Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-06-22 - Agenda Packet PC-HPC
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF RANCHO C,,UCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22, 2016 - 7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 11 I. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 10611mw 11 Chairman Wimberly _ Vice Chairman Oaxaca Munoz Macias Fletcher II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place far the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. III. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS IC PRESERVATION COMMISSION .ANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JUNE 229 201E Page 2 IV. CONSENT CALENDAmMISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION .42ND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration of Regular Meeting minutes dated June 8, 2016 B. Consideration of Adjourned Meeting (Workshop) minutes dated June 8, 2016 IF- V. PUBLIC HEARINGSIPLNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. C. TIME EXTENSION DRC2016-00356 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. - A request for a time extension for previously approved Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16072) to subdivide 150.79 acres into 359 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) Residential District, with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at northeast corner of Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. APNs: 1087-081-12, and 19 through 24. Related Files: Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by the City Council on June 16, 2004 by Resolution 04-204 and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Environmental Impact Report. VI. COMMISSION BUSiNESSIHISTORIC PRESERVATION AND PLANNING COMMISSION D, INTER -AGENCY UPDATES E. COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS 'II. : iDioURN TENT 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 16, 2016, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. i If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meet=ng will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired, INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,597 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofR .us. Vicinity Ma[) Historic Preservation and Planning Commission Meetin J U N E 22, 21016 rvairnu !i Arrow 7ir Meeting Location: O City Hall/Council Chambers ! 10600 Civic Center Drive Item C - Time Extension DRC2016-00356—Golden Meadowland, LLC and Ranch Haven, LLC THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE MINUTES OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2016-7:00 PM Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center COUNCIL CHAMBERS 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California ' Pledge of Allegiance T u3 PM Roll Call I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Macias X Fletcher A Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director, Steven Flower, Assistant City Attorney; Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer; Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner, Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary 11 II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. None I Item A —3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES RANCi10 D U N E 81 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 2 III. CONSENT CALENDAR/HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Consideration of minutes dated May 25, 2016 Moved by Munoz, seconded by Macias, carried 3-0-1-1 (Oaxaca abstain, Fletcher absent) I! IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS/PLANNING COMMISSION The following items have been advertised and/orposted as public hearings as required bylaw. The Chairman will open the public hearing to receive testimony. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2016-00042 — SUNNY'S PERFECTION - A request to allow for a massage establishment within a 2,055 square foot unit in an existing shopping center located within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District at the southeast comer of Haven Avenue and Lemon Avenue; APN: 0201-272-06. The project is categorically exempt under Section 15301 as a Class 1 exemption (Existing Facilities) for the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Jennifer Nakamura, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and a brief PowerPoint presentation (copy on file). She said one person called with some questions regarding the regulations and conditions. Ms. Nakamura also explained revocation could commence if the business is not operated in a lawful manner. The caller was satisfied with her answers. Chairman Wimberly opened the public hearing and seeing and hearing no comment, closed the public hearing. Mr. Dong said he will try to follow the business laws and he is mindful of the preserving the reputation of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Moved by Macias, seconded by Munoz, carried 4-0-1 (Fletcher absent) 11 V. ADJOURNMENT 7:13 PM THE PLANNING COMMISSION WiLL IMMEDITATELY ADJOURN TO THE RAINS ROOM TO DISCUSS PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2016-0036 I-L VD TERRA VISTA, LLC 1, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 2, 2016, at least 72 hours prior to Item A —2 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CRANCHO ► JUNE 812016 Page 3 the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in on the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." There is opportunity to speak under this section prior to the end of the agenda. Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. ►-1114111111� Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,597 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Item A —3 HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J r JUNE 8, 2016 RA Clio 070"IONGA Page 4 Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at www.CityofRC.us. Item A —4 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO CUCAMONGA THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2016 - 7:00 PM* Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center ***RAINS ROOM*** 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 11 I. CALL TO ORDER 11 7.20 PM Rolf Call Chairman Wimberly X Vice Chairman Oaxaca X Munoz X Macias X Fletcher A Additional Staff Present: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director; Brian Sandona, Associate Engineer, Tabe van der Zwaag; Associate Planner; Donald Granger, Senior Planner; Lois Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary 1= II. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning Commission may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Chair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Historic Preservation Commission or Planning Commission, not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. None Item B —1 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO J U N E 89 2016 CUCAMONGA Page 2 IL III. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION A. PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW DRC2016-00361 - LVD TERRA VISTA, LLC - A request for conceptual site plan and architectural review of a 214-unit, multi -family residential development on 11.8 acres of land within the Medium High (MH) zoning district of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the southeast corner of Haven Avenue and Church Street; APN: 1077-422-97. Tabe van der Zwaag, Associate Planner, briefly outlined the purpose of the workshop and gave a brief PowerPoint presentation and staff report (copy on file). He introduced the applicant's team. Adam Collier, Project Manager, Jonathon Siemsen, Sr. Project Manager Van Daele Homes, Michael Van Daele, President Van Daele Homes, and Scott Adams of Bassenian Lagoni, Architects Michael Van Daele said the project is innovative, unique and affordable and benefits the City bringing modern tasteful modern architecture in the range of 1400-1600 square foot housing product. He said some units have an elevator option and the front units function as detached homes. Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Munoz asked about the units fronting the street on the east side of the project and if they would have walkup stairs. Mr. Van Daele said they are not designed to be a "Brownstone" walkup. Scott Adams (Architect) and Jonathan Siesman talked about the amenities, spaces provided to engage the community, gathering areas, ADA compliance, gated areas that are resident accessible using key fobs, pedestrian connectivity, paseos and the fact that 2-car garages are provided for each unit. Mr. Van Daele reported that with Mr. Lewis' permission, he conducted a focus group of residents from the Santa Barbara development to help determine what the residents prefer in the way of amenities. Commissioner Munoz pointed out that there are no amenities near the Terra Vista side (southerly) portion of the site. Mr. Van Daele said there are some pockets of space that are not planned yet. Item B -2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES R�acH° J U N E 81 2016 CucA a Page 3 Mr. Collier said they are aware of the reductions needed i.e. building separations, parking, open space with respect to balcony/patios and setbacks. He noted the private open space calculation does not include the roof deck option. Vice Chairman Oaxaca asked with respect to the focus group if the concept of open space was discussed and was the opinion that there is a value added with that. Mr. Van Daele said the group focused more on community amenities. He said this project is more reflective of another complex already built; the discussion of roof decks did not come up. Mr_ Collier reviewed the parking noting 502 spaces are provided and 574 are required. He said they may eliminate the optional bedroom space in Unit 3 - which gives a 19 space reduction; eliminate the small office of Unit 2 -which gives another 18 space reduction. He said if we allow 27 spaces on Terra Vista Parkway it would be parallel parking; the total Minor Exception request is for 35 spaces - which would be a 7% overall reduction from the number of spaces required. Mr. Van Daele said the total need is based upon the most optional rooms being selected for example, most bungalow buyers choose the 2 bedroom option rather than 3 bedroom unit. Mr. Siemsen said the project is actually overparked based on the floorplan count without any options. He said they have conducted preliminary traffic counts and the LOS remains same even when fully developed with another new school. Mr. Adams said they looked at the parking ratio in Terra Vista. They said a 2.5:1 resident to guest ratio is most common with many municipalities. Chairman Wimberly said with respect to their trying to attract a new demographic; he said the flow of guests on weekends can be very high. Mr. Van Daels said they surveyed all their homeowners and they rarely hear anything negative about the parking provided. Mr. Adams said the buyer profile is younger or move down buyers; the emphasis is not on cars, i.e.-extra bedrooms often become a nursery. They are not dealing with teenage drivers, that may also include boats, jet skis etc... Mr. Van Daele said there will be an HOA with CCR's and enforcement. He said the garages must be kept clear to park 2 cars and they would have a parking management plan that would allow periodic inspections of the garages. Commissioner Macias said he had a concern about the parking but he generally agrees Item B -3 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO J U N E 812016 CUCAMONGA Page 4 with the analysis. He said he likes the layout, it is unique and this is good work. Vice Chairman Oaxaca agreed and said he thought the developer has addressed the parking concern. He said the street parking at Santa Barbara has not affected traffic much. He noted that they looked at who their market is; not teenagers with a million cars, i.e. young families, newlyweds, and singles. He said the reduction requests are the reality of this type of product. He said he likes the treatment along Terra Vista and the interaction along the street and sidewalk. He said he would like to see more in terms of recreational amenities in different areas of the site - perhaps smaller ones interspersed around project site. Commissioner Munoz said he did not have much to add. He is satisfied with the parking proposal, he likes the design, it is new and fresh, and he supports the change in density. He said the City needs this type of housing. Chairman Wimberly said he did not have much to add: he concurs with the other Commissioners and said he is excited about the architecture. He said this project should spruce up the area- it is very different. He said his major concern was about the parking but he believes their plan may have put him more at ease. He said he looks forward to the plans coming forward for the Design Review Committee. Mr. Van Daele thanked Mr. van der Zwaag and Ms. Burnett for ideas, advice and their help. Candyce Burnett, Planning Director said that staff asked for something different and contemporary but to also be respectful of the neighborhood and also add an edge in terms of design. She said this is friendly product that lives well. She said the gathering spaces vs larger patios can work. She said she investigated the affordability of roof top decks and it is more reasonable than she first believed. it was noted that the top deck option might result in high sales. IF7 IV. ADJOURNMENT 11 8:12 PM I, Lois J. Schrader, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on June 2, 2016, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Item B —4 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES RANCHO JUNE 812016 CI;CAMONGA Page 5 If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (909) 477-2750. Notification of 46 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired. INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the agenda, please keep your remarks brief. if others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The public may address the Planning Commission on any agenda item. To address the Planning Commission, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your name for the record and speak into the microphone. After speaking, please sign in an the clipboard located next to the speaker's podium. It is important to list your name, address and the agenda item letter your comments refer to. Comments are generally limited to 5 minutes per individual. If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Comments." . Any handouts for the Planning Commission should be given to the Planning Commission Secretary for distribution to the Commissioners. A copy of any such materials should also be provided to the Secretary to be used for the official public record. All requests for items to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda must be in writing. Requests for scheduling agenda items will be at the discretion of the Commission and the Planning Director. AVAILABILITY OF STAFF REPORTS Copies of the staff reports or other documentation to each agenda item are on file in the offices of the Planning Department, City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. These documents are available for public inspections during regular business hours, Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except for legal City holidays. APPEALS Any interested party who disagrees with the City Planning Commission decision may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council within 10 calendar days. Any appeal filed must be directed to the City Clerk's Office and must be accompanied by a fee of $2,486 for all decisions of the Commission. (Fees are established and governed by the City Council). Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session. Copies of the Planning Commission agendas, staff reports and minutes can be found at 1 www.CitvofRC.us Item B —5 STAFF REPORT PLANNING DEPARTNIENT DATE: June 22: 2016 RANCHO TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CUCAMONGA FROM: Candyce Burnett, Planning Director BY: Dominick Perez, Associate Planner SUBJECT: TIME EXTENSION DRC2016-00356 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. - A request for a time extension for a previously approved Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT16072) to subdivide 150.79 acres into 359 lots in the Low (24 dwelling units per acre) Residential District, with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located at northeast corner of Wilson Avenue and Etiwanda Avenue. APNs: 1087-081-12, and 19 through 24. Related Files: Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003- 00461. Staff has found the project to be within the scope of the project covered by a prior Environmental Impact Report certified by City Council in June 16, 2004 by Resolution 04-204 and does not raise or create new environmental impacts not already considered in the Environmental Impact Report, RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Time Extension DRC2016-00356 by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approvat with conditions, BACKGROUND: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, with the recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission, was initially approved by the City Council on June 16, 2004. Subsequently, this map went through a series of discretionary time extension requests and automatic time extensions granted through Senate and Assembly Bills, as shown in the table below. The most recent Assembly Bill, AB 116, which granted an automatic extension of 2 years to the approval period of this map, changed the expiration date to June 16, 2016. -- _ A -rovin Authari � roval/Extensions a Approval 'Period .6 rovat Date Expiration Date City Council Tentative Tract Map Approval 3 Years June 16, 2004 June 16, 2007 Planning Commission Time Extension 1 Year June 13, 2007 June 16, 2008 Planning Commission Time Extension 1' Year May 28, 2008 June 16, 2009 Senate Bill 1185 Automatic Extension 1 Year June 16, 2009 June 16, 2010 Assembly Bill 333 Automatic Extension 2 Years June 16, 2010 June 16, 2012 Assembly Bill 208 Automatic Extension 2 Years June 16, 2012 June 16, 2014 Assembly Bill 116 Automatic Extension 2 Years June 16, 2014 June 16, 2016 Planning Commission Time Extension 1 Year *June 22, 2016 " June 16, 2017 *Projected dates to be determined. Item C —1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION DRC2016-00356 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. June 22, 2016 Page 2 SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning — Etiwanda North Specific Plan unless otherwise noted: Project Site - Vacant; Very Low (VL) and Low (L) Residential Districts (the land use districts are divided by the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp of the Red Hill Fault Zone) North - Power line corridor and vacant land; Utility Corridor (UC) District and Very Low (VL) Residential District South - Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Water Treatment facility and vacant land; Very Low (VL) Residential District, Etiwanda Specific Plan East - Vacant; Very Low (VL) Residential District West - Single-family residential development; Low (L) Residential District B, General Plan Designations: Project Site - Low Residential and Very Low Residential (the land use designations are split along the fault). North - Utility Corridor and Very Low Residential South - Very Low Residential East - Low Residential West - Low Residential C. Site Characteristics: The site generally slopes from north to south at approximately 6 percent gradient and currently contains the remains of a foundation from a residential structure, remnants of low stonewalls, and irrigation flumes. The site is otherwise undeveloped and dominated by a variety of native vegetation including California Buckwheat White Sage, White Sage, Scalebroom Scrub, and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub, and a variety of non- native vegetation. There are single-family residential homes located to the west and south of the site. A portion of the property to the south contains a Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) Water Treatment facility. There is an approved Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT14749) for 269 single-family lots for the undeveloped property to the north. The undeveloped property to the east is currently in review for (i) a General Plan Amendment (DRC2016-00167) to change the land use designation from Very Low Residential to Low Residential, (ii) a Specific Plan Amendment (DRC2016-00168) to change the zoning district from Very Low Residential (VL) District to Low Residential (L) District, and (iii) a Tentative Tract Map (SUBTT19992) for a proposed subdivision to create 113 single-family residential lots. The site is divided generally from southwest to northeast by the Etiwanda Avenue Fault Scarp. ANALYSIS: A. Subdivision Map: On January 6, 1999, the City Council amended the City's Subdivision Ordinance to establish a 3-year initial approval period for tract and parcel maps (increased from 2 years previously). The amendment also allows the Planning Commission to grant time extensions in 12-month increments for up to an additional 5 years (a maximum of 8 years from the original time approval), which is the maximum allowed under the State Subdivision Map Act Section 66452.69 (e). This application involves a third 1-year time extension request, which would set the expiration date to June 16, 2017. Including the previously mentioned Senate and Assembly Bills that accounted for 7 years of automatic extensions, the maximum approval period of this project would be up to 15 years from the date of approval (final expiration on June 16, 2019). Item C —2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION DRC2016-00356 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. June 22, 2016 Page 3 B. Environmental Assessment: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report on June 16, 2004 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Staff has evaluated the Time Extension DRC2016-00356 and concludes that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previously certified EIR. The proposal only involves a request to extend the approval period of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map. The proposal does not involve any changes or modifications to the design of the previously approved subdivision. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. The Director of Biological and Regulatory Services for ESA PCR, Beth Jolie Martinez, submitted a memorandum on May 20, 2016 stating the site conditions remain consistent with previous site assessments. The site was surveyed prior to October 2003 for biological resources in preparation of the EIR. The site was found to contain California Buckwheat -White Sage (44.1 acres), White Sage (82.5 acres) Scalebroom Scrub (11.2 acres), and other non-native and disturbed areas that total 12.2 acres. Overall, the site was found to contain 147.7 acres of various forms of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage scrub for which the project will be required to obtain off -site mitigation lands. Although focused surveys were performed for Sensitive Wildlife Species, including the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, the results of all such surveys were negative. She confirmed via a memorandum, received on May 20, 2016, that the site conditions remained consistent with those previously assessed. The letter also concludes, based on observations made in our recent site visit, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts and no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered, and that, no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, staff recommends that the Planning Commission concur with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required in connection with the City's consideration of the Time Extension DRC2016- 00356. CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public Bearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 660-foot radius of the project site. Item C —3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TIME EXTENSION DRC2016-00356 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. June 22, 2016 Page 4 RLespectfu submitted, Candyc Burnett Planning Director CB:DP/Is Attachments: Exhibit A - Aerial Photo Exhibit B - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 Staff Report (June 16, 2004) Exhibit D - Resolution of Approval with Conditions for SUBTT16072 (June 16, 2004) Exhibit E - May 20, 2016 Memorandum from ESA PCR Draft Resolution of Approval for Time Extension DRC2016-00356 Item C —4 w Wts( .- v J J � J � o a o r N �- mbn r O �pNrn O p�m 0N-+1 D pba+ v CIO 'a J �o en DOOM Omn Npn 4awf rvOa p TcoM n m nm-- p r, rcn- } v IN . N- � oL; N L� N W W 4NLA LA vl p :,=)o S '50 p j33 �7[7 3 M:E 3 Ma" 3 MR' ¢ O o za> Za> o Z<> > zK> w 33a o rill e t UN Q ~ 0 Hcc) N CO a0M 0 2Nr co �.- ; 3 ^ N3 f ci z � i Ozi F�llr i I-- UJ a- LU j[ .I a a �~moz0 o o¢ Lz L a C U) OC) O , Q z o� U 00 o� �o 0L) 0 U- 0 c0 I EXHIBIT B Item C -5 T H E C I T Y O F RA\Cf10 C U C A H 0 \ G A tir. 1 IMal DATE: June 16. 2004 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Larry Henderson AICP, Principal Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - A proposed Annexation of 160.0 acres of land into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, located within the Etiwanda North Specific Plan on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461, and Development Agreement DRC2002-00156. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - The proposed residential subdivision of approximately 150.8 acres into 359 lots in the Low (2-4 dwelling units per acre) and Very -Low (.1-2 dwelling units per acre) Residential Districts, with an average density of 2.3 dwelling units per acre for the entire project, in the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan, located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01,12,13,15,16 and 20. Related Files: Development Agreement DRC2001-00156; Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-00461. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2002-00156 - RICHLAND PINEHURST INC. - A proposed Development Agreement to address specific conditions of development and annexation for 150.8 acres of land located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue - APN: 0225-083-01, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 20. Related Files: Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, Annexation DRC2002-00865, and Tree Removal Permit DRC2002-00461. EXHIBIT C Item C --7 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RICH LAND -PI NEHURST ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-Oa156 June 16, 2004 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions in the order presented: A. Approve the Resolution certifying the Final EtR for SUBTT16072, Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, and Annexation DRC2003-00865; B. Approve the Resolution to initiate proceedings for the annexation of 160 acres of land generally located on the north side of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. C_ Deny the Appeal to the Planning Commission's decision to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16072, as submitted by Craig A. Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife. Inc., dated May 19, 2004, and approve Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. D_ Adopt the Ordinance to enter into Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, a Development Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Richland Pinehurst for the purpose of developing an approximate 150.8-acre site with up to 359 residential lots. BACKGROUNDIANALYSIS: A_ Project Summary The proposed project is located within the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan (Exhibit "A" - Regional Map). The Etiwanda Avenue Scarp of the Red Hill Fault divides the 150.8 acre site, with the area north of fault designated Very Low Residential and the area south of the fault designated Low Residential. The combined net density of the project is 2.93 dwelling units per acre, and the overall gross density of the project is 2.38 dwelling units per acre, The minimum lot area within the project is 8,400 square feet with an average lot size of approximately 11,400 square feet (Exhibit "B" - Site Plan). The Specific Plan identifies a Community Trail along the Fault Zone, connecting the Etiwanda Avenue Community Trail and the Regional Trail within the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor north of the site. The internal street pattern has been designed following the naturally trending terrain, which slopes at approximately 6 percent northwest to southeast. Access to the site is provided by two street intersections on Etiwanda Avenue, and one each on East Avenue and Wilson Avenue. All perimeter streets will require some level of improvement with development of the project, including the south side of Wilson Avenue, which includes a Community Trail within the Metropolitan (MWD) strict right-of-way. The project will require flood protection improvements, including the 25th Street Diversion Channel along the north boundary of the project, as well as two on -site interim Detention Basins. The proposed storm drain improvements are individual components of the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Area 3 Master Plan of Storm Drain facilities. The proposed improvements would protect the site from upstream flows and would result in a modification of the current Federal Emergency Managements Agency (FEMA) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designation of Zone D ("area of undetermined flood hazard") to "no significant flood hazard." Item C —8 CITY COUNCIL. STAFF REPORT RICHLAND-PINEHURST ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 3 B. Summary of Planning Commission Meeting on May 12, 2004 Larry Henderson, Principal Planner, presented the staff report and suggested revisions to the resolution and the Development Agreement to include a statement that private landscape maintenance be the responsibility of a Homeowners Association or the formation of a new Landscape Maintenance District and to delete the requirement for a gated community. He stated staff would like to add Engineering Conditions to require the applicant to provide written approval from Metropolitan Water District for any activity within Metropolitan's fee property prior to any improvements to Wilson Avenue and clarified the Mitigation Measures to indicate that the property owner could transfer mitigation land to any qualified conservation entity approved by the City or to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts. Commissioner Fletcher observed the Site Plan shows cul-de-sac streets and not through streets. Mr. Henderson replied they were trying to limit access to Etiwanda Avenue and no lots are to front onto Etiwanda Avenue. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that typically better neighborhoods are not along long streets, and that larger lots at the end of cul-de-sacs often become prime lots. Craig Sherman, Attorney representing Spirit of the Sage Council, presented two alternate site plans that he felt were environmentally superior and were more sensitive to the earthquake fault that runs through the property. Mr. Sherman indicated that generally Development Agreements included a provision allowing amendment to the Agreement by the City Planning Department. He believed such a provision is an attempt to rewrite the legislation under the Government Code that allows the City to enact Development Agreements. He also indicated concern about a number of projects coming forward piecemeal with respect to the General Plan Amendments and Specific Plan Amendments. With respect to alternatives submitted by Mr. Sherman, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, said that the EIR discussed three alternatives to the project: 1) a no project alternative; 2) a less intensive development alternative; and 3) an alternative that would preserve more of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. Mr. Ennis indicated that the EIR and the Findings in the Resolution state why those particular alternatives do not satisfy the objectives of the project or are not feasible. With respect to the Development Agreement and the assertion that it provides an opportunity for staff to amend the Agreement in contravention to State law, he stated the Development Agreement provides for the opportunity for staff and the developer to enter into implementing agreements, but those agreements must be found consistent with the Development Agreement. He said the staff is not authorized to enter into agreements that are inconsistent with or modify or undercut the basic provisions of the Development Agreement. With regards to piecemeal projects, Mr. Ennis stated that in the EIR for this project and for another project on the agenda (Henderson Creek Properties), there is a discussion about the other projects occurring in the vicinity so as to consider the cumulative impacts of this project as well as the other projects so there is an acknowledgement and an interrelationship between all of the projects in terms of environmental impacts. The tentative tract map, associated development agreement, and annexation for the project were reviewed and approved at the May 12, 2004, Planning Commission meeting. Item C —9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RICHLAND-PINEHURST ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 4 C. Project Analysis Tentative Tract Man 16072 - The proposed project is located within the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The Etiwanda Avenue Scarp of the Red Hill Fault divides the 150.8 acre site, with the area north of the fault designated Very Low Residential and the area south of the fault designated Low Residential. The combined net density of the project is 2.93 dwelling units per acre, and the overall gross density of the project is 2.38 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot area within the project is 8,400 square feet with an average lot size of approximately 11,400 square feet. The Specific Plan identifies a Community Trail along the Fault Zone, connecting the Etiwanda Avenue Community Trail and the Regional Trail within the Southern California Edison (SCE) corridor north of the site. An Appeal to the Planning Commission approval of the Tentative Tract Map was submitted by Craig A. Sherman, attorney for Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., dated May 19, 2004. The appeal letter was based on the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report. A response to this matter is included in Exhibit "E" — Responses to Correspondence. The Development Agreement - The Development Agreement has been prepared in order to address project -specific improvements, fees, and other development standards and expectations for the benefit of the Property Owner and the City. The Development Agreement allows the applicant to identify all improvements and fees that will be required by the City upon Annexation. The Development Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney for form and content. The basic points of the Development Agreement are summarized below: 1. Term of the Agreement_ 10 years 2. Minor deviations from the Engineering Division standards- a) cul-de-sac design and b) a reduction in the standard centerline radius for a specific internal local street segment. 3. Minor deviations to the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Phasing and Implementation Program: The property owner will construct East Avenue southerly between Wilson Avenue and Banyan Street, in lieu of extending Wilson Avenue easterly to connect to Wardman-Bullock Road. 4. Minor deviations from the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Drainage Policy_ With the construction of an interim detention basin to attenuate the developed storm flows from the project. 5. Fees: a) The property owner shall pay a sum totaling $358,000 (based upon $1.000 per unit) for equestrian mitigation purposes; b) The property owner shall pay a sum totaling $2,362,800 ($6,600 per unit) for park purposes (the applicant may request park credit for improvements to the Community Trail that traverses the site within the Fault Zone, in accordance with General Policy); and c) In exchange for the construction of the landscaping improvements on the south side of Olson Avenue within the MWD right -of - Item C --10 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RICHLAND-PINEHURST ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-00156 June 16, 2004 Page 5 way, the property owners shall not be required to pay City Beautification Fee of $0.20 per square foot for residential construction. 6. The project shall be designed in accordance with the Etiwanda North Specific Plan Development standards. 7. Clarification of the actual boundaries of the Red Hill Fault Zone as determined by the Geotechnical Analysis: The Red Hill Fault Zone is depicted as a Land Use District in the Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The fault location and boundary has been refined through further trenching and on -site investigation that was conducted through the preparation of the Geotechnical Evaluation. The Fault Setback Zone, which precludes the development of habitable structures, does allow a portion of the lot area to intersect with the Setback Zone. In each case, a substantial buildable area remains available within the lot. 8. Open Space Transfer Plan: The Property Owners shall transfer to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1, other qualified conservation entity approved by the City in fee, a minimum of 150-acres of off -site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be determined by County of San Bernardino Special Districts (or other conservation entity), to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off -site land is in the environment surrounding the North Etiwanda Preserve in the CITY Sphere of Influence, other properties may be considered based the review of appropriate Biological Habitat Assessments and concurrence of the City Planner. The transfer and funding shall occur prior to recording of the first final map of the Project. 9. The Development Agreement establishes timeframes for completion of key infrastructure and community amenities, including the following: a) the perimeter landscaping and the Upper Etiwanda Neighborhood Monumentation, as well as the Community Trail Improvements within the Fault Zone, will be completed prior to release of occupancy of the 150th dwelling (a small segment of the Etiwanda Avenue frontage north of the Fault Zone must be complete prior to release of occupancy of the 250th dwelling); b) all perimeter street improvements shall be completed prior to release of occupancy of the first dwelling within the project, including Wilson Avenue, Etiwanda Avenue, and East Avenue; and, c) all master plan storm drain improvements will also be completed prior to the release of occupancy for the first dwelling in the project. The Annexation - The proposed Annexation will include the entire 160 acres, which constitutes the southwest quadrant of Section 21, located north of Wilson Avenue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue. The 10 acres at the corner of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue will require the review and approval of a separate Tentative Tract Map at a future time after the annexation process has been completed. City staff will forward the annexation application and all associated documentation to the Local Agency Formation Commission following City Council Certification of the EIR and approval of the project. Item C —11 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT RICHLAND-PINEHURST ANNEXATION DRC2002-00865, SUBTT16072 AND DRC2002-00156 .tune 16, 2004 Page 6 CORRESPONDENCE: Additional comments were sent via e-mail to the Planning Department, after the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 2004 was called to order (after 7PM). Therefore the information is not part of the public record for the purposes of the Planning Commission hearing. Although the documents indicate they were either faxed or hand delivered, they were not, and because of its large size, 66 pages, it was conveyed under separate cover. A letter from the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service was received on May 18, 2004. Responses to these comments are contained in Exhibit "E." CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that City Council 1) Approve the Resolution certifying the Final EIR for SUBTT16072, Development Agreement DRC2002-00156, and Annexation DRC2003- 00865; 2) Approve the Resolution permitting the City to initiate proceedings for the annexation of 160 acres of land generally located on the north side of Wilson Avefiue between Etiwanda Avenue and East Avenue; 3) Deny the Appeal as submitted by Craig A_ Sherman, attorney for the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc., dated May 19, 2004, and approve Tentative Tract Map 16072; and 4) Adopt the Ordinance approving Development Agreement DRC2002-00156 between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Richland Pinehurst for the purpose of developing an approximate 150.8 acre site with up to 359 residential lots. Respectfully submitted, BB- I_Hlls Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Regional Map Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 12, 2004 Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Minutes dated May 12, 2004 Exhibit "E" - Responses to Correspondence Exhibit "F" - Findings of Fact in Support of Findings For Significant Environmental Effects of the Rancho Cucamonga Tentative Tract Map Number 16072 Project and Statement of Overriding Considerations (dated May 6, 2004) Exhibit "G" - Final Conditions of Approval Exhibit "H" - Mitigation Monitoring Checklist Resolution Certifying the Final EIR Resolution Initiating Proceedings For Annexation Resolution Denying Appeal to Approve SUBTT16072 Ordinance Approving Development Agreement Item C —12 RESOLUTION No. 04-M A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CiJCAM4Nt;A, CALfFORNI/ly DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVI* TRACT MAP SU87T18072 FOR A RESIDENTIAL. SU13DIMIoN OF 358 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 150.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW (2.4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY LOW 0-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETiWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF — APN: 0225-083-01,12,13,15,16 AND 20. AND APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP SUBTT16072 FOR A RESIDENTIAL. SUBDMBtON OF 358 LOTS ON APPROXMATELY 150.8 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) AND VERY LOW (.i 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN. LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WILSON AVENUE BETWEEN ETIWANDA AVENUE AND EAST AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF —APN; 02254W-01, 12,13,15.10 AND 20. A. RECITQ 3. I. Richland Ptnehurst, Inc. (the "Applicant"} seeks approval of a series of actions related to the annexation of land from unlnoorpvrated San Bernardino County Into the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the approval of Tentative Tract Flap SUBTT16072, and associated Developrent Agreement. The actions also Include the development of 358 single-family housing units an approximately 150.8 acres. The total area to be annexed is approximately 160 acres. The average density of the development Is approxdrmately 2.38 dwelling units per gross acre for the entire site. These series of actions and approvals are hereinaftr defined In this Resolution as the "project 2. The Applicant has submitted the follmft gppficadans relating to the Project: Annexation DRC2002-00885, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. and Development Agreement DRC2W2-00156 (oDHedively the -Project Applications"). These Project Applications, as well as the appeal of the Plowing Commission's 8pproval of Tentative Tract Map SUSTTIS072, consUbM the matters involving the Project which are submitted to Un City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for decision and action. 3. On May 12.2004, the Planning Commission of the Coy of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Project, and after the receipt of WHO testimony. dosed the hearing on that date. On May 12. 2004, the Planning Cnmrnlsslon adopted Resolution No. 04-6. Ong the Final EIR for purposes of approval of Tentative Traci Map $UB1716072 and approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. EXHIBIT D Resolution No. 04-206 Page 2 of 31 4. On May 19, 2004. Craig A- Sherman, attomeyfor the Spirit of the Sage Council and the Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc.. filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. S. On .tune 2, 2004. the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Final EIR and the Protect, at which tune all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project. After the receipt of publictestimony, the City Council continued the public hearhg on the Final EIR and the Project to its regularly scheduled meeting of June 16, M4. 6. On June 16.2004, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a continued public hearing on the Final EIR and the Project, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence regarding the Final EIR and the Project. and after the rewipt of public thstirnony, dosed the Waring. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occumed. NOW, THEREFORE, It Is hereby fours determined, and resolved by the city Council of u-m City of Renato Cucamonga as follows: Q, This Councit hereby specMcally !Ands that ail of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. ES CT1QN: Based upon the facts and infwmUon contained In the record of this Project, the City Council snakes the following findings and statements, and takes the following actions, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pubic Resources Cade Section 21000 of. seq.): a. The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the toad agency. prepared the Draft Environmerdal Impact Report (EIR) for the Project. Including certain technical appendices (the "Appendims") to the Draft EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 20=91053). The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45- day public review and comment period from December 2, 2003 ft ugh January 21, 2004. Comments ware received during that period and written responses were prepared and sent to all persons and entities submitting comments. Those comments and the responses thereto have been Included in the Final EIR, as have to Appendices to the DWREIR. Those documents together comprise the Final EIR. b. The City Council finds that the Final EIR was completed pursuant to CEGA, and the State Guidelines for Implementation of CECA 14 Califomia Cade of Regulations. Section iswo, et. seq. ("the Guidelines*). By Resolution No. 174--204, the City Council has certified the Final EIR as being In compliance with the requirements of CEQA- Item C —14 Resolution No. 04-2DS Page 3 of 31 c• The City Council funds that ft Final EIR wag pressnted to the City Council and that the City Council raAwiad and considered the Information In file Final EIR and has reached its own conclusions with reseed to the Protect and as to whether and how bo approve the v kKM Components of the Project approvals. d. The City Council funds that the Final EIR represents the independent Judgment of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and adequately addresses the impacts of the Project and Imposes appropriate Mitigation measures for the Project. a Public Resources Code Section 21081 provides that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental knpact report has been completed which identifies one or more slgnificant onvkwrnental effects unless the pulbk agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant effect: I. Changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into the project, which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as Identifed in tine completed environmental impact report. If. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and Jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted bysuch other agency. lit Specific economic, social or oftr considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project aitematlyes Identified in the environmental impact report. f. The City Council finds, based upon the Initial Study, the Final EIk pubic comments, publicagency comments, uW the entire record befpr+e It, than tie Project may create sign 6mrit Impacts in the areas of Geology and Soils, Blokiglcal Resources, TransportaftVTrafflcc, Air quality, Noise, Aesthetics, Cultural Resouroes, and Public Services and Utilities. However, changes or alterations have been required In, or Incorporated Into the f°roject, which will mitigate, and in some cases, avoid the significant Impacts. The specific changes and allaratlons required, uand a brief explanation of the ratlonale for the Andings with regard to each impact. are contained In the "CEQA Findings" for the Project (Exhlbit'I' to the June 18, 2004 City Council Staff Report) and are incorporated herein by reference. In addition to the ralfonale and explanation contained in the "CECIA Findings," the City Council makes ft following additional findings regarding the impacts to the resources and services listed in this paragraph: Item C —15 Resolution No- 04-206 Page 4 of 31 Geolosy and Solis. The Final SIR Identities that development of the Pncject will expose people and structures to risks associated with seismic hazards, slope Instability, and foundation instabilty. With respect to seismic hazards. this risk arises because of the existence of reglonal faults located in the area and the existence of the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp fault that runs northeasterly across the Project site. The risks presented by these faults include, fauf#- induced ground rupture, seismicatly Induced slope Instabilifty, ground lurching, seismically induced settlement, and seismic ground shaking. Mitigation measures are Imposed wtuch require the Applicant to set back structures north of the Etrwanda Avenue Scarp thrust fault by at least 100 feet and to set back all structures south of that fault zone by 50 feet (Mitigation Measure GS-1). All structures within Seismic Zone 4 of the site shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Wlding Code and general engineering standards for seismic safety (t ligation Measure GS-2). In addition, graded slopes will be designed to resist sels6calty induced fallures, loose, coheslonless adds located on the surface of the site shag be removed and party recompacted, and low density nagw surficial and artafidal fib shall be removed and recornpacted or exported oftite. (Mitigation Measures GS-3 -- (33-5). Based on these mitigadan measures, the City Council funds that V* potential for fault -induced ground rupture, selsmicafiy Induced slope InstabrTrty, ground lord ft, and selsnnlcally induced settlement will be mitigated to a level of less than slgnilic:ant. The City Council finds that even after these mittgaljon measuras, the risks of seismic ground shaking wall not be reduced to Was than significant levels. With respect to slope instability, graded slopes are proposed on the Project site. with gradients for the slopes to be variable to provide a natural visual appearance, and cut and MI alofres of appm xlmatelyO feet high are proposed to be constructed. Mitigation Measure 03-6 Is imposed which requires additional stabilization mnsures for potentially unstable graded slopes exceeding 15 feet in height. tiered on this mitigation measure, the City Council finds that ilia potential for slope instability will be mitigated to a level of less than signs t ant With respect to foundation instabiity, the upper taw feet of native soil onsite and uncontrolled fills existing on the sfte are potentially compressible, aecause of variation in grain size wittdn alluvial fan deposits on the site. potential collapse of soil material may result in localized areas. The presenoe of oversized rocks on the site and the removal of such rocks can result In de5ciendes of fill material. Mitigat'ians measures are imposed which require the Appkant to remove and necompaet patenbakly compressible soils (M*gatlan Measure GS- ), to identify rneOW& for eliminating the potentlal for toNapsibte soils and attar construction, to minimize the k iltration of Item C-1b Resolution No. O4-2DO Page b of 31 water into subsurface soils by proper surface drainage (Mitigation Measure GS-a), and to relocate oversize rocks on the Project site during grading operations to reduce the potential deficiency of fill materials (Mitigaatlon Measure GS-9), Based on these rroption measures, the City Council finds that the potential for foundation instability will be mitigated to a level of less than significant. EI. ii Io icat R ur . The Final EIR indicates that, prior to the Grand Prix fire of October 2003, that area was previously covered with California Buckwheat -Whine Sage Scrub (44.1 acres), Whits Sage Scrub (82.5 acres), Scalebroom Scrub (11.2 acres), non-native grassland (2-1 acres), disturbed and cleared areas (6.0 acres) and ornamental landscaping (4.1 acres)_ in categorizing the vagetatlon in accordance with the "Holland System." the Final EIR identifies Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS) divided into two subgroups: the Eliwanda Alluvial Fan Group (171.3 acres), the Prickly Group/Alluviai Chapparal Group (39.6 acres). In addition, the final EIR identifies an area of Omarnental Woodland and Disturbed Plants 0 3.8 acres). The proposed Projed would result In the loss of approximately 147.7 acres of Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub (RAFSS). In addition, ttte Final EIR Identifies 213 trees that satisfy the Clys criteria for "heritage trees," 15 sensitive plant specifies as occurring within the general vicinity of the Pro}eot she, and the wdstence of Plummees mariposa Illy plants (a sensitive species) on 11-te site. To mitigate impacts for the loss of approximately 147.7 acres of RAFSS, a mitigation measure is imposed to require the Applicant to acquire 147.7 arras of land within or now the North Etiwande Open Space and Habitat Preservation Program (NEOSHPP) area that supports similar RAFSS habitat (Ulgatlon Measure B-1). In addition, measures are imposed to ensure limits are kept on grading activities, that new landscaping is consistent with native landscaping, that lighting Is controlled Into areas of sensitive wildlife habitat, and that future residents of the Project are informed about sensitive wildlife areas and encouraged not to plant invasive plants (Mitigation Measures &2 — "). To mitigate impacts to common plant species, all 213 heritage trees shaft be removed and replaced with native trees at a replacewmnt ratio of one to one (Mitigation Measure B-S). With respect to sensitive plant species, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, focused surveys for Plurrlrners mariposa lily shall be conducted bya quail W biologist for possible ootiacdon and relocation (Mitigation Measure B-7). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to natural plant Communities. common plant species and sensitive plant species will be mitigated to a level of leas than sign ific ent, Item C —17 Resolution No- 04-206 #gage 6 of 31 The Final EIR indicetes that the site is within the critical habitat of the federally fisted endangered San Bernardino kangaroo rat However, protocol surreys were conducted In 2001 and 2002 and revealed no presence of this species on the sits. The site is also within the known range and within designated critical habitat for the federally listed Threatened coastal California gnattxatcher. In addition, species of concern were found on the site which include the Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, the San Diego desert woodrat, and the Los Angeles little pocket moose. The site does support nesting habitat for raptor spades and suitable habitat for the San Diego honied lizard and orenge4hroated whiptmll (state spades of special concern). In addition, 1.13 acres of waters would be affected and drainage courses would be Impacted by the Project, To address these impacts, a mitigation measure is imposed to provide follow-up focus surveys for Me San Bernardino kangaroo rat and the coastal California gnatcatcher prior to Issuanoe of grading permits (Madan Measures 134 and B 9). Aqualified biological monitorwill be on -site during grading to reduoe mortality to sensitive spades, including rodent species and Incidental species (Mitigallon Measure 5-10). tf grading activities occur during active nesting season, a field survey will be conducted to preserve arry active nests and the areas around them until the rooting cycle is complete (Mitigation Measure B-11)- With respect to impacts on webers and stream beds, the Applicant shall obtain raquired pemnfis from the U-S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California (Department of Fish and Came and comply with those permit requirements (Mitigation Measure 8-12). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the impacts to sensitive wildlife species, and jurisdictional areas (waters and strsambeds) WO be mitigated to a level of less than significance. Ili. Itanwartalk off -raft. The Final EIR indicates that the proposed project will Increase vehicle trips and impact the Level of Service (LOS) along arterial streets and intersections. LOS levels of OW or better do not represent a significant tratftc lmpact, whereas LOS levels of "E" or worse do represent a significant traf0c Impact. Specifically, the (Final ER found ilea Project traffic, tngaftr with other anticipated traffic, wig likely cause traffic 'Raw to be deficient by experiencing a LOS of "F" during the AM peak hour at the intersections of Edwanda Avenue at Banyan; Street, EtW ands Avenue at Highland Avenue, and East Avenue at Banyan street. During the PM peak hour. the Intersection of Ettwenda Avenue at 8anyan Street, which will operate at an LOS of "E". At build -out, certain intersections In the inxrcedlats area will have LOS levels of 'PP. Mitigation Measures are imposed to require the Applicant to construct various roadway imrprovements at certain phases of the Project. For example, during the opening year of the Project, the Applicantwill be required to constructWilson Avenue from Etlwanda Avenue to East Avenue and to make various improvements to East Item C —18 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 7 of 31 AVWXA (Mttlgadon Measures TT-3 -- TT-5), The Appllcant WHl also be required to construct Etlwanda Avenue from the north Project boundary to Golden Prairie Drive at its ultimate half -section width (Mitigation Measure 176). In addition. traffic signals, turn lanes and other improvements are required at various Intersections in the vicinity of the Project (Mitigation Measures TT-7 and TT-8). Finally. the Applicant will be required to contribute its fair share toward the oast of off -site roadway improvements (TT-1 and TT-2). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that the Impacts of the project on traffic and circulation will be mitigated to a level of less than significant, iv. AlrQual . The City Counell finds, basest upon the initial Study, tha Final EIR, public comments, publlcagencycommants, and the entire record before It, that the Prajact may create significant and unavokdable impacts to air quality. SpeGTically, the Final EIR identifies that short-term emissions frpm construction related ac tNifies are likely to exceed the thresholds of significance specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Short-term emissions are caused by fugitive dust and other Particulate matter, exhaust emissions generated by earthmoving activities and operation of grading equipment, emissions generated during building construction as a result of equipment and vehicle operation, elec#rical consumption, and ooatlng and paint applications, During the building phase of the Project, levels of nitrogen oxide (NO,), reactive organic compounds (ROC) and alrnpsphotic particulates (PMco) will likely exceed the recommended SCAQMD daily thresholds, and NO, and ROC emissions will likely exceed the recommended SCAQMD quarterly thresholds, thereby resulting In significant short-term air quality Impatts. Lang -term emissions are caused by motor vehicle emissions and emissions rAxn fete consumption of natural gas and electricity, the use of landscape equipment, and the storage and use of consumer produ(b. These emissions exceed the recommended SCAQMD thresholds for NO,, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and ROC. Mitigation measures for short- term impacts upon air quality are Imposed on the Project (Midgetion Measure AQ-1 — AQ-10) which will require various dust control measures, emission control measures and off -eft actions. Included in those measures are requirements bo limit the troarl the idle with water or other soil -stability agents, sweep haul roads. suspend grading opemllons when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour, apply chemical sail stabilizers to inactive construction areas, select equipment based on low emission factors, use only low volati!!ty paints and archRect Ural coatings, and Implement temporary Inure control during soil transport activities. Mitigation measures for long- term impacft upon air quality are Imposed on the Projed (Mitigation Measure AQ-11— AQ-13) which require the Applicant to participaEe in Item C —19 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 8 of 31 the cost of off site traffic signal installation and synchronization through payment of a mitigation fee, equip the residential structures with energy efficient appliances. and coordinate bus routing with transit agencies to determine locations and feasibility of providing bus stop shelters at Applicant's expense. The City Council finds that with implementation of the recommended measures, short and long -tern emissions will be reduced, and that the Project's contribution to regional emission of criteria pollutants will be minimized. However, the City Council finds that despite the imposition of all these comprehensive mitigation measures, short-term construction emissions (building phase) will exceed SCAQMD's thresholds for ROC and NOx. and that long4errn stationary and mobile emissions will exceed applicable threshMs for NOR, CO and ROC, and therefore, would remain significant after mitgatioon. v. Wit. The Final EIR Identifies the likelihood of short-term Impacts on ambient noise levels during construction of the Project. The primary source of construction noise is heavy equlprmnt associated with construction activities. such as trucks, graders, bulldozers. concrete mixers, cranes and portable generators with high levels of sound generation. In addition, the Final EIR Identities the likelihood of long-term significant noise impacts on residences proposed on the perimeter of the Project site and adjacent to Uwanda Avenue. Wilson Avenue, rand East Avenue. For ghost -term noise Impacts, mitigation measures are imposed that will require the oonstrucibn contractors to equip ali construction equipment with properly operating and malntatned muMers, implement specific now reduction measures when construction takes place near existing residences, locate equ ipmant staging areas away from sensitive receptors, and comply with the Gays Development Code for hours of construction activity — 6.30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. with no construction to take place on Sundays or holidays (Mitigation Measures N-1— N-4). To address long-term Impacts to certain residential structures within the Project. sound barriers shall be plm*d at specified locations near Project road Intersections and perimeter street interseclioris, and residential structures fronting on E*mnda Avenue. Wilson Avenue and East Avemm will have mechanical ventilation so that windows can remain closed, and upgraded windows and other Improvements will be installed on said residential structures so that krtedor noise levels are reduced to 45 dS CNEL or less (Mitigation Measures N-5 — N-0). Based on these mitigation measures. the Cihr Council finds that the short term and long-term noise Impacts from the Pr*KlwUl be mitigated oa less than significant levels. Item C —20 Resdu m No. o4-2oo Pale 9 of 31 vl, !