follows: "The following uses shall be permitted subject to the Conditional Use Permit process within Residential or Commercial Land Use areas in Victoria Arbors, except where such uses conflict with the Victoria Gardens Master Plan." PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 09-12 VICTORIA ARBORS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT DRC2009-00146 - FOREST CITY DEVELOPMENT CALIFORNIA, INC. April 8, 2009 Page 6 Chapter 3, Section I.D is hereby amended by the addition thereto of a subsection d to read as follows: "Victoria Gardens, located within the Victoria Arbors Village of the Victoria Arbors Master Plan, shall be in conformance with the adopted provisions of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan as such plan is amended from time to time." Section II.A is hereby amended to read as follows: "A. MIXED USE MULTI-FAMILY/RESIDENTIAUCOMMERCIAL 1. These areas may be developed either as multi-family residential (Medium High density residential) or as Regional Related Commercial. Development of the parcels will be subject to the requirements in the Master Plan for either Mixed Use Multi-Family or Mixed Use Commercial, Regional Related Commercial, depending on which is chosen. 2. Victoria Gardens, located within the Victoria Arbors Village, shall be in conformance with the adopted provisions of the Victoria Gardens Master Plan as such plan is amended from time to time." EXHIBIT B IS AS SHOWN IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED APRIL 8, 2009 AS EXHIBIT D RESOLUTION EXHIBIT B 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. EXHIBIT D 1 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. 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 III-4 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. 1-15 is located adjacent and to the east of the Project site, and Residential and Commercial/Retail 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). ' City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Section 2.5.3.6 Developing the Community, Pg. III-29. 2 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 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 III-4 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 primary Project objectives are as follows: 3 • 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. • Capture retail sales that may currently be lost to adjacent cities. 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.2 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 7100 p.m. In addition to Planning Commissioners, City Council members, and City staff, a representative ' The Notice of Preparation 30-day public review period was from September 8 to October 8,2008. 4 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 public 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 Draft 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. Biane Library. The Draft 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. 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 5 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 significant 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. Supporting Explanation of the Finding: There 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 6 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 commercial/office 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). 3. Air Quality Impacts to Nearby Sensitive Receptors and On-Site Future Development: 7 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 PM10 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., glues, 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-term 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). 8 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. 9 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 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 quantity 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 COZ Eq (Draft SEIR, p. 4.2-33). 10 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 4.3.28: 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 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. 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 11 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-term 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, PM10,and PM2.5). 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(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities to highly trained workers make infeasible mitigation measures of the 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 concerns 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 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 12 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 taller 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 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 13 emissions would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for the criteria pollutants of NOx, PM1o, and PM2.5, 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, PM10, 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 4.3.16 The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or alternative-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 4.3.1 E 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 14 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. 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, PM10, and PM2.5 Although fugitive PM10 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 NOx, PM1o, and PM2.5; 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). 15 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/commercial/residential 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 65 percent transfer 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 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. Implementing these mitigation measures is feasible. Therefore, the City Council of the City 16 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, NOx, PM1o, and PM2.5 would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for long-term 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, PM10, and PM2.5 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 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 PM1o, and PM2,5 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 alternative-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. 17 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 4.3.1 E The Construction Contractor shall support and encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction crew. Mitigation Measure 4.3.11F 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 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 PM10 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 18 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 PM10 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 4.3.1G 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 4.3.1 B The Construction Contractor shall utilize electric or alternative-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 4.3.1 D 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 19 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 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 SCAOMD 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, the localized operational thresholds are exceeded at the nearest residences for PMio 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 mitigation measures impacts associated with localized operational emissions for PM,p and PMIS would remain significant and unavoidable (Draft SEIR p. 4.2-36). 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. 20 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 Projects, 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 AB 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 upon 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, it 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 21 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 systems such as pumps, air conditioning, 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 p. 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 22 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 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).3 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 0.61 Ib of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh), 0.067 Ib of CH4 per MWh, and 0.0037 Ib of N2O 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 120,000 lbs of CO2 per mscf of natural gas combusted, 2.3 lbs of CH4 per mscf, and 2.2 lbs of N2O 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 saving s.5 Such standards include the provision of cool roofs, demand control ventilation, skylights for day-lighting in buildings, thermal breaks for metal building 3 Table C14:Electricity Consumption and Expenditure Intensities, www eia doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed tables 2003/detailed tables 2003.html,website accessed April 10,2008. ° Updated State- and Regional-level Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Electricity (March 2002), www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ee-factors.html,website accessed April 14,2008. ° Nonresidential Compliance Manual for California's 2005 Energy Efficiency Standards, California Energy Commission, April 2005. 23 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 AB 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: 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 Alternative was not warranted. The objectives for the Project are on page 3-9 of the Draft SEIR (which are stated here in Section 2B). The following alternatives were analyzed in the Draft SEIR. 24 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. Finding: The City Council finds that under the "No Project" alternative, the Project's objectives would still be met through the development of residential and commercial/office 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 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. 25 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, PM10, and PM2.5 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 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 26 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 peoples 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, PM1e, 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). B. 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 commercial/office 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 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 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. 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 ° 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)=989 people. 27 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 Project 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. 6-8). 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 of 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, PMIO, and PM2.5. Similarly, because the amount of land to be graded with Alternative 2 would be equal to that of the Project, PM,o 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, commercial/office square footage, and residential dwelling units would occur, but remain significant. Similarly, operational LST emissions of PM,o and PM2.5 would be proportionally reduced as the amount of vehicle trip generation, commercial/office square footage, and residential dwelling units would be 28 reduced. However, given that the Project would result in operational LST emissions of approximately 49 pounds per day of PM10 and 9.4 pounds per day of PM2.5, 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 PM10 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, operational LST emissions of PM10 and PM2.5would 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 commercial/office 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, 7h 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 Alternative, 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 29 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 services and landfill capacity would be reduced in magnitude due to reduced development of commercial/office square footage and residential dwelling units. 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 Second-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 commercial/office 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 30 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 6.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 alternative 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 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, PM10, and PMZ.S. 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). 31 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, population/housing, 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 commercial/office 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 quality 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 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 32 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 and Municipal Codes. (Draft SEIR p. 6-13). 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 PM2,5. Similarly, because the amount of land to be graded with the Mixed Commercial- Residential Building Alternative would be greater to that of the proposed amendments, PM10 and PM2.5 LST emissions would be greater when compared to the proposed amendments and would be significant and unavoidable. However, because the total amount of commercial/office 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 PM10 and PM2_5 would be no greater than that analyzed for the proposed amendments. However, operational LST emissions of PM10 and PM25 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, NOx, PM1p, and PM2.5. Because a greater amount of area would be disturbed to accommodate the same level of development without an amendment to building height, 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 33 roadways and at local intersections. Like the proposed amendments, mitigation measures would be implemented to reduce the cumulative impacts associated with long-term 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 Sections 5 and 6 herein (Air Quality, short-term and long-term area source and mobile source air pollution emissions, and cumulative impacts as to failure to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards for Ozone, PM10,and PM2.5,and global climate change). The City Council hereby declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the 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 effects 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 34 representative of community heritage 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 the 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 35 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; d. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report dated December 23, 2008; 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 DATE= 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 judgment. 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 Sections 5 and 6 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 36 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, PM10, and PM25).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. 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. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this (k1 day of.MONTH, 2009. 37