Montclair City Council
December 2, 2024

CITY OF MONTCLAIR

CITY COUNCIL

SUCCESSOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY,

MONTCLAIR HOUSING CORPORATION, MONTCLAIR

HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND MONTCLAIR COMMUNITY

FOUNDATION MEETINGS

AGENDA PACKET
Monday, December 2, 2024
7:00 p.m.

Montclair City Council Chambers
5111 Benito Street
Montclair, CA 91763
Mayor
Javier “John” Dutrey
Mayor Pro Tem
Tenice Johnson
Council Members
Bill Ruh
Corysa Martinez
Benjamin “Ben” Lopez
City Manager
Edward C. Starr
City Attorney
Diane E. Robbins
City Clerk
Andrea M. Myrick

REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE

CITY COUNCIL, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, MONTCLAIR HOUSING CORPORATION,

MONTCLAIR HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND MONTCLAIR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION to be held in the Council Chambers
5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California
Monday, December 2, 2024
7:00 p.m.

If you want to provide comments on an agenda item, including public hearing and closed session items, please complete a Speaker Card located in the Council Chambers. The Mayor/Chair (or the meeting’s Presiding Officer) will call on those who submitted requests to speak at the appropriate times during the meeting. Written comments (200–word limit per agenda item, and 200–word limit for all non–agenda items combined) can also be emailed to [email protected] at least one hour before the meeting begins.

Watch Council meetings live on the City’s official YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/@cityofmontclair, or via Zoom using the following information: Zoom Link: https://zoom.us/j/93717150550 / Dial Number: 1 (669) 900–6833 / Meeting ID: 937–1715–0550.

Video recordings of Council meetings are available on the City’s website and can be accessed by the end of the business day following the meeting at https://www.cityofmontclair.org/council–meetings/.

AGENDA
I. CALL TO ORDER City Council [CC], Successor Agency Board [SA], Montclair Housing Corporation Board [MHC],
Montclair Housing Authority Commission [MHA],
Montclair Community Foundation Board [MCF]
II. INVOCATION
In keeping with our long–standing tradition of opening our Council meetings with an invocation, this meeting may include a nonsectarian invocation. Such invocations are not intended to proselytize or advance any faith or belief or to disparage any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation.

III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. ROLL CALL
V. PRESENTATIONS
A. Introduction of New Fire Department Employees and Promotees VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
During Public Comment, you may comment on any subject that does not appear on this agenda. Each speaker has up to five minutes. The meeting’s presiding officer may provide more or less time to accommodate speakers with special needs or a large number of speakers waiting in line. (Government Code Section 54954.3).

Under the provisions of the Brown Act, the meeting bodies are prohibited from participating in substantial discussion of or taking action on items not listed on the agenda.

VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Page No.

A. Consider Approval of Projects and Prioritization of Funding for the Fiscal Year 2025–26 Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) [CC] 5

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 1 of 266 Page No.

B. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 24–3463(1) Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (Sch#2020110481) for the Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan; (2) Making Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (3) Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; (4) Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (5) Approving the Project Consisting of an Updated General Plan and Housing Element, a Climate Action Plan, the Montclair Corridors Code, and the Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan [CC]
Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 24–3461 Adopting the 2020 City of Montclair General Plan, its Mandatory and Optional Elements, and a General Plan Land Use Map [CC]
Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 24–3462 Adopting the Montclair Climate Action Plan [CC]
First Reading – Consider Ordinance No. 24–1009 Repealing the North Montclair Specific Plan and Adopting the Arrow Highway Mixed–Use Specific Plan (2024–55) [CC]
First Reading – Consider Ordinance No. 24–1010 Adopting the Montclair Corridors Code, Amending Portions of Title 11 (Zoning and Development) of the Montclair Municipal Code; Repealing the Holt Boulevard Specific Plan and the Montclair Parkway Place Specific Plan; and Updating the Official Zoning Map of the City of Montclair [CC]
Consider Setting a Public Hearing to Conduct Second Readings and to Consider Adoption of Ordinance Nos. 24–1009 and 24–1010 on Monday, December 16, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers [CC] 6 VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of Minutes

1. Regular Joint Meeting – November4, 2024 [CC/SA/MHC/MHA/MCF] 255

2. Adjourned Meeting – November 18, 2024 [CC] 262

3. Regular Joint Meeting – November 18, 2024 [CC/SA/MHC/MHA/MCF] 263 B. Administrative Reports

1. Consider Approval of Warrant Register & Payroll Documentation [CC] 169

2. Consider Review and Acceptance of the Montclair Housing Authority Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2023–24 [MHA] 170

3. Consider Approval of the Montclair Housing Authority Annual Report Pursuant to Section 3416.1(F) of the Health and Safety Code (SB 341) for Fiscal Year 2023-24 [CC/MHA] 174
C. Agreements

1. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 24–90 with San Bernardino County to Provide Funding from the County’s District–Specific Priorities Program for the City’s Acquisition of an Emergency Vehicle Fire Apparatus, Subject to Any Revisions Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC] Consider Authorizing City Manager Edward C. Starr to Sign Agreement No. 24–90 and Related Documents [CC] 183
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 2 of 266 Page No.

2. Consider Approval of Agreement No. 24–91 with Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority for the City to Reimburse the Authority for Expenditures Related to Work Completed by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. on the Environmental Review for a Proposed Reduction in Parking for the Montclair Transit Center and a Proposed Pedestrian Bridge Alignment with the Planned Monte Vista Avenue Light Rail Bridge Crossing, Subject to Any Revision Deemed Necessary by the City Attorney [CC] Consider Authorizing City Manager Edward C. Starr to Sign Agreement No. 24–91 and Related Documents [CC]
Consider Allocating up to $130,041.09 in Funds from the 2021 Issue of Lease Revenue Bonds for Reimbursement to the Authority Related to Agreement No. 24–91 [CC] 202
D. Resolutions

1. Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 24–3464 Adopting the City’s Conflict of Interest Code, as Amended, Pursuant to the Political Reform Act [CC] 235
IX. PULLED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
X. COMMUNICATIONS
A. Department Reports

1. Human Services Department — Upcoming Events
B. City Attorney

1. Request for City Council to Meet in Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) Regarding Pending Litigation:

Conley v. Montclair

2. Request for City Council to Meet in Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code §54957.6 Regarding Conference with Designated Labor Negotiator Edward C. Starr
Agency: City of Montclair
Employee Management Employees
Associations: Montclair City Confidential Employees Association General Employees – Teamsters Local 1932
Montclair Fire Fighters Association
Montclair Police Officers Association
C. City Manager/Executive Director
D. Mayor/Chairperson

1. Notice of Cancellation of January 6, 2025 Regular Joint Meeting [CC/SA/ MHC/MHA/MCF]
E. Council Members/Directors
F. Committee Meeting Minutes (for informational purposes only)

1. Personnel Committee Meeting – November 18, 2024 [CC] 254 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 3 of 266 Page No.

XI. CLOSED SESSION
XII. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
XIII. ADJOURNMENT – This meeting will be adjourned in memory of former Chino Mayor Dennis Yates.

The next regular joint meeting of the City Council, Successor Agency Board, Montclair Housing Corporation Board, Montclair Housing Authority Commission, and Montclair Community Foundation Board will be held on Monday, December 16, 2024 at 7:00 p.m.

Reports, backup materials, and additional materials related to any item on this Agenda distributed to the meeting bodies after publication of the Agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. Please call the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 625–9416 or send an e–mail to [email protected] to request documents via e–mail.

If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, call the City Clerk’s Office at (909) 625–9416 or e–mail [email protected]. Notification prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. (28 CFR 35.102–35.104 ADA Title II) I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk, hereby certify that I posted, or caused to be posted, a copy of this Agenda not less than 72 hours prior to this meeting on the City’s website at https://www.cityofmontclair.org/agendas/ and on the bulletin board adjacent to the north door of Montclair City Hall at 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, CA 91763 on Wednesday, November 27, 2024.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 4 of 266

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2024
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO.: A
FILE I.D.: GRT050
DEPT.: COMMUNITY DEV.

PREPARER: C. CALDWELL
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PROJECTS AND PRIORITIZATION OF FUNDING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2025–26 FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT

PROGRAM (CDBG)
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: Each fiscal year, the City of Montclair is required to conduct a public hearing to prioritize funding for various competing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) projects. This hearing is conducted in compliance with requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the County of San Bernardino Department of Community Development and Housing (CDH).

The City Council is requested to consider approving projects and prioritization of funding for the Fiscal Year 2025–26 CDBG program.

BACKGROUND: The total funding available for Montclair's Fiscal Year 2025–26 CDBG Program is estimated to be $248,457. Last year’s CDBG allocation was $266,647.

CDBG limits funding allocation for public service projects to 15 percent of the overall CDBG funding assigned to Montclair. The City anticipates a $37,269 allocation for public service projects. This year, no outside agencies submitted requests for funding through the City’s public service allocation. Staff recommends the City Council continue to fund the Graffiti Abatement and Golden Transportation programs with its public service allocation.

For the upcoming fiscal year, staff recommends the City Council approve the projects and funding levels summarized as follows:

Code Enforcement Program 50,000
Renovations to Reeder Ranch 161,188
Graffiti Abatement 27,769
Senior Transportation Services
(Golden Express Transportation) 9,500
TOTAL $248,457
FISCAL IMPACT: The City expects to receive $248,457 from HUD for the Fiscal Year 2025–26 CDBG Program.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the projects and prioritization of funding for the Fiscal Year 2025–26 for the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) as described in this report.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 5 of 266

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2024
SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM NO.: B
FILE I.D.: GPL225
DEPT.: COMMUNITY DEV.

PREPARER: M.DIAZ
SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 24–3463 (1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2020110481) FOR THE MONTCLAIR 2020 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND ARROW HIGHWAY MIXED–USE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN; (2) MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; (3) ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; (4) ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND (5) APPROVING THE PROJECT CONSISTING OF AN UPDATED

GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT, A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN, THE MONTCLAIR CORRIDORS CODE, AND THE ARROW HIGHWAY MIXED–USE DISTRICT

SPECIFIC PLAN
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 24–3461 ADOPTING THE 2020 CITY OF

MONTCLAIR GENERAL PLAN, ITS MANDATORY AND OPTIONAL ELEMENTS, AND A

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 24–3462 ADOPTING THE MONTCLAIR

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
FIRST READING – CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 24–1009 REPEALING THE NORTH MONTCLAIR SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING THE ARROW HIGHWAY MIXED–USE SPECIFIC PLAN (2024–55)
FIRST READING – CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 24–1010 ADOPTING THE MONTCLAIR CORRIDORS CODE, AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 11 (ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT) OF THE MONTCLAIR MUNICIPAL CODE; REPEALING THE HOLT BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE MONTCLAIR PARKWAY PLACE SPECIFIC PLAN;

AND UPDATING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR

CONSIDER SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONDUCT SECOND READINGS AND TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NOS. 24–1009 AND 24–1010 ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2024, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: All cities and counties in the state of California are required to adopt and have in place a General Plan, which serves as a guide for the development, improvement, and management of the City. The City Council, as the governing body of the City of Montclair, is responsible for officially adopting the General Plan for the City. Once adopted, a General Plan serve as the foundation for decision– making by City officials, such as the Planning Commission and City Council. The City’s current General Plan was adopted in 1999.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, the City embarked on a multi–year process to comprehensively update the 1999 Montclair General Plan (General Plan Update), per State planning and zoning law (California Government Code Section 65000 et seq.) that requires all counties and cities to prepare and maintain a General Plan for the long–term growth, development, and management of the land within the jurisdiction’s planning boundaries.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 6 of 266

PROPOSED DOCUMENTS FOR ADOPTION
 2020 Montclair General Plan Update – establishes the City’s long–range vision and sets forth the principles, goals, policies, and actions to help achieve the community vision. As such, the General Plan is the City’s lead legal document and provides the framework looking ahead 20 years or more. The General Plan provides policy guidance within seven “elements” mandated by state planning and zoning law. The mandatory elements for all jurisdictions are Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation, Open Space, Noise, and Safety. Other elements may be included depending on the needs of the jurisdiction. Once adopted, the General Plan is used regularly by the City Council, Planning Commission, and City staff to make decisions with direct and indirect land use implications. See Exhibit A for the current General Plan Land Use Map and Exhibit B for the proposed General Plan Land Use Map.

As part of the 2020 General Plan Update project, the following documents were developed to implement the land use and regulatory goals of the General Plan Update:
 Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan (AHMUD) – This plan focuses on the northwest and northeast corners of Montclair, along the Arrow Highway Corridor as depicted in Exhibit C. The AHMUD includes new land use regulations and standards regarding future development as well as provisions to allow new mixed– use and residential development. The plan also envisions a new public park, new development on the north and south side of Arrow Highway, new development facing Central Avenue, and phasing of public infrastructure such as improvements to streetscapes, and the San Antonio Channel Creek. The AHMUD Specific Plan will replace the existing North Montclair Specific Plan (1997).  Montclair Corridors Code – The City will also amend its Development Code (Montclair Municipal Code (MMC) Title 11) and Official Zoning Map to implement the updated General Plan via the Montclair Corridors Code. The Montclair Corridors Code will include the creation of new zoning designations and development standards for the Central Avenue (south of the I–10 Freeway), Holt Boulevard, and Mission Boulevard corridors. The boundaries of the Montclair Corridors Code are identified in Exhibit D.

DOCUMENT LINKS
General Plan
https://cloud.cityofmontclair.org/main.html?download&weblink=f078051c5136e3003ede5af972c11fee&r ealfilename=Montclair$20General$20Plan$20(8)-1.pdf
Housing Element
https://cloud.cityofmontclair.org/main.html?download&weblink=886aa07309db9e6dcc81735161b80776 &realfilename=2023-01-19_Montclair$202021-2029$20Final$20HE-2.pdf Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations https://cloud.cityofmontclair.org/main.html?download&weblink=64105ac68196101cb28ce4f7f92053c5&r ealfilename=Montclair$20Findings$20of$20Fact$20and$20SOC$20Exhibit$20A$20and$20B$20Planning$ 20Commission$20Resolution$2024.2000.pdf
Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District (AHMUD)
https://cloud.cityofmontclair.org/main.html?download&weblink=4710813d0282c6364da5905cee04a845 &realfilename=AHMUD$20Specific$20Plan$20(5)-4.pdf
Montclair Corridors Code
https://cloud.cityofmontclair.org/main.html?download&weblink=d43a969faf830f871202420ad9de7ad7&r ealfilename=Montclair$20Corridor$20Code$20(7)-1.pdf
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 7 of 266 Final Environmental Impact Report
https://cloud.cityofmontclair.org/main.html?download&weblink=2b47026cd58d2234c071ec078802b4b6 &realfilename=Montclair$202020$20GPU$20$26$20AHMUD$20Specific$20Plan_FEIR.pdf Climate Action Plan
https://cloud.cityofmontclair.org/main.html?download&weblink=a5a23b2300384242fd56749e5545989f& realfilename=Montclair$20CAP_2024$20Update.pdf

GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (REQUIRED AND OPTIONAL)
The State of California requires every General Plan to include seven elements: Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Housing, Noise, Open Space, and Safety. The Montclair General Plan format satisfies the State requirement and includes optional elements as well. Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65302), there is no mandatory structure or maximum number of elements that a general plan must include. Once added to the General Plan, each element, regardless of statutory requirement, assumes the same legal standing and must be consistent with other elements (Gov. Code § 65300.5).

The Montclair General Plan chapters are conceived with vision–based titles for each General Plan element. This organization allows for an integration of related aspects from each element. The General Plan will also include an updated Land Use Map for the City.

The 2020 Montclair General Plan Update features the following eight elements:

1. Our Natural Community (Conservation and Open Space Elements) – This Chapter addresses how Montclair can thrive in balance with the community’s natural ecosystems.

2. Our Prosperous Community (Economic Development Element) – This Chapter addresses how Montclair can attract and retain high–wage and high–value enterprises, and diversify and increase the local tax base.

3. Our Well Planned Community (Land Use/Design, Housing, and Parks and Recreation) – This Chapter will feature the preferred land use plan that directs new growth by reinvesting in key opportunity areas like the North Montclair Downtown Specific Plan (NMDSP), Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan (AHMUD), and Corridors Code while protecting natural resources, respecting stable residential neighborhoods, and making high quality places by insisting on the highest standard in architecture, landscaping, and urban design.

4. Our Accessible Community (Circulation Element) – This Chapter addresses transportation choices advocated by SB 375 and AB 1358 by strengthening and balancing pedestrian, bike, and transit connections in the City and surrounding region.

5. Our Healthy Community (Public Health, Noise, and Land Use) – This Chapter will seek to build effective partnerships that improve physical and mental health and social well–being.

6. Our Safe Community (Safety) – This Chapter will increase awareness of emergencies, and minimize threats to life and damage to structures from hazards.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 8 of 266

7. Our Active Community (Land Use, Open Space, Parks and Recreation) – This Chapter addresses parks and open spaces to provide enriching recreational options for the entire community.

8. Our Creative Community (Culture) – This Chapter seeks to weave arts, cultural events, and community programs into everyday life.

Montclair 2020 General Plan
Summary of Elements – Required and Optional
General Plan Chapters Required/Optional Elements Topics Covered 1 Our Natural Community Conservation, Open Space
Air and water, greenhouse gasses,
open space, hillsides, watersheds,
riparian areas, plants, and
animals
2 Our Prosperous Community Economic Development Fiscal health, economic diversification, job growth, and
tourism
3 Our Well–Planned Community Land Use/Design, Housing,
Parks and Recreation
Place types, visual character,
nature of intended change, and
housing
4 Our Accessible Community Circulation
Street networks, street types,
transit services, bicycle and
pedestrian systems, parking,
transportation demand
management, and performance
metrics
5 Our Healthy Community
Public Health, Noise,
and Land Use
Physical health, mental health,
social capital, access to healthy
food, and noise
6 Our Safe Community Safety Police, fire, and natural hazards 7 Our Active Community
Land Use, Open Space,
Parks and Recreation
Open spaces, parks and recreation
facilities, and youth and senior
programs
8 Our Creative Community Culture Arts, culture, schools, libraries, and historic resources
Each element of the General Plan contains a series of goals, policies, and implementation actions. The goals, policies, and actions provide guidance to the City on how to direct change, manage growth, and manage resources over the approximately 20–year life of the General Plan Update.
• Goals – Goals are long–range, broad, and comprehensive targets. Goals are not necessarily measurable or achievable; rather, they describe a desired end–state condition for Montclair.
• Policies – Policies describe the context and rationale of desired outcomes. Policies are focused and specific.
• Actions – Actions are specific proactive steps to achieve the goals. They are the critical links between long–range planning and current decision–making.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 9 of 266

HOUSING ELEMENT
As indicated above, the Housing Element is a component of the 2020 Montclair General Plan Update as one of the required elements of the General Plan. As such, the Housing Element is Montclair’s plan for housing. All California cities and counties are required to plan and meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. The Housing Element is the only element required to be approved (“certified”) by the State and has a shorter planning period (eight years) than the other General Plan elements. According to State law, the Housing Element must provide goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs to preserve, improve, and develop housing and meet the City’s assigned Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of housing units to be constructed during the planning period. The current Housing Element was completed in 2014 for the period 2014–2021.

While the City itself does not build housing, the Housing Element provides opportunities for the private sector to develop housing based on market conditions. Montclair’s Housing Element identifies 25 Housing Opportunity Sites where housing density will be amended to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation. Density amendments are contained within the proposed AHMUD Specific Plan and the new Montclair Corridors Code. These density amendments are required to be adopted concurrently with the General Plan Update and Housing Element in order for the Housing Element to be certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).

Two public meetings regarding the update of the City’s Housing Element were held on March 3, 2021, and December 15, 2021. The new Housing Element (6th Cycle, 2021– 2029), was prepared and presented to the HCD for review. HCD responded on July 27, 2022, finding the City’s Draft Housing Element had met the statutory requirements of state housing law. The letter clarified that the Housing Element would substantially comply with Housing Element Law (Gov. Code § 65580 et seq.) when adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD. The Housing Element was analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the 2020 General Plan Update.

AHMUD SPECIFIC PLAN
The AHMUD Specific Plan has developed concurrently with the proposed General Plan Update. This document will implement the goals and policies of the new General Plan Update and provide standards and details designed to enhance new and in–fill development for the AHMUD planning area generally described as the remainder portions of the North Montclair Specific Plan. To avoid duplication of plans, the AHMUD will replace the North Montclair Specific Plan focusing on two distinct areas at the northwest and northeast corners of Montclair, along the Arrow Highway corridor. The AHMUD Specific Plan will be a standalone policy and regulatory document that will guide decisions to achieve future growth within the AHMUD. As a result of the adoption of the AHMUD, the North Montclair Specific Plan will be repealed. See Exhibit E.

The plan envisions a transformation of the existing area dotted with individual commercial and warehouse uses into a cohesive complete neighborhood that builds on existing industrial uses while featuring a traditional fine–grained mix of small–scale manufacturing, with supporting retail and office space, housing types, civic buildings, and recreational facilities. The project emphasizes a rich public realm, walkability, mixed uses, a sense of community, and diversity.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 10 of 266 The AHMUD is a form–based code with design standards focused on the design of the public realm: the public space defined by the exterior of buildings and the surrounding streets and open space. New standards for the Plan Area regarding existing and new land uses, setbacks, building heights, parking, landscape, and signage are all intended to lead to the formation of a distinctive and attractive “downtown” streetscape and development pattern. AHMUD would allow existing uses to remain and undergo limited improvement until such time that ownership or economic conditions become conducive to allow redevelopment of a given site according to the standards of the AHMUD.

In the AHMUD area, there will be three zoning districts as summarized below:
 Corridor: The Central Avenue Corridor Zone permits regional and community–serving retail, office, cultural, and residential mixed–uses. Active uses are located at the sidewalk level with commercial uses at the upper levels. New buildings are block scale, up to four floors (50 feet in height). A continuous building frontage along Central Avenue will provide definition and enclosure to the public realm. Taller buildings line up the wide stretch of street frontage with buildings stepping down in the rear. The standards in this zone are intended to promote a walkable, diverse, and well– connected area.
 Commerce: The Commerce Zone permits a wide variety of office and large–format retail and commercial activity along with multifamily dwellings. Uses would include flex/light–industrial uses including research and development uses, small–scale smart manufacturing, professional and medical offices, and traditional business parks. The Commerce Zone supports continued reinvestment and context–sensitive intensification that promotes local businesses and enhances housing choices.  Neighborhood: Primarily residential with a variety of single and small multifamily dwellings organized along walkable streetscapes. The basic needs of daily life are met by limited neighborhood serving commercial/retail uses in close proximity. Streets form a connected network, providing alternate routes that help to disperse traffic, and are equitable for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Diversity in the type, size, and disposition of buildings, streets, and open spaces creates many options in environments, experiences, functions, uses, prices, and populations.

MONTCLAIR CORRIDORS CODE
The development of the Montclair Corridors Code (Corridors Code) is to implement the Vision, Goals, and Policies of the 2020 Montclair General Plan. More specifically, the Corridors Code will include new zoning designations and development standards for the Central Avenue (south of the I–10 Freeway), Holt Boulevard, and Mission Boulevard corridors, to create places where:

1. A mixture of land uses including shops, workplaces, and residences are within walking distance of one another and produce an urban form that is inviting, comfortable, safe, and ecologically resilient;

2. Streets and open spaces promote a vibrant, safe, healthy, and prosperous place; and

3. New infill and remodeled buildings work together with existing buildings to define the pedestrian–oriented space of the public streets within the Corridor Area.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 11 of 266 The proposed new land use designations for the Corridors Code are summarized below:
 Neighborhood Residential: The zone permits detached single–family homes.  Neighborhood Edge: The zone is comprised primarily of single–family and single– family–compatible multi–family residential uses including live/work, organized along walkable streetscapes. The basic needs of daily life are met by limited neighborhood–serving commercial/retail uses in close proximity. Streets form a connected network, providing alternate routes that help to disperse traffic, and are equitable for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Diversity in the type, size, and disposition of buildings, streets, and open spaces creates many options in environments, functions, uses, prices, and populations.  Commerce–Mixed Use: The Commerce–Mixed Use Zone permits a wide variety of office and large–format retail and commercial activity along with multi–family dwellings. Uses would include flex/light–industrial uses including research and development uses, small–scale smart manufacturing, professional and medical offices, and traditional business parks. The Commerce Zone supports continued reinvestment and context–sensitive intensification that promotes local businesses and enhances housing choices. A range of open spaces, walkable streets, and alleys, weave together the various existing and proposed assets.  Commerce–Industrial: The intent of this zone is to provide a location for low– to medium–intensity industrial uses, typically comprised primarily of large and varied building sizes with substantial activity from large cargo vehicles (e.g., semi–trailers, box and cargo vans). These areas are accessible and interconnected but not typically oriented to the pedestrian.
 Civic: Public or quasi–public in operation, civic buildings and spaces are the cornerstone of neighborhoods and a symbolic reflection of Montclair’s values and aspirations. The civic buildings may operate in the fields of the arts, culture, education, recreation, government, transit, security, health, safety, and public utility. Since public buildings represent a collective identity, their design should set them apart from more conventional private buildings. Civic building sites should be located within or adjacent to a civic space, or at the terminated vista of a significant thoroughfare. These places are easily accessible by foot or automobile and have formal access points that address the street.

The Corridors Code necessitates an amendment to Title 11 (Zoning and Development) of the Montclair Municipal Code (MMC) to replace six existing land–use designations with five new designations and development standards proposed by the Corridors Code. In addition, approval of the Corridors Code will require the repeal of the Holt Boulevard Specific Plan (1991) and the Montclair Parkway Place Specific Plan (1991). See Exhibit E for Specific Plans to be repealed, Exhibit F for Current Zoning Map, and Exhibit G for Proposed Zoning Map.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 12 of 266 The proposed code amendment and specific plans identified for repeal are indicated in the table below:

Municipal Code Amendment (Text and Official Zoning Map) For the Montclair Corridors Code
Municipal Code
Title 11 Chapters: Existing Land Use Designations
Proposed Land Use
Designations by the Corridors
Code

11.24 Administrative Professional (AP) • Neighborhood Residential • Neighborhood Edge
• Commerce—Mixed Use
• Commerce—Industrial
• Civic

11.26 Restricted Commercial (C2)

11.28 General Commercial (C3)

11.30 Manufacturing Industrial Park (MIP)

11.32 Limited Manufacturing (M1)

11.34 General Manufacturing (M2)
Specific Plans (To be repealed in their entirety)
Holt Boulevard Specific Plan (1991)
Montclair Parkway Place Specific Plan (1991)

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN, AND ZONING State planning and zoning law establishes that zoning ordinances and specific plans (and other planning documents) are required to be consistent with the General Plan’s long–term policies for future development. Zoning ordinances and specific plans included specific development regulations and standards. A Specific Plan is a detailed document that it combines a policy document (ex. goals, policies and programs) that serves as a standalone planning document for the area covered Specific Plan area.

As mentioned above the, the proposed AHMUD Specific Plan and Corridors Code (zoning) are documents that were prepared in conjunction with the General Plan Update for the purposes of implementing the goals and policies of the General Plan and to ensure consistency between these documents. Both the AHMUD and Corridors Code documents contain regulations and standards that are expressed through detailed text, maps, and diagrams. Development in the City must be consistent with both the specific requirements of a specific plan or zoning ordinance and the broader policies contained in the General Plan.

When amendments to the General Plan are made, corresponding changes in the zoning ordinance and/or a specific plan may be required within a reasonable time to ensure consistency between the revised land use designations in the General Plan (if any) and the permitted uses or development standards of the zoning ordinance (Gov. Code Section 65860, subd. [c]). For that reason, and to maintain consistency with the General Plan Update, the City also considered and prepared amendments to certain existing planning documents.

These actions include the:

A. Repeal of the existing North Montclair Specific Plan; B. Repeal of the Holt Boulevard Specific Plan;
C. Repeal of the Montclair Parkway Place Specific Plan; and MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 13 of 266 D. Adoption of the Montclair Corridors Code to create new zoning designations and development standards for the Central Avenue (south of the I–10 Freeway), Holt Boulevard, and Mission Boulevard corridors.

Lastly, the General Plan also serves as the foundation for establishing the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) reflecting the City Council’s strategic goals and priorities. In accordance with Government Code Section 65103(c), the City’s planning agency (Montclair Planning Commission) must annually determine that the CIP is consistent with the City’s General Plan.

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
As part of the 2020 General Plan Update, the City prepared a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that focuses on the effects of climate change and strategies to address and reduce local sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. As such, a CAP is a long–range planning document that provides the framework for identifying and developing strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. Each community is required by state law to develop and utilize a CAP as a means to guide the City’s actions that could impact the environment and to plan for a future that supports the community's well–being and economic growth.

In addition to reducing the City’s GHG emissions consistent with statewide goals and mitigating the community’s contribution to global climate change, implementation of the CAP helps achieve multiple community goals, such as lowering energy costs, reducing air and water pollution, supporting local economic development, and improving public health and quality of life. The CAP also serves as a qualified GHG reduction strategy and may, therefore, be utilized to tier and streamline the analysis of GHG emissions of future development within the City under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.

The CAP analyzes GHG emission sources within the City, forecasts future emissions, and establishes emission reduction targets (See Section 2 and Appendix C), with a goal of making substantial progress towards reducing emissions in line with Assembly Bill (AB) 1279, which aims for carbon neutrality by 2045. The CAP also provides a framework for implementation and monitoring reduction activities and further promotes adaptation and preparedness actions.

This CAP will guide the City of Montclair toward reducing GHG emissions consistent with the targets set out by SB 32 and AB 1279, as well as fulfill the requirements of the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) includes the following required criteria for a qualified CAP:

A. Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area.

B. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.

C. Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 14 of 266 D. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project–by–project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions level.

E. Establish a mechanism to monitor the Plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels.

F. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.

If projects are consistent with the CAP, CEQA analysis can be streamlined by presuming the project is consistent with the measures included in the CAP and that the project’s GHG emissions are not significant.

WATER USE POLICY
At the October 3, 2024, joint City Council/Planning Commission General Plan Update meeting, comments were received, including a question regarding how the General Plan would address climate change and recurring drought conditions affecting the community. The General Plan does address water in Chapter 3 – Our Well Planned Community – of the documents and includes Policy P3.11, which states the following:
“Maintain and enhance water supply agreements and distribution infrastructure to equitably meet projected future water demands through the City through a variety of drought and demand scenarios.” As briefly described above, General Plan goals are expressed in a manner that moves from broad statements to more specific policies and actions. In this case, Policy P3.11 also includes four implementation actions. Actions specified in Policy P3.11 are specific proactive steps to achieve the goals regarding adequate supply of water, expansion of infrastructure, expanded use of recycled water, and promotion of increased infiltration of stormwater runoff.

In addition, the General Plan Update includes the preparation of a separate document known as the Climate Action Plan (CAP) that provides more details on how climate change will be addressed within the community. The CAP recognizes that Montclair will likely experience changes in precipitation, in addition to changes in available water resources from the State Water Project (SWP). Changes in precipitation coupled with increased temperatures can cause periods of abnormally dry weather, further affecting water supply and groundwater recharge. While many of these issues occur at a greater regional and even global scale, the City and community can take steps to conserve water at a local level. Planting drought–tolerant landscaping can lessen the demand for irrigation and help decrease stormwater runoff. Having the CAP approved as a separate document allows the City an easier process for amending the document in response to changes in state law or in support of new local initiatives.

The following policies are some key examples of those included in the Climate Action Plan:

1. Adopt an ordinance requiring non–residential buildings over 20,000 SF (including municipal buildings over 7,500 SF) to disclose water use annually for benchmarking purposes, and then take action to reduce water consumption.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 15 of 266

2. Adopt a cool pavement ordinance to reduce the “heat island effect” and improve water quality.

3. Continued enforcement of the Model Water Efficient Landscapes Ordinance as periodically amended by the State.

4. Adopt an ordinance restricting the use of potable water for non–functional uses, and requiring greywater capture for land uses that are excess water users (e.g., car washes, large fields, etc.).

5. Promote alternative driveways/sidewalk materials and greenscaping through educational pamphlets and programs; incentivize residents to transition from impervious to pervious hardscapes.

Based on the above, it is evident that policies related to discouraging the use of non– functional turf, restrictions on the use of potable water on non–functional turf, and installation of drought–tolerant landscaping are all part of, and encouraged by the proposed General Plan and Climate Action Plan. Further, Montclair is required to adhere to evolving state water requirements. Montclair City staff does comply with state regulations and will enforce requirements related to the use of potable water that will effectively deter the installation of non–functional turf on all properties in the City in compliance with the schedule outlined above.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
The City of Montclair hosted a series of General Plan Update focus group meetings that included City Council Members, Planning Commissioners, Community Activities Commissioners, stakeholders, and members of the public.  General Plan Charrettes on April 8–11, 2019.
 Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meetings regarding updates to the General Plan on February 26, 2020, January 19, 2023, and October 3, 2024.  Focused Group Meetings, as summarized in the table below:

General Plan: Focus Group Meetings
January 17, 2019 General Plan: Our Prosperous Community Focus Group Special Meeting
January 31, 2019 General Plan: Our Natural, Healthy, and Safe Community Focus Group Special Meeting
February 7, 2019 General Plan: Our Creative and Active Community Focus Group Special Meeting
March 7, 2019 General Plan: CORE Focus Group Special Meeting August 15, 2019 General Plan: Our Prosperous Community Focus Group Special Meeting
August 22, 2019 General Plan: Our Natural, Healthy, and Safe Community Focus Group Special Meeting
September 26, 2019 General Plan: Our Creative and Active Community Focus Group Special Meeting
October 10, 2019 General Plan: CORE Focus Group Special Meeting MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 16 of 266

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Montclair is the lead agency for the 2020 Montclair General Plan Update, AHMUD, and Montclair Corridors Code (the proposed Project). As lead agency, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared because the Project may have a significant effect on the environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on November 16, 2020, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (NOP) stating that an EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020110481) would be prepared.

According to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on December 1, 2020, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project and five comments in total were received. Pursuant to Section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City prepared a Draft EIR, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP. The Draft EIR determined mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas:
biological resources, archaeological resources, geology and soils, tribal cultural resources, and noise. The Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality and historical resources.

A Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on July 26, 2022; and as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time the City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on July 26, 2022.

During the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at the City’s Planning Division, on the City’s website, and at the Montclair Public Library. The Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 45–day public review and comment period from July 26, 2022, through September 8, 2022. The City received one comment letter during the public review period.

An EIR must disclose the expected direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with a project, including impacts that cannot be avoided, growth–inducing effects, impacts found not to be significant, and significant cumulative impacts, as well as identify mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed Project that could reduce or avoid its adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires government agencies to consider and, where feasible, minimize significant environmental impacts of proposed development.

On November 7, 2024 the City released the Final EIR (FEIR) for the 2020 Montclair General Plan Update, which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR the one written comment letter received on the Draft EIR, written response to the written comment letter received on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices (as modified by the Final EIR). The Final EIR (FEIR) is included in the Planning Commissioner’s packet referenced as Attachment No. 1.

The City Council, as the decision–making body, will review and consider the FEIR. If the City Council finds that the FEIR complies with CEQA, reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis, and was presented to the City Council, which reviewed and considered the information in the FEIR before approving the project, the City Council may certify the FEIR. Should the City Council decide to approve the project, it will be necessary to make findings under CEQA for those significant environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 17 of 266 The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is a CEQA–required component of the EIR process for the project. Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program to ensure the efficacy and enforceability of any mitigation measures applied to the proposed project. The Findings of Facts, Overriding Considerations, and the MMRP are included with City Council Resolution No. 24–3463.