�!. The Final EIR krdlaa%s that Irn*n*nh don of the Proposed resldendal community may substantially alter the existing chamclar of the Project site as well ea views of the San Gabriel Mountains. In addition, the proposed Pnaject mund the cureuladve effect of development in tha Projectvich* may psmlrarrertdy WW the visual landscape of the Sari Gabriel Mountains. To address these Impacts, landscaping and perimeter walls shall be installed. landscaped transitions will be made between developed and the natural un-built environment, a shwlg landscaped edge will be required along roadways adjacent to the Project, utilides wIA be undergrounded where feasible, and trees and structures shad be used to frame and orient views at key locations (HUgetlon Measures AES-1 -- AES•5). Based on these mitigation measures, the City Council finds that although the Implementation of the above mitigation measures will mitigate visual impacts associated with the proposed Project to a level that Is less that significant. the cumulative Impact of the "ed upon aesthetics as well as future development In the Project vicinity will remain significant and unavoidable. vli. Cultural ResgUffo. The Final hIR indicates that three archeological sites are ct within the Projearea, it is also likely that Prehistoric rernains may still be burled at these shag. To mtiigate for the potential loss In Native American archeological resources, the Applicant is required to retain a City -approved archeokglst to develop an arehaeoioglcal mitigation plan and a diseoveryltreaMwt plan. These plans will require the monlWng of 54 percent of the excavation ac Wffles, the treatment of found material and its recordation, mapping and disposition (Mitigation Measures CR-1 — CR-6). The Final EIR also identifies the possible presence of burled fossilized remains. To mitigate these impacts, the Applicant shall retain a C14%apprvved palevntologlst to monitor excavation activities and to prepare. Identify and curate all recovered fossils for documentation and transfer to an appropriate depository, (Millgation Measures CRT— CR-11). Based on these midgatfon measures, the City Council finds that the Impacts of the Pm*W on ar dwmilogical and Paleontological resources will be mitigated to less than signufrcant levels. All. ftWk jjn4fts and Mg The Final EIR identifies fti the proposed Project WID create a demand for fire services, water services, wastewater services, and schools, and will conbibute to cumulative impacts to the need for water supplies, wastewater treatment, and schools. Mitigation Measures have been Imposed to require the Applicant to obtain apprml ofttl!►spedMdesigns for tine flow and proposed fire resistant materials (fvfdigation Measure F-1), lay a water servkm development fee (Mitigation Measure W-1). utilize a xedscape landscape and irrigation design to conserve water on project common areas (Mitigation Measure W 2), Kmide funds to Item C —21 Resolution No. 04 206 Page 10 of 31 the Cucamonga County Water District for sewer service prior to occupancy (Mitigation Measure WWA ), and pay the required school Impact fee as required by Government Code Section 65995, wi ich is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation of the Projecrs Impacts to schools (FAUgadon Measure 5.1). Based on these mitigation measures and requirements, the City Council finds that the Impacts of the Project an public services and utilities will be mitigated to less than significant Wets. g. The Project Is also anticipated to have the potential to treats contaMnated runoff containing compounds such as landscaped chemicals and automotive fluids. To reduce this Impact, the Applicant visit be required to prepare a Storrs Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) and file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). As part of standard conaht,ction practices, best management practices (BMPs) are required to ensure that potentially harmful chemicals at pollutants are not discharged from the site. These measures include sandbags, temporary diversion and temporary containment areas. Based on these requirements, the City Council finds that the Impacts of the Project on hydrology and water qualily WA be reduced to less than slgnUkant levels. h. The City Council finds, based on the Final EIR, that alter Implementatlon of the proposed mitigation measures, the following impacts associated with the proposed Project would remain significant: geology and soils (seismic ground shaking), air quality (short % n and long-term emissions). and aesthebmMsuat (Cumulative views). t. The City Council finds, based on the Final SIR, that the Project vnll not create significant growth inducing impacts because the project will be an extension of e:dsting residential development to the west and the Project i6 consistent with development contemplated in the 2001 General Plan update as wen as the Etiwwanda North Speditc Plan approved in 1991. The City Council also finds that the Project would result in an irretrievable eomrnitment of natural resources (energy demands) and land. j. The Final EIR describes a range of alternatives to the Project that might fUMN basic objectives of the Project. These altemativves Include fire required "No Project/No €]evebpmant" alternative, the -Retention of RiverWdean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Alternative," and the'Less Intent pevelopmenr Alternative. As set forth below, the altematives identified in the EIR are rat feasible because they would not achieve the basic objectives of the Project or would do so only to a much smaller degree and, therefora, leave unaddressed the significant economic, infrastructure, and General Plan goals that the Project is intended to accomplish, and are thus infeasible due to social and economic considerations, and/or they are tnfeasitile because they would not elWnate the adveme erwIronmenial Impacts of the proposed Project. Accordingly, each of the alternativen is infeasible. In making this finding, the City Cour4 deterrrunes as folia . Item C —22 Resokntion No. 04-206 Page 11 of 31 1) The objec 1fvea of the Project are: a) To provide single-family housing units consistent with the intent Of ihd Citys General Plan and tits Etiwanda North Spedtic Plan. b) To annex tfle proposed tentative tract Into the My of Rancho Cucamonga. c) To create a project that Is geenerany consistent and oompatible with other existing and proposed usas in the vicinity of the project and the community of Etiwanda in general. d) To provide project Infrastructure including streets, water and sewer mains, and flood control consistent with City and regional plans related to these services e) To phase the development of the proposed project to ensure adequate utilities are provided. [j To design and landscape the proposed project to create an aesthetically pleasing living environment. if} The "No Project/No Developmenr Alternative assun3es that no new land uses would 136 constructed on the Projec{ site and that the site would remain vacant and undeveloped. Although this alternative Is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, It would not rneet any of the Project objectives. As the sub)eat property is Under private ownership, the elimination or fulr.rr+e development within a previously approved Specific. Plan Is not legally orfinandallyfeasible. Therefore this alternative is rejected. III) The wRetentlon of Rivemidean AUwial Fan Sage Srxule Altematve assumes chat all vegetation classified as RAFFS are not affected by development. As the Project site contains appm)dmatwy 10.6 to 13.8 acres of disturbed or omamental woodland, ills alternative would only Involve the development of those 10.6 to 13.8 acres. teased on the same residential denslty as the proposed Project (i.e. 2.4 units per acre), 25 to 33 single-farruly housing units would be constructed. Although thle level of development could elitninate the potential significant unavoidable effects associated with the loss of RAFFS. this alternative would not meet the objectives of the Project, Including, but not limited to, providing single-family housing units consistent with the Intent of the Etlwanda North Specific Plan. In addition, the City Council finds, based an substantial evidence, that it is not economically feesible for the Applicant to construct the required Infrastructure as contemplated by the Rwanda North Specific Plan while constructing only 25 to 33 housing units on the entire property. The City Council specifically finds the required Improvements to roadways, pipeMes, water supplies. and other kftstructurs would not be economically feaslble with a return on investment of only 25 to 33 housing units. Item C —23 Resolution No_ 04-206 Page 12 of 31 Iv) The "Less intense Deveiopmenr Altemative is an alternative that attempts to avoid all significant, unavoidable, adverse long -tern air emission impacts. To accomplish this result, approximat* 104 housing units would need to be eliminated. This would result In approximately 255 n identlai units on the site with an average dwelling unit per acre density of approximataiy 1.7 units per acre compared with the proposed 2A units per acre. This project density is not consistent with the Edwanda North Specific Plan and would not meet many of the objec dm of the proposed Pn4sa k. lAtigation measures described in the Mitip ion Monitoring Program will avoid or substantially lessen the poteMlalisr significant environmental effects of the Project. Further. the environrnentat, physical, social, economic and other benefits of the Protect, as set forth in this section and in the "CEQA Findings' for Me Prajed (Exhibit *P to the June 16, 2004 City Council Staff Report), which Is incorporated herein by this reference, outweigh any unavoidable, significant, adverse irnpaicts that may occur as a result of the Protect. Therefore, due to overriding benefits of the Project and because the elternativw identified in the Final EIR am not feasible, as discussed In paragraph j above, the City Council hereby finds, based on substantial evidence presented during the June 2, 2004 and June 16, 2004 public hearing. Including written and oral staff reports and public testimony. that any unavoidable impacts of the Project including the mitigated but unavoidable impacts from seismic ground shaking, the short term and long-term impacts to air quality, and the cumulative Impacts to aesthetics from the permanent aiteraton of the visual landscape of this region, are acceptable based on the findings contained herein and in she 'CEQA Findings" for the Project This determination shall eonstituie a statement of overriding considerations within the meaning of CEGA and is based on any one of the following environmental and other benefits of the Project identified in the Finial EIR and the record of the City Councirs proceedings: tij Provision for the use of land consistent with the established policies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, Ettwanda North Specific Plan, City Developmmnt Code, and all other City Development guidelines. (il) Annexation of the 150,acre Prgect site and adjacent 10."cre area into the City of Rancho Cucamonga; (in) Implementation and consistency with to porkies and goals of the City of Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, EfterKla North Specific Plan, City Development Code and all other City davelopment guidelines; (tv) Creagan of a Protect that le generally cartsistent and compatible with other exleting and proposed uses In the vicinity of the Project and o mvmnity of Etiwands in general; Item C —24 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 13 of 31 M Provision of Project infmt ucture including st gets, watw WW sewer mains, and flood control consistent with City and regional plans foisted to Vow servos_ (VI) Phasing 0( the development of the proposed Project to ensure adequate utilities are provided; (vll) Integration of the Profact with ft character of the surrounding neighborhoods and establishment of a development that results In logical. coordinated growth; (viti) Provision of a system of publieloammunity facilities, b1doding trails, open space areas, and landscaping to support the residents of the Prof OCt and surrounding area In an efficient and Urneiy manner, (Ix) Design and landscaping of the proposed Project to create an aesthetically pleasing living environment, The mitigation measures in the Final EIR that correspond to the environmental Impacts which may result from the Praoject are hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of, or Incorporated into, the Project. The City Carnal also hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring Plan" attached as E)d9bit "H" to, the June 16, 2004 City C xxg staff Report (Cr this Project. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan will be used to monitor campfiance with the mitigation measures and conditions that have been adopted or made a condition of Project approval as set forth in this Section of thts Radution and Exhibit"Ka m. Pursuant to provisions of California Public Resources Code Section 21089 (b), the Wings contained in this Resolution shall not be operative, vested or final until all required filing fees assessed pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711 A, "aftwr with any required handling charges, are paid to the County Clerk of tfte County of San Bernardino, SECTIQN 3: Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above -refer anced public hearing and upon the specific flndkW of facts set forth In Sections 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The Tentative Tract Map Is consistent with the General Plan, OeveicpmeM COde, and any applicable specific plans. The density, design and development standards of the Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the City& General Plan and with the Etiwenda North Specific Plan. The Tentative Tract Map is also consistent with the General Plan's intention of extending the low density Image of old Efiwands Into the area as provided in General Plan Policy 2,4A.5. Item C —25 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 14 of 31 b- The design or imprmmments of the Tentative Tract Map Is oonalstent with the General Plan, Development Code, and any applicable specific plans. The proposed development Is designed to coffoy with the design theme Imposed for North Edwanda as specified in the North Etlwanda Specific Plan. Specifically, the lots are relatively large, the tract contains a local trail system with connections to the regkmal trait system, and the design standards for landscaping, walls, fencing, lighting and cn mainity entries comply with the overall thematic design for the North EWmnda area of the City. c. The site Is physically suitable for the type of development proposed. The site Is located In proximity to existing roadways and it frestructure_ The trACt Is designed to address existing topographical and geological conditions and to achieve compliance with existing legal. biological and geological limitations of the sne. Based on dw whole record. the City Council finds that the sith Is physically suitable for the proposed nWdential housing devalopnwnl d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of developmenL The project will hove an average density of 2.3 dwelling units perac re for the entire project and will comply the density restrictions Imposed I ry the existing General Plan and Etiwanda North Specific Plan. The minimum lot size will be 8,400 square feet and the average Iotsixe will be approximately 11,400 square feet, These aims are camp" with the surrounding developed areas and with the physical conditions and limitations on itre site. e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental dame and avoidable Injury to humans .and wildlife ar their habitat. Soso on e)dens'nre rNtigattton measures relating to native plants. sensitive species and wiidlife, the impact of the project on biological resources is determined to be mitigated to a level of less than significant Further, the mitigation measures related to seismic shaking, fires, wind and other conditions are deemed to be sufficient to avoid substantial injury to humam. f. The Tentative Tract Map Is not Ilk* to cause serious public health problems. As specified in prior nctions of this re+sdubon, conditlon$ and Mitigation Measures have been Imposed that will reduce risks from seismic activities, fires, winds and other hazefds and, used an these conditions and restrictions. the City Councll finds ttwtthe project will not cause serious public health problems. g. The design of the Tentative Trad Map will not oonifrct with any easement acquired by the public at tang% now of record, for access gum* Of use of the property wflWn the proposed subdivision. Based an the evidence in the record of this matter, the project has been designed to recognIZO and protect a AWng conservation areas and open space resources maintained by public entitles as well as utility easements and om,er existing private and public easements and restrictions imposed on the Project site. Item C --26 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 16 of 31 -SE09tI A: Based upon the findings and conduslons set forth in Sections 1. 2, and 3 above, this Councl: horeby denies the appeal of the planning COMNS WS approval of Tentative Tract Map 15072 and hereby approves the application (Tentative Tract Map 16072) subject to each and every candltlon set forth below and in the Standard Conditlona, attached hereto and Incorporated herein by this referenoe. PlanningElanning DWislon 1) All future applications for Development Review shall be reviewed for consistencywith the approved Tentative Tract Map and provisions of the associated Development Agreement, along v ttt the design guidelines of the Etiwanda North Specific plan, including standards for pwkweys and streetscape design, slope planting, and neighborhood monumentatian and wall designs, 2) The terrace drain splash walls and the edges of all down drains within the landscaped slopes shall be lined with river rock cobble to maintain a native appearance. 3) The applicant shall provide landscaping and Irrigation along the detention basin on the south side of -P Street. 4) A minimum 3 feet of landscaping is inquired between the back of sidewalk and any retaining wall; and a mirdmum of 5 feet of landscape setback Is required between the beck of the sidewalk and any walllfence. 5) The appikant shall establish a financial mechanism ftt would provide money for the fuhn cortstrucUM of the Upper E&mnda Neighborhood monumentation at both the northeast and narttrwes4 comers of Wilson Avenue and East Avenue, in accordance with the Neighborhood design theme of the E&mnda North Specific Plan. 6) Any lot that Is designed with a retaining wall at the toe of the rear yard slope shall be provided with steps so that the homeowner has appropriate access to the slope area for landscaping and maintenance. 7) Tree Removal Permit DRC2003-owl is approved In conjunction with Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, k duding all environmental mitigation pertaining to blologlcal nhsoixMs as Menld' led herein, 8) The effective data of the approval of Tentative Tnsct Map SUBTTI6072 shall be the last to occur of both of the kkwkV events: (1) **date tkat Development Agt*wr nt DRC2002-00156 has taken effect, and 01) the date that the annexation of the property Into the City has occurred. Item C —27 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 16 of 31 Enaln22drig PaLg—n 1) A Homeowners Association (FiOA) shall be created for the maintenance of the proposed [andscapelsloper areas on stater side of the Community Trail within the Fault Zone and any lettered lots in the Interior and exterior to the tract, except for the Community Trail fencing and surfaces. Development shall also join Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) No. 7, prior to final map recordation. a) Aitematively, the City vAU consider creating a new LMt) for the above -mentioned areas If the developer can provide a design that can be cost-effeclivrgly maintalned to the satisfaction of the City En4neer, b) if entrances are gated, they shall eoWorm to City design standards_ 2) The Etiwande Avenue frontage shah be improved as a Secondary Arterial including curb and gutter. 9500L HPSV streetiights, a parkway community Trail with HQA or LMD larxlscaping, and b ffic ship(ng and slgnage, including R25(s) as required. 3) Fast Avenue shall be impro ad as follows: a) Install Collator Street improvements in the west half of the project, from 1 lh= Avenue to the north tract boundary, puss I feet of pavement east of the centerline, for a total of 40 feet along with a 24M wide graded shoulder, This would Include curb and gutter, sidewalk or parkway CommunityTral with HOA or LMD landscaping, 58ML HPSV streWghts, and traffic striping and signage, Including R26(s) as requued. Additionally. construct 44 feet of pavement width for the first 200 feet north of Wilson Avenue, transitioning back to 40 feet, Install an AC berm along Vw entire east We length of East Avenue. The developer may request a reimbursement agnBenwnt to recover the cast for Improvements east of the centerline wA south d the soUth trW boundary, (om WM development as it occurs on adjacent properties wM in ttm city limits. b) South of Wilson Avenue, East Avenue should be constructed 36 feet wide to Banyan Street. The developer shah receive credit against, and reimbursement of casts In excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for these backbone Improvetients. In confornmmoe with City policy. c) tf the developer fags to submit for said reimbursement agreements within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall tarrninate. Item C —28 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 17 of 31 4) Wilson Avenue sWI be Improved as follows: a) Install full width DMded Secondary Arterial improvements, from Etiwanda Avenue to East Avenue. This would include curb and gutter. asphalt pavement, a landscaped median, HOA or LMD landscaping, curvilinear sidewalk, OWL HPBv streetlights, and trafisc shiping and aignage, including R26(s) as required. b) The developer shall receive credit against, and reimbursement of coats in excess of, the Transportation Development Fee for the median curbs and 14 feet of pavement on both sides, in conk manoe with City policy. The developer may also requests reimbursomentagreernent to recover the cost for improvements other than the "backbone," including median landscaping, south of the centedine and along the Not A -Part parcel from future development on adjacent properties, If ttre developer fails to submit for said relmbursement agreements within six months of the public improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to reimbursement shell terminate, c) The right-of-way will need to be obtained from Metropolitan Water District (MWD), as well as a perrrtlt for improvements to the south slda of Wilson Avenue. 5) Construct parkway Community TraNs,per standardDrawing io02-A, on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue north of Street "tr and on the west side of East Avenue north of Street "N." Provide a drainage facility along the toe of any landscaped 3:1 (if HOA, 2:1 allowable) slopes adjacent to the trail surface. so that no surface flaws drain over the trail_ B) Construct an interior Community Trail, per Standard Drawing 1004, within Lots J and I over the Fault Zone. The trail shall cross Street "A" at an intersection and be publicly maintsh od. 7) AN publi* maintained landscape/slope areas should incorporate attracthre, IaW maintenance designs to City pul tc works landscape standards, including 40 percent hardacape_ Slope widths should be minimized through the use of 30-inch maxknum height freestanding retaining walls and retaining beneath perlrneter walls subjed to City Planner approval. a) LMD landscaping within the FaultZone (Lots I and J) and the 65-foot parkway on the south side of Wilson Avenue shall be designed for mhWnal maintenance (Xerlscape). Item C —29 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 1 a of 31 8) Private homeowners (or a HOA) shall maintain interior comer side yards_ If new LIVID is formed, eliminate Lola C. D, E, F, and N. and the 5 toot strips that wrap around the comers from Lob L and K. Side yard slope areas can be reduced through the use of retaining wails, 2.1 slopes, and allowing comer iota to drain toward the side street, with curbside drain outlets if necessary. Side yard slopes and fencing shall not infringe on the Ilnes-cif-sight for local street Intersections. O) Lot G along the Not A -Part parcel Is not acceptable for public (LMD) maintenance. The owner of sald parcel should be approached regarding off -ails grading permission, so that the property line can be located at the top of slope. 10) Construct Etiwanda/San Sevalne Area 3 Master Plan Storm Drain facilities along the north property Pro from Ettwanda Avenue to the Etiwanda Spreading Grounds, including culverts for both Edwanda and East Avenues to cross the facility. Standard drainage fees for the efts stall be credited to the cost of permanent master plan facilities, In accordance with City policy. The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover oversgiAng costs, in mom of fees, from future development. if the developer fails to submit tar said relmlwrsernent agreement within six months of the public Improvements being accepted by the City, all rights of the developer to m1mbursernent 9W tioNnate. s) if nsgulmd by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District to provide an Interim detention basin for this facility, Condition No.15 "1 also apply to this faCittty. b) Flood protection facifides snail be completed prior to occupancy release. 11) Obtain off -site easements, far grading in ttte SCE easamant m1h of the proposed channel, prior to grading penT*t issuance. 12) Install local storm drains to convey development drainage to the existing Master Plan Storm Drain in Wllson Avenue. E)dend the local storm drain system as for on -silo as needed to contain 02s within tops of curbs and Oloo within rights -of -way and provide a I134bat dry lane in Qto. The cost of local steam drains shall be borne by this development with no fee cmdtL 13) Where sump etch basins are used. provide two and intercept Q= In boat sump Catch basins and their laterals. 14) interim basins shaft have secondary overflow routes to streets without Impactng adjacent lots. Item C —30 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 19 of 31 15) Construct Interim detention basin(s) for the Wilson Avenue storm drain, as foll(ws. justified by a final drainage report approved by the City Engineer. a) Provide a temporary easement to the City for the tots containing the basin. b) An assessment district shall be formed for maintenance of the detention basin or a maintenance agreement shag be executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing private maintenance of the facility, but providing the City with the right of access to maintain the facility If private raintenarm is insufficient and allowing the City to assess those costs to the developer. The said agreement shag include a cash deposit as security for any maintenance Costs the City may incur. The said agreement shall be recorded to run with the property, c) Pdor to final map recordation, pay an in lieu fee fox removal of interim basin improvements within LIVID areas and their replacement with landscaping. d) Basin shall be designed to ff Rate developed flaws for the enf re area bounded by Wilson, East, and EthNanda Avenues and the SCE easement to the north. a) The developer may request a reimbursement agreement to recover the propodlonate cost of the land and ultimate basin related facWdw (outlet, etc.) from future development using tyre basin. If the developer fails to subrnit said reirnbutoxneni agreement within six months of the public Improvements being accepted by the Co. all rights of the developer to reimbursement shall terminate. 16) Provide vehicular access to all manholes_ 17) If any of the above -mentioned facilities (atreet, storm drain, etc.) are constructed by others, the developer will be responsible for reimbursing their f& share, 18) Provide a Water QuaMy Management Plan (WOMP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Identify applicable Best Management Practices (SMPs) on the Grading Plan. 19) Maintenance of BMPs Identified in the WQMP shall be addressed in the project CCBRs. Item C --31 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 20 of 31 20) The project applicant shag demonstrate they have received written approval from Metropolitan Water District for any proposed actvitles within Metropolitan's fee property prior to proceeding with the proposed improvements to Wilson Avenue or proceeding with any oilier activity that may infringe upon or impact rights -of -way. Coordination with Metropolitan and submittal of design plans should be in accordance with the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities. Fee Pnq*ftias, ancflor easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern CedlforNa " Aeathekcs AES•1: The applicant shall Inatall landscaping and perimeter walls prier iQ occupancy for the %stowing phases and locations as sham on the Project Phasing Plan (Exhibit 3-8): • Phase 1-Along Wilson and Etiwanda Avenues Phase 2-Along Wilson Avenue Phase 3-Along EWMnda Avenue Phase 4 Along East Avenue AES-2: Prior to approval of a landscape plan, the project applicant shall provide transitions between the developed and natural (unbuilt) environment through landscaping techniques. AES•3: Prior to approval of a landscape plan, ft pr5jed applicant shall ensure #wt stroatscape design along the roedwsys adjacent to the project she create a strong landscaped edge, enntWON a � ute,, and enhances fe Image of adlaoani dwMlopme ro AES4- The project applicant shall provide for the undergr+ounding of utility lines and facilities, wherever feasible, to minimize the unsightly appearance of overhead utility Ines and utility enclosures. AES-8: Prior to approval of a landscape plan, trees and structures shall be used to frame and orient such views at key locations, and obstruction of views should be leapt to a minimum slang EManda Avenue and !vast Avenue. Air Quality ACIA; The site shall be t utO with wat$r or other soil-stabllizing agent (approved by SCAQMD and Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCa]) daily to reduce PM,o ewhrAons, in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403. Item C —32 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 21 of 31 AQ-2: During construction. all haul routes shall be swept according to a schedule established by the City to reduce PMrb emissions associated with vehicle tracking of soil off-elte. Tuning may very depending upon time of year of construction. AQ-3: Suspend grading operations when wind speeds exceeding 25 mph to minimize PM10 emissions from the site during such episodes, AQ-4t Chemical soil stabilizers (approved by SCAQMD and RWQCB) shall be applied to all inactive construction areas that remain inactive for 96 hours or more to reduce PM14 emissions. AQ-5: The Consheon oontractor shall select the construction equipment used on -sits+, teased on low erninion factors and high-energy efficiency, The construction contractor shall ensure the construction grading plans include a statement that all construction equipment will be tuned to and maintained In accordance with the manufacturers specifcatlons. AQ4: The construction contractor shalt utilize electric or dean alternative fuel powered equipment where feasible. AQ-7: The conshuCtion contractor $hail ensure that construction - grading plans include a statement tha(work crews