FINDINGS FOR THE 2020 MONTCLAIR GENERAL PLAN
State planning and zoning law requires that a General Plan and each of its elements must “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies” (Government Code § 65300.5). Proposed findings of consistency for the General Plan Update, the proposed AHMUD, and the Montclair Corridors Code are included in the City Council Resolutions and Ordinances proposed for adoption.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission reviewed the Project and adopted resolutions recommending approval of the project by the City Council approval. The Planning Commission also recommends the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the adoption of environmental findings, including a statement of overriding considerations, and approval of the Project.

On November 12, 2024, the Montclair Planning Commission adopted the following Resolutions recommending City Council approval:
 PC Resolution No. 24–2000 (Environmental Impact Report) by a 4–0–1 vote  PC Resolution No. 24–2001–A–B (General Plan – Elements and Land Use Map) by a vote of 3–0–1–1; and
 PC Resolution No. 24–2001–C (Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan) by a 4–0–1 vote.

At an adjourned and special meeting on November 19, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted the following resolutions:
 PC Resolution No. 24–2001–D (Montclair Corridors Code) by a 3–0–2 vote; and  PC Resolution No. 24–2002 (Climate Action Plan) by a 5–0 vote.

Copies of adopted Planning Commission Resolutions referenced above are attached as Exhibit H.

PUBLIC NOTICE
A Notice of the City Council’s Public Hearing was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on November 22, 2024. Staff also sent electronic (e–mail) and mailed public hearing notices to all individuals who mailed and sent electronic requests to receive notice of actions taken by the City relative to the General Plan Update (Public Hearing Subscribers, General Plan Interest List, and CEQA Distribution List). In addition, the meeting agenda was posted at designated posting locations at City Hall and on the City’s website.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 18 of 266 FISCAL IMPACT: Long term, the General Plan Update will have a positive significant fiscal impact on the City, primarily through future revenue gains from potential new development spurred by the updated land use designations outlined in the plan and related land use documents, while also potentially creating additional costs for necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate that growth.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:

A. Adopt Resolution No. 24–3463 (1) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (sch#2020110481) for the Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan; (2) making environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; (3) adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations; (4) adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (5) approving the project consisting of an updated General Plan and Housing Element, a Climate Action Plan, the Montclair Corridors Code, and the Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan;
B. Adopt Resolution No. 24–3461 adopting the 2020 City of Montclair General Plan, its mandatory and optional elements, and a General Plan Land Use Map; C. Adopt Resolution No. 24–3462 adopting the Montclair Climate Action Plan; D. Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 24–1009 repealing the North Montclair Specific Plan and adopting the Arrow Highway Mixed–Use Specific Plan (2024–55); E. Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 24–1010 adopting the Montclair Corridors Code, amending portions of Title 11 (Zoning and Development) of the Montclair Municipal Code; repealing the Holt Boulevard Specific Plan and the Montclair Parkway Place Specific Plan; and updating the official Zoning Map of the City of Montclair; and
F. Set a public hearing to conduct second readings and to consider adoption of Ordinance Nos. 24–1009 and 24–1010 on Monday, December 16, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

Exhibits to Agenda Report:

A. Current Montclair General Plan Land Use Map
B. Proposed Montclair General Plan Land Use Map
C. Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan (AHMUD) Map D. Montclair Corridors Code Map
E. Proposed Specific Plans to be Repealed
F. Current Zoning Map
G. Proposed Zoning Map
H. Planning Commission Resolutions
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 19 of 266 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 20 of 266 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 21 of 266 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 22 of 266 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 23 of 266 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 24 of 266 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 25 of 266 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 26 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 27 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 28 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 29 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 30 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 31 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 32 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 33 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 34 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 35 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 36 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 37 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 38 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 39 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 40 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 41 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 42 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 43 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 44 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 45 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 46 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 47 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 48 of 266 EXHIBIT H MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 49 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3463 Page 1 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 24–3463

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR (1) CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH #2020110481) FOR THE MONTCLAIR 2020 GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE AND ARROW HIGHWAY MIXED–USE DISTRICT SPECIFIC
PLAN; (2) MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; (3) ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; (4) ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND (5)

APPROVING THE PROJECT CONSISTING OF AN UPDATEAD

GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT, A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN,

THE MONTCLAIR CORRIDORS CODE, AND THE ARROW HIGHWAY
MIXED–USE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the Montclair 2020 General Plan Update (“General Plan Update”) is an update of the City of Montclair General Plan and establishes the community’s vision for orderly development and growth in Montclair by functioning as a policy document to guide land use decisions in the City’s Plan Area through the year 2040; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update includes the first comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan since 1999, and serves as the City’s primary guide for land use and development decisions and serves as the “blueprint” for future development and conservation of the community; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Update includes an update to the Housing Element and relevant portions of the Climate Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of the General Plan Update, the City has developed the Montclair Corridors Code and Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan to implement the land use development and regulatory goals identified in the General Plan Update ; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Update, updates to the Housing Element and Climate Action Plan, the Montclair Corridors Code, and AHMUD Specific Plan are collectively referred to as the “Project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
WHEREAS, the City of Montclair, as the lead agency for the proposed Project determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared because the Project may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on November 16, 2020, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (NOP) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020110481) would be prepared; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on December 1, 2020, to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project and, five comments in total were received; and WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City prepared a Draft EIR, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas:
biological resources, archaeological resources, geology and soils, tribal cultural resources, and noise; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR further concluded that despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the proposed Project would nonetheless result in significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality and historical resources; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on July 26, 2022; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(a), the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time that the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 50 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3463 Page 2 of 4
City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on July 26, 2022; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at the City’s Planning Division, on the City’s website, and at the Montclair Public Library; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 45–day public review and comment period from July 26, 2022 through September 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City received one comment letter during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, on November 7, 2024, the City released the Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR) the one written comment letter received on the Draft EIR, written response to the written comment letter received on the Draft EIR, and errata to the Draft EIR and technical appendices; and
WHEREAS, the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and WHEREAS, the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts and, although no significant and unavoidable impacts were identified, the EIR analyzes a range of feasible alternatives capable of reducing these effects to an even lesser level of significance; and WHEREAS, the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for the Project, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section 4.1 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section 4.2 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the City finds that even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR that are significant and unavoidable are described in Section 4.3 of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of the Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 4.4 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 5 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the existence of any growth–inducing impacts resulting from the proposed Project identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section 6 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the proposed Project that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section 7 of Exhibit A; and
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 51 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3463 Page 3 of 4
WHEREAS, a statement of overriding considerations is set forth in Section 8 of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project to a level of less than significant are set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project was fully considered; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission by a vote of 4–0–1 approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 24–2000 recommending the City Council adopt environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. The City Council adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, both of which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, and make implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council approves the proposed Project.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 52 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3463 Page 4 of 4
SECTION 6. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department of the City of Montclair, 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California 91763. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 7. The City Council directs City staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of approval of the Project.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2024.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Resolution No. 24–3463 was duly adopted by the City Council of said city and was approved by the Mayor of said city at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2024, and that it was adopted by the following vote, to–wit:

AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX

Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 53 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and
Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD)
Specific Plan
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
prepared by
City of Montclair
Community Development Department, Planning Division
5111 Benito Street
Montclair, California 91763
Contact: Michael Diaz, Director of Community Development prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1980 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 105
Redlands, California 92374
January 2023
Exhibit "A"
City Council Resolution No. 24-3463
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 54 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1

1. Introduction
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan (Plan1 ), made available for public review
on July 26, 2022, and was distributed to local and State agencies. Copies of the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR were mailed to a list of interested parties, groups, and public agencies. The Draft EIR and an announcement of its availability were posted electronically on the Plan website at https://www.montclairplan.org/plans/ and at the following locations:
▪ City of Montclair Planning Division, 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, CA 91763 The public review period for the Draft EIR ran from Tuesday July 26, 2022, to Thursday September 8, 2022. The public was encouraged to submit written comments to Michael Diaz, Director of Community Development, City of Montclair Planning Division, 5111 Benito St., Montclair, CA 91763 no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 8, 2022.

After close of the Draft EIR public review and comment period, the City prepared a Final EIR consisting of responses to comments and changes to the Draft EIR.

The Findings of Fact (Findings) and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) presented herein address the environmental effects associated with the Plan that are described and analyzed within the Final EIR, reflect the Council’s determinations about feasible mitigation measures, and the adequacy of the Final EIR. These Findings have been made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), specifically Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 21081.6, as well as the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) Sections 15091 and 15093.

Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 require that the City of Montclair (City), as the Lead Agency for the Plan, prepare written findings for any identified significant environmental effects along with a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.

Specific findings under CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Furthermore, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever a project’s significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the City as the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the 1 As described in the EIR, the Plan also encompasses other elements and activities including a Corridors Code, Housing Element Update, and Climate Action Plan, all of which were analyzed in the EIR.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 55 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 2 adverse effects may be considered “acceptable,” in which case the lead agency must adopt a formal statement of overriding considerations.

The Final EIR identified potentially significant environmental effects that could result from the Plan but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures. Those effects were related to biological resources (impacts related to special status species, particularly nesting birds and their habitat), cultural resources (impacts on archaeological resources), geology and soils (paleontological impacts), noise (impacts related to project construction vibration), and tribal cultural resources (impacts to unidentified tribal cultural resources). Significant and unavoidable (unmitigable) cumulative impacts associated with air quality (impacts related to construction and operational emissions), and cultural resources (impacts on historical resources) were identified due to lack of feasible mitigation measures, and thus a statement of overriding considerations is required.

2. Project Description
The proposed project (Plan) is an update of the City of Montclair 2020 General Plan and the Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District Specific Plan, as well as other related actions. The actions that make up the Plan are described below.

The Plan includes a comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan, which has not been comprehensively updated since 1999. The General Plan serves as the City’s primary guide for land use and development decisions and is a key tool for influencing and improving the quality of life for residents and businesses. As such, it serves as the “blueprint” for future development and conservation of the community. The Plan will help the City plan for important community issues such as new growth, housing and infrastructure needs, and environmental protection. It also sets the stage for future social, physical, and economic development of the City. It addresses issues that impact the entire community, such as how land is used, where buildings are constructed, and the location of infrastructure. The Planning Area for the Plan includes the land within Montclair’s City Limits and Sphere of Influence (SOI).

The Plan reorganizes and reformats the City’s General Plan, including updated goals and policies that reflect the community’s vision of Montclair the Plan seeks to achieve. The General Plan Land Use Map has also been updated. The City plans to process any zoning amendments required to bring zoning into conformance with the Plan’s land use recommendations concurrently with approval of the Plan.

The Plan includes eight chapters:
▪ Our Natural Community
▪ Our Prosperous Community
▪ Our Well Planned Community
▪ Our Accessible Community
▪ Our Resilient Community
▪ Our Healthy and Safe Community
▪ Our Active Community
▪ Our Creative Community
An updated Housing Element for the City of Montclair is included in the Plan and analyzed in the EIR. All proposed population and housing growth relative to the updated Housing Element and the rest of the Plan is accounted for and analyzed in the EIR. The City plans to adopt and then submit MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 56 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3 the updated Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review, comment, and certification prior to adoption of the rest of the Plan to comply with State guidance related to required and recommended deadlines for submissions of Housing Elements, as described in the Housing Element.

A Climate Action Plan (CAP) has also been prepared and relevant portions of the CAP have been integrated into Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs throughout the relevant Plan elements and sections. The Plan will act as the comprehensive policy document and the CAP will provide mechanisms to implement and monitor the GHG reduction opportunities associated with City planning policies. Additionally, in this format the Plan has been prepared to meet the criteria of a “qualified plan for the reduction of greenhouse gases” according to the criteria specified in the CEQA Guidelines, which provides a mechanism for tiering and streamlining of GHG emissions analysis for projects that are consistent with such a plan.

A Corridors Code implementing Plan recommendations along key corridors in Montclair (see Section 3, Project Objectives below) will also be adopted with the Plan.

2.1. Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District Specific Plan
The AHMUD Specific Plan is a component of the General Plan and focuses on the northwest and northeast corners of Montclair, along the Arrow Highway Corridor. Community engagement is a core part of this Specific Plan. The AHMUD Specific Plan is organized into two areas: AHMUD West and AHUMD east. The focus in AHMUD West is on Arrow Highway enhancements and new residential development west and south of San Antonio Channel Creek. The focus in AHMUD East is on Arrow Highway enhancements, a new public park, new development on the north and south side of Arrow Highway, and new development facing Central Avenue. The AHMUD Specific Plan incorporates public areas, such as greenways, a central park, private and public open spaces. It also increases mobility through updated streetways, transit, sidewalks, bike lanes, and more. The AHMUD Specific Plan includes phasing of public infrastructure such as improvements to streetscapes, San Antonio Channel Creek, and parks.

3. Project Objectives
The Plan includes the following key concepts/objectives:
▪ Create a green network for the city, mainly through the San Antonio Channel Creek connecting the western portion of the city from south to north with open parks, public space, and more to increase amenities and ecology.
▪ Use city streets for increased green and transit infrastructure for the public, with particular focus on the four main street corridors of Central Avenue, Holt Boulevard, Arrow Highway, and Mission Boulevard. These elements of the Plan (except along Arrow Highway, which is covered by the AHMUD Specific Plan) will be implemented through a Corridors Code that will define the zoning along these corridors, including objective design standards. The Corridors Code will be adopted with the Plan.
▪ For most of the city, preserve the existing pattern of uses and establishes improvements, polices, and protection for long-term maintenance of established neighborhoods. ▪ Create a transit-oriented downtown incorporating a new downtown north of the I-10 freeway.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 57 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 4 ▪ Transform the mall into a town center.
▪ Preserve and enhance the current industrial areas.

These key concepts/objectives will help fulfill the vision of the City of Montclair.

Based on its objectives and input from the community, the Plan includes the overarching purposes listed below to guide Plan policies and City decision-making. Each purpose is a vision statement that provides general direction for the chapter. The policies are specific statements that guide decisionmaking. ▪ Our Natural Community. Promote and ensure equitable access to clean air and water, parks and open space, and develop an integrated green infrastructure. ▪ Our Prosperous Community. Attract and retain jobs within growth industries; nurture small entrepreneurial businesses; redevelop underutilized properties along key corridors and districts; and build the City’s fiscal capacity.
▪ Our Well Planned Community. Conserve and enhance stable areas, promote contextual infill, and direct new growth to downtown, Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District, and corridors. ▪ Our Accessible Community. Transportation networks support and encourage mobility and broader community goals of safety, health, economic development, and environmental sustainability.
▪ Our Healthy Community. Promote health and well-being for all through inclusive approaches where healthy habits are encouraged.
▪ Our Safe Community. Promote a safer community by minimizing threats to life from natural and man-caused hazards.
▪ Our Active Community. Promote and ensure inclusive and equitable access to a range of opportunities for physical activities including parks, open space, and recreation. ▪ Our Creative Community. Enhance our creative community through strengthening partnerships, integrating public art, creating and enhancing venues; and leveraging our creative economy.

4. Findings of Fact
Having received, reviewed, and considered the information in the Final EIR for this project (Plan), as well as the supporting administrative record, the City Council for the City of Montclair makes findings pursuant to, and in accordance with, Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

4.1. Environmental Effects Found Not to be Significant
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of the Project are less than significant and therefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 58 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 5

4.1.1. Aesthetics

4.1.1.1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Plan have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-6)
Explanation: The Plan does not propose specific development projects that would have a substantial negative impact on public views or scenic vistas. In addition, there are no adopted scenic vistas in the Plan Area. All future development would be required to comply with regulations and development review procedures that concern the protection of public views or scenic vistas.

Impacts to scenic vistas would therefore be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-6)

4.1.1.2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Plan substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-7)
Explanation: There are no officially designated scenic highways in the Plan Area. Implementation of the Plan would not affect scenic resources in a state scenic highway viewshed. In addition, all future development would be required to comply with City development review procedures that concern the preservation of scenic resources. As future projects are proposed and considered by the City they will be required to adhere to City development review procedures; therefore, the Plan’s potential impact on scenic resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-7)

4.1.1.3. Visual Character
Threshold: Would the Plan, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public view of the site and its surroundings? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-8)
Explanation: Development and redevelopment that may occur under the Plan would be governed by Policy P1.1, Policy P3.2, Policy P3.3, Policy P5.4 and Policy P5.9, which would be applied and enforced through the City’s standard development review procedures. These plans and procedures work together to protect Montclair’s aesthetic resources and are a means to retain the community’s character, while providing enhancements in certain areas of the City. Impacts to the visual character and quality of the Plan Area would therefore be less than significant with implementation of applicable policies and regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-8)

4.1.1.4. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Plan create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-11)
Explanation: The Plan Area is already developed and a substantial amount of ambient light from urban uses already exists. Implementation of the Plan would primarily result in revitalization and enhancements that would include intensification and reuse of already-developed sites. Thus, the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 59 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 6 Plan would not in itself significantly increase light and glare beyond levels already allowed under the current General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.1-11)

4.1.2. Agriculture And Forest Resources

4.1.2.1. Farmland Conversion
Threshold: Would the Plan convert Primate Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-6)
Explanation: The plan area is almost entirely developed with urban uses and does not contain farmland, land zoned for agricultural use, or land under Williamson Act contract. Implementation of the Plan would not result in the conversion of farmland, a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, or the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, and there would be no impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-6)

4.1.2.2. Agricultural Zoning
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-6)
Explanation: The plan area is almost entirely developed with urban uses and does not contain farmland, land zoned for agricultural use, or land under Williamson Act contract. Implementation of the Plan would not result in the conversion of farmland, a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, or the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, and there would be no impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-6)

4.1.2.3. Forestland Zoning
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-7)
Explanation: The Plan Area is almost entirely urbanized and does not contain forest land, timberland, or areas zoned for Timberland Production. The nearest forest land is the Angeles National Forest located approximately five miles north of the City, and this land is protected and managed by the USFS. Implementation of the Plan would not conflict with existing zoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, nor would it result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-7)

4.1.2.4. Loss of Forest Land
Threshold: Would the Plan result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 60 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 7 Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-7)
Explanation: The Plan Area is almost entirely urbanized and does not contain forest land, timberland, or areas zoned for Timberland Production. The nearest forest land is the Angeles National Forest located approximately five miles north of the City, and this land is protected and managed by the USFS. Implementation of the Plan would not conflict with existing zoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, nor would it result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. There would be no impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-7)

4.1.2.5. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland
Threshold: Would the Plan involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-6 and 4.2-7)
Explanation: The plan area is almost entirely developed with urban uses and does not contain farmland, land zoned for agricultural use, or land under Williamson Act contract. Implementation of the Plan would not result in the conversion of farmland, a conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, or the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use.

In addition, the plan area does not contain forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timber production. Implementation of the plan would not result in the loss or conversion of forest land or conflicts with existing zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland production. There would be no impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.2-6 and 4.2-7)

4.1.3. Air Quality

4.1.3.1. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the Plan result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.3-26)
Explanation: Individual development projects carried out under the plan would generate construction- and operation-related odors. Such emissions may result in temporary impacts to local air quality. Implementation of plan policies and compliance with existing regulations would reduce odor emissions to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR p. 4.3-26)

4.1.4. Biological Resources

4.1.4.1. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the Plan have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-19)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 61 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 8 Explanation: Reasonably foreseeable development carried out under the plan would not adversely impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities during project construction. Impacts would be less than significant with adherence to general plan policies along with compliance to state and federal regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.4-19 to 4.4-20)

4.1.4.2. Wetlands
Threshold: Would the Plan have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-19)
Explanation: Reasonably foreseeable development carried out under the plan would not adversely impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities during project construction. Impacts would be less than significant with adherence to general plan policies along with compliance to state and federal regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.4-19 to 4.4-20)

4.1.4.3. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the Plan interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-21)
Explanation: Development carried out under the plan would largely avoid impacts to wildlife movement corridors by emphasizing intensification/reuse of existing urbanized areas. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of general plan policies along with compliance with state and federal regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-21)

4.1.4.4. Local Policies and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-21)
Explanation: The Plan Area is not located in a habitat preservation or conservation Plan Area and is not within a designated Significant Ecological Area (SEA). No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans apply within the Plan Area. The City does not have a tree preservation or heritage tree ordinance. There would be no impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-21)

4.1.4.5. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-21)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 62 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 9 Explanation: The Plan Area is not located in a habitat preservation or conservation Plan Area and is not within a designated Significant Ecological Area (SEA). No Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans apply within the Plan Area. The City does not have a tree preservation or heritage tree ordinance. There would be no impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.4-21)

4.1.5. Cultural Resources

4.1.5.1. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Plan disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.5-16)
Explanation: Regulations exist to address the discovery of human remains. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If an unanticipated discovery of human remains occurs, the county coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant, who shall complete an inspection of the site and provide recommendations for treatment to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access. With adherence to existing regulations impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.5-16)

4.1.6. Energy

4.1.6.1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Plan result in potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or un-necessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.6-10)
Explanation: Neither construction nor operation of reasonably foreseeable development under the plan would result in a significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp.

4.6-10 to 4.6-12)

4.1.6.2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.6-12)
Explanation: The CAP would be consistent will all state plans, therefore the Plan would not conflict with any state plan. There are no other adopted energy conservation plans applicable to the City or Plan. Therefore, the Plan would result in no impact related to an inconsistency with adopted energy conservation plans. There would be no impact. (Draft EIR pp. 4.6-12 to 4.16-13) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 63 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 10 4.1.7. Geology And Soils

4.1.7.1. Fault Rupture
Threshold: Would the Plan directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction; or landslides? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.7-13)
Explanation: Future seismic events could produce ground shaking in the plan area that could damage structures and/or create adverse health and safety effects. However, with implementation of plan policies and required building codes, impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp.

4.7-13 to 4.7-14)

4.1.7.2. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Plan result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.7-15)
Explanation: Plan implementation could result in soil erosion during construction of development carried out under the plan; however, impacts would be less than significant with required adherence to existing regulation. (Draft EIR p. 4.7-15)

4.1.7.3. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Plan be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR p. 4.7-17) Explanation: Development carried out under the plan may result in the construction of structures on expansive soils that could create a substantial risk to life or property, but all new development would be required to comply with the standards of the CBC, which would ensure that expansive soils are remediated or that foundations and structures are engineered to withstand the forces of expansive soil. Compliance with these requirements would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR p. 4.7-17)

4.1.7.4. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Plan have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.7-17)
Explanation: Development carried out under the plan would not require the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and septic tanks would not be permitted; no impact would occur. (Draft EIR pp. 4.7-17 to 4.7-18)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 64 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11

4.1.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

4.1.8.1. Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would the Plan generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.8-17)
Explanation: With city adoption of the climate action plan (“CAP”), implementation of projects carried out under the plan would not increase per capita GHG emissions. The CAP is part of the plan and would reduce emissions over time. The Plan would therefore have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions with adoption of the CAP. (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-17 to 4.8-20)

4.1.8.2. Emission Reduction Plans
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.8-20)
Explanation: City emissions with implementation of the Plan would be consistent with the City and State goals for reducing GHG emissions by 2050, and therefore the Plan would be consistent with SB 23 and EO S-3-05. By promoting infill and mixed-use development, and alternative transportation modes, the Plan would be consistent with the major initiatives identified in the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS and the City’s CAP to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the Plan would result in percapita GHG emissions consistent with statewide targets, including the 2030 target codified in EO-B30-15. The Plan would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions, making this impact less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.8-20 to 4.8.-22)

4.1.9. Hazards And Hazardous Materials

4.1.9.1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Plan create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-15)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan could result in an increase in the overall routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in the plan area, but compliance with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of public exposure to these substances. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-15 to 4.9-17)

4.1.9.2. Accident or Upset
Threshold: Would the Plan create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-15)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 65 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 12 Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan could result in an increase in the overall routine transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials in the plan area, but compliance with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of public exposure to these substances. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-15 to 4.9-17)

4.1.9.3. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the Plan emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-17)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan could potentially result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. However, compliance with existing regulations would minimize the risks associated with exposure of sensitive receptors to hazardous materials. With continued implementation of these requirements on all new development in the Plan Area, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-17 to 4.9-18)

4.1.9.4. Waste Sites
Threshold: Would the Plan be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-18)
Explanation: Sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to government code section 65962.5 are present in the plan area and could be subject to development under the Plan. Development at these sites could create a hazard to the public or the environment, but Implementation of existing state and local regulations would reduce the potential significance of impacts related to contaminated sites to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pp. 4.9-18 to 4.9-21)

4.1.9.5. Public Airports
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Plan result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-21)
Explanation: A portion of the Plan Area is in compatibility zone E of the cable airport influence area, which contains some restrictions on development in this zone to help avoid safety hazards. additionally, the Plan states that aircraft noise is not a major noise source. As such, the Plan would not have substantial noise and safety impacts related to airports, and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-21)

4.1.9.6. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the Plan impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-22)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 66 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 13 Explanation: Policies included in the Plan address implementation of adopted emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, the Plan would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-22)

4.1.9.7. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Plan expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-23)
Explanation: The majority of the Plan Area is already developed and built out. Most development carried out under the Plan would be infill development and would not occur in areas highly susceptible to wildland fires. The Plan Area is not located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone according to the Fire Hazard Severity Zones Map (CALFIRE 2022). Impacts relating to wildland fires would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.9-23)

4.1.10. Hydrology And Water Quality

4.1.10.1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Plan violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-12)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan could increase pollutants in stormwater and wastewater, but implementation of Plan policies and existing regulations would ensure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would not be violated. (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-12 to

4.10-15)

4.1.10.2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Plan substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-15)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would increase water usage with increased development, but such increases would be less than significant because groundwater supply is not restricted. Development carried out under the Plan may also incrementally increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the plan area, resulting in increased runoff and decreased percolation to the chino sub-basin of the upper Santa Ana Valley groundwater basin. However, with implementation of plan policies and existing regulations, these impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp.

4.10-15 to 4.10-16)

4.1.10.3. Erosion or Siltation
Threshold: Would the Plan substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 67 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 14 Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-17) Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan could alter the existing drainage pattern in some parts of the plan area. However, implementation of goals and policies included in the plan, and enforcement of existing regulations, would protect the plan area’s existing drainage pattern from substantial alteration. (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-17 to 4.10-18)

4.1.10.4. Flooding
Threshold: Would the Plan substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-17)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan could alter the existing drainage pattern in some parts of the plan area. However, implementation of goals and policies included in the plan, and enforcement of existing regulations, would protect the plan area’s existing drainage pattern from substantial alteration. These impacts would therefore be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp.

4.10-17 to 4.10-18)

4.1.10.5. Runoff
Threshold: Would the Plan substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantially additional sources of polluted runoff or impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-17)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan could alter the existing drainage pattern in some parts of the plan area. However, implementation of goals and policies included in the plan, and enforcement of existing regulations, would protect the plan area’s existing drainage pattern from substantial alteration. (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-17 to 4.10-18)

4.1.10.6. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Plan risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-18)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would not site new major sources of pollutants within flood hazard zones or increase the risk of inundation of existing sources of pollutants. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-18)

4.1.10.7. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.10-19)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 68 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 15 Explanation: The Plan would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the basin plan or any existing groundwater management plan. (Draft EIR pp. 4.10-19 to 4.10-20)

4.1.11. Land Use And Planning

4.1.11.1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Plan physically divide an established community? Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.11-6)
Explanation: The Plan retains and continues Montclair’s existing street system. The Plan’s vision specifically includes stable residential neighborhoods and enhanced commercial corridors, thus protecting Montclair’s established communities. Therefore, the Plan would not divide an established community, and there would be no impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.11-6)

4.1.11.2. Conflicts With Plans
Threshold: Would the Plan cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.11-7)
Explanation: The Plan and its policies are consistent with SCAG’s RCP and RTP/SCS and the city’s municipal code and specific plans. The Plan would therefore not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. (Draft EIR pp. 4.11-7 to 4.11-10)

4.1.12. Mineral Resources

4.1.12.1. Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources
Threshold: Would the Plan result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.12-3)
Explanation: Although the Plan would accommodate new development in an area where significant mineral resources exist, the area is already built out and therefore impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.12-3)

4.1.12.2. Locally-Important Mineral Resource
Threshold: Would the Plan result in the loss of availability of a localy-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.12-3)
Explanation: Although the Plan would accommodate new development in an area where significant mineral resources exist, the area is already built out and therefore impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.12-3) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 69 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 16 4.1.13. Noise

4.1.13.1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the Plan result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.13-13)
Explanation: Projects carried out under the plan would not generate temporary or permanent noise levels increases in the vicinity of these projects in excess of established noise standards.

Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp. 4.13-13 to 4.13-15)

4.1.13.2. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.13-17)
Explanation: The plan would not expose people residing or working the plan area to excessive noise levels from airport land use. There would be no impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.13-17)

4.1.14. Population And Housing

4.1.14.1. Population Growth
Threshold: Would the Plan induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure?)
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.14-6)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would result in more growth than forecast by SCAG, but policies and actions included in the Plan would adequately address potential impacts from this projected population growth, and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p.

4.14-6)

4.1.14.2. Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Plan displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.14-7)
Explanation: Plan implementation would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of housing or people. On the contrary, the plan would facilitate the development of new housing in accordance with state and local housing requirements, while preserving existing residential neighborhoods. (Draft EIR p. 4.14-7 to 4.14-10)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 70 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 17

4.1.15. Public Services

4.1.15.1. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the Plan result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.15-3)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would increase the City’s population. This would increase demand for fire and emergency medical services and potentially create the need for new fire service facilities. However, compliance with policies in the plan and the Montclair Municipal Code, as well as other City programs, would reduce impacts related to fire protection facilities to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR p. 4.15-3 to 4.15-4)

4.1.15.2. 4.1.15.2. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the Plan result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.15-4)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would increase the City’s population. This would increase demand for police services and potentially create the need for new police service facilities. However, compliance with policies in the Plan and the MCC, as well as other City programs, would reduce impacts related to police protection services to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pp. 4.15-4 to 4.15-5)

4.1.15.3. Schools
Threshold: Would the Plan result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.15-5)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would increase the city’s population. This would increase enrollment in schools and potentially create the need for new school facilities.

However, compliance with policies in the plan and MCC, other City programs, and state-required payment of school impact fees, would reduce impacts related to schools to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pp. 4.15-5 to 4.15-7)

4.1.15.4. Parks
Threshold: Would the Plan result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 71 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 18 construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives ? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.15-7)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would increase the city’s population. This would increase use of parks and potentially create the need for new parks and recreation areas.

However, compliance with policies in the plan and MCC, other City programs, would reduce impacts from new or physically altered parks to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pp. 4.15-7 to 4.15-8)

4.1.15.5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the Plan result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other public facilities ?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.15-7)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would increase the city’s population. This would increase use of governmental facilities and potentially create the need for new governmental facilities. However, compliance with policies in the plan and MCC, other City programs, would reduce impacts from new or physically altered governmental facilities to a less than significant level.

4.1.16. Recreation

4.1.16.1. Increased Use
Threshold: Would the Plan increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.16-5)
Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan may increase the use of existing parks and open space, but policies in the Plan for providing additional recreational facilities, as well as city park dedication fees and development impact fees, would help offset these impacts, and substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities would not occur. (Draft EIR pp. 4.16-5 to 4.16-7)

4.1.16.2. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: Does the Plan include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.16-8)
Explanation: The Plan promotes the addition of parks and open spaces to the community.

However, implementation of the Plan policies and actions, as well as existing City programs and review processes, including project level CEQA review, would avoid potentially significant environmental impacts relating to the development of new parks or require adequate mitigation for such impacts. Therefore, physical impacts from additional recreational facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.16-8)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 72 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 19

4.1.17. Transportation / Traffic

4.1.17.1. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.17-24)
Explanation: The Mobility Element of the Plan provides a comprehensive system of bicycle lanes, trails, and pathways to enhance pedestrian, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian connectivity in the Plan Area. Thus, the Plan would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. (Draft EIR pp. 4.17-24 to 4.17-25)

4.1.17.2. VMT
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.17-25)
Explanation: Plan implementation would decrease the City of Montclair VMT/Service Population from 32.3 to 25.7 by 2040. The Cumulative VMT would also decrease from 13.17 to 9.08. The Plan would therefore have no impact, or even a beneficial impact, related to VMT. (Draft EIR p. 4.17-25)

4.1.17.3. Design Hazards
Threshold: Would the Plan substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.17-26)
Explanation: Through implementation of Plan policies and actions, the Plan would help ensure safe and efficient movement for all modes of travel and would therefore not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). (Draft EIR p. 4.17-26)

4.1.17.4. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Plan result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.17-26)
Explanation: The Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access because plan policies and actions would encourage ease of connectivity and ease of mobility throughout the city and emergency access would be improved. (Draft EIR pp. 4.17-26 to 4.17-27)

4.1.18. Utilities And Service Systems

4.1.18.1. Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Threshold: Would the Plan require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 73 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 20 telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.19-14 ) Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would or may require increased or expanded water supplies and wastewater treatment, stormwater treatment, telecommunications, electric power, and natural gas supplies and facilities. However, compliance with policies in the Plan, the Montclair Municipal Code, and other city programs, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pp. 4.19-14 to 4.19-19)

4.1.18.2. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Plan have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.19-14 ) Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would or may require increased or expanded water supplies and wastewater treatment, stormwater treatment, telecommunications, electric power, and natural gas supplies and facilities. However, compliance with policies in the Plan, the Montclair Municipal Code, and other city programs, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pp. 4.19-14 to 4.19-17)

4.1.18.3. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the Plan result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.19-14 ) Explanation: Development carried out under the Plan would or may require increased or expanded water supplies and wastewater treatment, stormwater treatment, telecommunications, electric power, and natural gas supplies and facilities. However, compliance with policies in the Plan, the Montclair Municipal Code, and other city programs, would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR pp. 4.19-14 to 4.19-19)

4.1.18.4. Solid Waste
Threshold: Would the Plan generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.19-20)
Explanation: Development carried out under the plan would increase the city’s population. this would increase solid waste generated in the plan area, but compliance with plan policies would help provide and maintain adequate and orderly systems for efficient collection and disposal of solid waste for existing and future development. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR pp.

4.19-20 to 4.19-21)
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 74 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 21

4.1.18.5. Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: Will the Plan comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR p. 4.19-20)
Explanation: Development carried out under the plan would increase the city’s population. this would increase solid waste generated in the plan area, but compliance with plan policies would help provide and maintain adequate and orderly systems for efficient collection and disposal of solid waste for existing and future development. Impacts would be less than significant.

4.1.19. Wildfire

4.1.19.1. Response Plans
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Plan substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.20-5)
Explanation: The Plan Area is not located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone.

Furthermore, as a built-out community in an urbanized area, the Plan Area is not subject to substantial wildfire risk. Therefore, the Plan would have no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.20-5.)

4.1.19.2. Pollutant Concentrations
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Plan, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.20-5 )
Explanation: The Plan Area is not located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone.

Furthermore, as a built-out community in an urbanized area, the Plan Area is not subject to substantial wildfire risk. Therefore, the Plan would have no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.20-5.)

4.1.19.3. Infrastructure Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Plan require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 75 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 22 (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.20-5 )
Explanation: The Plan Area is not located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone.

Furthermore, as a built-out community in an urbanized area, the Plan Area is not subject to substantial wildfire risk. Therefore, the Plan would have no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.20-5.)

4.1.19.4. Runoff Risks
Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Plan expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Finding: No Impact. (Draft EIR p. 4.20-5)
Explanation: The Plan Area is not located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone.

Furthermore, as a built-out community in an urbanized area, the Plan Area is not subject to substantial wildfire risk. Therefore, the Plan would have no impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.20-5.)

4.2. Findings for Significant but Mitigated Effects
The following findings are hereby made by the City of Montclair City Council for the significant but mitigable environmental effects identified in the EIR related to biological resources (impacts related to special status species, particularly nesting birds and their habitat), cultural resources (impacts on archaeological resources), geology and soils (paleontological impacts), noise (impacts related to project construction vibration), and tribal cultural resources (impacts to unidentified tribal cultural resources).