will shut off equipment when not in use. AQ-8: The construction contractor shall use low VOC sic bckwal coating during the Construction phase of the project. AQ-9: During construction of the proposed improvements, temporary treft control (e.g., flag person) will be provided during sell transport activities. Contractor will be advised not to idle hiclw on site for more than ten minules AQ-10: During emstrucdon of the propwed improvements, only tow volatillty paints and coatings as defined in SCAQMD Rule 1113 shall be used. All paints shalt be applied using either high volume low pressure (HVLP) spray equipment or by hand application, AQ-11: The proposed projectwitt participate in the cost ofott-site trellis signal installation and synchronization through payment of the traffic signal fair -share mitigation flee. This fee will be collected and utMzed by the City to install and synchrohme traffic lights as needed to prevent congestion of traffic flow on Ent Avenue between Banyan Street and the project boundary, and Efiwanda Avenue between Highland Avenue and the north terminus of Etiwands Avenue, Item C —33 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 22 of 31 AQ-12: All appliances within the residential units of the project shall be energy -efficient as defined by SCAQMD. AQ-13: The project proponent shall contact local transit agencies to determine bus routing In the project area that can accommodate bus stops at the project access points and determine locations and feasibility of bus stop shelters provided at project proponenfs expense. BkOoghca! Resources B-1: Prior to recording of the first final mep of the project, the property owner shall transfer to the County of San Bernardino Special Districts OS-1 or other quaMW conservation entity approved by the City, In fee, at a ratio of 1:1 (or 147.7 acres) of off -site land for permanent open space and habitat preservation; along with funding in an amount to be nxdwdy agreed upon by the property owner and the conservation entity, to provide for long-term maintenance of said land. The preferred location of the off -site land is In the em kDnment surrounding the North Btiwanda Preserve in the City Sphere of InIhmm, other properties may be considered based the review of appmpdate Biological Habitat Assessments and concurmncs of Me City Planner. If the proponent Is unable to acquire all or a portion of the offsite mitigation land. the proponent wilt deposit the equivalent mitigation cost of $1o,000 per developable acre with City - approved agency, which acquires and malntsins open space. These funds will be used to purchase and manage etlgation lands. 8.2: To reduce Impacts on adjacent offsite habitat during site preparation, grading and clearing limits shalt be staked prior to issuance of the grading permits. The limits of grading and clearing shall be staked at Woof intervals with suitable indicators such as white PVC (potyvinyktloride) pipe YAM steel bases. Construction equipment shaft not be operated beyond the grading and clearing ilrrrits, and a restoration program shalt be incorporated to restore any disturbed offsite areas. 9-3: Landscaping adjacent to natural areas offstte shall use native and drought -tolerant plant species. Such specles shall be reflected on Projed landscape plans. The use of species known to be weedy invasivves, such as German ivy (Senecio milkaniodes). periwinkle (lrnca major), or Iceplant (Carpobmtus spp. ), shall be prohibited. Item C —34 Resolution No. 04-2o6 Pane 23 of 31 B-4: In areas where night fighting may have adverse impacts on sensitive wildlife habitat, one or more of the following alfemalfm shall be utliwd, recognizing the constraints of roadway fighting requirements: (1) low -intensity street lamps, (2) low."vatlon fight poles, or (3) shielding of internal silvering of the globes or external opaque reflectors, B-5: Provide residents of the futons development Iitenature pertaining to sensitive wlldnfe in the area and provide ways the residents can reduce effects on the wildlife, including effects pets have on native wildUfs. A list of invasive plafs that are commonly planted in landscaping will be included In this literature and it wt1 be recommended that certain plants be avoided, such as giant reed (Arundo donax) castor bean (Ricinus communis) and Pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana). This literature shall be approved by the City of Rancho Cucamonga and included within the conditions, covenants. and restrictions (CCBRs), B-6: AN 213 "heritage trees" shah be removed and replaced with native trees within the proposed development. Replacements have been proposed at a 1:1 ratio. B-7: Prior to Issuance of a grading pemvt, focused surveys for PlunMmer's mariposa lily shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall be conducted during flowering period (May to July) In all portions of the pMjed site containing suitable habitat. If present the number and 10 110n(s) wig be documented and the resource agencies wilt be notified for consultation and possible collection and relocation. 04: A follow-up focus survey for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat shall be conducted prior to the Issuance of grading permits. If this species is detem*ied to be present onsite, consultaion with United States Forestry Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act shall occur and USFWS-approved mitigation measures shall be Implemented. B-0: A follow-up focused survey shall be conducted to confirm the absence of the coastal California gnatcatder. Special focus will be placed in the northwest comer of the project site, Which was not previously surveyed. If this species is determined to be present onstie, consultation with USFWS under the Endangered Species Act shall occur and USFWS-approved mitigation measures shall be implemented. B-10: The project proponent will have a qualified biological monitor present during Initial brush clearing to reduce mortality to sensitive species, specificapy sensitive rodent spectres, as wall as incidental species. Item C —35 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 24 of 31 0-11: if grading activities are to occur during active nesting season (generally February 15 -August 31), a field surrey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to detemine if active nests covered by the Migratory Bird 'treaty Act and/or the CaRomia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code are present It active nests are present the area YAN be flagged, along with a 100-foot buffer (300-feet for raptors) and will be avoided until the nes*V cycle is complete. t312: The project proponent shall obtain a Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and a 1603 Streambed Alteration Permit from California Department of Fish and Gams prior to grading or any odner groundbreaking activities. and shall comply vKth the permt's mitigation recluiremellft. cut MI ReSGarces CR-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, fire project applicant shall retain a City -approved archaeologist too develop an archaeological mitigation plan and a discovery dauseAreat tterit plan. Both of these plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City. The archaeological mitigation plan shall Include monitoring 50 percent of the excavation activities on fire project site by a Clty-epproved archaeologist and/W their representative. The discovery dausakestment plan shall Include recovery and subsequent treatment of any archaeotoptcai or hlsWcal rernains *A associated date uncovered by brushing, grubbing, or excavation. The treatment plan shall provide procedures for the curation of any detected cultural specimens. Any recovered cultural resources shall be identified. sales recorded, mapped and artifacts catalogued as required by standard professional arehaeological pracdces. Examination by an archaeological specialist shal be included where necessary, dependent upon Ow artifacts, Whims. or sites that Bra encountered. SpeclMsts will Identify, date and/or determine significance potential. CR-2: If the arclumloglcal monitor discovers cultural deposits, earthmoAng shall be diverted temporarily around tttia deposits until the deposits have been evaluated. recorded, excavated. and/or recovered, as necessary, and in accordance with a City - approved recovery plan. Earthmoving shall be allowed to proceed through the area after the ardvaeologist determines the artifacts are recovered and/or site mitigated to the extent necessary. Item C —36 Resolution No. 04.2o6 Page 25 of 31 CR-3: If a previously unknown cultural site Is encountered during monitoring and ft is determined by the archaeologist that a significance deters ination is required, tits site shall be evaluated and recorded In accordance with requirements or the State Office of Historic Preservation (i.e_, DPR 523 form). In this case, If the site is not determined to be significant, no measures subsequent to recording the she on appropriate forms are required. If any of the sites are determined to be significant, an adequate arnountof artifacts at the specific archaeological site shall be collected by the CIly-approved archaeologist:. The amhaeokM#st shall determine the amount of artifacts needed to be collected. CR-4: If human remains are encountered during excavations associated with this project, all work shall halt and the County Coroner shall be notified (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The Coroner will determine whether the remains am of forensic interest. If the coroner, with the aid of the Cityapproved archaeologist, deterrrdnes that the remains are pmhistoric, he/she will contact the Native American Heritage Camrrdssion (NAHC). The NAHC will be responsible for deWMating the most likely descendant (MLD), who will be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the ternahs, as required by Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, The MLD wiH make his/her rewmrmendations within 24 hours of their notification by the NAHC. This recommendation may include scientific nwa rA and nondestructive analysis of human rernains and items associated with Native American burials (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code). CR,5: Any recovered archaeological resources shall be identified, sites rscarded, mapped and 8rftft catalogued as required by standard a"aeologicai practices, Examination by an archaeok4cal specialist should be Included where nexssary, dependent upon the artifacts, features or sites that are encountered. Specialists will Identify, data andfor detamnine significance potential. CR-8: A final report of findings will be prepared by the City- approved archaeologist for submission to the City, project applicant; and the Archaeological lnfommdon Center of the San Bernardino County Museum. The report wlfi describe the hisimyr of the project area, sun rarize field and laboratory methods used, if applicable, and include any testing orspeclat W atysis In&xmadon conducted to support the resuitant findings. Item C —37 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 26 of 31 CR-T: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applk%*nt shall retain a Cl"pproved paieontologtst. the City -approved paleontologist shall monitor all excavation activities. in areas of the project underlain by pre+flausty undisturbed sediments. Earthmoving in areas of the aft where previously undisturbed sediments will be buried but not disturbed will not be monitored. Monitoring shall begin once earthmovin8 reaches five (5) feet below ft or &td ground surfaoe. CR48: Monitoring shall be conducted on a full -lime basis in areas of OW project underlain by sensitive rock units associated with older alluvium being encountered by eadhmoving. CR•9: Should fossris be found within an area being cleared or graded, divert earth-dlsturbing activities elsewhere until Me monitor has completed salvage. If construction personnel make the discovery, the grading contractor should immediately divert construction and notify the monitor of the find. 9 too few fossil remains are found after 50 percent of earthmoving has been completed, monitorkV can be reduced or discontinued In those areas at the project paleontAlsfs diroodon. CR 10: If paleontological resmms are detected. Prepare, ldentify, and curate all recovered fossils for downentation M the sumrlralY report and transfer to art appropriate depository (Le., San Bernardino Canty Museurn� CR-i 1: A final report of findings will be prepared by the Cityapproved paleontologist for submission to the City. project applicant, and the San Semardino County Museum, AN colka% t, specimens and the final report shall be provided b the San Bernardino County Museum, Geology And Soils G S-1: Prior to issuance of a building permit for structural adjacent to the Etiwanda Avenue Scarp thrust fault on the project site, ail structures north of this fault shall be set bade 100 fleet from the faulted zone and an structures south of this fault shag be set back 5o feet from the fault zone, GS-2: Prior to the Issuance of a building pemtt, structures will be designed and constructed in accordance wtih the Uniform Building Code and general engineering standards for seismic safety for development within Seismic Zone 4. a : Prior to the inuanee of a grading permit, engansered slopes of the project site shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform EhAding Code to resist seiarnroaby induced failures. Sbpe design shall be based an pseudo -static stability analyses using soti- englneemV parameters established for the site. Item C —38 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 27 of 31 0$-4: Drier to the Issuance of a grading psnTA, the grading plans shall state that the loose, cohesionless soils lgc:ated on the surface of the site shall be removed and recompacted during grading operations, (33a5: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shalt state that the native suficial and artifWat fills on the project site that are of low density. shah be removed and moornpactad or exported offsite_ dS-6: Prior to the Issuance of a final grading approval, polentiatly unstable graded slopes that exceed approximately 15 feet in height will require additional stabilization measures such as buttressing cut elopes w11h compectsd fill, adding geogrid reinforoermnt to fig slopes, using a highercornpaction standard, and/or using retaining woos, 03 7: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the grading plans shall state that potentlatly compressible soils that are located on the Project site shalt be removed and recornpacted in accordance with standard grading procedures, t3S-8: Prior to the issuance of a grading perm//, the prnjact's soil engineer shall identify the method(s) of eliminating the potential for collapsible soils on the grading plan. Potential methods indude excavation and mcornpaction and presaturation and pre - loading of the susceptible soils in-piaos to induce collapse prior to construction. Afar construction, Infiltration of %%ftr Into the subsurface soils shall be minimized by proper surface drainage which directs excess runoff from the proposed slopes and structures. dSr ' Prior to the issuance of a grading I)Wn k the grading plans shall state that during grading operaum, the soil engineer shah be consulted to relocate oversize rocks on the prged sft to meduoe the potential defldency of fill materials that could result from the removal of oversize rocks on the V*ci site. Noise N-1: During all project aita excavation and grading, the project contractors shall equip all construction equipment. fixed or mobile, with Properly opetatirsg and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers standards. N-2: When construction operations occur in dose proximity to occupied moldential areas, appropriate addwoml noise reduction measures shah be lmplemehted, Including: changing the location Item C —39 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 28 of 31 of stationary construction equipment to maximize the distance between stationary equipment and occupied residential areas, instAing muffling devices on equipment, shutting off idling equipment. notify€ng adjacent residences in advance of construction, and Instailing temporary acoustic barriers around stationary consbixttion noise sources, 144: The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that wig create the greatest distance between construction related noise and the nolse4ensitive receptom neamt the project site during all project construction. N-4- During all project site eorstn+ctian, the construction contrad shag Wilt all cawtruction related activitles that would result in high miss levels to between the hours of 6:30 a-m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday ttuouph Saturday. No eonstructloon shall be allowed on Sundays and pubNc holidays. N-5: The project applicant shall construct sound barriers adjacent to the project lots as shown In Exhibit 5.5-2. The heights of the sound bawler shall be between 3 and 6.6 feet and placed at the top of the proposed slope and at the edge of pads on the residential lots that border E1lwanda Avenue, Wilson Avenue. and East Avenue. The sound barriers may b4 constructed of earthen berms, rnasoruy, wood, or other similar ntaterials, or aombIation of these materials to raisin the total height requied. These sound barriers shall be solld, with no openings from the ground to the indicated height. N.fi: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, residential structures proposed on all lots adjacent to Edvainda Avenue, Wilson Avenue, and East Avenue will require mechanical ventilation so that windows can remain closed. Furthermore. these residential lots will require upgraded windows such as double -pane windows, if these rots have s000nd story structures. To ensure the specific We of mechanical ventilation and paned Windows am Included in the building plans, a final acoustical study shaft be prepared for City approval prior to approval of Development Rev€ew applications for product development. The final acoustical studyshall identify the specific requimments to reduce future interior noise levels to 45 d8 CNEt, or less Public Services And LVides F-1: Prior to the Issuance bulKing permits, the project applicant shall obtain approval from Rancho Cucamonga Fine Department (RCFD) of the designs for the fire flow and proposed tine resistant structural rnalariats_ Item C —40 Resolution No. 04-206 Page No. 29 of 31 W-1: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project applicant will be required to submit a water services development fee to ensure that adequate water supplier, and facilities are available to meet the project demand. W-2: Prior to the Issuance of a building pemhit for each phase. the project applicant shall submit a landscaping and irrigation plan for common areas to the City for approval. Landscaping and irrigation within common areas shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of Xedecape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. WW-1: Prior to the issuance of owipancy pem- ts, the applicant shall provide funding to the Cucamonga County Water Agency for sewer service. S-1: Prior to ihs issuance of building permits, the project applicant shall pay developer impact fees to the Etiwands School District and Chaffey Joint Union High School District In accordance with Section 65995 of the G&Amment Code for the proposed residences. Transportaff yTraftrot TT-f: The project applicant shall contribute Its fair share toward local off -site traffic Improvements. On4te irriprovementa wz1l be required in conjunction with the phasing of the proposed development to ensure adequate circulation within the project itself. The fair share contribution of all off -site improvements and timing of all onsits traffic improvements shall be subject to an agreementwkh the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This agreement shall be in place prior to tract map approval. TT-2: The project applicant shall update oonstrucom cost estimates and prepare a current cost of the pmjed's fair share contribution ta+aard traffic improvements TT-3: The project applicant shall construct MOW Avenue from Edwanda Avenue to East Avenue as a Special Divided Secondary Arterial (165 ft. RtghW- nay) In conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. TT-4: The project applicant shall construct the extension of East Avenue from the south project boundary with a minimum 364bot two-way paved access to the project in oOr*X ctlon with development of the proposed pn*ci or as deterrnined by the Development Agreement with the City. Item C —41 Resolution No. 04-206 Page 30 of 31 TT-5: The projed applicant shall construct East Avenue from the north project boundary to Wilson Avenue to provide 44-foot two-way paved access and the full shoulder (curb, gutter, street lights, and side walks) on west side of the street in oonjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by ft Development Agreement with the City. '1T-6: The project applicant shall oonstruct EWMnda Avenue from the north project boundary to 4dden Prairie ©rive at Its Wimate hats section width as a Secondary Arterial (96 ft. Right-d-rray) In conjunction with development of the proposed project or as determined by the Development Agreement with the City. TT-T.- Prior to Issuance of building permits, the applicant shaft provide funds to scoordanoe with the Cityrs Transportation Development Fee. Coaecd on of these fees shell represent titre prays "fair- share" toward to fdtowing transportation Improvements required for opening year (Year 2004): fr+sta h"n of a tuft signal at Etiwanda Avenue at Banyan StnmL Installation of a ftft signed at East Avenue at Banyan street. • Construction of a souihbcur d right turn lane at the intersection of Etiwanda Avenue at Highland Avenue. TT4; Prior to the Issuance of building permits, the applicant shell provide funds In accordance with the Gilds TrensporWon Development Pee. Collection of these fees shall represent the project's "fair share` toward the following transportation Improvements required for Buildout Year 2020. Construction of one additloml northbound Iane to provide a shared left and through lane, and a shared right and through northbound lane, and one additlonal souhobound lane to provide a shared left and through and a shared right and ttvgh southbound lane on East Avenue at Banyan Street. • Construction of a westbound through lane on Highland Avenue at Etiwanda Avenue. • Installation of a ftft signal at the intersection of Edwanda Avenue (North) at Wilson Avenue. • Installation of a tnaflia signal at the Intersection of Etwanda Avenue (South) at Wilson Avenue. • installation of a traffie Signal at the intersection of East Avenue at Wilson Avenue. T10N : The City Cleric shell certify to the adoption of tits Resolution. Item C —42 Reaoludon No. 04-206 Page 31 of 31 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16* day of June 2004. AYES: Alexander, Gutierrez, Howdyahell, Kurth, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED, None AYTEST: I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a Regular Meeting of said City Couna held on the le day of June 2004. Executed this 17 ' day of June 2004, at Rancho Cucamonga, Cailfainla. Item C —43 ESA PCR 2121 Alton Parkway wxa pernet cam Suite 100 I►wne, GA 92606 949.753.7001 r ',vr. 949,753.7002 1.11 Memorandum date May 20, 2016 to Mr. John Schafer,' Richland Communities from Ms. Beth Jolie Martinez, Director of Biological and Regulatory Services subject Tract16072 Please allow the following to address the status of the current biological conditions for the above referenced project site. The project site was assessed by PCR biologists in 2002, 2007 and 2011. The latest 2011 biological assessment was conducted as part of the Streambed Alteration Agreement application process with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Specifically, the 2011 project site conditions were assessed to determine the status and extent of vegetation communities, jurisdictional areas, and sensitive plant and wildlife species. No substantial changes were noted in the 2011 assessment and no additional mitigation measures beyond those noted in the original 2002 assessment were recommended. A site visit was conducted on May 20, 2016 by ESA PCR biologist Mr. Ezekiel Cooley, who was also part of the team that assessed the site in 2011. Based on his observations, the site conditions remain consistent with those assessed in 2011. As such, the discussion of impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species and recommended mitigation measures as detailed in the 2002 Biological! Resource Assessment is consistent with the 2016 site conditions. In conclusion, based on observations made in our recent site visit, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts and tto new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered. In addition, no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures car, be imposed to substantially reduce impacts. We hope the following information addresses any concerns or questions. Please feel free to contact me at (949) 753-7001, ext. 2018 if you should require further assistance. EXHIBIT E Item C —44 RESOLUTION NO. 16-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A TIME EXTENSION (DRC2016-00356) FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (SUBTT16072) TO SUBDIVIDE 150.79 ACRES INTO 359 LOTS IN THE LOW (2-4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WITH AN AVERAGE DENSITY OF 2.3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, IN THE UPPER ETIWANDA NEIGHBORHOOD OF THE ETIWANDA NORTH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT NORTHEAST CORNER OF WILSON AVENUE AND ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APNs: 1087-081-12, 19 through 24. A. Recitals. 1. Golden Meadowland, LLC. and Ranch Haven, LLC. filed an application for the extension of the approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Tract Map Time Extension request is referred to as "the application." 2. On June 16, 2004, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 04-204, thereby, approving Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 subject to specific conditions and time limits. 3. On June 13, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 07-26, thereby, approving the application for a 1-year time extension subject to specific conditions and time limits. 4. On May 28, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 08-25, thereby. approving the application for a 1-year time extension subject to specific conditions and time limits 5. From July 2008 to July 2013, Senate Bill 1185, Assembly Bill 333, Assembly Bill 208 and Assembly Bill 116 were approved by the Governor allowing for a total of 7 years of automatic extensions for this Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. 6. On June 22, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application for a third 1-year time extension to SUBTT16072 and concluded said hearing on that date. 7. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above - referenced public hearing on June 22, 2016, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to 7 parcels of approximately 150.79 acres located at the northeast corner of Etiwanda Avenue and Wilson Avenue; and Item C --45 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 16-42 TIME EXTENSION DRC2016-00356 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC_ AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. June 22, 2016 Page 2 b, The project is adjacent to the south and west by single-family residences and is adjacent to the north and east by vacant undeveloped land; and C. The zoning of the subject property and properties to the north, south and west are within the Low Residential District. The Zoning of the property to the east is within the Very -Low Residential District. The subject property and properties to the north, east and west are within the North Etiwanda Specific Plan. The properties to the south are within the Etiwanda Speck Plan. and d. The previously approved Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 is in substantial compliance with the City's current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and e. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 approval will not cause significant inconsistencies with the current General Plan, specific plans, ordinances, plans, codes, and policies; and f. The extension of the Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072 approval is not likely to cause public health and safety problems; and g. The extension is within the time limits established by State law and local ordinance. 3, Based upon the facts and information contained in the application, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment forthe application, the Planning Commission finds that no subsequent or supplemental environmental document is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with the review and approval of this application based upon the following findings and determinations, a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the City's local CEQA Guidelines, the City certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on June 16, 2004 in connection with the City's approval of Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16072. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration is required in connection with subsequent discretionary approvals of the same project unless: (i) substantial changes are proposed to the project that indicate new or more severe impacts on the environment; (ii) substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts; or (iii) new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered; or (iv) additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts- b. The Planning Commission finds, in connection with the time extension request, that substantial changes to the project or the circumstances surrounding the project have not occurred which would create new or more severe impacts than those evaluated in the previously certified EIR. The proposal only involves a request to extend the approval period of a previously approved Tentative Tract Map. The proposal does not involve any changes or modifications to the design of the previously approved subdivision. Staff further finds that the project will not have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously certified EIR, not have more severe effects than previously analyzed, and that additional or different mitigation measures are not required to reduce the impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. A memorandum was submitted by the Item C --46 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 16-42 TIME EXTENSION DRC2016-00356 - GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. June 22, 2016 Page 3 applicant's biologist, on May 20, 2016, stating the site conditions remain consistent with previous site assessments. The letter also concludes, based on observations made in our recent site visit, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the project was previously reviewed that indicates new or more severe environmental impacts and no new important information shows the project will have new or more severe impacts than previously considered, and that, no additional mitigation measures are now feasible to reduce impacts or different mitigation measures can be imposed to substantially reduce impacts, C. Based on these findings and all evidence in the record, the Planning Commission concurs with the staff determination that no additional environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA in connection with the City's consideration of the time extension. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby grants a time extension for: Tentative Tract Applicant Expiration SUBTT16072 GOLDEN MEADOWLAND, LLC. June 16, 2017 AND RANCH HAVEN, LLC. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Ravenel Wimberly, Chairman ATTEST: Candyce Burnett, Secretary I, Candyce Burnett, 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 22nd day of June 2016, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Item C —47