4.2.1. Biological Resources

4.2.1.1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Plan have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.4-14.) Explanation: Two sensitive wildlife species have potential to occur within the Plan Area: pallid bat and burrowing owl. Pallid bats have been known to utilize man-made structures, and suitable habitat for burrowing owl occurs within the retention basins that border the San Antonio Creek channel in addition to vacant disturbed lots if there is some open space.

Sensitive plant species have the potential to occur in the mesic grasslands that grow in and near the water retention basins in the Plan Area. These species include prostrate vernal pool navarretia (Navarretia prostrata) [CRPR 1B.1], smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) [CRPR 1B.1], MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 76 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 23 salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana), [CRPR 2B.2], and San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum) [CRPR 1B.2]. No native communities occur within the Plan Area.

The Plan Area is largely urbanized, and the Plan would prioritize development on infill sites that have been previously developed and/or disturbed. All development within the Plan Area would be subject to the provisions of the various Federal and State natural resources regulations and their respective permitting processes. Individual future development projects would be subject to further environmental review and, as appropriate, project-specific mitigation.

Nesting and Migratory Birds
Nevertheless, reasonably foreseeable development carried out under the Plan could potentially adversely impact special-status species or their habitat. Local special-status species and nesting birds are expected to occur within the Plan Area during potential construction periods and may be affected by construction activity. The most identifiable potential direct impact to migratory species would involve the removal of vegetation, particularly trees that may serve as perching or nesting sites for migratory birds. This could occur in the existing landscape vegetation throughout the City.

Potential direct impacts related to City trees located within the Plan Area would be limited by the requirement to submit tree maintenance requests to the City.

Impacts related to the removal of vegetation not covered under the maintenance requests could have adverse effects on nesting migratory species. However, individual future developments would be subject to further development review, environmental review (for discretionary projects), and, as appropriate, project-specific mitigation. Compliance with the MBTA would ensure that migratory bird species are protected during buildout of proposed projects within the Plan Area.

The City does not have an existing ordinance specifically protecting biological resources (such as nesting birds or trees), but nesting birds are protected under existing Federal regulations, such as the MBTA and CFGC 3513, which would apply to any future development facilitated by the Plan.

Furthermore, environmental review would be required for future discretionary projects facilitated by the Plan to determine whether they would impact biological resources, and to require mitigation measures, if necessary, to avoid or reduce impacts to such resources. Compliance with existing laws and regulations (e.g., MBTA and CFGC), would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level.

The pallid bat is known to roost in trees and structures within the Plan Area. Potential to occur in the Plan Area are primarily limited to lower density urban/suburban areas. Project construction and activities including, but not limited to, ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and any activities leading to increased noise levels may have direct and/or indirect impacts on bats and their roosts.

However, with implementation of mitigation measures, direct and/or indirect impacts to specialstatus bat species would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Indirect Impacts to Special-Status Species and Sensitive Natural Communities Excavation, ground clearing, equipment and materials storage, access routes, and other activities could result in impacts on runoff and/or water quality, potentially affecting aquatic habitat.

Discharges or runoff from operation of individual projects that may be developed under the Plan may carry pollutants, while runoff from construction may carry excessive silt, petroleum, or other chemical contaminants. Such runoff can affect water quality which in turn can affect habitat quality and the species using the waters. However, best management practices (BMPs) would be used to avoid and minimize indirect impacts on water quality during construction and operation of projects developed under the Plan.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 77 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 24 Construction projects would be required to comply with various regulatory requirements related to storm water runoff during construction and operation to minimize the potential for pollutants to enter receiving waters. Projects would be required to comply with applicable State building code requirements, as well as State and federal agency regulations, as well as the provisions of the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit.

Future development built under the Plan greater than one acre in size would be subject to the SWRCB Construction General Permit and would be required to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include erosion and sediment control BMPs that would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit. Implementation of the required SWPPP would reduce the potential for eroded soil and any contaminants attached to that soil to contaminate a waterbody following a storm event.

The City is a permittee under the Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges Within the Coastal Watersheds of San Bernardino County, which also serves as a NPDES permit under the Federal Clean Water Act (NPDES No. CAS004001), as well as Waste Discharge Requirements under California law (the "Municipal NPDES permit"). Specific project development would be required to adhere to all requirements under the San Bernardino County MS4 permit. Reasonably foreseeable development under the Plan would be required to comply with Chapter 9.24.600 Storm Drainage and Runoff and Chapter 9.24.460 Sediment and Erosion Control of the Montclair Municipal Code.

Compliance with the regulations, permit requirements, and BMPs would prevent or minimize impacts related to water quality and ensure that construction and operation of all future development under the Plan would result in a less than significant impact to the degradation of aquatic habitat and species.

Implementation of the Plans’ goals and policies would ensure that projects carried out under the Plan would be completed in accordance with protecting and preserving special status species and their habitats. While these goals and policies generally aim at protecting special-status species, if vegetation and trees are to be trimmed or removed during project construction or if construction would occur near trees and vegetation, nesting birds could be impacted. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would be required for projects where mature trees and other habitat are present and construction activities are scheduled from early spring to late summer. With implementation of Plan goals and policies and Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential impacts to special-status species and sensitive habitat would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impacts would be less than significant with adherence to Plan goals and policies and Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.4-14 through 4.4-16.)
Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

BIO-1 Pre-Construction Biological Resources Reconnaissance Survey and Reporting
For projects that require vegetation removal, ground disturbance of unpaved areas, parking or staging of equipment or material on unpaved areas, access routes on unpaved areas, or rehabilitation or construction staging within 300 feet of unpaved areas (except for landscaped MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 78 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 25 developed areas) that contain or have the potential to support special-status species, sensitive natural communities, or suitable habitat to support special-status species, the following shall apply:

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist from a list of qualified wildlife biologists set forth by the City of Montclair shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct a biological resources reconnaissance survey of the site. The qualified biologist shall also meet the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Biologist surveying qualification requirements for avian species (including burrowing owl) in place at the time of application for the grading permit. The biological resources assessment shall characterize the biological resources present on the project site and evaluate the presence or absence of sensitive species and habitats.

If the biologist determines that special-status plant species may occur, focused surveys for specialstatus plants shall be completed in accordance with Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, March 20, 2018) and Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS, September 23, 1996). If it is determined that the project site has suitable habitat for special-status wildlife such as burrowing owl, focused surveys shall be conducted to determine presence/absence including species-specific surveys in accordance with CDFW or USFWS protocols for sensitive, State or federally listed species, respectively, that may occur. If the biologist determines that sensitive habitats and/or regulated aquatic resources may be present, additional focused studies to further assess and delineate the habitat (such as a formal jurisdictional determination for wetlands and waters) will be conducted.

A report shall be prepared that identifies 1) approximate population size and distribution of any sensitive plant or animal species, 2) any sensitive habitats or sensitive natural communities (such as wetlands or riparian areas), and 3) any potential impacts of proposed project on wildlife corridors.

Off-site areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the individual project shall also be surveyed. The report shall include site location, literature sources, methodology, timing of surveys, vegetation map, site photographs, and descriptions of on-site biological resources (e.g., observed and detected species, as well as an analysis of those species with the potential to occur on-site). The biological resources assessment report and surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, and any special status species surveys shall be conducted according to standard methods of surveying for the species as appropriate.

If sensitive species and/or habitat are absent from the individual project site and adjacent lands potentially affected by the individual project, a written report substantiating such shall be submitted to the City Planning Division prior to issuance of a grading permit, and the project may proceed without any further biological investigation.

If it is determined that a special-status species and/or habitats may be impacted by a project, the biological report shall identify additional mitigation measures such as avoidance, minimization, restoration, or compensation to reduce impacts to a less than significant level prior to issuance of a development permit from the City. In the case of ESA and/or CESA listed species consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW shall occur prior to issuance of a development permit from the City to determine measures to address impacts such as avoidance, minimization, restoration, or compensation. In the case of regulated aquatic resources, the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB will be consulted regarding their respective jurisdictions and any necessary permits obtained prior to issuance of a development permit from the City.

If the biologist determines that wildlife movement corridors are present on a project site, consultation with the appropriate agency (i.e., City, USFWS, and/or CDFW) shall occur prior to MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 79 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 26 issuance of a development permit from the City to determine measures to address impacts such as avoidance, minimization, restoration, or compensation. The analyses shall also describe project impacts to wildlife movement, considering the existing and post-project opportunities present to wildlife to enter and exit the project site.

BIO-2 Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification Construction activities initiated during the bird nesting season (February 1 through August 31) involving removal of trees, vegetation or other nesting bird habitat, including abandoned structures and other man-made features, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than three days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted on foot and shall include a 500-foot buffer around the construction site. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities (i.e., qualified biologist) selected from a list of qualified wildlife biologists set forth by the City of Montclair. The qualified biologist shall also meet the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Biologist surveying qualification requirements for avian species (including burrowing owl) in place at the time of application for the grading permit. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site, which shall be demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to demarcate the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/ nesting is completed, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist on the basis that the encroachment will not be detrimental to an active nest. A report summarizing the pre-construction survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist from a list of qualified wildlife biologists set forth by the City of Montclair. The qualified biologist shall also meet the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Biologist surveying qualification requirements for avian species (including burrowing owl) in place at the time of application for the grading permit. This report shall be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Proposed project site plans shall include a statement acknowledging compliance with the federal MBTA and CFGC that includes avoidance of active bird nests and identification of Best Management Practices to avoid impacts to active nests, including checking for nests prior to construction activities during February 1 to August 31 and what to do if an active nest is found so that the nest is not inadvertently impacted during grading or construction activities.

BIO-3 Pre-Construction Bat Surveys
To avoid the direct loss of bats that could result from removal of trees and/or structures that are confirmed to support a maternity bat roost (e.g., in cavities, under loose bark or in structures such as bridges and abandoned buildings), tree removal or structure demolition shall be scheduled between October 1 and February 28, outside of the maternity roosting season. If trees and/or structures must be removed during the maternity season (March 1 to September 30), a qualified bat specialist shall conduct a focused survey to identify those trees and/or structures proposed for disturbance that could provide hibernacula or nursery colony roosting habitat for bats.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 80 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 27 Each tree and/or structure identified as potentially supporting an active maternity roost shall be closely inspected by the bat specialist prior to tree disturbance to determine the presence or absence of roosting bats. If it is determined that a bat roost may be present, a Bat Avoidance Plan shall be prepared and approved by CDFW prior to issuance of a development permit from the City.

The Plan shall identify bat survey methods and materials and methods to exclude or prevent bats from using the roost without directly impacting any bats.

BIO-4 Worker Environmental Awareness Program and Construction Monitoring A biological monitor shall also conduct a pre-project environmental education program for all personnel working at the site, which shall be focused on conditions and protocols necessary to avoid and minimize potential impacts to biological resources. Prior to initiation of all construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status biological resources potentially occurring in the project area. This training will include information about the special-status species with potential to occur in the project area. The specifics of this program shall include identification of special-status species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of special-status resources, and review of the limits of construction and measures required to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employees, and other personnel involved with construction of the project. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer documenting they have attended the WEAP and understand the information presented to them. The crew foreman shall be responsible for ensuring crew members adhere to the guidelines and restrictions designed to avoid impacts to special-status species and sensitive natural communities.

4.2.2. Cultural Resources

4.2.2.1. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p.4.5-13) Explanation: Ground-disturbing activities associated with development carried out under the Plan have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface, particularly in areas not studied in a cultural resources investigation or when excavation depths exceed those attained previously for past development. The Plan does not contain goals, policies, or implementation programs related to archaeological resources.

Consequently, damage to or destruction of known or previously unknown archaeological resources could occur because of the project. Therefore, mitigation measures are required. Impacts would be MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 81 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 28 less than significant with adherence to Plan goals and policies and Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-8. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-13.)
Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

CUL-2 Phase I Archaeological Resources Study
For any project carried out under the General Plan Update, the City and/or project applicant shall investigate the potential to disturb archaeological resources. If the project will involve any ground disturbance (unless the project site is within soils that can be reliably demonstrated as being nonnative or artificial fill) a Phase I cultural resources study shall be performed by a qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for archaeology (National Park Service 1983). If a project would solely involve the refurbishment of an existing building and no ground disturbance would occur, this measure would not be required. The Phase I cultural resources study shall include a pedestrian survey of the project site and sufficient background research and field sampling to determine whether archaeological resources may be present. Archival research shall include a records search of the South Central Coastal Information Center no more than two years old and a Sacred Lands File search with the NAHC. The Phase I technical report documenting the study shall include recommendations that must be implemented prior to and/or during construction to avoid or reduce impacts on archaeological resources. The report shall be submitted to the City of Montclair for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits. Recommendations in the Phase I technical report shall be made Conditions of Approval and shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities.

CUL-3 Extended Phase I Testing
For any projects proposed within 100 feet of a known archaeological site and/or in areas identified as sensitive by a Phase I study [Mitigation Measure CUL-2], the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct an Extended Phase I (XPI) study to determine the presence/absence and extent of archaeological resources on the project site. XPI testing should comprise a series of shovel test pits and/or hand augured units and/or mechanical trenching to establish the boundaries of archaeological site(s) on the project site. If the boundaries of the archaeological site are already well understood from previous archaeological work, an XPI will not be required. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with local California Native American tribe(s).

All archaeological excavation shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist(s) under the direction of a principal investigator meeting the SOI’s PQS for archaeology (National Park Service 1983). If an XPI report is prepared, it shall be submitted to the City of Montclair for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented for all ground disturbance activities.

CUL-4 Archaeological Site Avoidance
Any identified archaeological sites (determined after implementing mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3) shall be avoided by project-related construction activities, where feasible. A barrier MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 82 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 29 (temporary fencing) and flagging shall be placed between the work location and any resources within 60 feet of a work location to minimize the potential for inadvertent impacts.

CUL-5 Phase II Site Evaluation
If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI (mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3) indicate the presence of archaeological resources that cannot be avoided by the project (Mitigation Measure CUL-4) and that have not been adequately evaluated for the NRHP or CRHR listing at the project site, the qualified archaeologist shall conduct a Phase II investigation to determine if intact deposits remain and if they may be eligible for the CRHR or qualify as unique archaeological resources. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with local California Native American tribe(s).

A Phase II evaluation shall include any necessary archival research to identify significant historical associations and mapping of surface artifacts, collection of functionally or temporally diagnostic tools and debris, and excavation of a sample of the cultural deposit. The sample excavation will characterize the nature of the sites, define the artifact and feature contents, determine horizontal and vertical boundaries, and retrieve representative samples of artifacts and other remains.

If the archeologist and, if applicable, a Native American monitor (see Mitigation Measure TCR-2) or other interested tribal representative determine it is appropriate, cultural materials collected from the site shall be processed and analyzed in a laboratory according to standard archaeological procedures. The age of the materials shall be determined using radiocarbon dating and/or other appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts, faunal remains, and other cultural materials shall be identified and analyzed according to current professional standards. The significance of the sites shall be evaluated according to the criteria of the CRHR. The results of the investigations shall be presented in a technical report following the standards of the California Office of Historic Preservation publication “Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Content and Format (1990 or latest edition).” The report shall be submitted to the City of Montclair for review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or construction permits. Recommendations in the Phase II report shall be implemented for all ground disturbance activities.

CUL-6 Phase III Data Recovery
Should the results of the Phase II site evaluation (Mitigation Measure CUL-5) yield resources that meet CRHR significance standards and if the resource cannot be avoided by project construction in accordance with CUL-4, the project applicant shall ensure that all feasible recommendations for mitigation of archaeological impacts are incorporated into the final design and approved by the City of Montclair prior to construction. Any necessary Phase III data recovery excavation, conducted to exhaust the data potential of significant archaeological sites, shall be carried out by a qualified archaeologist meeting the SOI PQS for archaeology according to a research design reviewed and approved by the City of Montclair prepared in advance of fieldwork and using appropriate archaeological field and laboratory methods consistent with the California Office of Historic Preservation Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for Archaeological Research Design, or the latest edition thereof. If the archaeological resource(s) of concern are Native American in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall confer with local California Native American tribe(s). If applicable, a Native American monitor shall be present.

As applicable, the final Phase III Data Recovery reports shall be submitted to the City of Montclair prior to issuance of any grading or construction permit. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout all ground disturbance activities.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 83 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 30 CUL-7 Cultural Resources Monitoring
If recommended by Phase I, XPI, Phase II, or Phase III studies [mitigation measures CUL-2, CUL-3, CUL-5, and/or CUL-6], the project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor projectrelated, ground-disturbing activities. If archaeological resources are encountered during grounddisturbing activities, mitigation measures CUL-4 through CUL-6 shall be implemented, as appropriate.

CUL-8 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 60 feet shall be halted and the project archaeologist meeting the SOI’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall immediately evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work may be warranted, such as data recovery excavation, to mitigate any significant impacts to historical resources. Any reports required to document and/or evaluate unanticipated discoveries shall be submitted to the City of Montclair for review and approval. Recommendations contained therein shall be implemented throughout the remainder of ground disturbance activities.

4.2.3. Geology and Soils

4.2.3.1. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Plan be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-16) Explanation: Soils underlying the Plan Area are not subject to liquefaction or landslides (CGS 2019). However, as shown in Figure 4.7-6, a large portion of the Plan Area is subject to land subsidence due to groundwater pumping (USGS 2019). Subsidence and ground collapse generally occur in areas with active groundwater withdrawal or petroleum production. The extraction of groundwater or petroleum from sedimentary source rocks can cause the permanent collapse of the pore space previously occupied by the removed fluid. Ground collapse and subsidence could impact the safety and durability of new development carried out under the Plan. Implementing the following mitigation measure would mitigate potential impacts related to subsidence. Impacts would be less than significant with adherence to applicable building codes and Mitigation Measure GEO-1. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-16.)
Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

GEO-1 Geotechnical Investigation
A Certified Engineering Geologist shall complete a geotechnical investigation of the soils and geologic condition of new development project sites located in areas of potential subsidence, as MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 84 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 31 identified by the USGS, to assess the potential for geologic hazards. The investigation shall provide recommendations for appropriate means of mitigating any potential geologic hazards identified, including expansive soils. Project construction shall implement the recommendations contained in the geotechnical investigation, which may include, but not limited to, site preparation, foundation, drainage control, soil corrosion, concrete slabs and flatwork, excavations, grading, and structural design. The geotechnical investigation and the construction plans incorporating its recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Montclair prior to issuance of construction related permits.

4.2.3.2. Paleontological Resources
Threshold: Would the Plan directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.7-18) Explanation: While neither the City’s currently adopted General Plan, nor the proposed Plan, identify paleontological resources in the Plan Area, sub-surface paleontological resources have been found throughout southern California, and therefore such resources may also potentially exist in Montclair. Excavations for new developments could possibly uncover a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature. Therefore, a mitigation measure is required. Impacts would be less than significant with adherence to Plan goals and policies and Mitigation Measure GEO-2. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-18 and 4.7-19.)
Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measure has been included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

GEO-2 Paleontological Assessment
In the event that paleontological resources (fossil materials) or unique geologic features are exposed during construction activities for future development, all construction work occurring within 50 feet of the project site find shall immediately stop until a qualified paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, can assess the nature and importance of the find. Depending upon the significance of the find, the paleontologist may record the find and allow work to continue, or may recommend salvage and recovery of the resource. All recommendations shall be made in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s 1995 guidelines and shall be subject to review and approval by the City. Work in the area of the find may only resume upon approval of a qualified paleontologist.

4.2.4. Noise

4.2.4.1. Vibration
Threshold: Would the Plan result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 85 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 32 Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-16) Explanation: Construction activities known to generate excessive groundborne vibration, such as pile driving, could be conducted by projects carried out under the Plan. Pile driving could result in annoyance to nearby human receptors. Additionally, operation of a pile driver within 25 feet of existing residential or historic structures could result in damage to these structures. However, pile driving is not typical to all construction sites. Typically, the greatest anticipated source of vibration during general project construction activities is from a vibratory roller. A vibratory roller creates vibration levels lower than both the structural damage threshold and the human annoyance threshold. However, because of the potential operation of other construction equipment such as pile drivers, vibration impacts associated with construction would be potentially significant before implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1.

Operation of projects carried out under the Plan would not include any substantial vibration sources from typical residential and commercial/retail land uses. However, as there are industrial/flex uses allowed under the Plan, onsite equipment could result in vibrational impacts which are unknown at this time. Therefore, operational vibration impacts could be significant at these uses before implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.

Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

NOI-1 Pile Driving
Where future development under the Plan requires the use of pile driving equipment, the developer shall provide the City with a noise and vibration study quantifying potential vibration levels from planned use of the pile driving equipment, and potential vibration impacts on nearby receptors. If vibration from pile driving cannot be reduced to below structural damage or human annoyance levels then an alternative method for construction shall be required at that location. The City shall review and approve the noise and vibration study before it approves the project.

NOI-2 Operational Activities
Where future development under the Plan would include operational activities that would result in perceptible offsite vibration, the developer shall provide the City with a noise and vibration study to quantify these vibration levels and their potential impacts on nearby receptors. Vibrational activities that exceed structural damage or human annoyance levels shall be mitigated to below regulatory levels through the implementation of vibration dampening features, increased distance between source and receptor, or other measures applicable to the nature of the operation. The City shall review and approve the noise and vibration study before it approves the project.

4.2.5. Tribal Cultural Resources

4.2.5.1. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 86 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 33 cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: (i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k); or (ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code section 5024.1? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 4.18-5) Explanation: Effects on tribal cultural resources (TCRs) can only be known once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed activity. New TCRs may be identified or established during implementation of the Plan, which is expected to occur over many years.

Therefore, as specific projects that would be carried out under the Plan are proposed, consultation with tribes under AB 52 would occur to determine if any TCRs may be impacted by specific projects.

If TCRs are identified during AB 52 consultation, impacts to any such TCRs would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated. Impacts would be less than significant with adherence to Plan goals and policies and Mitigation Measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 (Draft EIR, pp. 4.18-5 and 4.18-

6.)
Mitigation Measures
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the following mitigation measures have been included in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) that is to be adopted concurrently with these findings.

TCR-1 Native American Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for a proposed project, the City of Montclair (City) shall ensure that the project applicant retains the services of a tribal monitor(s) approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation to provide Native American monitoring during ground-disturbing activities. This provision shall be included on the proposed project contractor’s plans and specifications. Ground-disturbing activities are defined by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation as activities that may include but are not limited to pavement removal, potholing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, borings, grading, excavation, drilling, and/or trenching within the project area. The project site shall be made accessible to the monitor(s), provided adequate notice is given to the construction contractor and that a construction safety hazard does not occur. The monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) certification. In addition, the monitor(s) shall be required to provide insurance certificates, including liability insurance.

If evidence of tribal cultural resources is found during ground-disturbing activities, the monitor(s) shall have the capacity to halt construction in the immediate vicinity of the find to recover and/or determine the appropriate plan of recovery for the resource in consultation with a qualified archaeologist. The recovery process shall not unreasonably delay the construction process and must be carried out consistent with CEQA and local regulations.

Construction activity shall not be contingent on the presence or availability of a monitor, and construction may proceed regardless of whether or not a monitor is present on site. The monitor shall complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the day’s activities and general MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 87 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 34 observations and whether the Native American monitor believes they observed a TCR and what action they took. The on-site monitoring shall end when the project site grading and excavation activities are completed or prior to the completion if the monitor has indicated that the site has a low potential for tribal cultural resources.

TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources Upon discovery of any tribal cultural resources, the Native American monitor has the ability to halt construction activities in the immediate vicinity (within 50 feet) of the find until the find can be assessed. All tribal cultural resources unearthed during project construction activities shall be evaluated by the Native American monitor approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation and a qualified archaeologist. Construction work shall be permitted to continue on other parts of the project site while evaluation and, if necessary, additional investigations and/or preservation measures take place (CEQA Guidelines Section15064.5(f)). If the resources are Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation tribe shall coordinate with the landowner regarding treatment and curation of these resources. If a resource is determined by the qualified archaeologist to constitute a “historical resource” or “unique archaeological resource,” time allotment and funding sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance measures shall be made available through coordination between the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation and the project applicant. The treatment plan established for the resources shall be in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) shall be the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.

4.3. Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Effects
Public Resources Code 21081and 21081.5, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, require that the City of Montclair balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental effects when determining to approve a project. And if specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable.” A project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15065[a][3]). Significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality (impacts related to construction and operational emissions) and cultural resources (impacts on historical resources) were identified for the Plan. The following findings and statement of overriding considerations outlines the specific reasons to support the City of Montclair City Council recommendation for approval.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 88 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 35

4.3.1. Air Quality

4.3.1.1. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Plan conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Significant and unavoidable impact (Draft EIR, p. 4.3-17) Explanation: Long-term emissions associated with future development in the Plan Area in accordance with the Plan are those associated with mobile sources (vehicle trips) and stationary sources (electricity and natural gas). Emissions associated with individual projects, depending on project type and size, could exceed project-specific thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Such projects would be required to undergo independent, project-level review (including CEQA review when applicable) and include mitigation measures, if necessary, to address potentially significant impacts. Regardless, depending on the nature of the individual project, emissions may not be reduced to below regulatory levels.

Development facilitated by the Plan is projected to result in approximately 7,600 additional housing units in the Plan Area over the next 20 years. Based on Montclair’s estimated average household size of 3.85 persons (California Department of Finance 2021), this would lead to an increase of approximately 29,200 residents. Adding the 29,200 new residents cited above to the City’s 2021 population of 39,598, future residential growth facilitated by the proposed project is predicted to increase the City’s total population to 68,798, which is above SCAG’s 2040 population forecasts of 42,700 from the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2016). The addition of approximately 29,200 residents would lead to an approximately 73.7 percent increase in population over the next 20 years.

Therefore, the Plan would induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly.

The Land Use and Community Design chapter of the Plan includes the following policies to promote re-use, infill, and mixed-use development such as P1.2, P1.3, P1.4, P1.5, P3.2, P3.3, P3.4, P3.5, and P3.6. The Plan calls for redevelopment and increased residential density through infill and mixeduse development. By increasing the overall population density of the community, encouraging mixed land uses, and improving the City’s jobs/housing balance, implementation of the Plan would largely reduce per capita automobile trips and travel distances as compared to existing conditions or lower density development more widely distributed throughout the community. This would generally reduce per capita air pollutant emissions associated with vehicle use.

Consistency with AQMP Control Measures
Consistency with the 2016 AQMP is also a function of consistency with applicable AQMP control measures. The AQMP includes specific control measures to reduce air pollutant emissions to meet Federal and State air quality standards. One of the most important methods the AQMP relies on to achieve its goals is the use of Transportation Control Measures (TCM). TCMs are defined in the 2016 AQMP as “measures for the purpose of reducing emissions or concentrations of air pollutants from transportation sources by reducing vehicle use or changing traffic flow or congestion conditions.” TCMs are described in SCAG’s Final 2016 RTP/SCS. As discussed above, implementation of the Plan would reduce per capita VMT over existing and future without Plan conditions, which would be consistent with the goals of the AQMP. Regardless, because development facilitated by the Plan is anticipated to exceed the growth forecasts upon which the AQMP is based, the Plan would not be consistent with the current AQMP. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 89 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 36 Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce operational emissions, but not necessarily below applicable levels of significance. This potential environmental effect is therefore significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-17 to 4.3-18) Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Tier 4 and Alternatively Fueled Equipment
All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) greater than 50 horsepower used during construction activities shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards. In the event of specialized equipment where Tier 4 Final equipment is not commercially available at the time of construction, the equipment shall meet Tier 3 standards at a minimum. Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane, electric, etc.) construction equipment shall be incorporated where available. Where electric vehicles are feasible, electrical vehicles shall be incorporated into the construction fleet.

These requirements shall be incorporated into the contract agreement with the construction contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification or model year specifications shall be available upon request for all equipment onsite. All equipment less than 50 horsepower shall be alternatively fueled. Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used.

AQ-2 Architectural Coating
All architectural coating phases shall be extended, or Low/zero VOC coatings shall be implemented such that emissions are reduced to below 75 lbs/day.

AQ-3 Hearth
Multi-family residential developments shall not incorporate wood or natural gas fireplaces. Electric fireplaces are allowable under this mitigation measure.

4.3.1.2. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Plan result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Plan region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
Finding: Significant and unavoidable impact (Draft EIR, p 4.3-19) Explanation
Construction
Construction activity facilitated by the Plan would cause temporary emissions of various air pollutants. O3 precursors NOx and CO would be emitted by the operation of construction equipment, while fugitive dust (PM10, and PM2.5) would be emitted by activities that disturb the soil, such as grading and excavation, road construction, and building construction.

Depending upon the type, size, and timeframe of development, maximum daily emissions associated with individual projects could potentially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Plan policies P1.2 and P1.3 would reduce the overall level of air quality impacts related to construction MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 90 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 37 during the Plan period. In addition, the SCAQMD has established Rules 402 and 403, which strive to eliminate emissions of airborne pollutants and require project-specific control measures designed to reduce the level of fugitive dust entrainment, respectively. Rule 403 specifically requires the use of best available control measures for all construction activities. The major construction phases or elements specifically addressed by Rule 403 to reduce fugitive dust include earth moving, disturbed surface areas, unpaved roads, open storage piles, demolition, and other various construction activities. Rule 403 compliance by individual property owners, developers, or contractors would reduce temporary construction-related air pollutant emissions. Furthermore, each project carried out under the Plan would be required to implement additional mitigation if project-specific analysis identifies the potential to exceed the applicable construction-related air pollutant emission thresholds.

Emissions from construction activities for individual industrial/retail, office, and residential projects are anticipated to exceed regulatory thresholds for ROG emissions, therefore emissions would be potentially significant without the implementation of mitigation.

Operation
Depending upon the type, size, and timeframe of development, maximum daily emissions associated with individual projects could potentially exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. Plan policies encouraging enhancements to building energy efficiencies and reduction in VMT would reduce the overall level of air quality impacts related to operational activities. In addition, the SCAQMD has established Rule 1113, which reduces ROG emissions from architectural coating activities. Furthermore, each project carried out under the Plan would be required to implement additional mitigation if project-specific analysis identifies the potential to exceed the applicable operational-related air pollutant emission thresholds. Adherence to applicable Plan policies and SCAQMD rules would reduce operational- related impacts to the greatest extent possible. However, given the unknown specifics of each project, there is the potential that even with these measures, operational impacts would remain significant and unavoidable and therefore would result in cumulatively conservative impacts. Net emissions from Plan implementation at buildout would result in a decrease in overall emissions for ROG, NOx, and CO but would increase emissions of SOx, PM10 and PM2.5. Emissions from individual projects under the Plan would result in operational emissions based on the activities of each project. Table 4.3-7 of the Draft EIR shows regional operational emissions based on sample projects identified to provide for a conservative amount of annual growth as detailed in the methodology section above. As shown, the conservative sample residential development would result in emissions above SCAQMD regulatory thresholds for NOx.

No other individual sample projects exceed regulatory thresholds for any criteria pollutants.

Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce operational and construction emissions, but not below applicable levels of significance. This potential environmental effect is therefore significant and unavoidable.

4.3.1.3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Plan expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Finding: Significant and Unavoidable impact (Draft EIR, p 4.3-22) MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 91 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 38 Explanation: Implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce operational and construction emissions, but not below applicable levels of significance. This potential environmental effect is therefore significant and unavoidable.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, exhaust emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would be reduced from the that of a standard construction fleet. The reduction of exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 reduces DPM emissions from the operation of diesel construction equipment. The reduction of DPM reduces cancer and non-carcinogenic risk to nearby sensitive receptors to less than significant levels.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-3, PM10 and PM2.5 emissions could be reduced to below regulatory thresholds and therefore would be less than significant. However, given the unknown specifics of each individual project, there is the potential that even with these measures, operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Tier 4 and Alternatively Fueled Equipment
All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or tracked) greater than 50 horsepower used during construction activities shall meet the USEPA Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4 certification can be for the original equipment or equipment that is retrofitted to meet the Tier 4 Final standards. In the event of specialized equipment where Tier 4 Final equipment is not commercially available at the time of construction, the equipment shall meet Tier 3 standards at a minimum. Alternative Fuel (natural gas, propane, electric, etc.) construction equipment shall be incorporated where available. Where electric vehicles are feasible, electrical vehicles shall be incorporated into the construction fleet.

These requirements shall be incorporated into the contract agreement with the construction contractor. A copy of the equipment’s certification or model year specifications shall be available upon request for all equipment onsite. All equipment less than 50 horsepower shall be alternatively fueled. Electricity shall be supplied to the site from the existing power grid to support the electric construction equipment. If connection to the grid is determined to be infeasible for portions of the project, a non-diesel fueled generator shall be used.

AQ-3 Hearth
Multi-family residential developments shall not incorporate wood or natural gas fireplaces. Electric fireplaces are allowable under this mitigation measure.

4.3.2. Cultural Resources

4.3.2.1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Finding: Significant and Unavoidable impact (Draft EIR, p 4.5-11) Explanation: Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, future reasonably anticipated development activities carried out under the General Plan Update would have a significant impact on historical resources if they would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. There is one known historical resource that is listed in NRHP and CRHR and one resource determined eligible for the NRHP, listed in the CRHR, and designated locally as a Landmark in Montclair. In addition to these known historical resources, there may be other yet MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 92 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 39 unidentified resources which are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR or for designation as a local Landmark. The Plan would guide the general distribution, location, and extent of the various land uses in the city. New residential, commercial, and industrial uses would be implemented by new development and the conversion of existing properties to new uses. Changes to the transportation network would include the redesign of streets and streetscapes, while public spaces would be enhanced through the development of green network of creeks, trails, open spaces, parks, and green streets. Potential future development occurring under the Plan may include site preparation, demolition and construction activities. These activities could have the potential to result in the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of potential historical resources. Therefore, mitigation is required.

Mitigation Measures identified in EIR would reduce impacts to historical resources, but even with implementation of this mitigation measure, historical resources could still be materially impaired by future development that carried out under the General Plan. This potential environmental effect is therefore significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measures
CUL-1 Historical Resources
A historical resources evaluation shall be prepared for any discretionary project carried out under the General Plan Update involving the demolition or physical alteration of any building, structure, object, or other built environment feature that is 45 years of age or older. The evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (PQS) in architectural history or history. The qualified architectural historian or historian shall conduct an intensive-level evaluation in accordance with the guidelines and best practices promulgated by the State Office of Historic Preservation to identify any potential historical resources within the proposed development site. All properties 45 years of age or older shall be evaluated within their historic context and documented in a report meeting the State Office of Historic Preservation guidelines. All evaluated properties shall be documented on Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms. The report will be submitted to the City for review and concurrence. If the property is already listed in the NRHP, CRHR, or as a Landmark in Montclair, the historical resources evaluation described above shall not be required.

If historical resources are identified within the development site of a proposed development, efforts shall be made to the extent feasible to ensure that impacts are mitigated. Application of mitigation shall generally be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS, unless unnecessary in the circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, the historical resources evaluation report shall also identify and specify the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities.

Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent feasible to ensure that the relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of Historic Properties (Standards). In accordance with CEQA, a project that has been determined to conform with the Standards generally would not cause a significant adverse direct or indirect impact to historical resources (14 CCR § 15126.4(b)(1)). Application of the Standards shall be overseen by a qualified architectural historian or historic architect meeting the PQS. In conjunction with any development application that may affect the historical resource, a report identifying and specifying the treatment of character-defining features and construction activities MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 93 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 40 shall be provided to the City for review and concurrence. As applicable, the report shall demonstrate how the project complies with the Standards and be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits.

If significant historical resources are identified on a development site and compliance with the Standards and or avoidance is not possible, appropriate site-specific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. Mitigation measures may include documentation of the historical resource in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-Like report. The report shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation and shall generally follow the HABS Level III requirements, including digital photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research.

The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the PQS and submitted to the City prior to issuance of any permits for demolition or alteration of the historical resource.

4.4. Findings for Cumulative Impacts
Regarding the Project’s potential to result in cumulative impacts, the City hereby finds as follows:

4.4.1. Aesthetics
Future development carried out under the Plan, including a new transit-oriented downtown, in an existing developed area, could result in aesthetic impacts. Such impacts would be site-specific and would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis at the project level in accordance with each proposed project. Each discretionary project would require separate discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would address potential impacts to visual resources and identify necessary mitigation measures, where appropriate. These projects taken together as a whole would increase the impression of urbanization and development in the Plan Area but, this development would be in response to market demand and would be strategically focused in areas that have been determined by the com-munity through the Plan development process (including public involvement) to preserve existing neighborhoods and improve the focus areas. Consequently, future development carried out under the Plan would not result in significant cumulative environmental impacts in conflict with aesthetics requirements for preserving visual character, public views, scenic vistas and resources, or requirements for minimizing and controlling potential light and glare.

Therefore, the General Plan would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on aesthetics. (Draft EIR 4.1-11)

4.4.2. Agriculture And Forestry Resources
The areas surrounding Montclair are largely urbanized, though there are several isolated plots of Farmland to the south and east in neighboring jurisdictions (and outside of the City’s SOI) that are surrounded by existing urban development. Cumulative development in the region has the potential to result in the conversion nearby Farmland or forest land to urban uses. Individual projects in the surrounding areas would be assessed for potential impacts to agriculture and forestry resources and would be required to implement mitigation in accordance with any applicable state and local policies. Additionally, because the Plan would not directly or indirectly contribute to farmland or forestland conversion, it would not contribute to a cumulative impacts on these resources.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 94 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 41 Implementation of the Plan would not result in a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact to agriculture and forestry resources. (Draft EIR 4.2-7).

4.4.3. Air Quality
Plan related air pollution may combine with other cumulative projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future) to violate criteria pollutant standards if the existing background sources cause nonattainment conditions. Air districts manage attainment of the criteria pollutant standards by adopting rules, regulations, and attainment plans, which comprise a multifaceted programmatic approach to such attainment. The Plan itself is cumulative in nature as it represents growth through the Plan Area over approximately 20 years. The Plan is not one individual project, but a number of as yet undefined future projects that may occur under the Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts with respect to air quality would be identical to the individual impacts addressed above for the Plan. (Draft EIR 4.3-26).

4.4.4. Biological Resources
Special-Status Species, Sensitive Habitats, and Wetlands The Plan’s contribution to cumulative impacts to special-status species and sensitive habitats would be cumulatively considerable without mitigation. As development occurs in the less undeveloped portions of the Plan Area, habitat for biological resources would continue to be converted to urban development. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would reduce direct and indirect impacts to wildlife and sensitive vegetation and habitat to less than significant levels.

If a future project carried out under the Plan resulted in removal of sensitive vegetation, then compensatory mitigation may be required depending on the amount of vegetation impacted, which would ensure no net loss of habitat following implementation of the project. Any proposed development in areas identified as jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands, streambed/banks, or riparian vegetation would be subject to the permit requirements of the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, pursuant to Section 404 of CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Therefore, the Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to sensitive habitats and wetlands.

Individual project compliance of any project in the City would be required to comply with the MBTA and CFGC, which would ensure that the Plan would not make a significant contribution to cumulative impacts to migratory birds. (Draft EIR 4.4-22).

Wildlife Movement
Development under the Plan could affect wildlife movement corridors (San Antonio Creek) and nursery sites (such as those for bats), and the Plan could make a contribution to impacts to wildlife corridors and nursery sites. However, most of the City’s landscape does not facilitate the movement of wildlife species that are not adapted to move through urban and suburban areas. Impacts to the San Antonio Creek channel would be covered under permitting requirements specified under Impact BIO-1 and Impact BIO-2. Potential impacts to bats would be mitigated to a less than significant level by Mitigation Measure BIO-3. With adherence to permitting requirements and mitigation measures in this EIR, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative impacts to wildlife movement corridors and nursery sites (Draft EIR 4.4-22).

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 95 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 42 4.4.5. Cultural Resources
Cumulative development across the Plan Area could disturb areas that may potentially contain historical and archaeological resources. The potential for impacts from individual projects is generally site-specific and depends on the location and nature of each individual project. Individual projects implemented under the Plan would continue to be subject to applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Individual projects implemented under the Plan have the potential to result in impacts to historical and archaeological resources. While mitigation would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant, and mitigation would reduce impacts to built environment historical resources to the greatest extent feasible, there is still potential for impacts to built environment historical resources to be significant and unavoidable even after mitigation.

Therefore, the potential for cumulative impacts to historical resources is significant and unavoidable, and the proposed program’s contribution to such impacts would be cumulatively considerable. (Draft EIR 4.5-17).

4.4.6. Energy
The Energy Chapter of the EIR compares energy use at regional, state, and national levels. All state and federal regulations that apply to the Plan will also apply to all other development outside the Plan Area. Local regulations similar to the Plan and its policies would apply to development outside the Plan Area. For all these reasons, the impacts discussed in this section are cumulative in nature and therefore the policies contained in the Plan would reduce cumulative energy impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR 4.6-13).

4.4.7. Geology and Soils
Exposure to some geologic hazards is site-specific. For example, development on one property would not increase exposure to hazards such as fault rupture and seismic shaking on another property, and therefore there would no potential for cumulative impacts. Potential impacts to paleontological resources are also site-specific. Other hazards, such as soil erosion or loss of topsoil, are more cumulative in nature. For example, development on multiple properties in a watershed may combine to create a cumulative impact related to increased runoff and erosion from impervious surfaces. Projects carried out under the Plan may increase the potential for runoff, soil erosion or unstable soils, but implementation of the policies and actions contained in the Plan, combined with compliance with existing laws and regulations, would reduce project-level impacts to a level of “no impact” or “less than significant impact.” For all the reasons discussed above, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative geology and soils impacts. (Draft EIR 4.7- 19).

4.4.8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The vast majority of projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to create a project-specific impact through a direct influence on climate change; therefore, the issue of climate change for the Plan involved an analysis of whether a Plan’s contribution toward an impact is cumulatively considerable. The Plan itself is cumulative in nature as it represents growth through the Plan Area over approximately the next 20 years. The Plan is not one individual project, but a number of as yet undefined future projects that may occur under the Plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts with MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 96 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 43 respect to greenhouse gas emissions would be identical to the individual impacts addressed above for the Plan. (Draft EIR 4.8-23).

4.4.9. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials
Development carried out under the Plan may increase the potential for community risk from hazards and hazardous materials. However, all individual developments carried out under the Plan would be subject to Plan policies and existing laws and regulations which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Since all projects carried out under the Plan would be subject to these policies and regulations, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Plan would not combine with any other projects to substantially increase hazards and hazardous materials impacts, especially since projects outside the Plan Area would be subject to local, state, and federal regulations relating to hazards and hazardous materials. Overall, with implementation of the policies and actions included in the Plan and compliance with existing laws and regulations, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts, and these cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR 4.9-23).

4.4.10. Hydrology and Water Quality
Policies contained in the Plan would reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level and thus the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to any cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts. (Draft EIR 4.10-20).

4.4.11. Land Use and Planning
The Plan is consistent with SGAG’s regional policies including those in the 2020 RTP/SCS and the 2008 RCP. These SCAG policies in turn apply to local jurisdictions throughout the SCAG region and address the cumulative land use and planning impacts of future development across the region.

Therefore, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to any cumulative impact related to land use and planning. (Draft EIR 4.11-10).

4.4.12. Mineral Resources
Mineral resources are finite and demand for them extends beyond the Plan Area. Impacts from the loss of mineral resources could combine with such impacts in other geographical areas to create a cumulative impact. However, for the reasons discussed in Impact MIN-1, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to any cumulative impacts related to mineral resources, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR 4.12-4).

4.4.13. Noise
Construction noise and vibration are localized and rapidly attenuate within an urban environment.

Although multiple development projects under the Plan may be under construction at the same time, these projects would not typically be in close enough proximity to each other such that noise and vibration from construction activities would significantly impact the same sensitive receivers and structures at the same time. Noise and vibration impacts to receivers that are not in the immediate vicinity of an individual project would be reduced due to existing intervening structures MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 97 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 44 that would block the line of sight, distance attenuation, and sensitivity to noise for the affected land use. Construction noise is not anticipated to exceed applicable thresholds with the implementation of Plan policies. Therefore, noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Vibration impacts would be less than significant with mitigation and would not be cumulatively considerable.

Cumulative projects in the surrounding area would include similar operational noise sources as development expected under the Plan (e.g., HVAC, parking activities). Like construction noise and vibration, operational noise and vibration from these sources is localized and rapidly attenuates within an urbanized setting due to the effects of intervening structures and topography that block the line of sight and other noise sources closer to receivers that obscure project-related noise. Plangenerated traffic would generate an increase of up to approximately 1.5 dBA at adjacent roadways; however, this increase is not considered cumulatively substantial. It is not anticipated that multiple individual projects developed simultaneously under the Plan would be in close enough proximity to each other such that operational noise and vibration would significantly impact the same sensitive receivers. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively considerable noise impacts related to operational noise and vibration associated with the proposed project. (Draft EIR 4.13-17).

4.4.14. Population and Housing
Policies contained in the General Plan would be consistent with SCAG policies and plans, and that the Plan would reduce potential population and housing impacts at the Plan level to a less than significant level. This consistency with regional plans and policies would also ensure that the Plan not make a substantial contribution to any population and housing impact at the regional or any other cumulative level. (Draft EIR 4.-14-10).

4.4.15. Public Services
Policies contained in the Plan would reduce cumulative impacts to public services to a less than significant level, and the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to any cumulative public services impacts. (Draft EIR 4.15-18).

4.4.16. Recreation
Montclair residents, like all residents of the region, would have access to recreational resources outside of the Plan Area as well as the parks and open space within the Plan Area. These regional recreational resources would help meet some of the demand for recreational facilities created by population growth under the Plan and other regional growth but may also experience some increased use due to that population growth. However, the additional recreational resources envisioned under the Plan (as discussed in Impact REC-1) would help offset this demand, as would both current and planned future recreational facilities in other communities. The Plan would thus not make a substantial contribution to cumulative impacts to regional recreation facilities and resources. (Draft EIR 4.16-9).

4.4.17. Transportation
The General Plan Update would not make a substantial contribution to, or result in, a significant cumulative transportation impact. (Draft EIR 4.17-27).

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 98 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 45

4.4.18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal cultural resources are regionally specific and determined by the consulting tribes. To ensure protection of tribal cultural resources, tribal cultural resource consultation in accordance with AB 52 would occur for project-specific activities that have the potential to affect tribal cultural resources when a project is identified. Cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would therefore be less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR 4.18-6).

4.4.19. Utilities And Service Systems
Water Supply
While there is enough MVWD projected supply to meet projected Plan demand, the additional growth expected under the Plan may not have been fully accounted for in MVWD’s 2020 UWMP.

However, as discussed in Impact U-1, various factors, including Plan policies, the infill nature of development expected under the Plan, and the fact that Plan growth would be consistent with expected market demand and other regional planning documents such as the RHNA, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The Plan would therefore not make a substantial contribution to a cumulatively significant impact related to water supply. (Draft EIR 4.19-21).

Wastewater
Existing wastewater treatment facilities (Regional Water Recycling Plant #1 and #5 and Carbon Canyon Water Recycling Facility) have adequate existing capacity to take the additional flows proposed under expected Plan growth, and both Regional Water Recycling Plant #1 and #5 are proposing additional capacity upgrades in anticipation of future regional demands.

The most recent sewer capacity assessment prepared for the City, the 2017 Sewer Master Plan, identified sewer infrastructure with insufficient conveyance capacity based on assumed buildout conditions. These deficiencies have been identified by the City of Montclair and they have a formal process to ensure functionality of the sewer system and that any priority upgrades, including unforeseen upgrades necessary as part of General Plan or individual Specific Plan buildout, are addressed in a time efficient manner. No other wastewater generated outside the Plan Area feeds into these facilities, so the Plan-level analysis accounts for all cumulative impacts to these facilities.

Therefore, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to a cumulatively significant impact related to wastewater treatment. (Draft EIR 4.19-21).

Electric Power and Gas
Increases in demand in electricity under General Plan buildout are anticipated to be adequately served by regional infrastructure. While new on-site infrastructure and connections may be constructed, it is not anticipated that any upgrades or changes to regional transmission infrastructure will be required. As with Plan-level impacts, reasonably foreseeable development in areas outside the Plan Area may require installation of additional electrical and natural gas connections outside the Plan Area. Such facilities would be installed during individual project construction and would be paid for by ratepayers for those services.

According to the Plan, the CA Gas Report projected potential declines in demand across the reporting period as statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction programs and public pressure to switch to emissions-free energy sources become more prevalent. There are currently no existing or projected deficiencies in supplies or infrastructure across the SoCalGas service area given the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 99 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 46 current demand scenario, which includes the Plan Area. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to electric power and natural gas transmission facilities would be less than significant. Therefore, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to a cumulatively significant impact regarding electricity and natural gas. (Draft EIR 4.19-22).

Telecommunication
Cumulative development would increase demand for telecommunications infrastructure in the City.

However, cumulative projects would each be required to provide adequate telecommunications infrastructure on a project-by-project basis and would be subject to the same requirements as the project. Therefore, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to a cumulatively significant impact related to telecommunications infrastructure. (Draft EIR 4.19-22).

Solid Waste
While residential and commercial waste generation patterns may change as zoning and land use plans are incorporated into new development, local and statewide recycling and sustainability initiatives are anticipated to result in reduced generation at an individual level, and improved collection and disposal methods at a service provider level (City of Montclair 2021). The total daily tonnage of all new growth expected under the Plan would account for only 0.08 percent of the maximum permitted daily throughput for landfills serving the Plan Area. Therefore, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to cumulatively significant impact related to solid waste. (Draft EIR 4.19-22).

4.4.20. Wildfire
While Montclair is in a region where significant wildfire risks do exist in some areas, the Plan Area itself is not particularly susceptible to wildland fires because of the urbanized character of the Plan Area and its location in a fully urbanized region not directly adjacent to wildlands, leaving little to no property exposed to risk from wildland fires. The Plan would have no impact related to wildfires, and thus would make no contribution to any cumulative impact related to wildfires. (Draft EIR 4.20- 5).

5. Findings Regarding Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Sections 15126(c) and 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, require that an EIR address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would occur should the project be implemented.

Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following would occur:
• The project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; • The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses ;
• The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or
• The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

Construction and routine operation and maintenance of infrastructure and residential and nonresidential buildings consume energy, typically in the form of fossil fuels, natural gas and electricity. The use of building materials and energy also includes non-renewable resources.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 100 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 47 Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to Montclair or the Plan. New development in the City during the lifetime of the Plan would increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum and natural gas, although increasingly efficient building fixtures and automobile engines, and a State energy portfolio increasingly generated from renewable resources, as well as implementation of policies included in the Plan, are expected to offset this increased demand, either in whole or in part. For these reasons, and because of Montclair’s relatively small size compared to the region, growth carried out under the Plan would not significantly affect local or regional energy supplies. Plan policies P3.2 through P3.9 and P3.11, P3.13 through P3.16 from Chapter 3: Our Well Planned Community, encourage new developments to be more sustainable as well as the implementation of the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) and measures that will reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Growth carried out under the Plan would require an irreversible commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. Impacts to public services and utilities would be reduced to a less than significant level with adherence to Plan policies and federal, State, and regional regulations.

The additional vehicle trips associated with growth under the Plan would incrementally increase local traffic, noise levels, and regional air pollutant emissions. Implementation of policies included in the Plan promoting re-use and infill development and limiting future growth in population could reduce the air pollutant emissions associated with individual future development projects to below significance thresholds. Implementation of the CAP measures will decrease GHG emissions over time and accounts the General Plan growth.

Potentially significant impacts would result if the following occurred:

1. Result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;

2. Result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; and/or

3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Plan expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The City’s Municipal Code and Plan policies would address potentially significant noise and vibration activity associated with development under the Plan and reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Traffic generated as a result of development carried out under the Plan would be potentially significant if the following occurred:

1. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;

2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b);

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment); and/or

4. Result in inadequate emergency access.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 101 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 48 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is required metric to be used for identifying CEQA impacts instead of LOS. The City of Montclair and County of San Bernardino VMT per Service Population was calculated for the existing condition, future no project and future plus project using the San Bernardino County Traffic Analysis Model to establish Citywide threshold. The Plan generated VMT per service population does not exceed the threshold of 15 percent below County San Bernardino VMT per Service Population. In fact, VMT per service population is forecast to decrease under general plan buildout conditions (22.7) compared to the existing condition (32.7) and the future no project condition (32.3), indicating that the population is expected to travel in a more efficient manner.

Because of these measures, potentially significant impacts would be reduced based on the VMT metrics provided. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-3 to 5-7)

6. Findings Regarding Growth-Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e), a Project would be considered to have a growth-inducing effect if it would:
• Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
• Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);
• Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; or
• Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines that that growth inducement must not be assumed.

6.1. Population and Employment Growth
The Southern California Association of Government’s (SCAG’s) 2020 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) projects that the City’s population will increase from 37,900 in 2020 to 42,700 in 2040. The addition of about 4,800 residents over a 20-plus-year period would lead to a 2040 population about 15 percent higher than the 2020 population. SCAG forecasts that job growth in Montclair during the lifetime of the Plan would be about 1,600 jobs from 2020 to 2040, a 9.2 percent increase over 2020 levels, bringing total employment in Montclair to 19,000 jobs.

Development carried out under the Plan would potentially add 7,600 housing units to the City’s housing stock over the next 20 years. Based on Montclair’s estimated average household size of

3.85 persons (Department of Finance [DOF] 2020), this would lead to an increase of approximately 29,200 residents in the City. Adding these 29,200 new residents to the City’s 2021 population of 39,598 would increase the City’s total population to 68,798, which is above SCAG’s 2040 population forecasts of 42,700 from the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS (SCAG 2016). The addition of approximately 29,200 residents would lead to an approximately 73.7 percent increase in population over the next 20 years. Therefore, the Plan could induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 102 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 49 The Plan would, however, redistribute some of this forecast growth through creation of the Focus Areas of New Development described and shown on the proposed General Plan Land Use Map.

Generally, new development would result from re-use of properties, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., select industrial to commercial), and more intense use of land in defined areas. While there is relatively strong demand for a variety of land uses within Montclair, the actual amount and scale of development that can occur is limited by the amount of available land, financial feasibility of new development, fiscal priorities, and the level of acceptable density aligned with community character and vision. The location and amount of projected growth for the next 20 years in the Plan is a result of market study; careful block-block assessment of catalytic sites; design, fiscal, and financial feasibility; and community preference.

Additionally, policies in the Plan would help manage the use of land so that growth, development, and redevelopment occur in an orderly manner. Plan policies P3.3, P3.6 and P3.15 would guide growth in the City.

It is the specific purpose of the Plan to accommodate the orderly development of Montclair.

Therefore, by its nature, the Plan is intended to reduce the potential for uncontrolled growth in Montclair and the environmental impacts associated with uncontrolled growth. It should also be noted that, while the Plan would accommodate population growth beyond that forecast by SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS, it would also help meet the City’s RHNA allocation. The City’s RHNA allocation is 2,593 housing units by 2029.

SCAG’s 2020 RTC/SCS projects that the number of households in the City will grow by 1,400 over the next 20 years. Spread out over 20 years, this 1,400-household increase would equal 70 households per year. Over the eight-year span of the Housing Element/RHNA cycle, 70 households per year would equal 560 households. Equating households to housing units1 , 560 households over the eight year span of the Housing Element/RHNA cycle would fall well short of the City’s RHNA allocation of 2,593 housing units by 2029. The Plan therefore exceeds SCAG’s projections, at least in part, for the purpose of meeting the City’s RHNA allocation and the housing demand it represents. (Draft EIR, pp. 5-1 to 5-3)

6.2. Removal of Obstacles to Growth
Montclair is an urbanized community served by existing infrastructure. Existing infrastructure in Montclair would be adequate to serve development carried out under the Plan. There is no potential for the City to expand outward, as it is entirely surrounded by other cities in San Bernardino County and Los Angeles County, other than through annexation of already urbanized areas already within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI). Thus, all new development envisioned in the Plan would occur in Montclair’s current City limits or SOI. The Plan encourages preserving the Plan Area’s existing pattern of uses and establishing improvements, polices, and protections for long-term maintenance of established neighborhoods. Generally, most new development would result in re-use of properties, conversion of properties different uses in response to market demand (e.g., select industrial to commercial), and more intense use of land in defined focus areas. Growth in the Plan Area is anticipated to consist of infill development rather than development on greenfield sites. Furthermore, the Plan emphasizes bicycle connections and pedestrian-oriented focus areas; proposes focus areas and activity nodes help shape and distribute new development; promotes protecting the character of existing residential neighborhoods; and outlines the future role and form of Montclair’s public realm. In some cases, Plan implementation could lead to creation of new streets in already developed parts Montclair, but this would be to break up large scale super-blocks. Breaking up these large superblocks could remove obstacles to growth in these MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 103 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 50 areas, but for the purpose of facilitating planned development described in the Plan, not in a way that would lead to unplanned growth. (Draft EIR, p. 5-3)

7. Project Alternatives
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states the following:
“An EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project.

Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.”
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, mobility, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.

Where the City of Montclair has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures the project would still cause one or more significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided or lessened to below a level of significance, the City of Montclair must determine if there is a project alternative that is both environmentally superior and feasible. An alternative may be “infeasible” if it fails to achieve the most basic project objectives identified within the EIR.

Furthermore, “feasibility” under CEQA encompasses the desirability of the project “based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” of a project (City of Del Mar, supra, 133 Cal.App.3d at p. 417; see also Sequoyah Hills, supra, 23 Cal.Ap.4th at p. 715).

The Final EIR determined that the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts associated with air quality (impacts related to construction and operational emissions) and cultural resources (impacts to historic resources). The alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR and described below are therefore discussed below in terms of their potential ability to avoid or reduce these impacts.

7.1. Alternatives Considered But Rejected From
Detailed Analysis
Section 15126.6(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines specifies that an EIR should (1) identify alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were eliminated from detailed consideration because they were determined to be infeasible during the scoping process; and (2) briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives; (ii) infeasibility; and/or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

The following alternatives were considered but rejected as part of the environmental analysis for the Project:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 104 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 51 • Relocated Focus Areas
• No Growth
These Alternatives were rejected on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternatives do not avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts, (2) the alternatives would likely not further reduce any of the proposed project’s significant impacts; and (3) the alternatives are technically, financially, and legally infeasible given that they would not meet several of the main objectives of the plan.

Therefore, these alternatives are eliminated from further consideration. (Draft EIR, 6.13)

7.2. Alternatives Selected For Analysis

7.2.1. Alternative 1: No Project

7.2.1.1. Description
The “No Project” Alternative involves continued implementation of the City’s current General Plan, which was adopted in 1999. The No Project Alternative assumes that the City’s existing General Plan policies would continue to facilitate development in accordance with existing land use designations.

The overall amount of growth anticipated to occur under the City’s current General Plan is less than what could be facilitated under the proposed Plan. The proposed Plan increases allowed density in areas including the Arrow Highway Mixed Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan Area, down-town, and transportation corridors and as a result increases capacity for residential and commercial development. The proposed Plan would allow for an increase in the amount of development overall in the City because it allows increased residential and commercial development in these key focus areas. Therefore, it also increases the City’s total potential population and amount of commercial develop-ment compared to the current plan. Under the current General Plan, the City’s population would not be expected to reach the SCAG forecast of 42,700 by 2040, while under the proposed Plan future residential growth is predicted to increase the City’s total population to 68,798. SCAG forecasts for population, households, and employment in Montclair through the year 2040 are shown in Table 4.14-4 of Chapter 4.14, Population and Housing of the EIR.

While the Plan preserves the existing pattern of uses in most of the Plan Area, and provides for protection of established neighborhoods, it also identifies focus areas, including downtown areas, corridors and industrial areas that may provide opportunities to transition over time with adjustments in land use, beautification, and place making. In contrast, the No Project Alternative would continue to facilitate development in the same pattern as currently seen in the Plan Area. This pattern of land uses is reflected in the City’s current Land Use Map, shown in Figure 4.11-1 of the EIR. Under the Plan, new development would generally result from re-use of properties, infill development on vacant lots, con-version of uses in response to market demand (e.g., select industrial to commercial), and more in-tense use of land in defined areas. Growth would be redirected to corridors in the Downtown Transit area, various transportation corridors, and the AHMUD, all areas where viable infrastructure is already in place. While new development under the No Project Alternative would also result from re-use of properties, conversion of uses in response to market demand, and development on vacant lots, this alternative would not include as much land zoned for medium-density residential or mixed use devel-opment as the focus areas included under the Plan, and new development would therefore be spread throughout the Plan Area rather than in defined areas. Therefore, rather than potentially creating more intense use of land in the geographically well-defined focus areas, a lower amount of new, mar-ket-driven development would occur, and MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 105 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 52 development under Alternative 1 would likely be spread more widely across the Plan Area, without the adjustments in land use, beautification, and place mak-ing included in the Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 6- 1 to 6-2)

7.2.1.2. Impacts Analysis
a. Aesthetics
The Plan, when compared to the City’s current General Plan, places a greater emphasis on building form and character in districts and neighborhoods to allow a mix of land uses, and emphasizes improved gateways, and improved (and in some cases redefined) corridors. The Plan defines (both physically and visually) the desired visual character and quality of these areas and sets forth urban form policies to ensure that the Plan Area retains the unique aesthetic qualities valued by Montclair residents. The Plan does not call for substantial changes to established residential neighborhoods, and includes specific policies aimed at retaining the character of the neighborhoods. The No Project Alternative would not include these features and could therefore lead to a lower level of visual character and quality for certain parts of the Plan Area, and perhaps for the Plan Area as a whole, thereby potentially creating a greater impact to visual character and quality than the Plan. There would be less change to visual character and light and glare conditions in the Plan Area compared to the Plan because this alternative would reduce overall development. Less development in the focus areas would result in fewer light sources and slightly reduced light and glare impacts. Impacts to scenic vistas under this alternative would be less than those of the Plan because reduced development would mean fewer buildings partially blocking views Because this alternative’s aesthetics impacts would be greater than the Plan’s in some respects but less than the Plan’s in others, its overall aesthetic impacts would be similar those of the Plan. b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The Plan Area is fully urbanized, with no areas in Montclair or the SOI under agricultural or forestry production. The Plan would therefore not result in conversion of farm or forest land, nor would it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural or forest use, and it would not have any significant impact environmental impacts on agricultural and forestry resources. The No Project alternative would also not have any significant environmental impacts on agricultural and forestry resources because the City’s current General Plan does not include any land zoned for agricultural or forest use. Overall, the agricultural and forestry resources of this alternative would be similar to those of the Plan.
c. Air Quality
As with the Plan, impacts to Air Quality under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable.

Individual developments projects carried out under the Plan would generate construction and operational related emissions that could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD’s Air Quality Management Plan, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants, and result in adverse impacts to local air quality, all of which may create significant and unavoidable impacts. The same would be true with the No Project Alternative. Although the Plan does not propose individual development projects, individual projects would still be constructed and operated under both the Plan and the City’s current General Plan, and individual project emissions could create significant and unavoidable air quality impacts under either scenario.

Nonetheless, the reduced amount of construction would result in reduced construction emissions and slightly reduced impacts to air quality under this alternative. d. Biological Resources
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 106 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 53 Development carried out under the Plan could potentially adversely affect biological resources and as a result mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would be required. These mitigation measures, along with Plan policies described in Section 4.4, would reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. Development carried out under the No Project Alternative would occur under the City’s current General Plan, which does not include these specific plan policies nor mitigation measures. As a result, impacts under this alternative would be greater than those of the Plan.
e. Cultural Resources
Impacts to Cultural Resources would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact CUL-1 describes how the Plan has the potential to result in a significant impact if development carried out under the Plan caused a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Impact CUL-2 describes how the Plan has the potential to result in a significant impact if development carried out under the Plan caused a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Impact CUL-3 describes how the Plan has the potential to disturb or damage human remains, and the existing regulations that address this potential impact. Under the No Project Alternative development would still occur but would be carried out under the City’s current General Plan, with a lower amount of new, market-driven development likely spread more widely across the Plan Area than under the Plan. However, because it is not known where archaeological resources and human remains may exist, and both the Plan and this alternative would involve potential impacts to these resources, potential impacts to these resources would be similar to (and significant and unavoidable) under either scenario.

The No Project Alternative would potentially increase impacts to historic resources compared to the Plan. The Plan does not call for substantial changes to established residential neighborhoods and includes specific policies aimed at preserving historic resources. The No Project Alternative would not include these elements and would, therefore, be more likely than the Plan to lead to or allow the loss of, or negative effects on, historic resources in such areas. This alternative would therefore have potentially greater impacts to cultural resources than the Plan. f. Energy
Because development under the No Project Alternative would still occur but would be carried out under the City’s current General Plan, with a lower amount of new, market-driven development likely spread more widely across the Plan Area than under the Plan, the Plan and the No Project Alternative do not substantially differ in development footprints. However, the Plan’s land use scenario encourages a greater degree of high-density development. While the City’s current General Plan does contain some energy efficiency policies, it does not contain any transportation demand management policies that would reduce VMT or encourage the installation of electric vehicle infrastructure nor is it as consistent with energy efficiency goals contained in the City’s proposed Climate Action Plan. The inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy would be greater under this alternative. Overall the No Project Alternative would have greater energy impacts than the Plan. g. Geology and Soils
Under the No Project Alternative development would occur within the same Plan Area as the Plan.

Therefore, development under this alternative would occur on the same geologic units, soils, and slopes as under the Plan. Development under this alternative would, like development under the Plan, be required to comply with applicable regulations, such as the California Building Code, the Montclair Municipal Code, and the Clean Water Act. Although this alternative and the Plan would MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 107 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 54 not substantially differ in development footprints, this alterative would result in less high-density development; thus, the potential for loss of topsoil, placement of development atop expansive soils, or accidental discovery of paleontological resources would be reduced under this alternative.

Therefore, impacts associated with topsoil loss and expansive soils would be less under the No Project Alternative than under the Plan. As described in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, development carried out under the Plan could potentially adversely affect subsidence and ground collapse as well as paleontological resources. As a result, mitigation measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 would be required.

These mitigation measures, along with Plan policies described in Chapter 4.7 of the Draft EIR, would reduce impacts to geology and soils to a less than significant level. Development carried out under the No Project Alternative would occur under the City’s current General Plan, which does not include these specific plan policies nor mitigation measures. As a result, potential impacts to these resources under this alternative would be greater than those of the Plan. Overall, this alternative would be more impactful in some respects but less impactful than others compared to the Plan, and its potential impacts related to geology and soils would therefore be about the same as those of the Plan.
h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in a lower amount of new, market-driven development that would likely be spread more widely across the Plan Area and would involve less overall development and associated growth than would occur under Plan. Therefore, this alternative would reduce construction related GHG emissions compared to the Plan, but because development would be more dispersed under this alternative and not concentrated in identified focus areas, VMT increase per capita would be greater and cumulative vehicular emissions would be similar to those of the Plan. The land use scenario and the associated GHG emissions envisioned under this alternative would also not be consistent with applicable state regulations that were adopted after the City’s current General Plan including City’s proposed Climate Action Plan and the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The Plan also contains policies intended to facilitate greater GHG emission reductions than is mandated under the City’s current General Plan. The fact that this alternative would not include GHG emissions reduction policies and programs could contribute to increased GHG emissions under this alternative compared to the Plan. Therefore, while the No Project Alternative would result in fewer GHG emissions during construction, other factors discussed above could contribute to increased GHG emissions. Overall, this alternative’s greenhouse gas emissions impacts would therefore be similar to those of the Plan. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the Plan, so it would result in slightly less use and transport of hazardous materials than the Plan. This development, however, would still take place in the Plan Area. The City’s current General Plan contains policies regarding the handling, storage, and collection of hazardous materials, but the Plan includes additional policies related to hazardous materials transportation routes, partnerships, remediation, education, and emergency plans, which would better prevent exposure to hazardous materials. Therefore, while the No Project Alternative would have less than significant hazardous materials impacts, its overall impacts would be greater than those of the Plan. j. Hydrology and Water Quality
The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the Plan. Therefore, development under this alternative would result in slightly reduced impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff volumes and velocity as the Plan. Both the City’s current General Plan and the Plan contain policies MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 108 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 55 to reduce potential water quality impacts. Development under this alternative would be subject to the same regulatory requirements, such as NPDES permit requirements, governing runoff and protecting water quality and supply, as development carried out under the Plan. The No Project Alternative, however, would result in a smaller population in 2040, and demand for groundwater would be less than that of the Plan. Impacts to hydrology and water quality under this alternative would be less than those of the Plan.
k. Land Use and Planning
The Plan would be generally consistent with the policies of SCAG’s RCP and RTP/SCS for many reasons, including the fact that it would encourage infill development within focus areas located along major transportation corridors that would be well-served by public transit, increase access to open space, and develop “Complete Communities” while protecting stable, existing single-family areas. The No Project Alternative would not be as consistent with these policies because it would not include these Plan features and policies. However, the Plan would also help the City meet its RHNA allocation. The No Project Alternative would reduce residential development compared to the Plan and as a result would not help the City meet its RHNA allocation to the same degree as the Plan. Thus, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with state policies for the provision of adequate housing represented by the RHNA. The No Project Alternative’s overall land use and planning impacts would be similar to those of the Plan. l. Mineral Resources
The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the Plan. However, development under this alternative would still take place in the Plan Area. Therefore, development under the No Project Alternative could result in development in areas where significant mineral resources exist.

However, the Plan Area is already built out and therefore impacts to mineral resources would be highly unlikely and less than significant. The same would be true under the No Project Alternative, so this alternative’s overall impact to mineral resources is about the same as that of the Plan. m. Noise
The No Project Alternative would result in less development than the Plan. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur under this alternative than under the Plan, particularly in the identified development areas and housing opportunity sites for the Plan. However, construction noise under this alternative might be spread more widely across the Plan Area. Also, while this alternative would result in less development, the City’s current General Plan has fewer operational noise reduction policies and restrictions than the Plan.

Furthermore, mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would not be included in this alternative.

Therefore, impacts under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the Plan. n. Population and Housing
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing land use designations in the City’s current General Plan would continue to define the type of development that occurs in the Plan Area.

Implementation of this alternative would accommodate fewer residents and housing units than the Plan, which would increase allowable residential development densities in certain focus areas. Thus, compared to the Plan, the No Project Alternative would result in less population growth, which would be more consistent with SCAG projections for Montclair than projected residential growth under the Plan. The City’s current General Plan provides for orderly development and growth. Any displacement of people or housing units under the No Project Alternative would be minimal MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 109 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 56 because development in the Plan Area would continue pursuant to the existing General Plan.

Impacts would be less than those of the Plan.
o. Public Services
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing land use designations in the City’s current General Plan would continue to define the type of development that occurs throughout the Plan Area. This alternative would result in less development than the Plan and would therefore generate less demand for fire, police, school, and library services. While the Plan includes policies that direct the City to strive to maintain adequate public service facilities, the City’s’ current General Plan contains some similar policies. The No Project Alternative would result in a demand for public services already anticipated by existing public service facilities. Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the Plan.
p. Recreation
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing land use designations in the City’s current General Plan would continue to define the type of development that occurs throughout the Plan Area. This alternative would result in less development than the Plan and would therefore generate less demand for, and demand on, recreational facilities. While the Plan includes policies that direct the City to strive to maintain adequate recreational facilities, the City’s current General Plan contains some similar policies. The No Project Alternative would result in a demand for, and demand on, recreational services already anticipated by existing recreational facilities. Impacts would be similar to those of the Plan.
q. Transportation
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing land use designations in the City’s current General Plan would continue to define the type of development that occurs throughout the Plan Area.

Implementation of the No Project Alternative would result in a lower amount of new, market-driven development that would likely be spread more widely across the Plan Area and would involve less overall development and associated growth than would occur under Plan. Because development would be more dispersed under this alternative and not concentrated in identified focus areas, it would result in greater per capita VMT and would therefore be more inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) than the Plan. The No Project alternative would also not include policies described in Section 4.17, Transportation of the Draft EIR that reduce traffic hazards, address emergency access and the circulation system. Therefore, this alternative would result in greater transportation impacts than the Plan.
r. Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal cultural resources impacts are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed activity. Development carried out under the Plan has the potential to impact unidentified tribal cultural resources. Impacts on tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant but mitigable. Under the No Project Alternative, the existing land use designations in the City’s current General Plan would continue to define the type of development that occurs throughout the Plan Area. Because development would occur within the same Plan Area as the Plan, this alternative’s potential to encounter tribal cultural resources would be similar to the Plan. This alternative, however, would not include mitigation measures that would protect tribal cultural resources and impacts to tribal cultural resources under the No Project Alternative would be greater than under the Plan.
s. Utilities and Service Systems
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 110 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 57 Development carried out under the Plan would or may require increased or expanded water supplies and wastewater, stormwater, telecommunications, electric power, and natural gas supplies and facilities; but compliance with policies in the Plan, the Montclair Municipal Code, and other City programs would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The No Project Alternative would result in less development and less population increase than the Plan, which would tend to decrease demand on existing utilities and service systems, but it would not include policies from the Plan that address water supply, wastewater, and solid waste. Therefore, impacts under this alternative would be greater than under the Plan.
t. Wildfire
The Plan Area is not in a very high fire hazards severity zone, and the Plan would therefore have no impact related to wildfire. The No Project Alternative would be carried out in the same Plan Area as the Plan and, like the Plan, would not expand the City’s development footprint into any mapped areas prone to wildfire hazard. Overall, wildfire impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-2 through 6-8.)

7.2.1.3. Attainment of Project Objectives
While the Plan preserves the existing pattern of uses in most of the Plan Area, and provides for protection of established neighborhoods, it also identifies focus areas, including downtown areas, corridors and industrial areas that may provide opportunities to transition over time with adjustments in land use, beautification, and place making. In contrast, the No Project Alternative would continue to facilitate development in the same pattern as currently seen in the Plan Area.

This pattern of land uses is reflected in the City’s current Land Use Map, shown in Figure 4.11-1 of the EIR. Under the Plan, new development would generally result from re-use of properties, infill development on vacant lots, conversion of uses in response to market demand (e.g., select industrial to commercial), and more intense use of land in defined areas. Growth would be redirected to corridors in the Downtown Transit area, various transportation corridors, and the AHMUD, all areas where viable infrastructure is already in place. While new development under the No Project Alternative would also result from re-use of properties, conversion of uses in response to market demand, and development on vacant lots, this alternative would not include as much land zoned for medium-density residential or mixed use development as the focus areas included under the Plan, and new development would therefore be spread throughout the Plan Area rather than in defined areas. Therefore, rather than potentially creating more intense use of land in the geographically well-defined focus areas, a lower amount of new, market-driven development would occur, and development under this alternative would likely be spread more widely across the Plan Area, without the adjustments in land use, beautification, and place making included in the Plan.

The No Project Alternative would therefore not meet the project objectives related to these factors. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-2 to 6-8)

7.2.1.4. Finding
The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet the Project objectives; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality and cultural resources; and (3) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to biological resources, cultural resources, energy, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 111 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 58 7.2.2. Alternative 2: Reduced Growth

7.2.2.1. Description
The Reduced Growth Alternative (Alternative 2) addresses potential growth-related impacts associated with the Plan. The Reduced Growth Alternative is based in part on a market analysis completed by HR&A Advisors Inc. (HR&A) that analyzed the potential support for development in the City from 2018 to 2040. This alternative assumes Citywide development would be near the “low range” projections included in the market analysis and shown in Table 2-5 of the EIR.

Total development potential under this alternative compared to development potential under the Plan is shown in Table 6-1 of the EIR, reproduced below. Although this alternative would result in less overall development than the Plan, development is assumed to occur in the same general locations as under the Plan, and be subject to the same goals, policies, and development standards as under the Plan.

Table 6-1 Total Development Potential of Reduced Growth Alternative Compared to the Plan
Development Type Plan (Reduced Growth Alternative)
Residential 7,580 units 5,325 units
Office Space 600,000 sf 360,000 sf
Industrial/Flex Space 1,900,000
sf
750,000 sf
Hotel/Motel 300 rooms 220 rooms
Source: HR&A Market Analysis
Implementation of the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in development within the Plan Area that would generally meet the project objectives established for the Plan, although in some cases to a lesser degree than the Plan. The amount of new development in the Plan Area over the next 28 years called for under the Plan is based on a market assessment prepared as part of the Plan. This market assessment was also the basis for the goals, policies, and actions contained in Plan Chapter C2, Our Prosperous Community. The goal of this chapter is to addresses how Montclair can attract and retain high-wage and high value enterprises and diversify and increase the local tax base. The Reduced Growth Alternative would not achieve this goal, or the policies and actions designed to help achieve this goal, to as great a degree as the Plan because it would not attract or create as many jobs, create as much economic growth nor increase the local tax base to the same extent as the growth accommodated by the Plan. The Plan would help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The Reduced Growth Alternative would do this to a lesser degree than the Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9)

7.2.2.2. Impacts Analysis
a. Aesthetics
The Reduced Growth Alternative would implement the same policies as the Plan but would involve less residential and non-residential development than the Plan. Although no specific Plan policies related to light control, Municipal Code 11.50.090 addresses design standards that are in place for lighting in Montclair. This alterative would be subject to these same regulations. Therefore, impacts MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 112 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 59 related to the City’s visual character, and light and glare conditions would be less than those of the Plan. There would also be less change to the visual character and light and glare conditions because this alternative would reduce overall development. Less development in the focus areas would result in fewer light sources and slightly reduced light and glare impacts. Impacts to scenic vistas under this alternative would be less than those of the Plan because reduced development would mean fewer buildings partially blocking views. Overall, this alternative’s aesthetic impacts would be less than the Plan.
b. Agricultural and Forestry Resources
The Plan Area is fully urbanized, with no areas under agricultural or forestry production. The Plan would not result in conversion of farm or forest land, nor would it conflict with existing zoning for agricultural or forest use and there would be no environment impacts to agricultural resources. The same would be true for the Reduced Growth Alternative and therefore impacts would be the same under either alternative.
c. Air Quality
As with the Plan, impacts to Air Quality would be unavoidable and significant impacts under the Reduced Growth Alternative. Individual developments projects carried out under the Plan would generate construction and operational related emissions that would create a significant and unavoidable impact. The same would be true with the Reduced Growth Alternative. Under this alternative there would be less overall development in the Plan Area and, although individual project emissions would still create significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, this alternative would have less impact on construction and operational emissions than the Plan. However, the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development in the identified focus areas and more dispersed development, and VMT per capita would therefore not be reduced to the same degree as under the Plan. Overall, this alternative’s air quality impacts would be similar to those of the Plan.
d. Biological Resources
Development carried out under the Plan could potentially adversely affect biological resources and as a result mitigation measures BIO-1 through-BIO-4 would be required. These mitigation measures, along with Plan policies, would reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level.

Under the Reduced Growth Alternative less development and construction would take place which would result in reduced impacts to biological resources. The mitigation measures identified in this EIR would also still be applicable. Overall impacts to biological resources would be less than those of the Plan.
e. Cultural Resources
Impacts to Cultural Resources would remain significant and unavoidable under the Reduced Growth Alternative. Impact CUL-1 describes how the plan has the potential to result in a significant impact if development carried out under the Plan would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Impact CUL-2 describes how the Plan has the potential to result in a significant impact if development carried out under the Plan caused a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Under the Reduced Growth Alternative there would be less total development, but development would still be carried out. Although potentially significant impacts to historical and archaeological resources would remain, and these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, this alternative would have less impact on cultural resources because of the reduced overall amount of development.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 113 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 60 f. Energy
The Reduced Growth Alternative would reduce development in the Plan Area compared to the Plan.

Less overall development would result in less construction and thus reduced energy consumption for construction vehicles. Similarly, less development would result in less consumption of energy from operational uses including heating and transportation fuel. Like the Plan, the Reduced Growth Alternative would implement new energy efficiency and renewable energy policies that would reduce energy consumption and would be consistent with energy goals and policies contained in the City’s proposed Climate Action Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have reduced energy consumption. Overall, this alternative’s energy impacts would be less than those of the Plan. g. Geology and Soils
Under the Reduced Growth Alternative development would occur within the same Plan Area as the Plan. Therefore, development under this alternative would occur on the same geologic units, soils, and slopes as under the Plan. However, development would not be as intensive as the Plan; thus, the potential for loss of topsoil, placement of development atop expansive soils, or accidental discovery of paleontological resources would be reduced under this alternative. Development under this alternative would be required to comply with applicable regulations, such as the California Building Code, the Montclair Municipal Code, and the Clean Water Act. Therefore, under the Reduced Growth Alternative, risks associated with topsoil loss and expansive soils would be less than those of the Plan.
h. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Implementation of the Reduced Growth Alternative would involve less overall development and associated growth than under the Plan. Therefore, this alternative would have less construction related GHG emissions than the Plan. Additionally, this alternative would result in less total VMT and related GHG emissions. While this alternative would result in fewer sources of GHG emissions, the land use scenario and the associated GHG emissions envisioned under this alternative would also be consistent with applicable state regulations contained in the Plan including City’s proposed Climate Action Plan and the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The Plan also contains policies intended to facilitate greater GHG emission reductions which would also be included in the Reduced Growth Alternative. Therefore, the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in reduced GHG emissions, and its impacts in this regard would be less than significant than those of the Plan. i. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development than the Plan. Therefore, development under the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in slightly less use and transport of hazardous materials than the Plan. Development under this alternative would still take place in and affect the Plan Area, but Plan policies related to hazardous materials transportation routes, partnerships, remediation, education, and emergency plans, which would help prevent exposure to hazardous materials, would also be include in this alternative. Therefore, the Reduced Growth Alternative would reduce impacts compared to the Plan.
j. Hydrology and Water Quality
The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development than the Plan, while consisting of a similar land use pattern as the Plan. Therefore, development under this alternative could result in slightly less impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff volumes and velocity than the Plan. The Plan contain policies to reduce potential water quality impacts and development, and under this alternative future development would be subject to the same regulatory requirements, such as MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 114 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 61 NPDES permit requirements, governing runoff and protecting water quality and supply. In addition, the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in a smaller population in 2040, and demand for groundwater would be less than under the Plan. Impacts under this alternative would be less than those of the Plan.
k. Land Use and Planning
The Plan would be generally consistent with the policies of SCAG’s RCP and RTP/SCS for many reasons, including the fact that it would encourage infill development within focus areas located along major transportation corridors that would be well-served by public transit, increase access to open space, and develop “Complete Communities” while protecting stable, existing single-family areas. The Plan would also help the City meet its RHNA allocation. The Reduced Growth Alternative would reduce residential development compared to the Plan and as a result would not help the City meet its RHNA allocation to the same degree as the Plan. Thus, the Reduced Growth Alternative would not be consistent with state policies for the provision of adequate housing represented by the RHNA and would therefore have greater impacts related to land use and planning. l. Mineral Resources
The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development than the Plan. However, development under this alternative would still take place in the Plan Area. Therefore, development under this alternative would result in potential for development in areas where significant mineral resources exist. The Plan Area is already built out and therefore impacts to mineral resources would be less than significant. The same would be true under the Reduced Growth Alternative, but because it would involve less total development this alternative would have less potential impact on mineral resources.
m. Noise
The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development than the Plan. Therefore, less construction and associated construction noise and vibration would occur under this alternative than under the Plan, particularly in the identified development areas and housing opportunity sites for the Plan. Additionally, noise reduction policies and restrictions included in the Plan would also be included in the Reduced Growth Alternative. Furthermore, mitigation measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 would also be included in this alternative. Therefore, the Reduced Growth Alternative would have reduced noise impacts compared to the Plan.
n. Population and Housing
The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less residential development than the Plan, which would result in less population growth than the Plan. This alternative would therefore be more consistent with SCAG projections for Montclair than projected residential growth under the Plan.

Policies and actions included in the Plan would adequately address the projected population growth and Plan impacts related to population and housing. This alternative would include these policies and actions, and would still provide for the orderly development and growth of the Plan Area.

Displacement of people or housing units under the Reduced Growth Alternative may also be reduced because development in the Plan Area would be reduced compared to the Plan. Therefore, the Reduced Growth Alternative’s population and housing impacts would be less than those of the Plan.
o. Public Services
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 115 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 62 The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development than the Plan and would therefore generate less demand for fire, police, school, and library services. Additionally, the Plan includes policies that direct the City to strive to maintain adequate public service facilities and the same policies would apply to the Reduced Growth Alternative. Overall, this alternative’s public services impacts would be less than those of the Plan.
p. Recreation
The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development than the Plan and would therefore generate less demand for, and demand on, recreational facilities. This alternative would also include Plan policies that direct the City to strive to maintain adequate recreational facilities.

Therefore, this alternative’s impacts to and from recreational facilities would be less than those of the Plan.
q. Transportation
The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less overall development than the Plan, but development is assumed to occur in the same general locations as under the Plan, and be subject to the same goals, policies, and development standards as under the Plan. The same policies from the Plan regarding transportation and traffic would apply so impacts to traffic hazards, emergency access, and the circulation system would be similar. Per capita (i.e., per service population) VMT would be lower under the Plan than under the No Project Alternative. The improvement in travel efficiency is the result of people making fewer trips and traveling shorter distances due to increase availability of active modes of transportation and better accessibility to destinations by all modes of transportation. The Plan would increase transit-friendly development in identified focus areas which in turn would result in a reduction in per capita VMT. The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development in the identified focus areas and therefore VMT per capita would not be reduced to the same degree as under the Plan. Thus, overall transportation impacts under this alternative would be greater than under the Plan.
r. Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal cultural resources impacts are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed activity. Development carried out under the Plan has the potential to impact unidentified tribal cultural resources. Impacts on tribal cultural resources would be potentially significant but mitigable. The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in less development than the Plan but because development under this alternative would occur within the same Plan Area as the Plan the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources would be similar.

This alternative would also include mitigation measures TCR-1 and TCR-2 from this EIR that would protect tribal cultural resources. Therefore, impacts to tribal cultural resources under the Reduced Project Alternative would be similar to those of the Plan. s. Utilities and Service Systems
Development carried out under the Plan would or may require increased or expanded water supplies and wastewater, stormwater, telecommunications, electric power, and natural gas supplies and facilities. However, compliance with Plan policies, the Montclair Municipal Code, and other City programs would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The Reduced Growth Alternative would result in reduced development potential and reduced population increase and decrease demand on existing utilities and service systems. This alternative would also include Plan goals and policies related to water, wastewater, storm water drainage, electricity, and natural gas.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 116 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 63 Because of its reduced overall amount of development and continued applicability of Plan policies, this alternative would result in less demand on utilities and service systems than the Plan. t. Wildfire
The Plan Area is not in a very high fire hazards severity zone, and the Plan would therefore have no impact related to wildfires. The Reduced Growth Alternative would not expand the development footprint of the Plan into any mapped areas prone to wildfire hazard. There would be no impact related to wildfires under either this alternative or the Plan, and wildfire impacts would be the same as under the Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-9 to 6-13)

7.2.2.3. Attainment of Project Objectives
Implementation of the Reduced Growth Alternative would result in development within the Plan Area that would generally meet the project objectives established for the Plan, although in some cases to a lesser degree than the Plan. The amount of new development in the Plan Area over the next 28 years called for under the Plan is based on a market assessment prepared as part of the Plan. This market assessment was also the basis for the goals, policies, and actions contained in Plan Chapter C2, Our Prosperous Community. The goal of this chapter is to addresses how Montclair can attract and retain high-wage and high value enterprises and diversify and increase the local tax base. The Reduced Growth Alternative would not achieve this goal, or the policies and actions designed to help achieve this goal, to as great a degree as the Plan because it would not attract or create as many jobs, create as much economic growth nor increase the local tax base to the same extent as the growth accommodated by the Plan. The Plan would help the City meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation. The Reduced Growth Alternative would do this to a lesser degree than the Plan. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8)

7.2.2.4. Finding
The City Council rejects Alternative 2: Reduced Growth Alternative, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the Project; (2) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to air quality and cultural resources; and (3) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to land use and planning, and transportation.

7.3. Environmentally Superior Alternative
When the two alternatives (No Project and Reduced Growth) are compared to each other and the Plan, the Reduced Growth Alternative would be environmentally superior because apart from greater impacts to Land Use and Planning and Transportation, it would have reduced or similar environmental impacts to the Plan, while the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts to Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Transportation and Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources and Utilities and Service Systems, with reduced impacts to Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Population and Housing. (Draft EIR, p. 6- 15)

8. Statement of Overriding Consideration
Where there are significant and unavoidable impacts from a project, pursuant to Section 15093 of the California Code of Regulations, the City of Montclair must “balance, as applicable, the economic, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 117 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 64 legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks, when determining whether to approve the project.” The record of those considerations shall include a written statement of overriding considerations that is supported by substantial evidence within the administrative record. A finding consistent with Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other consideration, make infeasible any other mitigation measures or project alternatives that would avoid or lessen this impact to below a level of significance.

The City finds and determines that, as proposed, the majority of the significant impacts of the Plan will be reduced to acceptable levels by implementation of mitigation measures recommended in these findings. However, the City further finds that cumulative impacts to air quality (impacts related to construction and operational emissions) and cultural resources (impacts on historic resources) from the Plan are significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation .

Collectively, reasonably foreseeable future development and growth in the City of Montclair may increase criteria air pollutant emissions beyond local and state thresholds and may result in adverse impacts to local and regional air quality and sensitive receptors; and development carried out under the Plan may result in adverse impacts to historic resources. The City further finds that there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce to a less-than-significant level these environmental effects.

After due consideration, and in light of the environmental, social, economic, and other considerations identified in the findings, the Plan, and the record as a whole related to the Plan, the City chooses to approve the Plan because, in its independent judgement, the benefits of the Plan as outlined below substantially outweigh the Plan’s potentially significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.

8.1. Benefits of the Plan
The City finds that the Plan, as approved, will have the following economic, social, technological and environmental benefits:
▪ The Plan updates outdated policiesin a mannerthat meets current legalrequirementsfor General Plans.
▪ The Plan provides a more user-friendly document that will make use of the General Plan easier for decision makers, staff, and the public.
▪ The Plan reflects current community goals and preferences as identified during the public outreach process.
▪ The Plan would emphasize infill and reuse development within City limits with a focus on increasing opportunities for housing development in key areas of the City through increased density and mixed-use projects where appropriate.
▪ The Plan would support and encourage mobility and broader community goals of safety, health, economic development, and environmental sustainability. ▪ The Plan would protect the natural resources and scenic assets that define Montclair and promote and ensure equitable access to clean air and water, parks and open space, and develop an integrated green infrastructure.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 118 of 266 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 65 ▪ The Plan would attract and retain jobs within growth industries; nurture small entrepreneurial businesses; redevelop underutilized properties along key corridors and districts; and build the City’s fiscal capacity.
▪ The Plan would conserve and enhance stable areas, promote contextual infill, and direct new growth to downtown, Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District, and corridors. ▪ The Plan would promote health and well-being for all through inclusive approaches where healthy habits are encouraged.
▪ The Plan would promote a safer community by minimizing threats to life from natural and mancaused hazards. ▪ The Plan would promote and ensure inclusive and equitable access to a range of opportunities for physical activities including parks, open space, and recreation. ▪ The Plan would enhance Montclair’s creative community through strengthening partnerships, integrating public art, creating and enhancing venues; and leveraging our creative economy. ▪ The Plan meets the objectives of the State of California in promoting affordable housing.

8.2. Findings
For each and all of these reasons, the City of Montclair finds that the benefits of the Plan outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental effect related to air quality and cultural resources.

Therefore, these adverse significant and unavoidable effects are considered to be acceptable by the City of Montclair City Council, which is the decision-making body for the Plan, given the importance of the Plan to the City of Montclair.

9. Statement of Location and Custodian of Documents
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and Section 15091(e) of the California Code of Regulation requires that the City of Montclair, as the Lead Agency, specify the location and custodian of the documents of other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision has been based. The following location is where review of the record may be performed:

City of Montclair
Community Development Department, Planning Division
5111 Benito Street
Montclair, California 91763
The City of Montclair has relied on all of the documents contained within the record of proceedings in reaching its decision on the Plan.

10. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As referenced above in the Findings, an MMRP has been prepared for the Plan and is to be adopted concurrently with these findings and statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1). The MMRP is provided as Appendix F to the Final EIR that will be used by the City of Montclair to track compliance with the project mitigation measures, and is MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 119 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 66 also shown below. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period, which includes pre-construction coordination, construction, and post-construction documentation.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 120 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 67 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Air Quality
MM-AQ-1- Tier 4 and Alternatively Fueled Equipment
All mobile off-road equipment (wheeled or
tracked) greater than 50 horsepower used
during construction activities shall meet the
United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 final standards. Tier 4
certification can be for the original
equipment or equipment that is retrofitted
to meet the Tier 4 Final standards. In the
event of specialized equipment where Tier 4
Final equipment is not commercially
available at the time of construction, the
equipment shall meet Tier 3 standards at a
minimum. Alternative Fuel (natural gas,
propane, electric, etc.) construction
equipment shall be incorporated where
available. Where electric vehicles are
feasible, electrical vehicles shall be
incorporated into the construction fleet.

These requirements shall be incorporated
into the contract agreement with the
construction contractor. A copy of the
equipment’s certification or model year
specifications shall be available upon request
for all equipment onsite. All equipment less
than 50 horsepower shall be alternatively
fueled. Electricity shall be supplied to the site
from the existing power grid to support the
electric construction equipment. If
connection to the grid is determined to be
infeasible for portions of the project, a nondiesel fueled generator shall be used.

Confirm that the actions required under
this mitigation measure are implemented
for construction activities carried out
under the Plan
At beginning of and
periodically during
construction
Once City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 121 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 68 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
MM-AQ-2: Architectural Coating
All architectural coating phases shall be
extended, or Low/zero VOC coatings shall be
implemented such that emissions are
reduced to below 75 lbs/day.

During plan check, confirm that
architectural coating recommendations as
described in this mitigation measure are
specified on the project plans for use
during construction
Prior to granting building
permits
Once City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MM-AQ-3: Hearth
Multi-family residential developments shall
not incorporate wood or natural gas
fireplaces. Electric fireplaces are allowable
under this mitigation measure.

During plan check, confirm that all multifamily residential projects do not include wood or natural gas fireplace on the
project plans
Prior to granting building
permits
Once City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
Biological Resources
MM-BIO-1 Pre-Construction Biological Resources Reconnaissance Survey and Reporting For projects that require vegetation removal,
ground disturbance of unpaved areas,
parking or staging of equipment or material
on unpaved areas, access routes on unpaved
areas, or rehabilitation or construction
staging within 300 feet of unpaved areas
(except for landscaped developed areas) that
contain or have the potential to support
special-status species, sensitive natural
communities, or suitable habitat to support
special-status species, the following shall
apply:

Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a
qualified biologist from a list of qualified
wildlife biologists set forth by the City of
Montclair shall be retained by the project
applicant to conduct a biological resources
reconnaissance survey of the site. The
qualified biologist shall also meet the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s
Biologist surveying qualification
requirements for avian species (including
burrowing owl) in place at the time of

1. Confirm that a biological resources
reconnaissance survey has been
prepared by qualified biologist,
consistent with the requirements of
this mitigation measure

2. If the biologist determines that
biological resources may exist onsite,
confirm that focused surveys have
been prepared consistent with the
requirements of this mitigation
measure

3. If it is determined that biological
resources may be impacted by a
project, confirm that any necessary
mitigation measures identified in the
biological resources assessment are
carried out, consistent with the
requirements of this mitigation
measure

4. If ESA and/or CESA listed species or
wildlife movement corridors are
identified by the biological resources
assessment confirm that consultation

1. Prior to granting
grading permits

2. Prior to granting
grading permits

3. Prior to granting
grading permits

4. Prior to issuing a
development permit

1. Once

2. Once

3. Once
4 Once
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 122 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 69 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
application for the grading permit. The
biological resources assessment shall
characterize the biological resources present
on the project site and evaluate the presence
or absence of sensitive species and habitats.

If the biologist determines that special-status
plant species may occur, focused surveys for
special-status plants shall be completed in
accordance with Protocols for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native
Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural
Communities (CDFW, March 20, 2018) and
Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting
Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed,
Proposed and Candidate Plants (USFWS,
September 23, 1996). If it is determined that
the project site has suitable habitat for
special-status wildlife such as burrowing owl,
focused surveys shall be conducted to
determine presence/absence including
species-specific surveys in accordance with
CDFW or USFWS protocols for sensitive,
State or federally listed species, respectively,
that may occur. If the biologist determines
that sensitive habitats and/or regulated
aquatic resources may be present, additional
focused studies to further assess and
delineate the habitat (such as a formal
jurisdictional determination for wetlands and
waters) will be conducted.

A report shall be prepared that identifies 1)
approximate population size and distribution
of any sensitive plant or animal species, 2)
any sensitive habitats or sensitive natural
communities (such as wetlands or riparian
areas), and 3) any potential impacts of
proposed project on wildlife corridors. Offsite areas that may be directly or indirectly affected by the individual project shall also
be surveyed. The report shall include site
location, literature sources, methodology,
timing of surveys, vegetation map, site
with the appropriate agencies, as
required under this mitigation
measure, takes place
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 123 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 70 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
photographs, and descriptions of on-site
biological resources (e.g., observed and
detected species, as well as an analysis of
those species with the potential to occur onsite). The biological resources assessment report and surveys shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist, and any special status
species surveys shall be conducted according
to standard methods of surveying for the
species as appropriate.

If sensitive species and/or habitat are absent
from the individual project site and adjacent
lands potentially affected by the individual
project, a written report substantiating such
shall be submitted to the City Planning
Division prior to issuance of a grading permit,
and the project may proceed without any
further biological investigation.

If it is determined that a special-status
species and/or habitats may be impacted by
a project, the biological report shall identify
additional mitigation measures such as
avoidance, minimization, restoration, or
compensation to reduce impacts to a less
than significant level prior to issuance of a
development permit from the City. In the
case of ESA and/or CESA listed species
consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW shall
occur prior to issuance of a development
permit from the City to determine measures
to address impacts such as avoidance,
minimization, restoration, or compensation.

In the case of regulated aquatic resources,
the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB will be
consulted regarding their respective
jurisdictions and any necessary permits
obtained prior to issuance of a development
permit from the City.

If the biologist determines that wildlife
movement corridors are present on a project
site, consultation with the appropriate
agency (i.e. City, USFWS, and/or CDFW) shall
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 124 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 71 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
occur prior to issuance of a development
permit from the City to determine measures
to address impacts such as avoidance,
minimization, restoration, or compensation.

The analyses shall also describe project
impacts to wildlife movement, considering
the existing and post-project opportunities
present to wildlife to enter and exit the
project site.

MM-BIO-2 Pre-Construction Bird Surveys, Avoidance, and Notification For construction activities initiated during
the bird nesting season (February 1 through
August 31) involving removal of trees,
vegetation or other nesting bird habitat,
including abandoned structures and other
man-made features, a pre-construction
nesting bird survey shall be conducted no
more than three days prior to initiation of
ground disturbance and vegetation removal
activities. The nesting bird pre-construction
survey shall be conducted on foot and shall
include a 500-foot buffer around the
construction site. The survey shall be
conducted by a biologist familiar with the
identification of avian species known to
occur in southern California coastal
communities (i.e., qualified biologist)
selected from a list of qualified wildlife
biologists set forth by the City of Montclair.

The qualified biologist shall also meet the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s
Biologist surveying qualification
requirements for avian species (including
burrowing owl) in place at the time of
application for the grading permit. If nests
are found, an avoidance buffer shall be
determined by a qualified biologist
dependent upon the species, the proposed
work activity, and existing disturbances
associated with land uses outside of the site,

1. Confirm that a pre-construction
nesting bird survey has been prepared
by a qualified biologist, consistent with
the requirements of this mitigation
measure

2. If the nests are found, confirm that the
requirements of this mitigation
measure are enacted on the
construction site

3. Confirm that a report summarizing the
pre-construction survey(s) prepared
by a qualified biologist has been
submitted to the City

4. Confirm that project site plans include
a statement acknowledging
compliance with the federal MBTA and
CFGC

1. Prior to construction
activities carried out
from February 1
through August 31

2. Whenever nests are
found

3. Prior to
commencement of
construction activities

4. Prior to granting
building and grading
permits

1. Once

2. Periodically

3. Once

4. Once
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 125 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 72 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
which shall be demarcated by the biologist
with bright orange construction fencing,
flagging, construction lathe, or other means
to demarcate the boundary. All construction
personnel shall be notified as to the
existence of the buffer zone and to avoid
entering the buffer zone during the nesting
season. No ground disturbing activities shall
occur within the buffer until the biologist has
confirmed that breeding/ nesting is
completed, and the young have fledged the
nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall
occur only at the discretion of the qualified
biologist on the basis that the encroachment
will not be detrimental to an active nest. A
report summarizing the pre-construction
survey(s) shall be prepared by a qualified
biologist from a list of qualified wildlife
biologists set forth by the City of Montclair.

The qualified biologist shall also meet the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s
Biologist surveying qualification
requirements for avian species (including
burrowing owl) in place at the time of
application for the grading permit. This
report shall be submitted to the City prior to
the commencement of construction
activities.

Proposed project site plans shall include a
statement acknowledging compliance with
the federal MBTA and CFGC that includes
avoidance of active bird nests and
identification of Best Management Practices
to avoid impacts to active nests, including
checking for nests prior to construction
activities during February 1 to August 31 and
what to do if an active nest is found so that
the nest is not inadvertently impacted during
grading or construction activities.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 126 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 73 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
MM-BIO-3 Pre-Construction Bat Surveys
To avoid the direct loss of bats that could
result from removal of trees and/or
structures that are confirmed to support a
maternity bat roost (e.g., in cavities, under
loose bark or in structures such as bridges
and abandoned buildings), tree removal or
structure demolition shall be scheduled
between October 1 and February 28, outside
of the maternity roosting season. If trees
and/or structures must be removed during
the maternity season (March 1 to September
30), a qualified bat specialist shall conduct a
focused survey to identify those trees and/or
structures proposed for disturbance that
could provide hibernacula or nursery colony
roosting habitat for bats.

Each tree and/or structure identified as
potentially supporting an active maternity
roost shall be closely inspected by the bat
specialist prior to tree disturbance to
determine the presence or absence of
roosting bats. If it is determined that a bat
roost may be present, a Bat Avoidance Plan
shall be prepared and approved by CDFW
prior to issuance of a development permit
from the City. The Plan shall identify bat
survey methods and materials and methods
to exclude or prevent bats from using the
roost without directly impacting any bats.

1. Confirm that tree removal or structure
demolition is scheduled between
October 1 and February 28

2. If trees and/or structures must be
removed between March 1 to
September 30, confirm that a qualified
bat specialist has conducted a focused
survey

3. If it is determined that a bat roost may
be present, confirm that a Bat
Avoidance Plan has been prepared and
approved by CDFW

1. Prior to granting
building and
grading permits

2. Prior to granting
building and
grading permits

3. Prior to granting
building and
grading permits

1. Once

2. Once

3. Once
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 127 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 74 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
MM-BIO-4 Worker Environmental Awareness Program and Construction Monitoring A biological monitor shall also conduct a preproject environmental education program for all personnel working at the site, which
shall be focused on conditions and protocols
necessary to avoid and minimize potential
impacts to biological resources. Prior to
initiation of all construction activities
(including staging and mobilization), all
personnel associated with project
construction shall attend a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training, conducted by a qualified biologist,
to aid workers in recognizing special status
biological resources potentially occurring in
the project area. This training will include
information about the special-status species
with potential to occur in the project area.

The specifics of this program shall include
identification of special-status species and
habitats, a description of the regulatory
status and general ecological characteristics
of special-status resources, and review of the
limits of construction and measures required
to avoid and minimize impacts to biological
resources within the work area. A fact sheet
conveying this information shall also be
prepared for distribution to all contractors,
their employees, and other personnel
involved with construction of the project. All
employees shall sign a form provided by the
trainer documenting they have attended the
WEAP and understand the information
presented to them. The crew foreman shall
be responsible for ensuring crew members
adhere to the guidelines and restrictions
designed to avoid impacts to special-status
species and sensitive natural communities.

Confirm that the WEAP training required
under this mitigation measure is
implemented for individual projects
carried out under the Plan by confirming
that the City has received a copy of the
form signed by all personnel working at
the site documenting they have attended
the WEAP and understand the information
presented to them
Prior to initiation of all
construction activities
(including staging and
mobilization)
Once City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 128 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 75 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Cultural Resources
MM-CUL-1 Historical Resources
A historical resources evaluation shall be
prepared for any discretionary project
carried out under the General Plan Update
involving the demolition or physical
alteration of any building, structure, object,
or other built environment feature that is 45
years of age or older. The evaluation shall be
prepared by a qualified architectural
historian or historian who meets the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards (PQS) in
architectural history or history. The qualified
architectural historian or historian shall
conduct an intensive-level evaluation in
accordance with the guidelines and best
practices promulgated by the State Office of
Historic Preservation to identify any
potential historical resources within the
proposed development site. All properties 45
years of age or older shall be evaluated
within their historic context and documented
in a report meeting the State Office of
Historic Preservation guidelines. All
evaluated properties shall be documented
on Department of Parks and Recreation
Series 523 Forms. The report will be
submitted to the City for review and
concurrence. If the property is already listed
in the NRHP, CRHR, or as a Landmark in
Montclair, the historical resources evaluation
described above shall not be required.

If historical resources are identified within
the development site of a proposed
development, efforts shall be made to the
extent feasible to ensure that impacts are
mitigated. Application of mitigation shall
generally be overseen by a qualified
architectural historian or historic architect

1. Confirm that a historic resources
evaluation has been prepared by a
qualified architectural historian or
historian who meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards (PQS) in
architectural history or history,
consistent with the requirements of
this mitigation measure

2. If historical resources are identified
within the project area of a proposed
development, confirm that efforts are
made, to the extent feasible, to ensure
that impacts are mitigated, consistent
with the requirements of this
mitigation measure

3. If historical resources are identified
within the project area of a proposed
development, confirm that efforts
have been made to the greatest
extent possible to ensure that the
relocation, rehabilitation, or alteration
of the resource is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatments of Historic
Properties (Standards) and the
requirements of this mitigation
measure

4. If significant historical resources are
identified on a development site and
compliance with the Standards and or

1. Prior to construction
and grading activities
for any discretionary
project carried out
under the General
Plan Update involving
the demolition or
physical alteration of
any building,
structure, object, or
other built
environment feature
that is 45 years of age
or older

2. Prior to construction
and grading activities
for each project area
containing a historical
resource identified by
the historic resources
evaluation

3. Prior to construction
and grading activities
for each project area
containing a historical
resource identified by
the historic resources
evaluation

4. Once prior to, and
then periodically
during, construction

1. Once

2. Once

3. Once

4. Once
prior to
and
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 129 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 76 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
meeting the PQS, unless unnecessary in the
circumstances (e.g., preservation in place). In
conjunction with any development
application that may affect the historical
resource, the historical resources evaluation
report shall also identify and specify the
treatment of character-defining features and
construction activities.

Efforts shall be made to the greatest extent
feasible to ensure that the relocation,
rehabilitation, or alteration of the resource is
consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatments of
Historic Properties (Standards). In
accordance with CEQA, a project that has
been determined to conform with the
Standards generally would not cause a
significant adverse direct or indirect impact
to historical resources (14 CCR §
15126.4(b)(1)). Application of the Standards
shall be overseen by a qualified architectural
historian or historic architect meeting the
PQS. In conjunction with any development
application that may affect the historical
resource, a report identifying and specifying
the treatment of character-defining features
and construction activities shall be provided
to the City for review and concurrence. As
applicable, the report shall demonstrate how
the project complies with the Standards and
be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to the issuance of any
permits.

If significant historical resources are
identified on a development site and
compliance with the Standards and or
avoidance is not possible, appropriate sitespecific mitigation measures shall be established and undertaken. Mitigation
measures may include documentation of the
historical resource in the form of a Historic
American Building Survey (HABS)-Like report.
avoidance is not possible, confirm that
appropriate site-specific mitigation
measures are established and
undertaken, consistent with the
requirements of this mitigation
measure
and grading activities
whenever significant
historical resources
are identified on a
development site and
compliance with the
Standards and or
avoidance is not
possible
periodically
during
construction
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 130 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 77 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
The report shall comply with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and
Engineering Documentation and shall
generally follow the HABS Level III
requirements, including digital photographic
recordation, detailed historic narrative
report, and compilation of historic research.

The documentation shall be completed by a
qualified architectural historian or historian
who meets the PQS and submitted to the
City prior to issuance of any permits for
demolition or alteration of the historical
resource.

MM-CUL-2 Phase 1 Archaeological Resources Study
For any project carried out under the
General Plan Update, the City and/or project
applicant shall investigate the potential to
disturb archaeological resources. If the
project will involve any ground disturbance
(unless the project site is within soils that can
be reliably demonstrated as being nonnative or artificial fill) a Phase I cultural resources study shall be performed by a
qualified professional meeting the Secretary
of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional
Qualification Standards (PQS) for
archaeology (National Park Service 1983). If a
project would solely involve the
refurbishment of an existing building and no
ground disturbance would occur, this
measure would not be required. The Phase I
cultural resources study shall include a
pedestrian survey of the project site and
sufficient background research and field
sampling to determine whether
archaeological resources may be present.

Archival research shall include a records
search of the South Central Coastal
Information Center no more than two years
old and a Sacred Lands File search with the

1. If any project carried out under
the General Plan Update will
involve any ground disturbance
(unless the project site is within
soils that can be reliably
demonstrated as being nonnative or artificial fill) confirm that a Phase I cultural resources
study consistent with the
requirements of this mitigation
measure has been performed
by a qualified professional
meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s (SOI’s) Professional
Qualification Standards (PQS)
for archaeology (National Park
Service 1983), and review and
approve this study

2. Make all recommendations of
the Phase I technical report
Conditions of Approval of the
project

3. Confirm that all Conditions of
Approval are carried out

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

3. During ground
disturbance
activities

1. Once

2. Once

3. Periodically
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 131 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 78 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
NAHC. The Phase I technical report
documenting the study shall include
recommendations that must be
implemented prior to and/or during
construction to avoid or reduce impacts on
archaeological resources. The report shall be
submitted to the City of Montclair for review
and approval prior to the issuance of any
grading or construction permits.

Recommendations in the Phase I technical
report shall be made Conditions of Approval
and shall be implemented throughout all
ground disturbance activities.
throughout all ground
disturbance activities
MM-CUL-3 Extended Phase 1 Testing
For any projects proposed within 100 feet of
a known archaeological site and/or in areas
identified as sensitive by a Phase I study
[Mitigation Measure CUL-2], the project
applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to conduct an Extended Phase
I (XPI) study to determine the
presence/absence and extent of
archaeological resources on the project site.

XPI testing should comprise a series of shovel
test pits and/or hand augured units and/or
mechanical trenching to establish the
boundaries of archaeological site(s) on the
project site. If the boundaries of the
archaeological site are already well
understood from previous archaeological
work, an XPI will not be required. If the
archaeological resource(s) of concern are
Native American in origin, the qualified
archaeologist shall confer with local
California Native American tribe(s).

All archaeological excavation shall be
conducted by a qualified archaeologist(s)
under the direction of a principal investigator
meeting the SOI’s PQS for archaeology
(National Park Service 1983). If an XPI report

1. Confirm that an XPI study has
been done by a qualified
archaeologist retained by the
project applicant if required
under this mitigation measure,
and review and approve the XPI

2. Confirm that all
recommendations of the XPI
are carried out throughout all
ground disturbance activities

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. During ground
disturbance
activities

1. Once

2. Periodically
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 132 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 79 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
is prepared, it shall be submitted to the City
of Montclair for review and approval prior to
the issuance of any grading or construction
permits. Recommendations contained
therein shall be implemented for all ground
disturbance activities.

MM-CUL-4 Archaeological Site Avoidance
Any identified archaeological sites
(determined after implementing mitigation
measures CUL-2 and/or CUL-3) shall be
avoided by project-related construction
activities, where feasible. A barrier
(temporary fencing) and flagging shall be
placed between the work location and any
resources within 60 feet of a work location
to minimize the potential for inadvertent
impacts.

Confirm that the avoidance measures
described in this mitigation measure are
carried out during project-related
construction activities
During construction and
grading activities
Periodically City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MM-CUL-5 Phase II Site Evaluation
If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI
(mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL3) indicate the presence of archaeological resources that cannot be
avoided by the project (Mitigation
Measure CUL-4) and that have not been
adequately evaluated for the NRHP or
CRHR listing at the project site, the
qualified archaeologist shall conduct a
Phase II investigation to determine if
intact deposits remain and if they may be
eligible for the CRHR or qualify as unique
archaeological resources. If the
archaeological resource(s) of concern are
Native American in origin, the qualified
archaeologist shall confer with local
California Native American tribe(s).

A Phase II evaluation shall include any
necessary archival research to identify
significant historical associations and

1. If the results of any Phase I and/or XPI
(mitigation measures CUL-2 and/or CUL3) indicate the presence of archaeological resources that cannot be
avoided by the project (Mitigation
Measure CUL-4) and that have not been
adequately evaluated for the NRHP or
CRHR listing at the project site, confirm
that a Phase II cultural resources study
consistent with the requirements of this
mitigation measure has been performed
by a qualified professional meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s)
Professional Qualification Standards
(PQS) for archaeology (National Park
Service 1983), and review and approve
this study

2. Make all recommendations of the Phase
II technical report Conditions of
Approval of the project

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

1. Once

2. Once
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 133 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 80 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
mapping of surface artifacts, collection of
functionally or temporally diagnostic
tools and debris, and excavation of a
sample of the cultural deposit. The
sample excavation will characterize the
nature of the sites, define the artifact
and feature contents, determine
horizontal and vertical boundaries, and
retrieve representative samples of
artifacts and other remains.

If the archeologist and, if applicable, a
Native American monitor (see Mitigation
Measure TCR-2) or other interested tribal
representative determine it is
appropriate, cultural materials collected
from the site shall be processed and
analyzed in a laboratory according to
standard archaeological procedures. The
age of the materials shall be determined
using radiocarbon dating and/or other
appropriate procedures; lithic artifacts,
faunal remains, and other cultural
materials shall be identified and analyzed
according to current professional
standards. The significance of the sites
shall be evaluated according to the
criteria of the CRHR. The results of the
investigations shall be presented in a
technical report following the standards
of the California Office of Historic
Preservation publication “Archaeological
Resource Management Reports:

Recommended Content and Format
(1990 or latest edition).” The report shall
be submitted to the City of Montclair for
review and approval prior to the issuance
of any grading or construction permits.

Recommendations in the Phase II report
shall be implemented for all ground
disturbance activities.

3. Confirm that all Conditions of Approval
are carried out throughout all ground
disturbance activities

3. During ground
disturbance activities

3. Periodically
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 134 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 81 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
MM-CUL-6 Phase III Data Recovery
Should the results of the Phase II site
evaluation (Mitigation Measure CUL-5) yield
resources that meet CRHR significance
standards and if the resource cannot be
avoided by project construction in
accordance with CUL-4, the project applicant
shall ensure that all feasible
recommendations for mitigation of
archaeological impacts are incorporated into
the final design and approved by the City of
Montclair prior to construction. Any
necessary Phase III data recovery excavation,
conducted to exhaust the data potential of
significant archaeological sites, shall be
carried out by a qualified archaeologist
meeting the SOI PQS for archaeology
according to a research design reviewed and
approved by the City of Montclair prepared
in advance of fieldwork and using
appropriate archaeological field and
laboratory methods consistent with the
California Office of Historic Preservation
Planning Bulletin 5 (1991), Guidelines for
Archaeological Research Design, or the latest
edition thereof. If the archaeological
resource(s) of concern are Native American
in origin, the qualified archaeologist shall
confer with local California Native American
tribe(s). If applicable, a Native American
monitor shall be present.

As applicable, the final Phase III Data
Recovery reports shall be submitted to the
City of Montclair prior to issuance of any
grading or construction permit.

Recommendations contained therein shall be
implemented throughout all ground
disturbance activities.

1. Confirm that any reports found to be
necessary under the requirements of
this mitigation measure have been
submitted to, and reviewed and
approved by, the City of Montclair

2. Confirm that all feasible
recommendations of the reports
required under this mitigation
measure have been incorporated
into the final design of the project
and approved by the City of
Montclair

3. Confirm that all feasible
recommendations of the reports
required under this mitigation
measure are carried out as described
in this mitigation measure

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

2. Prior to issuance of
construction and
grading permits

3. During construction

1. Once

2. Once

3. Periodically
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 135 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 82 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
MM-CUL-7 Cultural Resources Monitoring
If recommended by Phase I, XPI, Phase II, or
Phase III studies [mitigation measures CUL-2,
CUL-3, CUL-5, and/or CUL-6], the project
applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist to monitor project-related,
ground-disturbing activities. If archaeological
resources are encountered during grounddisturbing activities, mitigation measures CUL-4 through CUL-6 shall be implemented,
as appropriate.

1. Confirm that the applicant has
retained a qualified
archaeologist to monitor
project-related grounddisturbing activities if required under this mitigation measure

2. Confirm that mitigation
measures CUL-4 through CUL-6
are implemented, as
appropriate, if archaeological
resources are encountered
during ground-disturbing
activities

1. Prior to
construction
and grading
activities

2. Per each
occurrence of
archaeological
resources
being
encountered
during grounddisturbing
activities

1. Once

2. Once
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MM-CUL-8 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resource If archaeological resources are encountered
during ground-disturbing activities, work
within 60 feet shall be halted and the project
archaeologist meeting the SOI’s Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology
(National Park Service 1983) shall
immediately evaluate the find. If necessary,
the evaluation may require preparation of a
treatment plan and archaeological testing for
CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be
significant under CEQA and cannot be
avoided by the project, additional work may
be warranted, such as data recovery
excavation, to mitigate any significant
impacts to historical resources. Any reports
required to document and/or evaluate
unanticipated discoveries shall be submitted
to the City of Montclair for review and
approval. Recommendations contained
therein shall be implemented throughout the
remainder of ground disturbance activities.

1. Confirm that any reports required to
document and/or evaluate unanticipated
discoveries have been submitted to the
City of Montclair for review and approval

2. Confirm that recommendations
contained therein are implemented
throughout the remainder of ground
disturbance activities

1. Prior to issuance of
construction and grading
permits

2. During construction
and grading activities

1. Once

2. Periodically
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 136 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 83 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Geology and Soils
MM-GEO-1 Geotechnical Investigation
A Certified Engineering Geologist shall
complete a geotechnical investigation of the
soils and geologic condition of new
development project sites located in areas of
potential subsidence, as identified by the
USGS, to assess the potential for geologic
hazards. The investigation shall provide
recommendations for appropriate means of
mitigating any potential geologic hazards
identified, including expansive soils. Project
construction shall implement the
recommendations contained in the
geotechnical investigation, which may
include, but not limited to, site preparation,
foundation, drainage control, soil corrosion,
concrete slabs and flatwork, excavations,
grading, and structural design. The
geotechnical investigation and the
construction plans incorporating its
recommendations shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Montclair prior to
issuance of construction related permits.

1. Confirm that any geotechnical
reports required under this
mitigation measure have been
submitted to the City of Montclair
for review and approval

2. Confirm that recommendations
contained therein are
implemented throughout the
remainder of ground disturbance
activities

1. Prior to issuance
of construction
and grading
permits

2. During
construction and
grading activities

1. Once

2. Periodically
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MM-GEO-2 Paleontologist Assessment
In the event that paleontological resources
(fossil materials) or unique geologic features
are exposed during construction activities for
future development, all construction work
occurring within 50 feet of the project site
find shall immediately stop until a qualified
paleontologist, as defined by the Society of
Vertebrate Paleontology, can assess the
nature and importance of the find.

Depending upon the significance of the find,
the paleontologist may record the find and
allow work to continue or may recommend
salvage and recovery of the resource. All

1. Confirm that construction is
stopped until all required
paleontological reports are
completed

2. Confirm that all required
paleontological reports have been
submitted to the City of Montclair
for review and approval

3. Confirm that recommendations
contained in the paleontological
report for the site are

1. Per discovery of
any
paleontological
materials during
construction
activities

2. Per discovery of
any
paleontological
materials during
construction
activities

1. Once

2. Once

3. Periodically
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 137 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 84 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
recommendations shall be made in
accordance with the Society of Vertebrate
Paleontology’s 1995 guidelines and shall be
subject to review and approval by the City.

Work in the area of the find may only
resume upon approval of a qualified
paleontologist.
implemented throughout the
remainder of ground disturbance
activities

3. During
construction and
grading activities
after discovery of
paleontological
materials on a
project site
Noise
MM-NOI-1 Pile Driving
Where future development under the Plan
requires the use of pile driving equipment,
the developer shall provide the City with a
noise and vibration study quantifying
potential vibration levels from planned use
of the pile driving equipment, and potential
vibration impacts on nearby receptors. If
vibration from pile driving cannot be reduced
to below structural damage or human
annoyance levels then an alternative method
for construction shall be required at that
location. The City shall review and approve
the noise and vibration study before it
approves the project.

1. Confirm that any required noise
and vibration studies have been
submitted to the City of Montclair
for review and approval

2. Confirm that recommendations
contained in any required noise
and vibration studies are
implemented throughout ground
disturbance and construction
activities

1. Prior to issuance
of construction
and grading
permits

2. During
construction and
grading activities

1. Once

2. Periodically
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MM-NOI-2 Operational Activities
Where future development under the Plan
would include operational activities that
would result in perceptible offsite vibration,
the developer shall provide the City with a
noise and vibration study to quantify these
vibration levels and their potential impacts
on nearby receptors. Vibrational activities
that exceed structural damage or human
annoyance levels shall be mitigated to below
regulatory levels through the
implementation of vibration dampening
features, increased distance between source
and receptor, or other measures applicable

1. Confirm that any required noise
and vibration studies have been
submitted to the City of Montclair
for review and approval

2. Confirm that recommendations
contained therein are
implemented throughout
operation of the project

1. Prior to issuance
of construction
and grading
permits

2. During project
operations

1. Once

2. Periodically
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 138 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 85 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
to the nature of the operation. The City shall
review and approve the noise and vibration
study before it approves the project.

Tribal Cultural Resources
MM-TCR-1 Native American Monitoring
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for
a proposed project, the City of Montclair
(City) shall ensure that the project applicant
retains the services of a tribal monitor(s)
approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians Kizh Nation to provide Native
American monitoring during grounddisturbing activities. This provision shall be included on the proposed project
contractor’s plans and specifications.

Ground-disturbing activities are defined by
the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh
Nation as activities that may include but are
not limited to pavement removal, pot-holing
or auguring, grubbing, tree removals,
borings, grading, excavation, drilling, and/or
trenching within the project area. The
project site shall be made accessible to the
monitor(s), provided adequate notice is
given to the construction contractor and that
a construction safety hazard does not occur.

The monitor(s) shall possess Hazardous
Waste Operations and Emergency Response
(HAZWOPER) certification. In addition, the
monitor(s) shall be required to provide
insurance certificates, including liability
insurance.

If evidence of tribal cultural resources is
found during ground-disturbing activities,
the monitor(s) shall have the capacity to halt
construction in the immediate vicinity of the
find to recover and/or determine the
appropriate plan of recovery for the resource
in consultation with a qualified
Confirm that a tribal monitor has been
approved by the relevant tribes to provide
Native American monitoring during
ground-disturbing activities, consistent
with the requirements of this mitigation
measure
Prior to issuance of a
grading permit for a
project under the Plan
Once City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 139 of 266 City of Montclair
Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed-Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan 86 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
archaeologist. The recovery process shall not
unreasonably delay the construction process
and must be carried out consistent with
CEQA and local regulations.

Construction activity shall not be contingent
on the presence or availability of a monitor,
and construction may proceed regardless of
whether or not a monitor is present on site.

The monitor shall complete daily monitoring
logs that will provide descriptions of the
day’s activities and general observations and
whether the Native American monitor
believes they observed a TCR and what
action they took. The on-site monitoring
shall end when the project site grading and
excavation activities are completed or prior
to the completion if the monitor has
indicated that the site has a low potential for
tribal cultural resources.

MM-TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources Upon discovery of any tribal cultural
resources, the Native American monitor has
the ability to halt construction activities in
the immediate vicinity (within 50 feet) of the
find until the find can be assessed. All tribal
cultural resources unearthed during project
construction activities shall be evaluated by
the Native American monitor approved by
the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh
Nation and a qualified archaeologist.

Construction work shall be permitted to
continue on other parts of the project site
while evaluation and, if necessary, additional
investigations and/or preservation measures
take place (CEQA Guidelines
Section15064.5(f)). If the resources are
Native American in origin, the Gabrieleño
Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation tribe
shall coordinate with the landowner
regarding treatment and curation of these

1. Confirm construction has been
halted per the Native American
monitor’s assessment

2. Confirm that the avoidance
measures described in this
mitigation measure have been
implemented

1. Upon the
discovery of any
tribal cultural
resources

2. Throughout
construction and
grading activities
after the
discovery of any
tribal cultural
resource

1. Once for
each
occurrence

2. Periodically
City of
Montclair
Planning
Division
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 140 of 266 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 87 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
resources. If a resource is determined by the
qualified archaeologist to constitute a
“historical resource” or “unique
archaeological resource,” time allotment and
funding sufficient to allow for
implementation of avoidance measures shall
be made available through coordination
between the Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians Kizh Nation and the project
applicant. The treatment plan established for
the resources shall be in accordance with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical
resources and Public Resources Code (PRC)
Sections 21083.2(b) for unique
archaeological resources. Preservation in
place (i.e., avoidance) shall be the preferred
manner of treatment. If preservation in place
is not feasible, treatment may include
implementation of archaeological data
recovery excavations to remove the resource
along with subsequent laboratory processing
and analysis.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 141 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3461 Page 1 of 8
RESOLUTION NO. 24–3461

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MONTCLAIR ADOPTING THE 2020 CITY OF MONTCLAIR

GENERAL PLAN, ITS MANDATORY AND OPTIONAL

ELEMENTS, AND A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
WHEREAS, state law requires the City of Montclair (the “City”) to adopt and maintain a general plan that contains certain mandatory elements, determines the City’s long–term goals, and develops policies and programs to achieve those goals; and WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan was originally adopted in 1971 and has been subsequently updated and amended to address changing economic, environmental, social, legal, and other conditions in the City; and
WHEREAS, in 2018 the City initiated the process of updating the City’s General Plan (“General Plan Update”) by approving a work plan and schedule, undertaking public meetings, and conducting public workshops; and
WHEREAS, among other things, the City identified stakeholders, created a public General Plan website, conducted various community visioning workshops, held focus groups, provided City Council updates, and held adoption hearings that were attended by members of the public, appointed and elected officials, and other affected agencies to ensure public participation in the process; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 65302, a comprehensive General Plan Update was prepared, which addresses the mandatory elements required by state law (land use, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, open space, and safety) and several optional elements (economic development, parks and recreation, culture); and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Update includes goals and policies regarding each of these General Plan elements; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Update applies to the entire incorporated City (approximately 3,550 acres), in addition to other areas within the City’s Sphere of Influence (approximately 584 acres), which together comprise the “Planning Area;” and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update is a citywide document that is an integrated and internally consistent statement of the official land use policy for the City; and WHEREAS, the City sent the Draft General Plan Update to affected public entities and agencies in compliance with state law (Government Code Sections 65302(g)(7), 65302.5, 65302.7, 65352(a)(9), and Public Utilities Code Section 21676), and in accordance with Government Code Section 65352.3 contacted California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission to invite those tribes to consult on the proposed Draft General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the City released the Draft General Plan Update for public review on July 26, 2022, and invited comments on it from July 26, 2022 through September 8, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the City reviewed comments on both the Public Review Draft General Plan Update, considered and analyzed the comments, and made minor changes to the Draft General Plan Update as a result of the comments received; and WHEREAS, comments on the Draft General Plan Update that were received from the public were presented and revisions were proposed for Planning Commission consideration; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the City of Montclair Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft General Plan Update, considered all written and oral reports of staff and public testimony on the matter, and such other matters as are reflected in the record of this matter; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 24–2001-A-B by a vote of 3-0-2, recommending adoption of the General Plan Update and making findings that the General Plan Update and all of its elements comprise a logical, integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of the City’s goals, policies, and objectives; that the General Plan Update is reasonably related to the public health, safety, and welfare as it guides and accommodates land uses, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, open space, safety, circulation and infrastructure in accordance with state law, and addresses community needs, and future demands; and MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 142 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3461 Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS, with respect to the proposed Housing Element, the California Government Code requires that cities review and update their Housing Elements every eight (8) years, according to a schedule set forth by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”); and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element sets forth the housing policies for the City, facilitates the preservation and development of housing, and establishes programs to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing needs in Southern California; and WHEREAS, the City has been assigned an allocation of 2,593 new housing units as its share of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (“RHNA”) in Southern California; and
WHEREAS, the City’s new Housing Element (6th Cycle, 2021–2029), was prepared and submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for review. HCD responded on July 27, 2022, finding the City’s draft housing element had met the statutory requirements of state housing law. The letter clarified that the housing element would substantially comply with Housing Element Law (Gov.

Code § 65580 et seq.) when adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD; and WHEREAS, in connection with the City’s adoption of the General Plan Update, the City desires to adopt an amended 6th Cycle “2021–2029 Housing Element” including responding to all comments made regarding the Housing Element by HCD; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Update covers all territory within the boundaries of the City and the City’s Sphere of Influence; and the General Plan Update, together with the adopted Housing Element as amended, addresses all of the mandatory General Plan elements; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code, Section 65356 provides that the legislative body shall adopt or amend a General Plan by resolution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the legislative body; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Update, considered all written and oral reports of staff, provided opportunities for the public to speak, considered all public testimony on the matter and such other matters as are reflected in the record; and WHEREAS, the City published notice of its Planning Commission and City Council public hearings in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution and adopted by the City Council by this reference.

Section 2. The City Council, based upon substantial evidence in the record, comments heard during public hearings and community meetings and the written documentation provided, and in addition to the findings contained in the recitals above, hereby makes the following additional findings in support of adoption of the General Plan Update and its mandatory and optional elements:

A. State law requires that each city adopt a General Plan to describe its long– term goals and policies and programs to achieve those goals. The general plan is often referred to a city’s “constitution” for future growth and development as land use decisions, the Zoning Code, development approvals, and other policies of the City must be consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan outlines a vision for the City’s long–term physical and economic development and community enhancement and sets forth goals and policies that will allow this vision to be accomplished. The General Plan also provides the basis for establishing City priorities for implementing plans and programs, including the Zoning Code, the Capital Improvement Program, and master and specific plans. The City Council finds that the mandatory and optional plans adopted by this General Plan are consistent with the City’s goals and objectives for development and growth, are internally consistent with each other.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 143 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3461 Page 3 of 8
B. It is in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare to update and adopt the City’s General Plan to incorporate current conditions and community goals and to extend the planning horizon to 2040. The General Plan is centered around eight (8) values and guiding principles about the quality, character, development, sustainability, and public services within the City.

C. The General Plan is consistent with the requirements in the California Government Code regarding General Plans and the Governor’s Office of Planning & Research (OPR) General Plan Guidelines, and the General Plan is internally consistent with all of the objectives, policies, general land uses, programs, and actions of all elements of the General Plan. The General Plan is a comprehensive update of the City’s General Plan and includes an update of the existing elements as well as the addition of new elements. The General Plan addresses all state–mandated elements, including land use, circulation, conservation, housing, noise, open space, and safety, and several optional elements including elements (economic development, parks and recreation, and culture).

D. Based on the entire record, including the staff report, public hearing comments background information, and all other written and oral evidence presented, the City finds the General Plan Update promotes the goals and objectives of the entire General Plan and leaves the General Plan a compatible, integrated, and internally consistent statement of policies for the following reasons:

1. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Land Use Element in that it provides an appropriate orientation and relationship between land uses within and adjacent to the Subject Site, and promotes orderly development beyond the Subject Site's boundaries. The 2020 General Plan satisfies the requirements of the state–mandated land use element via – Our Well–Planned Community (Chapter 3), Our Healthy Community (Chapter 5), and Our Active Community (Chapter 7). These chapters focus on a preferred land use plan that is designed to guide new growth opportunities in key areas of the City such as the emerging Downtown area between the Montclair Transcenter and the Montclair Place District, and along the Central Avenue (south of the I–10 Freeway), Holt Boulevard, and Mission Boulevard commercial corridors. The 2020 General Plan also makes provisions to protect natural resources, respect and enhance stable residential neighborhoods, and make great places by insisting on the highest standard of architecture, landscaping, and urban design.

These chapters also seek to build effective partnerships that improve physical and mental health and social well–being and address parks and open spaces to provide enriching recreational options for the entire community. These chapters address the general distribution, general location, extent, and intensity of use of private and publicly owned land for housing, business, industry, open space, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, greenways, and public facilities. These chapters comprehensively factor for the anticipated growth and development of Montclair through 2040 and assign goals, policies, and programs to manage such growth and development in alignment with the community's vision of the city and serve as a guide for decisions related to zoning, subdivisions, and development requests in Montclair. Land use and design goals, policies, and programs are correlated to the same of the housing element.

2. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Circulation Element in that the density and distribution of uses within the Subject Site will generate traffic that is anticipated and addressed in the 2020 General Plan via Our Accessible Community (Chapter 4).

The Our Accessible Community chapter satisfies the requirements of the state–mandated circulation element, by proposing transportation choices advocated by California laws, along with local goals and policies aimed at strengthening and balancing pedestrian, bike, and transit connections within the City and with the surrounding region. This chapter also discusses street networks, street types, transit services, bicycle and pedestrian systems, parking, transportation demand management, and performance metrics, based on an overview of the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 144 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3461 Page 4 of 8
travel characteristics of Montclair’s residents, the existing circulation network and traffic operations, and parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

In addition, the Our Accessible Community chapter identifies the general location and extent of existing local public utilities and facilities and provides goals, policies, and programs correlated to the land uses and development projections of the land uses that plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network to meet the needs of all users, including motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation. The chapter describes improvements to the City's network of roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian access routes proposed to accommodate future development, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encourage physical activity, and improve safe and convenient travel by all users.

3. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Housing Element in that it provides for development consistent with the existing and projected housing needs of the community and region. The 2020 General Plan – Our Well–Planned Community (Chapter 3) chapter satisfied the requirements of the state–mandated housing element.

Montclair is committed on course toward making decent and affordable housing available within the community. The purpose of the 2021– 2029 Housing Element update is to find community support for building substantial new housing, especially affordable housing, among their residents. The Housing Element identifies and analyzes the current and future housing needs of residents within Montclair and establishes goals, policies, and programs to meet the City’s housing needs. The City seeks to conserve and rehabilitate existing housing as well as provide opportunities for new development. Housing goals, policies, and programs have been correlated to the same land use/design, parks, and recreation elements of the 2020 General Plan.

The City’s new Housing Element (6th Cycle, 2021–2029), was prepared and submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) for review. HCD responded on July 27, 2022, finding the City’s draft housing element had met the statutory requirements of state housing law. The letter clarified that the housing element would substantially comply with Housing Element Law (Gov.

Code § 65580 et seq.) when adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD.

4. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Conservation Element in that it provides uses, which promote the orderly conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources.

The 2020 General Plan – Our Natural Community (Chapter 1) chapter satisfied the requirements of the state–mandated conservation element. This chapter addresses how Montclair will promote clean air, clean water, and habitat for native species, prevent urban heat islands, reduce stormwater runoff, and promote greener neighborhoods, healthier lifestyle choices, and nature–based recreation. This chapter identifies the need and potential to develop an integrated and connected Green Infrastructure system in Montclair. A Green Infrastructure provides multiple benefits: identifies the general location and extent of natural resources in Montclair and provides goals, policies, and programs addressing the effect of development on and utilization of natural resources. Green infrastructure includes core areas and connecting corridors. The core areas include all open spaces, the San Antonio creek, parks, and other natural areas. The green corridors that include the watershed area, streets, alleys, and utility easements could maintain connectivity and provide for human and animal movement, and seed and pollen dispersal.

5. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Open Space Element in that it provides for uses that are consistent with and promote the adopted goals and policies for preserving and managing open space within the City. The 2020 General Plan – Our Natural Community (Chapter 1) and Our Active Community (Chapter 7) chapters satisfy the requirements of the state–mandated Open Space Element.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 145 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3461 Page 5 of 8
These chapters address how Montclair can thrive in balance with the community’s natural ecosystem and parks and open spaces to provide enriching recreational options for the entire community. These chapters also identify the general location and extent of lands in Montclair that provide value in an essentially undeveloped condition and specify goals, policies, and programs guiding the preservation of such areas for their scenic qualities, protection of natural resources, outdoor recreation, air, and water, addressing greenhouse gasses, riparian areas, plants, and animals. Open space goals, policies, and programs are correlated with the conservation, land use, and parks and recreation elements of the 2020 General Plan.

6. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Noise Element in that it provides a pattern of land uses that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. The 2020 General Plan – Our Healthy Community (Chapter 5) chapter satisfies the requirements of the state–mandated Noise Element. This chapter identifies sources of noise and existing and future noise levels in Montclair, including that from the I–10 Freeway, existing railways, primary arterial and major local streets, other transit systems, and industrial and other stationary sources. The chapter specifies goals, policies, and programs to address exposure to current and projected noise sources, including land use/noise compatibility criteria, direction to prepare acoustic impact studies for new development as necessary, and requiring the implementation of noise reduction measures through Montclair’s zoning, subdivision, and new development projects during the entitlement permit process. Noise goals, policies, and programs are correlated to the same of the public health and land use elements of the 2020 General Plan.

7. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Safety Element in that it provides an appropriate land use distribution and orientation that protects the community from unreasonable risks associated with natural and human-caused threats and hazards. The 2020 General Plan – Our Safe Community (Chapter 6) chapter satisfies the requirements of the state–mandated Safety Element and identifies the general location and extent of areas of Montclair subject to violent and property crimes, pedestrian and bike safety, protection from fire, excessive noise, earthquakes, brush fires, and floods, and adequate levels of police, fire, and emergency medical services. The Montclair Police and Fire Departments provide public safety. This chapter also addresses climate vulnerability and resilience in the community, to increase awareness of emergency and minimize threat to life and damage to structures from hazards including increased likelihood of drought, flooding, wildfires, heat waves, and severe weather. California Senate Bill 379 requires Safety Elements to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to that city. The Montclair Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) identifies ways to mitigate hazards before their occurrence to reduce deaths, injuries, and property damage. This chapter integrates with the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, ensuring a coordinated approach to public safety and qualifying the City for additional funding opportunities. Policies in this chapter identify hazards and emergency response priorities, as well as mitigation through avoidance of hazards by new projects and reduction of risk in developed areas.

8. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Economic Development Element included (an optional element allowed by California Government Code Section 65303). Chapter 2, Our Prosperous Community, of the 2020 General Plan provides an economic development strategy for Montclair, with a focus on the next 20 years.

The chapter seeks to build on and diversify Montclair’s economic base, develop fiscal resources, and build its internal capacity toward increased economic development. A prosperous and economically vibrant Montclair will be able to attract private investment, expand its tax base, and provide equitable, walkable communities for all. For the 2020 General Plan, the City and its economy are well positioned to realize this vision, particularly through coordination with the incoming Metro L Line light rail station. Economic development is addressed by a framework of policies for governing future decisions about how the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 146 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3461 Page 6 of 8
City will encourage a thriving business environment with high–paying industries, a vibrant downtown, and a healthy economy. The goals, policies, and programs aim to create a climate where business and innovation flourish in Montclair.

9. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Culture Element included (optional element allowed by California Government Code Section 65303). Chapter 8, Our Creative Community, of the 2020 General Plan addresses arts, culture, schools, libraries, public art, and historic resources and seeks to nurture and promote Montclair’s arts and cultural activities, organizations, and events and give them more visibility and prominence in the region. The purpose of this chapter is to articulate a shared community vision for arts and culture and promote coordination and collaboration within the arts community.

Increased awareness of the potential of arts and cultural activity to contribute to community and economic development. Support economic development through increased cultural tourism while generating new resources for the arts and work opportunities for local artists. This chapter lays out a roadmap to leverage the collective resources to elevate Montclair’s profile as a creative, innovative community, and to strengthen and expand its cultural ecosystem.

10. The General Plan Update is integrated and compatible with the Parks and Recreation Element (optional element allowed by California Government Code Section 65303). Chapter 7, Our Active Community, of the 2020 General Plan is coordinated with Our Well–Planned Community (Chapter 3) and addresses parks and open spaces to provide enriching recreational options for the entire community. Parks and recreation goals, policies, and programs are correlated with the Housing, Land Use/Design, and Open Space Elements of the 2020 General Plan.

E. The General Plan Update is in compliance with the provisions of CEQA. A Final EIR has been prepared for the General Plan Update that provides a description of potential environmental impacts of the General Plan Update, includes mitigation measures to reduce impacts to less–than–significant levels where feasible, and evaluates alternatives to the General Plan Update.

All interested parties and members of the public were permitted to comment on the Draft EIR during the 45–day public comment period, and the City prepared written responses to comments in accordance with CEQA, which were included in the Final EIR. Neither the changes to the Proposed Project nor the Final EIR constitute significant new information triggering recirculation of the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15092 and 15093, the City Council finds that it may approve the Proposed Project despite the remaining significant effects on the environment that are unavoidable, as the City Council has determined in its Resolution Certifying the EIR for the Project that any remaining significant effects on the environment that are unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations.

F. The General Plan Update will promote the public health, safety, and welfare by establishing goals and policies to guide the City’s development within the Planning Area, to ensure an attractive built environment, to protect the natural environment and promote sustainability, and to ensure provision of adequate infrastructure and services.

Section 3. The City Council hereby approves the General Plan Update, including the Land Use Map, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council adopts the General Plan Update in accordance with the Planning Commission’s November 12, 2024 recommendation, set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 24–2000, and has not made substantial modifications to the General Plan Update from the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Section 4. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that analyzed the General Plan Update, as well as updates to the Housing Element, Climate Action Plan, and development of the Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan and Montclair Corridors Code (collectively referred to as the “Project”), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). The Draft EIR was made available for public review for 45 days between July 26, 2022 through September 8, 2022. The document MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 147 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3461 Page 7 of 8
was made available online at the City of Montclair website and available for review at City’s Planning Division and Montclair Public Library in hard copy form. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the City prepared a Final EIR and released it to the public on November 7, 2024. The Final EIR (SCH No. 2020110481), adoption of findings under CEQA, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the environmental impact of the Project in accordance with CEQA. This Resolution incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 24–2000 for the Final EIR (SCH No. 2020110481) as if fully set forth herein.

Section 5. The City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 65357, is hereby directed to make the final General Plan Update, including all diagrams, available to the public for inspection.

Section 6. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution and the above findings have been based are located at the offices of the Community Development Department. The location and custodian of the documents is as follows: Director of Community Development, Community Development Department, City of Montclair, 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California 91763, who may be contacted at (909) 625–9477.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2024.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Resolution No. 24–3461 was duly adopted by the Montclair City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the XX day of XX, 2024, and that it was adopted by the following vote, to–wit:

AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX

Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 148 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3461 Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT “A”

CITY OF MONTCLAIR
2020 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Complete document on File
in the Community Development Department
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 149 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3462 Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 24–3462

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF MONTCLAIR ADOPTING THE MONTCLAIR

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan identifies local governments as essential partners in achieving California’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, in acknowledgement of the growing and urgent concerns regarding global climate change and the expanding regulatory environment, the City of Montclair (“City)” has prepared a Climate Action Plan (“CAP”) to reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, prepare for and mitigate climate risks, and chart the course towards a more sustainable and resilient future; and
WHEREAS, the CAP outlines the City’s commitment and strategy to reduce GHG emissions through implementation of emission reduction measures and actions with the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as outlined in Senate Bill (SB) 32, and make substantial progress towards reducing emissions in line with AB 1279, which aims for carbon neutrality by 2045, with 15 percent of the reductions achieved through carbon capture and sequestration solutions; and WHEREAS, SB 97 amended the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to require local jurisdictions to address and mitigate GHG emissions during CEQA review, and provides the opportunity for agencies to analyze and mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions; and
WHEREAS, the CAP will serve as a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan consistent with the requirements of Section 15183.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, which provides a process to streamline the review of GHG emissions of specific projects that are consistent with the approved CAP; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Montclair conducted a specially–noticed public hearing on the CAP, considered all written and oral reports of staff and public testimony on the matter, and such other matters as are reflected in the record of this matter; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 24–2002 by a vote of 5 to 0, to recommend that the City Council adopt the CAP.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution and adopted by the City Council by this reference.

Section 2. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that analyzed the General Plan Update, as well as updates to the Housing Element, Climate Action Plan, and development of the Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan and Montclair Corridors Code (collectively referred to as the “Project”), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). The Draft EIR was made available for public review for 45 days between July 26, 2022 through September 8, 2022. The document was made available online at the City of Montclair website and available for review at City’s Planning Division and Montclair Public Library in hard copy form. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the City prepared a Final EIR and released it to the public on November 7, 2024. The Final EIR (SCH No. 2020110481), adoption of findings under CEQA, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the environmental impact of the Project in accordance with CEQA. This Resolution incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in Resolution No. 24–2000 for the Final EIR (SCH No. 2020110481) as if fully set forth herein.

Section 3. The City Council hereby adopts the Climate Action Plan, which is incorporated herein by this reference, in acknowledgement of state and local efforts to address global climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and in the interest of the orderly development of the City and important to the preservations of the health, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 150 of 266 Resolution No. 24–3462 Page 2 of 2
safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City. The City Council adopts the Climate Action Plan in accordance with the Planning Commission’s November 19, 2024 recommendation, set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 24–2002, and has not made substantial modifications to the Climate Action Plan from the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Section 4. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution and the above findings have been based are located at the offices of the Community Development Department. The location and custodian of the documents is as follows: Director of Community Development, Community Development Department, City of Montclair, 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California 91763, who may be contacted at (909) 625–9477.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2024.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Resolution No. 24–3462 was duly adopted by the Montclair City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the XX day of XX, 2024, and that it was adopted by the following vote, to–wit:

AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX

Andrea M. Myrick
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 151 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1009 Page 1 of 6
ORDINANCE NO. 24–1009

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF MONTCLAIR REPEALING THE NORTH MONTCLAIR

SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING THE ARROW
HIGHWAY MIXED–USE DISTRIC SPECIFIC PLAN (FILE
NO. 2024–55)
WHEREAS, the City of Montclair initiated the Montclair 2020 General Plan Update (“General Plan Update”) to update the 1991 City of Montclair General Plan and establish the community’s vision for orderly development and growth in Montclair by functioning as a policy document to guide land use decisions; and
WHEREAS, as part of the General Plan Update, the City developed the Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District (AHMUD) Specific Plan to implement the land use development and regulatory goals identified in the 2020 Montclair General Plan Update; and
WHEREAS, the AHMUD Specific Plan planning area includes the remnant portions of the existing North Montclair Specific Plan (NMSP) that was adopted on January 5, 1998 (Resolution No. 97–2163); and
WHEREAS, the AHMUD Specific Plan affects approximately 165 acres of land located within two areas at the northwest and northeast corners of the City along the Arrow Highway Corridor ("Subject Site") as depicted in Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the AHMUD Specific Plan planning area affects 148 parcels within its boundaries as identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers listed in Exhibit “B”; and WHEREAS, the subject site consists some residential but primarily of retail commercial and light industrial uses in large and small structures, with associated parking fields; and
WHEREAS, with the adoption of the AHMUD Specific Plan, the North Montclair Specific Plan (NMSP) is thereby repealed in its entirety; and WHEREAS, the AHMUD Specific Plan was referred to all affected public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the AHMUD Specific Plan was reviewed, studied, and found to be consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Montclair ("Planning Commission") conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the Application were heard and the Application was comprehensively reviewed; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-0-1, recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 24–2001-C; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2024, the City gave public notice of the City Council’s public hearing on December 2, 2024, by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation, and posted the public notice at City Hall and on the City website at https://www.cityofmontclair.org; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2024, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at the City of Montclair Civic Center, the City Council conducted a public hearing at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the project were heard, and said application was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that analyzed the General Plan Update, as well as updates to the Housing Element, Climate Action Plan, and development of the Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan and Montclair Corridors Code (collectively referred to as the “Project”), including the repeal MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 152 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1009 Page 2 of 6
of the North Montclair Specific Plan and the Holt Avenue Specific Plan, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). The Draft EIR was made available for public review for 45 days between July 26, 2022 through September 8, 2022. The document was made available online at the City of Montclair website and available for review at City’s Planning Division and Montclair Public Library in hard copy form. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the City prepared a Final EIR and released it to the public on November 7, 2024. The Final EIR (SCH No. 2020110481), adoption of findings under CEQA, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the environmental impact of the Project in accordance with CEQA. This Ordinance incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 24–2000 for the Final EIR (SCH No. 2020110481) as if fully set forth herein.

Section 2. Based on the entire record before the City Council, all written and oral evidence presented, and the findings made in this Ordinance, the City Council hereby repeals the North Montclair Specific Plan, in its entirety, and adopts the AHMUD Specific Plan as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A".

Section 3. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds the AHMUD Specific Plan to be consistent with the 2020 General Plan Update of the City of Montclair ("General Plan Update") and systematically implements the goals and objectives of the General Plan Update for the following reasons:

A. The AHMUD Specific Plan includes diagrams that specify and promote an appropriate distribution, location, and extent of land uses, including open space, which is consistent with the diagrams contained in the General Plan Update. The AHMUD Specific Plan envisions a transformation of the existing area dotted with individual commercial and warehouse uses into a cohesive complete pedestrian–oriented neighborhood that builds on existing industrial uses. The plan also allow for the opportunity to introduce a mix of new and remodeled buildings to support small–scale manufacturing and supporting retail and office space, housing types, civic buildings, and recreational facilities to the area. The permitted uses and development standards adopted as part of the AHMUD Specific Plan would not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses, but would have a beneficial effect, which are not achievable under the provisions of the existing North Montclair Specific Plan that it replaces. For those reasons, the City Council finds the North Montclair Specific Plan should be repealed and replaced by the AHMUD Specific Plan as a land use document that more specifically promotes consistency with the General Plan Update.

B. The AHMUD Specific Plan promotes an appropriate distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the Specific Plan area and needed to support the land uses within the Subject Site. The AHMUD Specific Plan builds off existing viable infrastructure already in place and as will supplemented by both public investment (e.g. open space, public street enhancements/facilities, etc.) and other improvements associated with private development projects. In addition, the AHMUD Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan Update to enhance the City’s economic base by allowing a variety of compatible land uses.

C. The AHMUD Specific Plan is internally consistent and consistent with the General Plan Update’s standards and criteria for development, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. The AHMUD Specific Plan is set up to complement the General Plan Update and the goals and design standards and strategies of existing and recently adopted Specific Plans adjacent to its boundaries – the North Montclair Downtown Specific Plan (NMDSP) and the Montclair Place District Specific Plan (MPDSP). All these documents share common form–based code design standards and an emphasis on high–quality design and appropriate materials that will ensure consistency and guide the formation of a distinctive and attractive “downtown” streetscape and development pattern for the area.

D. The AHMUD Specific Plan includes and promotes the implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out the policies of the AHMUD Specific Plan and General Plan Update. The success of the AHMUD requires the City’s economic development organizational structure to accommodate the management and monitoring of all associated initiatives. Under the guiding themes of transit–connected place making, MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 153 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1009 Page 3 of 6
diverse uses, and local entrepreneurship, the AHMUD Specific Plan can leverage economic development in coordination with citywide goals. The City will prepare for implementing changes in the AHMUD planning area by identifying and evaluating key sources of funding that can support specific initiatives, including the establishment of an Economic Development Fund to assist in jumpstarting economic development activities in the AHMUD. Such initiatives can include façade improvements, public programs (food trucks, street festivals, etc.), and district branding/marketing efforts.

The AHMUD also encourages the City to consider the opportunity to establish an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)/ Community Revitalization & Investment Authorities (CRIA) to fund AHMUD infrastructure investments. In the longer term, a District–wide EIFD or CRIA can be used to reinvest increases in land values (from future development and a value premium created by transit) into infrastructure improvements in the AHMUD. This should be done in tandem with plans for the other areas, as referenced within the General Plan Update.

E. The AHMUD Specific Plan promotes greater design flexibility and encourages more economical and efficient use of land. The AHMUD seeks to create a distinct employment destination in proximity to the Metro Gold Line expansion to Montclair. A prosperous AHMUD is one that supports a variety of uses, fosters new and creative businesses in high–growth industries such as manufacturing and healthcare, and leverages transit connectivity to establish a unique experiential identity. The AHMUD outlines how the City can take steps to turn this economic development vision into reality through policies and prioritized investments that maintain consistency with the policies contained in the General Plan Update.

F. The AHMUD Specific Plan is consistent with the local Airport Land Use Plan and local Surface Mining and Reclamation Act policies. The nearest airport is Cable Airport in the City of Upland, which is adjacent to the northernmost portions of the AHMUD planning area. Although the Cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (CALUCP) Noise Contour Map identifies possible noise impacts and safety hazards, the potential harm is considered to be less than significant and requires no mitigation (Source: Montclair 2020 General Plan Update and Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan DEIR, 2022). Further, development policies and opportunities are compatible with any such plans.

Concerning Mineral Resources, the AHMUD planning area is identified as a location where aggregate resources are present. However, the area is already developed and contains existing commercial and intensive industrial uses. Access to mineral resources in this area is highly constrained to the point that they are effectively unavailable. Most new development in the AHMUD will be adaptive reuse or smaller scale infill projects and the loss of access to mineral resources in the area would not be substantially increased. As a result, development policies in the AHMUD will be compatible with any existing mineral resource areas.

Section 4. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission based its decision is as follows: Director of Community Development, Community Development Department, City of Montclair, 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California 91763, or by telephone at (909) 625–9477.

Section 5. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of the adoption and shall post a Certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its adoption.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 154 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1009 Page 4 of 6
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2024.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 24–1009 of said City, which was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2024, and was adopted not less than five (5) days thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2024, by the following vote, to–wit:

AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX
Andrea M. Myrick,
City Clerk

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 155 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1009 Page 5 of 6

EXHIBIT A
Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan
Planning Area

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 156 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1009 Page 6 of 6

EXHIBIT B
Properties within Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan Planning Area Listed by Assessor Parcel Numbers (148 Parcels) 1007–631–02–0000 1008–042–08–0000 1008–052–01–6094
1007–631–03–0000 1008–042–10–0000 1008–052–01–6097
1007–631–04–0000 1008–042–14–0000 1008–061–01–0000
1007–631–05–0000 1008–042–16–0000 1008–061–05–0000
1007–631–08–0000 1008–042–25–0000 1008–061–11–0000
1007–661–04–0000 1008–042–26–0000 1008–061–15–0000
1007–661–06–0000 1008–043–01–0000 1008–061–17–0000
1007–661–18–0000 1008–043–04–0000 1008–061–21–0000
1007–661–19–0000 1008–043–05–0000 1008–061–22–0000
1007–661–26–0000 1008–051–01–0000 1008–061–25–0000
1007–661–27–0000 1008–051–02–0000 1008–061–26–0000
1007–661–28–0000 1008–051–04–0000 1008–061–27–0000
1007–661–29–0000 1008–051–05–0000 1008–061–27–z000
1007–661–30–0000 1008–051–06–0000 1008–061–28–0000
1007–661–31–0000 1008–051–07–0000 1008–061–31–0000
1007–661–32–0000 1008–051–08–0000 1008–061–33–0000
1007–661–33–0000 1008–051–09–0000 1008–061–34–0000
1007–661–34–0000 1008–051–10–0000 1008–061–35–0000
1007–661–35–0000 1008–051–11–0000 1008–061–39–0000
1007–661–36–0000 1008–051–12–0000 1008–061–40–0000
1008–031–01–0000 1008–051–13–0000 1008–201–01–0000
1008–031–02–0000 1008–052–01–0000 1008–201–08–0000
1008–031–03–0000 1008–052–01–6002 1008–201–12–0000
1008–031–04–0000 1008–052–01–6004 1008–201–13–0000
1008–031–05–0000 1008–052–01–6012 1008–201–17–0000
1008–031–06–0000 1008–052–01–6015 1008–201–18–0000
1008–031–07–0000 1008–052–01–6016 1008–201–19–0000
1008–031–08–0000 1008–052–01–6017 1008–201–20–0000
1008–031–09–0000 1008–052–01–6018 1008–201–22–0000
1008–031–10–0000 1008–052–01–6022 1008–201–23–0000
1008–031–11–0000 1008–052–01–6031 1008–211–04–0000
1008–031–12–0000 1008–052–01–6044 1008–211–05–0000
1008–031–13–0000 1008–052–01–6051 1008–211–06–0000
1008–031–14–0000 1008–052–01–6054 1008–211–07–0000
1008–032–01–0000 1008–052–01–6057 1007–711–06–0000
1008–032–02–0000 1008–052–01–6059 1007–711–07–0000
1008–032–03–0000 1008–052–01–6062 1007–733–20–0000
1008–032–04–0000 1008–052–01–6064 1007–733–26–0000
1008–032–05–0000 1008–052–01–6065 1007–733–27–0000
1008–032–06–0000 1008–052–01–6071 1007–733–28–0000
1008–032–07–0000 1008–052–01–6073 1007–733–29–0000
1008–033–10–0000 1008–052–01–6074 1007–733–30–0000
1008–033–11–0000 1008–052–01–6077 1009–012–14–0000
1008–033–12–0000 1008–052–01–6079 1009–012–38–0000
1008–041–03–0000 1008–052–01–6080 1009–021–02–0000
1008–041–05–0000 1008–052–01–6081 1009–021–03–0000
1008–041–06–0000 1008–052–01–6085 1046–551–42–0000
1008–041–07–0000 1008–052–01–6091
1008–042–01–0000 1008–052–01–6092
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 157 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 1 of 11
ORDINANCE NO. 24–1010

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

MONTCLAIR ADOPTING THE MONTCLAIR CORRIDORS
CODE; AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 11 (ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT) OF THE MONTCLAIR MUNICIPAL CODE;

REPEALING THE HOLT BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN AND
THE MONTCLAIR PARKWAY PLACE SPECIFIC PLAN; AND

UPDATING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITYOF

MONTCLAIR
WHEREAS, the City of Montclair initiated the Montclair 2020 General Plan Update (“General Plan Update”) to update the 1991 City of Montclair General Plan and establish the community’s vision for orderly development and growth in Montclair by functioning as a policy document to guide land use decisions; and WHEREAS, as part of the General Plan Update, the City developed the Montclair Corridors Code (Corridors Code) to implement the land use development and regulatory goals identified in the 2020 Montclair General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the Corridors Code includes the creation of new zoning designations and development standards for the properties along Central Avenue (south of the I–10 Freeway), Holt Boulevard, and the Mission Boulevard corridors. The boundaries of the Montclair Corridors Code are identified in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Corridors Code affects approximately 1,403 properties within the boundaries of the subject street corridors ("Subject Site") identified in Exhibit A and listed by Assessor Parcel Numbers in Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, properties within the Corridors Code boundaries are currently assigned by Montclair Zoning Map with the following zoning district designations: AP Administrative Professional, C2 Restricted Commercial, C3 General Commercial, MIP Manufacturing Industrial Park, M1 Limited Manufacturing, and M2 General Manufacturing; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the Corridors Code requires the amendment to portions of Title 11 (Zoning and Development) of the Montclair Municipal Code (MMC) to repeal existing zoning designations of the parcels located within the boundaries of the Corridors Plan and eliminate future policy and land use conflicts with the provisions of the new Corridors Code to replace existing zoning regulations; and WHEREAS, the Chapters of the MMC to be repealed are 11.24 Administrative Professional (AP), 11.26 Restricted Commercial (C2) , 11.28 General Commercial (C3),

11.30 Manufacturing Industrial Park (MIP), 11.32 Limited Manufacturing (M1), 11.34 General Manufacturing (M2); and
WHEREAS, the Corridors Code proposes the following new land use designations:

Neighborhood Residential, Neighborhood Edge, Commerce—Mixed Use, Commerce— Industrial, and Civic to replace the former MMC Chapters; and WHEREAS, the subject site consists of a mix of some residential, retail commercial, and light industrial uses in large and small structures, with associated parking fields and site development; and
WHEREAS, with the adoption of the Montclair Corridors Code, the Holt Boulevard Specific Plan (HBSP) and the Montclair Parkway Place Specific Plan (MPPSP) are thereby repealed in their entirety; and
WHEREAS, the Montclair Corridors Code was referred to all affected public agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Montclair Corridors Code was reviewed, studied, and found to be consistent with the City’s adopted 2020 General Plan; and WHEREAS, on November 1, 2024, the City gave public notice of the Planning Commission’s public hearing for November 12, 2024, by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation, and posted the public notice at City Hall and on the City website at https://www.cityofmontclair.org; and
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 158 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 2 of 11
WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Montclair ("Planning Commission") conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the Application were heard and the Application was comprehensively reviewed; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission continued this item to an Adjourned Regular Meeting and a Special Meeting of the Montclair Planning Commission to November 19, 2024, and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2024, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 3-0-2, recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution No. 24–2001-D; and
WHEREAS, on November 22, 2024, the City gave public notice of the City Council’s public hearing on December 2, 2024 by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation, and posted the public notice at City Hall and on the City website at https://www.cityofmontclair.org; and
WHEREAS, on December 2, 2024, commencing at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the City of Montclair Civic Center, the City Council conducted a public hearing at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the project were heard, and said application was fully studied; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTCLAIR HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Ordinance are true and correct.

SECTION 2. Findings. Based on the entire record before the City Council and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council finds the Corridors Code promotes the goals and objectives of the 2020 General Plan Update for the following reasons:

A. The Corridors Code provides for land uses that are compatible with the General Plan Update. Uses contemplated by the Corridors Code help promote and achieve the development of residential, mixed–use, and commercial projects according to the proposed policies and design guidelines of the Corridors Code. More specifically, the Corridors Code will be consistent with General Plan objectives for establishing and directing new growth for revitalizing the Central Avenue (south of the I–10 Freeway), Holt Boulevard, and Mission Boulevard corridors, into places where:

1. A mixture of land uses including shops, workplaces, and residences are within walking distance of one another and produce an urban form that is inviting, comfortable, safe, and ecologically resilient;

2. Streets and open spaces promote a vibrant, safe, healthy, and prosperous place; and

3. New infill and remodeled buildings work together with existing buildings to define the pedestrian–oriented space of the public streets within the Corridor Area.

B. Based on the entire record, including the staff report and public hearing comments and all written and oral evidence presented, the City finds the Montclair Corridors Code is reasonably related to the public welfare of the citizens of the City of Montclair and the surrounding region. The Amendment of Title 11 (Zoning and Development) of the Montclair Municipal Code and adoption of the Corridors Code promotes and allows for additional and rational development and increased housing opportunities in the City of Montclair using policies and development standards that are consistent with the Guiding Principles contained in the 2020 General Plan Update for a well–planned and prosperous community.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 159 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 3 of 11
C. The Amendment of portions of Title 11 (Zoning and Development) of the Montclair Municipal Code and adoption of the Corridors Code is required to eliminate future policy and land use conflicts with the provisions of the new Corridors Code that supersedes existing zoning regulations. The Corridors Code provides new zoning district designations that replace the current AP, C2, C3, MIP, M1, and M2 zoning district designations contained in Title 11 (i.e., Chapters

11.24, 11.26, 11.28, 11.30, 11.32, and 11.34 respectively). The Corridors Code will be a standalone policy and regulatory document that will guide decisions to achieve future growth of parcels within the Corridors Code planning area. These amendments are necessary to implement the policies of the General Plan Update.

SECTION 3. California Environmental Quality Act. The City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that analyzed the General Plan Update, as well as updates to the Housing Element, Climate Action Plan, and development of the Arrow Highway Mixed–Use District Specific Plan and Montclair Corridors Code (collectively referred to as the “Project”), in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”). The Draft EIR was made available for public review for 45 days between July 26, 2022 through September 8, 2022. The document was made available online at the City of Montclair website and available for review at City’s Planning Division and Montclair Public Library in hard copy form. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, the City prepared a Final EIR and released it to the public on November 7, 2024. The Final EIR (SCH No. 2020110481), adoption of findings under CEQA, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the environmental impact of the Project in accordance with CEQA. This Resolution incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 24–2000 for the Final EIR (SCH No. 2020110481) as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 4. Repeal of Specific Plans; Municipal Code Chapters & Adoption of Corridors Code; Amendment of Zoning Map.

A. Repeal. The City Council of the City of Montclair hereby repeals the Holt Boulevard Specific Plan and the Montclair Parkway Place Specific Plan in its/their entirety.

In addition, the City Council hereby repeals Chapters 11.24, 11.26, 11.28, 11.30, 11.32, and 11.34 of Title 11 of the Montclair Municipal Code in their entirety.

B. Adoption of Corridors Code & Amendment to the Official Zoning Map. The City Council hereby adopts the Corridors Code and the Corridors Code Map as an Amendment to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Montclair as reflected in Case No. 2024–55 and attached hereto as Exhibit “C” to this Ordinance.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. Certification; Publication. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary thereof to be published within fifteen (15) days of the adoption and shall post a Certified copy of this Ordinance, including the vote for and against the same, in the Office of the City Clerk, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 7. Custodian of Records. The location and custodian of the documents and any other material, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission based its decision, is as follows: Director of Community Development, Community Development Department, City of Montclair, 5111 Benito Street, Montclair, California 91763, or by telephone at (909) 625–9477.

SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its adoption.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 160 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 4 of 11
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this XX day of XX, 2024.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
I, Andrea M. Myrick, City Clerk of the City of Montclair, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. 24–1010 of said City, which was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2024, and finally passed not less than five (5) days thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the XX day of XX, 2024, by the following vote, to–wit:

AYES: XX
NOES: XX
ABSTAIN: XX
ABSENT: XX
Andrea M. Myrick,
City Clerk
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 161 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 5 of 11

EXHIBIT A
Montlcair Corridors Code Planning Area
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 162 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 6 of 11

EXHIBIT B
Properties within Corridors Code Planning Area
Listed by Assessor Parcel Numbers (1,403 Parcels)
1008–332–03–0000 1008–381–18–0000 1008–651–16–0000 1009–461–29–0000 1008–332–04–0000 1008–381–20–0000 1008–651–17–0000 1009–461–30–0000 1008–332–06–0000 1008–601–03–0000 1008–651–18–0000 1009–461–31–0000 1008–344–02–0000 1008–601–62–0000 1008–651–20–0000 1009–461–32–0000 1008–344–06–0000 1008–601–63–0000 1008–651–21–0000 1009–461–33–0000 1008–344–07–0000 1008–601–64–0000 1008–651–22–0000 1009–461–34–0000 1008–352–07–0000 1008–601–65–0000 1008–651–23–0000 1009–461–35–0000 1008–352–08–0000 1008–601–66–0000 1008–651–24–0000 1009–461–36–0000 1008–352–09–0000 1008–601–67–0000 1008–651–25–0000 1009–461–37–0000 1008–352–10–0000 1008–601–68–0000 1008–651–26–0000 1009–461–38–0000 1008–352–11–0000 1008–611–10–0000 1008–651–27–0000 1009–461–39–0000 1008–352–12–0000 1008–611–13–0000 1008–651–28–0000 1009–461–40–0000 1008–352–13–0000 1008–611–14–0000 1008–651–29–0000 1009–461–41–0000 1008–352–14–0000 1008–611–15–0000 1008–651–30–0000 1009–461–42–0000 1008–352–15–0000 1008–611–16–0000 1008–651–31–0000 1009–461–43–0000 1008–352–16–0000 1008–611–17–0000 1008–651–32–0000 1009–461–44–0000 1008–352–17–0000 1008–611–18–0000 1008–651–33–0000 1009–461–45–0000 1008–352–18–0000 1008–611–19–0000 1008–651–34–0000 1009–461–46–0000 1008–352–19–0000 1008–611–20–0000 1008–651–35–0000 1009–461–47–0000 1008–352–20–0000 1008–611–21–0000 1008–651–36–0000 1009–461–48–0000 1008–352–21–0000 1008–611–22–0000 1008–651–37–0000 1009–461–49–0000 1008–352–22–0000 1008–611–27–0000 1008–651–38–0000 1009–461–50–0000 1008–352–23–0000 1008–611–28–0000 1008–651–39–0000 1009–471–01–0000 1008–352–34–0000 1008–611–29–0000 1008–651–40–0000 1009–471–06–0000 1008–352–35–0000 1008–622–01–0000 1008–651–41–0000 1009–471–07–0000 1008–361–16–0000 1008–622–02–0000 1008–651–42–0000 1009–471–08–0000 1008–371–07–0000 1008–622–35–0000 1008–651–43–0000 1009–471–09–0000 1008–371–08–0000 1008–622–36–0000 1008–651–45–0000 1009–471–10–0000 1008–371–09–0000 1008–622–37–0000 1008–651–46–0000 1009–471–11–0000 1008–371–10–0000 1008–622–38–0000 1008–651–47–0000 1009–471–12–0000 1008–371–11–0000 1008–622–39–0000 1009–461–04–0000 1009–471–13–0000 1008–371–12–0000 1008–622–40–0000 1009–461–05–0000 1009–471–14–0000 1008–371–13–0000 1008–622–41–0000 1009–461–10–0000 1009–471–15–0000 1008–371–14–0000 1008–622–42–0000 1009–461–11–0000 1009–471–16–0000 1008–371–15–0000 1008–622–43–0000 1009–461–13–0000 1009–471–17–0000 1008–371–16–0000 1008–622–44–0000 1009–461–14–0000 1009–471–18–0000 1008–371–19–0000 1008–622–45–0000 1009–461–15–0000 1009–471–19–0000 1008–371–20–0000 1008–622–46–0000 1009–461–16–0000 1009–471–20–0000 1008–381–01–0000 1008–622–47–0000 1009–461–17–0000 1009–471–21–0000 1008–381–02–0000 1008–622–48–0000 1009–461–18–0000 1009–471–22–0000 1008–381–03–0000 1008–622–49–0000 1009–461–19–0000 1009–471–23–0000 1008–381–04–0000 1008–622–50–0000 1009–461–20–0000 1009–471–24–0000 1008–381–05–0000 1008–641–01–0000 1009–461–21–0000 1009–471–25–0000 1008–381–06–0000 1008–641–06–0000 1009–461–22–0000 1009–472–00–0000 1008–381–07–0000 1008–641–09–0000 1009–461–23–0000 1009–472–01–0000 1008–381–08–0000 1008–641–10–0000 1009–461–24–0000 1009–472–02–0000 1008–381–09–0000 1008–651–01–0000 1009–461–25–0000 1009–472–03–0000 1008–381–10–0000 1008–651–04–0000 1009–461–26–0000 1009–472–04–0000 1008–381–16–0000 1008–651–15–0000 1009–461–27–0000 1009–472–05–0000 1008–381–17–0000 1008–651–16–0000 1009–461–28–0000 1009–472–06–0000 1009–472–07–0000 1009–472–51–0000 1009–491–08–0000 1009–502–07–0000 1009–472–08–0000 1009–472–52–0000 1009–491–09–0000 1009–502–08–0000 1009–472–09–0000 1009–472–53–0000 1009–492–01–0000 1009–502–09–0000 1009–472–10–0000 1009–472–54–0000 1009–492–02–0000 1009–502–10–0000 1009–472–11–0000 1009–472–55–0000 1009–492–03–0000 1009–502–13–0000 1009–472–12–0000 1009–472–56–0000 1009–492–04–0000 1009–502–19–0000 1009–472–13–0000 1009–472–57–0000 1009–492–05–0000 1009–502–20–0000 1009–472–14–0000 1009–472–58–0000 1009–492–06–0000 1009–502–21–0000 1009–472–15–0000 1009–472–59–0000 1009–492–07–0000 1009–502–22–0000 1009–472–16–0000 1009–472–60–0000 1009–492–08–0000 1009–502–23–0000 1009–472–17–0000 1009–472–61–0000 1009–492–09–0000 1009–502–24–0000 1009–472–18–0000 1009–472–62–0000 1009–492–10–0000 1009–502–25–0000 1009–472–19–0000 1009–472–63–0000 1009–492–11–0000 1009–502–26–0000 1009–472–20–0000 1009–472–64–0000 1009–492–12–0000 1009–502–27–0000 1009–472–21–0000 1009–472–65–0000 1009–492–13–0000 1009–502–28–0000 1009–472–22–0000 1009–472–66–0000 1009–492–14–0000 1009–502–29–0000 1009–472–23–0000 1009–472–67–0000 1009–492–15–0000 1009–502–30–0000 1009–472–24–0000 1009–472–68–0000 1009–492–16–0000 1009–502–31–0000 1009–472–25–0000 1009–472–69–0000 1009–492–18–0000 1009–502–32–0000 1009–472–26–0000 1009–472–70–0000 1009–492–19–0000 1009–502–33–0000 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 163 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 7 of 11
1009–472–27–0000 1009–472–71–0000 1009–492–20–0000 1009–502–34–0000 1009–472–28–0000 1009–472–72–0000 1009–492–21–0000 1009–502–35–0000 1009–472–29–0000 1009–472–73–0000 1009–492–22–0000 1009–513–00–0000 1009–472–30–0000 1009–472–74–0000 1009–492–23–0000 1009–513–01–0000 1009–472–31–0000 1009–472–75–0000 1009–492–24–0000 1009–513–02–0000 1009–472–32–0000 1009–472–76–0000 1009–492–25–0000 1009–513–03–0000 1009–472–33–0000 1009–472–77–0000 1009–492–26–0000 1009–513–04–0000 1009–472–34–0000 1009–472–78–0000 1009–492–27–0000 1009–513–05–0000 1009–472–35–0000 1009–472–79–0000 1009–492–28–0000 1009–513–06–0000 1009–472–36–0000 1009–472–80–0000 1009–492–29–0000 1009–513–07–0000 1009–472–37–0000 1009–472–81–0000 1009–492–30–0000 1009–513–08–0000 1009–472–38–0000 1009–472–82–0000 1009–492–31–0000 1009–513–09–0000 1009–472–39–0000 1009–472–83–0000 1009–493–03–0000 1009–513–10–0000 1009–472–40–0000 1009–472–84–0000 1009–493–04–0000 1009–513–11–0000 1009–472–41–0000 1009–472–85–0000 1009–493–06–0000 1009–513–12–0000 1009–472–42–0000 1009–472–86–0000 1009–493–08–0000 1009–513–13–0000 1009–472–43–0000 1009–472–87–0000 1009–493–09–0000 1009–513–14–0000 1009–472–44–0000 1009–472–88–0000 1009–501–01–0000 1009–513–15–0000 1009–472–45–0000 1009–472–89–0000 1009–501–02–0000 1009–513–16–0000 1009–472–46–0000 1009–472–90–0000 1009–501–03–0000 1009–513–17–0000 1009–472–47–0000 1009–472–91–0000 1009–501–04–0000 1009–513–18–0000 1009–472–48–0000 1009–472–92–0000 1009–501–05–0000 1009–513–19–0000 1009–472–49–0000 1009–472–93–0000 1009–501–06–0000 1009–513–20–0000 1009–472–50–0000 1009–491–01–0000 1009–501–07–0000 1009–513–21–0000 1009–472–51–0000 1009–491–02–0000 1009–502–01–0000 1009–513–22–0000 1009–472–52–0000 1009–491–03–0000 1009–502–02–0000 1009–513–23–0000 1009–472–53–0000 1009–491–04–0000 1009–502–03–0000 1009–513–24–0000 1009–472–48–0000 1009–491–05–0000 1009–502–04–0000 1009–513–25–0000 1009–472–49–0000 1009–491–06–0000 1009–502–05–0000 1009–513–26–0000 1009–472–50–0000 1009–491–07–0000 1009–502–06–0000 1009–513–27–0000 1009–513–28–0000 1009–521–05–0000 1009–531–25–0000 1009–532–09–0000 1009–513–29–0000 1009–521–06–0000 1009–531–26–0000 1009–532–10–0000 1009–513–30–0000 1009–521–07–0000 1009–531–27–0000 1009–532–11–0000 1009–513–31–0000 1009–521–08–0000 1009–531–36–0000 1009–532–12–0000 1009–513–32–0000 1009–521–09–0000 1009–531–37–0000 1009–532–13–0000 1009–513–33–0000 1009–521–10–0000 1009–531–38–0000 1009–532–14–0000 1009–513–34–0000 1009–521–11–0000 1009–531–39–0000 1009–532–15–0000 1009–513–35–0000 1009–521–12–0000 1009–531–40–0000 1009–532–16–0000 1009–513–36–0000 1009–521–13–0000 1009–531–41–0000 1009–532–17–0000 1009–513–37–0000 1009–521–14–0000 1009–531–42–0000 1009–532–18–0000 1009–513–38–0000 1009–521–15–0000 1009–531–53–0000 1009–532–19–0000 1009–513–39–0000 1009–521–24–0000 1009–531–54–0000 1009–532–20–0000 1009–513–40–0000 1009–521–25–0000 1009–531–55–0000 1009–532–21–0000 1009–513–41–0000 1009–521–26–0000 1009–531–56–0000 1009–532–22–0000 1009–513–42–0000 1009–521–27–0000 1009–531–57–0000 1009–532–23–0000 1009–513–43–0000 1009–521–28–0000 1009–531–58–0000 1009–532–31–0000 1009–513–44–0000 1009–521–29–0000 1009–531–59–0000 1009–532–32–0000 1009–513–45–0000 1009–521–30–0000 1009–531–60–0000 1009–532–38–0000 1009–514–04–0000 1009–521–31–0000 1009–531–63–0000 1009–532–39–0000 1009–514–05–0000 1009–521–34–0000 1009–531–64–0000 1009–532–40–0000 1009–514–06–0000 1009–521–35–0000 1009–531–65–0000 1009–532–41–0000 1009–514–07–0000 1009–521–36–0000 1009–531–66–0000 1009–532–43–0000 1009–514–08–0000 1009–521–37–0000 1009–531–67–0000 1009–532–44–0000 1009–514–09–0000 1009–521–38–0000 1009–531–68–0000 1009–532–45–0000 1009–514–10–0000 1009–521–39–0000 1009–531–69–0000 1009–532–46–0000 1009–514–11–0000 1009–521–40–0000 1009–531–70–0000 1009–532–47–0000 1009–514–12–0000 1009–521–41–0000 1009–531–72–0000 1009–532–48–0000 1009–514–13–0000 1009–521–42–0000 1009–531–73–0000 1009–532–49–0000 1009–514–14–0000 1009–521–45–0000 1009–531–74–0000 1009–532–50–0000 1009–514–15–0000 1009–521–50–0000 1009–531–75–0000 1009–532–56–0000 1009–514–16–0000 1009–521–52–0000 1009–531–76–0000 1009–532–57–0000 1009–514–17–0000 1009–521–53–0000 1009–531–77–0000 1009–532–58–0000 1009–514–18–0000 1009–521–55–0000 1009–531–78–0000 1009–532–59–0000 1009–514–19–0000 1009–521–58–0000 1009–531–79–0000 1009–532–60–0000 1009–514–20–0000 1009–521–60–0000 1009–531–81–0000 1009–532–61–0000 1009–514–21–0000 1009–531–01–0000 1009–531–82–0000 1009–532–62–0000 1009–514–22–0000 1009–531–09–0000 1009–531–83–0000 1009–532–63–0000 1009–514–23–0000 1009–531–10–0000 1009–531–84–0000 1009–532–64–0000 1009–514–24–0000 1009–531–11–0000 1009–531–88–0000 1009–532–67–0000 1009–514–25–0000 1009–531–12–0000 1009–531–91–0000 1009–532–68–0000 1009–514–26–0000 1009–531–13–0000 1009–531–92–0000 1009–533–01–0000 1009–514–27–0000 1009–531–16–0000 1009–531–93–0000 1009–533–02–0000 1009–514–28–0000 1009–531–17–0000 1009–531–94–0000 1009–533–03–0000 1009–514–29–0000 1009–531–18–0000 1009–531–95–0000 1009–533–04–0000 1009–514–30–0000 1009–531–19–0000 1009–531–96–0000 1009–533–05–0000 1009–514–31–0000 1009–531–20–0000 1009–532–04–0000 1009–533–06–0000 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 164 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 8 of 11
1009–514–32–0000 1009–531–21–0000 1009–532–05–0000 1009–533–07–0000 1009–514–33–0000 1009–531–22–0000 1009–532–06–0000 1009–533–08–0000 1009–521–01–0000 1009–531–23–0000 1009–532–07–0000 1009–533–09–0000 1009–521–02–0000 1009–531–24–0000 1009–532–08–0000 1009–533–10–0000 1009–533–08–0000 1010–061–03–0000 1010–295–01–0000 1010–601–05–0000 1009–533–09–0000 1010–061–04–0000 1010–295–02–0000 1010–601–06–0000 1009–533–10–0000 1010–061–05–0000 1010–295–03–0000 1010–601–09–0000 1009–533–12–0000 1010–061–06–0000 1010–295–04–0000 1010–601–10–0000 1009–533–12–0000 1010–061–07–0000 1010–295–05–0000 1010–601–11–0000 1009–533–14–0000 1010–061–08–0000 1010–295–06–0000 1010–611–01–0000 1009–533–16–0000 1010–061–09–0000 1010–302–11–0000 1010–611–02–0000 1009–533–17–0000 1010–061–10–0000 1010–302–12–0000 1010–611–03–0000 1009–533–18–0000 1010–061–11–0000 1010–302–13–0000 1010–611–04–0000 1009–533–19–0000 1010–061–12–0000 1010–302–14–0000 1010–611–05–0000 1009–533–20–0000 1010–061–13–0000 1010–302–15–0000 1010–611–06–0000 1009–533–21–0000 1010–061–14–0000 1010–302–16–0000 1010–611–07–0000 1009–533–22–0000 1010–061–15–0000 1010–302–17–0000 1010–611–08–0000 1009–533–23–0000 1010–061–16–0000 1010–302–18–0000 1010–611–12–0000 1009–533–24–0000 1010–271–01–0000 1010–302–19–0000 1010–611–14–0000 1009–533–25–0000 1010–271–02–0000 1010–302–20–0000 1010–611–15–0000 1009–533–26–0000 1010–271–03–0000 1010–353–01–0000 1010–611–16–0000 1009–533–27–0000 1010–271–04–0000 1010–353–12–0000 1010–611–17–0000 1009–533–28–0000 1010–271–05–0000 1010–353–13–0000 1010–611–18–0000 1009–534–01–0000 1010–271–06–0000 1010–353–14–0000 1010–611–19–0000 1009–534–02–0000 1010–271–07–0000 1010–353–15–0000 1010–611–20–0000 1009–534–03–0000 1010–271–08–0000 1010–363–10–0000 1010–611–23–0000 1009–534–04–0000 1010–271–09–0000 1010–363–11–0000 1010–611–24–0000 1009–534–05–0000 1010–271–10–0000 1010–363–12–0000 1010–611–29–0000 1009–534–05–0000 1010–271–11–0000 1010–363–13–0000 1010–611–31–0000 1010–041–04–0000 1010–271–12–0000 1010–363–16–0000 1010–611–34–0000 1010–041–74–0000 1010–271–13–0000 1010–363–17–0000 1010–611–35–0000 1010–041–77–0000 1010–271–14–0000 1010–371–32–0000 1010–611–36–0000 1010–041–78–0000 1010–271–15–0000 1010–371–33–0000 1010–611–37–0000 1010–041–79–0000 1010–271–16–0000 1010–371–34–0000 1010–611–38–0000 1010–041–80–0000 1010–271–17–0000 1010–371–35–0000 1010–611–39–0000 1010–054–01–0000 1010–271–18–0000 1010–371–37–0000 1010–611–40–0000 1010–054–02–0000 1010–271–19–0000 1010–371–38–0000 1010–611–41–0000 1010–054–03–0000 1010–271–20–0000 1010–371–39–0000 1010–611–42–0000 1010–054–04–0000 1010–281–01–0000 1010–371–40–0000 1010–611–43–0000 1010–054–05–0000 1010–281–02–0000 1010–371–41–0000 1010–611–44–0000 1010–054–06–0000 1010–281–03–0000 1010–371–42–0000 1010–611–45–0000 1010–054–07–0000 1010–281–04–0000 1010–371–43–0000 1010–611–46–0000 1010–054–08–0000 1010–281–05–0000 1010–581–47–0000 1010–622–12–0000 1010–054–09–0000 1010–281–06–0000 1010–581–48–0000 1010–622–13–0000 1010–054–10–0000 10102–81–07–0000 1010–581–49–0000 1010–622–14–0000 1010–054–11–0000 10102–81–08–0000 1010–581–50–0000 1010–622–15–0000 1010–054–12–0000 1010–281–09–0000 1010–581–51–0000 1010–622–16–0000 1010–054–13–0000 1010–281–10–0000 1010–581–55–0000 1010–642–01–0000 1010–054–14–0000 1010–281–11–0000 1010–581–56–0000 1010–642–02–0000 1010–054–15–0000 1010–281–12–0000 1010–581–57–0000 1010–642–03–0000 1010–054–16–0000 1010–281–13–0000 1010–591–14–0000 1010–642–04–0000 1010–061–01–0000 1010–281–14–0000 1010–591–15–0000 1010–642–05–0000 1010–061–02–0000 1010–291–01–0000 1010–591–17–0000 1010–642–06–0000 1010–061–03–0000 1010–291–02–0000 1010–591–18–0000 1010–642–07–0000 1010–642–08–0000 1010–643–05–0000 1011–021–05–0000 1011–061–20–0000 1010–642–09–0000 1010–643–06–0000 1011–021–06–0000 1011–061–21–0000 1010–642–10–0000 1010–643–07–0000 1011–021–09–0000 1011–061–22–0000 1010–642–11–0000 1010–643–08–0000 1011–021–12–0000 1011–071–07–0000 1010–642–12–0000 1010–643–09–0000 1011–021–13–0000 1011–071–08–0000 1010–642–13–0000 1010–643–10–0000 1011–021–14–0000 1011–071–09–0000 1010–642–14–0000 1010–643–11–0000 1011–021–15–0000 1011–071–10–0000 1010–642–15–0000 1010–643–12–0000 1011–021–16–0000 1011–071–11–0000 1010–642–16–0000 1010–643–13–0000 1011–021–17–0000 1011–071–13–0000 1010–642–17–0000 1010–643–14–0000 1011–021–18–0000 1011–071–14–0000 1010–642–18–0000 1010–643–15–0000 1011–031–08–0000 1011–071–15–0000 1010–642–19–0000 1010–643–16–0000 1011–031–09–0000 1011–071–16–0000 1010–642–20–0000 1010–643–17–0000 1011–031–17–0000 1011–081–02–0000 1010–642–21–0000 1010–643–18–0000 1011–031–18–0000 1011–081–03–0000 1010–642–22–0000 1010–643–19–0000 1011–031–19–0000 1011–081–04–0000 1010–642–23–0000 1010–643–20–0000 1011–031–20–0000 1011–081–05–0000 1010–642–24–0000 1010–643–21–0000 1011–031–25–0000 1011–081–09–0000 1010–642–25–0000 1010–643–22–0000 1011–031–26–0000 1011–081–10–0000 1010–642–26–0000 1010–643–23–0000 1011–031–27–0000 1011–081–11–0000 1010–642–27–0000 1010–643–24–0000 1011–031–28–0000 1011–081–12–0000 1010–642–28–0000 1010–643–25–0000 1011–031–31–0000 1011–091–01–0000 1010–642–29–0000 1010–643–26–0000 1011–031–33–0000 1011–091–02–0000 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 165 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 9 of 11
1010–642–30–0000 1010–643–27–0000 1011–031–34–0000 1011–091–06–0000 1010–642–31–0000 1010–643–28–0000 1011–031–35–0000 1011–091–08–0000 1010–642–32–0000 1010–643–29–0000 1011–041–01–0000 1011–091–09–0000 1010–642–33–0000 1010–643–30–0000 1011–041–02–0000 1011–091–10–0000 1010–642–34–0000 1010–643–31–0000 1011–051–01–0000 1011–091–13–0000 1010–642–35–0000 1010–643–32–0000 1011–051–02–0000 1011–091–15–0000 1010–642–36–0000 1010–643–33–0000 1011–051–03–0000 1011–241–15–0000 1010–642–37–0000 1010–643–34–0000 1011–051–04–0000 1011–241–19–0000 1010–642–38–0000 1010–643–35–0000 1011–052–10–0000 1011–241–20–0000 1010–642–39–0000 1011–011–01–0000 1011–052–14–0000 1011–281–04–0000 1010–642–40–0000 1011–011–02–0000 1011–052–15–0000 1011–281–05–0000 1010–642–41–0000 1011–011–03–0000 1011–052–16–0000 1011–281–06–0000 1010–642–42–0000 1011–011–04–0000 1011–052–23–0000 1011–281–11–0000 1010–642–43–0000 1011–011–05–0000 1011–052–24–0000 1011–281–12–0000 1010–642–44–0000 1011–011–06–0000 1011–052–25–0000 1011–281–13–0000 1010–642–45–0000 1011–011–07–0000 1011–052–27–0000 1011–281–14–0000 1010–642–46–0000 1011–011–08–0000 1011–052–28–0000 1011–281–15–0000 1010–642–47–0000 1011–011–09–0000 1011–052–29–0000 1011–291–02–0000 1010–642–48–0000 1011–011–10–0000 1011–052–30–0000 1011–291–03–0000 1010–642–49–0000 1011–011–11–0000 1011–052–31–0000 1011–291–04–0000 1010–642–50–0000 1011–011–12–0000 1011–052–32–0000 1011–291–05–0000 1010–642–51–0000 1011–012–03–0000 1011–052–33–0000 1011–291–06–0000 1010–642–52–0000 1011–012–04–0000 1011–061–10–0000 1011–291–07–0000 1010–643–00–0000 1011–012–10–0000 1011–061–11–0000 1011–291–08–0000 1010–643–01–0000 1011–012–11–0000 1011–061–12–0000 1011–291–09–0000 1010–643–02–0000 1011–021–01–0000 1011–061–13–0000 1011–291–10–0000 1010–643–03–0000 1011–021–02–0000 1011–061–14–0000 1011–291–11–0000 1010–643–04–0000 1011–021–03–0000 1011–061–17–0000 1011–291–12–0000 1011–291–13–0000 1011–321–12–0000 1012–021–19–0000 1012–081–01–0000 1011–291–14–0000 1011–321–16–0000 1012–021–20–0000 1012–081–02–0000 1011–291–15–0000 1011–321–19–0000 1012–021–21–0000 1012–081–04–0000 1011–291–17–0000 1011–321–20–0000 1012–021–22–0000 1012–081–06–0000 1011–291–18–0000 1011–321–26–0000 1012–021–23–0000 1012–082–02–0000 1011–291–19–0000 1011–321–41–0000 1012–021–25–0000 1012–082–07–0000 1011–291–21–0000 1011–321–42–0000 1012–021–26–0000 1012–082–08–0000 1011–291–22–0000 1011–321–54–0000 1012–021–27–0000 1012–091–01–0000 1011–291–23–0000 1011–321–55–0000 1012–021–28–0000 1012–091–02–0000 1011–291–24–0000 1011–321–56–0000 1012–021–29–0000 1012–091–03–0000 1011–301–01–0000 1011–321–57–0000 1012–021–33–0000 1012–091–04–0000 1011–301–02–0000 1011–321–58–0000 1012–021–34–0000 1012–091–05–0000 1011–301–04–0000 1011–321–59–0000 1012–021–35–0000 1012–091–08–0000 1011–301–05–0000 1011–321–60–0000 1012–021–36–0000 1012–091–13–0000 1011–301–06–0000 1011–321–61–0000 1012–021–37–0000 1012–091–14–0000 1011–301–07–0000 1011–321–62–0000 1012–021–38–0000 1012–092–01–0000 1011–301–09–0000 1011–321–63–0000 1012–021–39–0000 1012–092–02–0000 1011–301–10–0000 1011–321–64–0000 1012–021–40–0000 1012–092–03–0000 1011–301–14–0000 1011–321–65–0000 1012–021–41–0000 1012–101–07–0000 1011–301–15–0000 1011–321–66–0000 1012–021–49–0000 1012–101–10–0000 1011–301–16–0000 1011–321–67–0000 1012–021–51–0000 1012–101–11–0000 1011–301–17–0000 1011–321–68–0000 1012–021–52–0000 1012–101–12–0000 1011–301–18–0000 1011–321–69–0000 1012–021–53–0000 1012–101–13–0000 1011–301–19–0000 1011–321–70–0000 1012–031–01–0000 1012–101–16–0000 1011–301–20–0000 1011–321–71–0000 1012–031–02–0000 1012–101–17–0000 1011–301–21–0000 1011–321–72–0000 1012–031–05–0000 1012–101–18–0000 1011–301–22–0000 1011–321–73–0000 1012–031–07–0000 1012–101–19–0000 1011–301–23–0000 1011–321–74–0000 1012–031–08–0000 1012–101–20–0000 1011–301–24–0000 1011–321–75–0000 1012–031–09–0000 1012–101–21–0000 1011–301–25–0000 1011–321–76–0000 1012–031–10–0000 1012–111–03–0000 1011–301–26–0000 1011–332–07–0000 1012–042–01–0000 1012–111–04–0000 1011–301–27–0000 1011–332–08–0000 1012–042–02–0000 1012–111–06–0000 1011–301–28–0000 1011–332–09–0000 1012–051–03–0000 1012–111–08–0000 1011–301–29–0000 1011–333–69–0000 1012–051–04–0000 1012–111–09–0000 1011–311–01–0000 1011–334–03–0000 1012–051–06–0000 1012–121–01–0000 1011–311–02–0000 1011–334–04–0000 1012–051–07–0000 1012–121–02–0000 1011–311–03–0000 1011–334–05–0000 1012–052–01–0000 1012–121–03–0000 1011–311–04–0000 1011–334–06–0000 1012–052–02–0000 1012–121–06–0000 1011–311–05–0000 1011–463–33–0000 1012–061–01–0000 1012–121–07–0000 1011–311–06–0000 1011–463–34–0000 1012–062–01–0000 1012–121–08–0000 1011–311–07–0000 1012–011–01–0000 1012–062–02–0000 1012–121–09–0000 1011–311–08–0000 1012–021–02–0000 1012–062–04–0000 1012–121–10–0000 1011–311–09–0000 1012–021–03–0000 1012–062–11–0000 1012–121–11–0000 1011–311–12–0000 1012–021–05–0000 1012–062–13–0000 1012–121–12–0000 1011–311–13–0000 1012–021–06–0000 1012–062–14–0000 1012–121–13–0000 1011–311–14–0000 1012–021–07–0000 1012–062–15–0000 1012–121–14–0000 1011–311–15–0000 1012–021–14–0000 1012–071–02–0000 1012–121–15–0000 1011–311–17–0000 1012–021–15–0000 1012–071–03–0000 1012–121–16–0000 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 166 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 10 of 11
1011–311–19–0000 1012–021–16–0000 1012–071–04–0000 1012–121–17–0000 1011–321–11–0000 1012–021–17–0000 1012–072–10–0000 1012–121–18–0000 1012–121–19–0000 1012–183–10–0000 1012–441–01–0000 1012–441–51–0000 1012–121–21–0000 1012–191–02–0000 1012–441–02–0000 1012–441–52–0000 1012–121–22–0000 1012–191–04–0000 1012–441–03–0000 1012–441–53–0000 1012–131–02–0000 1012–191–05–0000 1012–441–04–0000 1012–441–54–0000 1012–131–03–0000 1012–191–06–0000 1012–441–05–0000 1012–441–55–0000 1012–131–04–0000 1012–191–07–0000 1012–441–06–0000 1012–441–56–0000 1012–131–05–0000 1012–191–08–0000 1012–441–07–0000 1012–441–57–0000 1012–131–06–0000 1012–191–09–0000 1012–441–08–0000 1012–442–01–0000 1012–131–09–0000 1012–191–10–0000 1012–441–09–0000 1012–442–02–0000 1012–131–10–0000 1012–191–11–0000 1012–441–10–0000 1012–442–03–0000 1012–131–11–0000 1012–191–12–0000 1012–441–11–0000 1012–442–04–0000 1012–131–12–0000 1012–191–13–0000 1012–441–12–0000 1012–442–05–0000 1012–131–13–0000 1012–191–14–0000 1012–441–13–0000 1012–442–06–0000 1012–131–14–0000 1012–191–15–0000 1012–441–14–0000 1012–442–07–0000 1012–141–01–0000 1012–191–16–0000 1012–441–15–0000 1012–442–08–0000 1012–141–02–0000 1012–191–17–0000 1012–441–16–0000 1012–442–09–0000 1012–141–03–0000 1012–191–18–0000 1012–441–17–0000 1012–442–10–0000 1012–141–04–0000 1012–201–01–0000 1012–441–18–0000 1012–442–11–0000 1012–141–05–0000 1012–201–02–0000 1012–441–19–0000 1012–442–12–0000 1012–141–12–0000 1012–201–03–0000 1012–441–20–0000 1012–442–13–0000 1012–141–13–0000 1012–201–06–0000 1012–441–21–0000 1012–442–14–0000 1012–141–14–0000 1012–201–07–0000 1012–441–22–0000 1012–442–15–0000 1012–141–15–0000 1012–201–08–0000 1012–441–23–0000 1012–442–16–0000 1012–141–16–0000 1012–201–11–0000 1012–441–24–0000 1012–442–17–0000 1012–141–17–0000 1012–201–12–0000 1012–441–25–0000 1012–442–18–0000 1012–141–18–0000 1012–201–13–0000 1012–441–26–0000 1012–442–19–0000 1012–151–01–0000 1012–201–14–0000 1012–441–27–0000 1012–442–20–0000 1012–151–02–0000 1012–201–15–0000 1012–441–28–0000 1012–442–21–0000 1012–151–03–0000 1012–201–16–0000 1012–441–29–0000 1012–442–22–0000 1012–151–04–0000 1012–201–18–0000 1012–441–30–0000 1012–442–23–0000 1012–151–05–0000 1012–201–19–0000 1012–441–31–0000 1012–442–24–0000 1012–151–06–0000 1012–201–20–0000 1012–441–32–0000 1012–442–25–0000 1012–151–13–0000 1012–201–21–0000 1012–441–33–0000 1012–442–26–0000 1012–151–15–0000 1012–201–23–0000 1012–441–34–0000 1012–442–27–0000 1012–181–16–0000 1012–201–24–0000 1012–441–35–0000 1012–442–28–0000 1012–181–17–0000 1012–241–28–0000 1012–441–36–0000 1012–442–29–0000 1012–181–18–0000 1012–241–29–0000 1012–441–37–0000 1012–442–30–0000 1012–181–19–0000 1012–241–30–0000 1012–441–38–0000 1012–442–31–0000 1012–182–01–0000 1012–251–08–0000 1012–441–39–0000 1012–442–32–0000 1012–182–06–0000 1012–251–09–0000 1012–441–40–0000 1012–442–33–0000 1012–182–07–0000 1012–261–03–0000 1012–441–41–0000 1012–442–34–0000 1012–183–01–0000 1012–261–04–0000 1012–441–42–0000 1012–442–35–0000 1012–183–02–0000 1012–261–05–0000 1012–441–43–0000 1012–442–36–0000 1012–183–03–0000 1012–271–01–0000 1012–441–44–0000 1012–442–37–0000 1012–183–04–0000 1012–271–29–0000 1012–441–45–0000 1012–442–38–0000 1012–183–05–0000 1012–271–33–0000 1012–441–46–0000 1012–442–39–0000 1012–183–06–0000 1012–271–87–0000 1012–441–47–0000 1012–442–40–0000 1012–183–07–0000 1012–281–62–0000 1012–441–48–0000 1012–442–41–0000 1012–183–08–0000 1012–281–63–0000 1012–441–49–0000 1012–442–42–0000 1012–183–09–0000 1012–311–35–0000 1012–441–50–0000 1012–442–43–0000 1012–442–44–0000
1012–442–45–0000
1012–442–46–0000
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 167 of 266 FIRST

READING
12/02/2024
Ordinance No. 24–1010 Page 11 of 11

EXHIBIT C
Montclair Corridors Code
Complete document on File
in the Community Development Department
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 168 of 266

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2024
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 1
FILE I.D.: FIN540
DEPT.: FINANCE
PREPARER: A. VONG/V. FLORES
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF WARRANT REGISTER AND PAYROLL DOCUMENTATION REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider approval of the Warrant Register and Payroll Documentation.

BACKGROUND: Mayor Pro Tem Johnson has examined the Warrant Register dated December 2, 2024; and the Payroll Documentation dated November 17, 2024, and recommends their approval.

FISCAL IMPACT: The Warrant Register dated December 2, 2024, totals $1,275,422.83.

The Payroll Documentation dated November 17, 2024, totals $887,518.33 gross, with $622,790.68 net being the total cash disbursement.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the above–referenced Warrant Register and Payroll Documentation.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 169 of 266

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2024
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 2
FILE I.D.: MHA050
DEPT.: MHA
PREPARER: M FUENTES
SUBJECT: CONSIDER REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE MONTCLAIR HOUSING AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023–24
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The Montclair Housing Authority (MHA) Commission is required to conduct an annual meeting in December to report the Authority’s activities for the preceding fiscal year.

A copy of the MHA Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2023–24 is attached for the MHA Commissioners’ review and consideration.

BACKGROUND: The MHA was created by the City Council on July 18, 2011. The City Council designated itself Commissioners of the MHA and designated certain City officials to serve as officers of the MHA. The City Manager is the Executive Director of the MHA.

The MHA financial statements for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2024, are included in the MHA Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2023–24. Total assets for MHA are $14,158,853.00.

FISCAL IMPACT: There would be no cost associated with the MHA Commissioners’ review and acceptance of the Annual Report.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Montclair Housing Authority Commissioners review and accept the Montclair Housing Authority Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2023–24.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 170 of 266 Montclair Housing Authority
Annual Report
Fiscal Year 2023-24
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 171 of 266 Montclair Housing Authority
Javier John Dutrey, Chair
Tenice Johnson, Vice Chair
Bill Ruh, Commissioner
Corysa Martinez, Commissioner
Benjamin Lopez, Commissioner
Officers
Edward C. Starr, Executive Director
Janet L. Kulbeck, Finance Officer
Andrea M. Myrick, Housing Authority Secretary
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 172 of 266 Assets
Cash in Bank 3,183,038 $
Residual Receipt Loan Receivable
Change in Fair Value - LAIF (11,754)
Interest Receivable 10,663
Land and Multifamily Housings Units 10,976,907
Total Assets 14,158,853 $
Fund Balance
Liabilities
Accounts Payable $ -
Fund Balance
Nonspendable - Unavailable $ -
Restricted for Housing 14,158,853
Total Fund Balance 14,158,853 $
Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 14,158,853 $
Revenues
Interest $ 10,663
Net Change in Fair Value - LAIF (11,754) $
Loan Payments Received 3,455 $
Contribution from Other Governments 1,966,368
Total Revenues 1,968,731
Expenditures
Transfers Out - Housing Operations/Maintenance -
Total Expenditures -
Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 1,968,731
Fund Balances
Beginning of Fiscal Year $ 12,190,122
End of Fiscal Year 14,158,853 $
For the Year Ended June 30, 2024
In accordance with Section 34328 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California, below are financial statements for the Montclair Housing Authority (Successor Housing Entity for the City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency) for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2024:

Montclair Housing Authority
Balance Sheet
June 30, 2024
Montclair Housing Authority
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures
and Changes in Fund Balance
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 173 of 266

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2024
SECTION: CONSENT - ADMIN. REPORTS
ITEM NO.: 3
FILE I.D.: MHA030
DEPT.: FINANCE/MHA
PREPARER: J. KULBECK
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MONTCLAIR HOUSING AUTHORITY ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 3416.1(F) OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE (SB 341) FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: Senate Bill 341 became effective on January 1, 2014.

The bill amended Section 34176 of the Health and Safety Code and added Section 34176.1. Health and Safety Code Section 34176 revised redevelopment law related to certain expenditure requirements of Low and Moderate Housing Funds of former redevelopment agencies. In general, Section 34176.1 limited future expenditures of administrative funds used for the monitoring and preservation of affordability covenants, directed that certain funds remaining in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund be directed to extremely low income households, and added certain audit and reporting requirements.

The report labeled "SB 341 Compliance Report" is attached for consideration by the City Council and Montclair Housing Authority Commission pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1 (f). This report indicates that the financial data applicable to the Montclair Housing Authority will be included in the City of Montclair’s annual independent financial audit. That process is currently being completed and that report will be provided to the City Council and Montclair Housing Authority Commission upon its receipt from the independent audit firm of Van Lant & Fankhanel, LLC. The City Council and Montclair Housing Authority Commission are requested to consider approval of the SB 341 Compliance Report.

BACKGROUND: As the City Council and Montclair Housing Authority Commissioners will recall, the California Supreme Court's decision in California Redevelopment Association, et. al. v. Matosantos upheld AB X1 26, The Dissolution Act. The Dissolution Act caused the dissolution of all California redevelopment agencies. On January 12, 2012, the City of Montclair City Council elected to become and serve as the Successor Agency to the City's dissolved redevelopment agency. The City is performing its functions as the Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency under the Dissolution Act to administer the enforceable obligations of the Agency and otherwise unwind the Agency's affairs, all subject to review and approval by the County Oversight Board.

On January 12, 2012, pursuant to Section 34176 of the Dissolution Act, the City Council selected the Montclair Housing Authority to assume all housing assets and functions of the former City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency. Therefore, on February 1, 2012, the Montclair Housing Authority became the "Housing Successor" of the former Redevelopment Agency pursuant to the Dissolution Act. The actions of the Housing Successor are not subject to the review and approval of the County Oversight Board.

As indicated, certain provisions of SB 341 require that the Housing Successor prepare a Compliance Report and have an audit completed. The SB 341 Compliance Report MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 174 of 266 responds to the requirements of Section 34176.1 (f) of the Health and Safety Code. The SB 341 Compliance Report also includes financial data for the Montclair Housing Corporation which operates the properties owned by the Montclair Housing Authority.

Primarily, the Report indicates the following:

The Montclair Housing Authority received $3,455 from loan payments revenue and $10,663 of interest earnings during Fiscal Year 2023-24. The Montclair Housing Corporation received $46,437 of interest earnings and $1,107,182 from rents.

The assets of the Montclair Housing Authority chiefly include real estate composed of the 105 residential units operated by the Montclair Housing Corporation and residual receipts loans.

For Fiscal Year 2023-24, the Montclair Housing Authority had no expenditures. The expenditures shown for the Montclair Housing Corporation include minor administrative costs, management company costs that include charges for minor repairs and maintenance, major repairs and maintenance and costs for health permits. The excess of revenue for the year is accumulated so that long-term maintenance items can be accomplished in the future.

The report indicates that the carrying value of the housing units owned by the Montclair Housing Authority is $10.97 million. In Fiscal Year 2021-22 the Montclair Housing Authority received payment in full in the amount of $3,171,900 from residual receipts loans to Augusta Homes (loans for rehabilitation of mobile home parks). These funds will be utilized for future low-income housing projects. The remaining Neighborhood Partnership Housing Services (loans to home owners for housing rehabilitation), and National Community Renaissance (loans for acquisition and construction of new affordable housing) residual receipts loans are considered uncollectible, however the Housing Authority did receive $3,455 in loan payments for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

The Montclair Housing Authority currently exceeds its Section 33413 inclusionary housing requirements. The income of the Montclair Housing Authority is non– reoccurring. Without a permanent source of revenue, the Montclair Housing Authority will no longer be able to provide additional affordable housing units.

Within the last 10 years, the City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund provided financing for 228 deed restricted affordable rental housing units. Thirty eight percent of the units were for senior housing.

FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the Annual Report by the City Council and Montclair Housing Authority Commission will create no fiscal impact for the City or Montclair Housing Authority. With no permanent source of the funding, the Montclair Housing Authority has extremely limited resources for the purpose of providing low and moderate housing.

As indicated, the Audit Report will be supplied to the City Council and Montclair Housing Authority Commission upon receipt from Van Lant & Fankhanel, LLC which should occur in early 2025.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council and Montclair Housing Authority Commission approve the Annual Report prepared pursuant to Section 34176.1 (f) of the Health and Safety Code (SB 341) for Fiscal Year 2023-24.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 175 of 266 1 Successor Housing Entity – Montclair Housing Authority Health and Safety Code Section 34176.1 (f) and Section 33080.1 as well as Section 12463.3 of the Government Code shall not apply. Instead, the housing successor shall conduct, and shall provide to its governing body, an independent financial audit of the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund within six months after the end of each fiscal year, which may be included in the independent financial audit of the host jurisdiction. If the housing successor is a city or county, it shall also include in its report pursuant to Section 65400 of the Government Code and post on its Internet Web site all of the following information for the previous fiscal year. If the housing successor is not a city or county, it shall also provide to its governing body and post on its Internet Web site all of the following information for the previous fiscal year:

Response:

The Montclair Housing Authority’s and Montclair Housing Corporation’s financial information is part of the annual financial audit report prepared for the City of Montclair and therefore it meets the requirement by being included “in the independent financial audit of the host jurisdiction”. (1) The amount deposited to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund, distinguishing any amounts deposited for items listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule from other amounts deposited.

Response:

The operations of Low and Moderate Income Housing are separated and reported by two entities. The Montclair Housing Authority (Housing Authority) is the Successor Housing Entity, which under the redevelopment dissolution law took over housing assets from the City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds upon its dissolution. Those housing assets included single and multifamily residential housing units which are operated and maintained by the Montclair Housing Corporation (Housing Corporation) which is a separate 501(c)(3) non-profit California Corporation. The rents and other income from the housing operations belong to the Housing Authority; however, they are granted to the Housing Corporation for use in covering expenses of operating the various housing units. Below is a summary of the deposits of both of these entities for fiscal year 2023-24:

Deposits for Fiscal Year 2023-24 $ 1,980,485.68 $ 1,153,618.92 $ 3,134,104.60 Deposit detail:

Grant from Housing Authority - Rental income $ 1,107,182.17 - $ $ 1,107,182.17 Loan Payments Received 3,455.13 - 3,455.13
Interest Earnings 10,663.01 46,436.75 57,099.76
Contribution from other Governments - 1,966,367.54 1,966,367.54 $ 1,980,485.68 $ 1,153,618.92 $ 3,134,104.60
Housing
Authority
Housing
Corporation Total
(2) A statement of the balance in the fund as of the close of the fiscal year, distinguishing any amounts held for items listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule from other amounts.

Response:

Since this section does not define what “balance” is required, the fund balances present in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund of the Montclair Housing Authority and the fund balance of the Montclair Housing Corporation are presented and detailed into their component amounts. Those balance and amounts are as follows as of June 30, 2024:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 176 of 266 2 Fund Balance $ 14,159,945.00 $ 1,109,981.34 $ 15,269,926.34 Components of Fund Balance:

Nonspendable - Land and Real Estate $ 10,976,907.43 $ 10,976,907.43 - $ Nonspendable - Loans Receivable - -
Restricted for Housing 3,183,037.57 1,109,981.34 4,293,018.91 $ 14,159,945.00 $ 1,109,981.34 $ 15,269,926.34
Housing Authority
Housing
Corporation Total
(3) A description of expenditures from the fund by category, including, but not limited to, expenditures (A) for monitoring and preserving the long-term affordability of units subject to affordability restrictions or covenants entered into by the redevelopment agency or the housing successor and administering the activities described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a), (B) for homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services for the development of housing described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), and (C) for the development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).

Response:

Total expenditures for fiscal year 2023-24 by category were as follows:

Expenditures:

Administrative costs - $ 56.25 $ 56.25 $
Professional services - 1,050.00 1,050.00
Management service company costs - 727,073.73 727,073.73 Repairs and maintenance - 829,624.96 829,624.96
Permits - 1,138.50 1,138.50
Total - $ 1,558,943.44 $ 1,558,943.44 $
Housing
Authority
Housing
Corporation Total
Operations of the multifamily residential units owned by the Montclair Housing Authority (Successor Housing Entity) are done through the Montclair Housing Corporation a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation. As such, the Montclair Housing Authority has not directly incurred any expenditures for monitoring or administering affordability restrictions or covenants as these are done by the Montclair Housing Corporation as part of administering and preserving those properties. All properties owned by the Housing Authority have 55 year deed restrictions present for low and moderate income housing purposes. (4) As described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the statutory value of real property owned by the housing successor, the value of loans and grants receivable, and the sum of these two amounts.

Response:

The statutory values of real property, loans and grants receivable at June 30, 2024 were as follows:

Housing
Authority
Real property 10,976,907.43 $
Loans receivable (net of allowance for uncollectible) - Total Real Property and Receivables 10,976,907.43 $
(5) A description of any transfers made pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) in the previous fiscal year and, if still unencumbered, in earlier fiscal years and a description of and status update on any project for which transferred funds have been or will be expended if that project has not yet been placed in service.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 177 of 266 3 Response:

During Fiscal Year 2019-20 transfers of operating monies in the amount of $160,000 occurred from the Housing Authority to the Housing Corporation. These monies were to provide resources to further maintain the housing units administered by the Housing Corporation and to assist in providing housing for extremely low-income households. No additional transfers of monies have been done by the Montclair Housing Authority or from the Montclair Housing Corporation from June 30, 2023 through June 30, 2024 . (6) A description of any project for which the housing successor receives or holds property tax revenue pursuant to the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and the status of that project.

Response:

The Montclair Housing Authority and the Montclair Housing Corporation receive no property tax revenues.

Neither of these entities has received nor currently holds any tax revenues pursuant to a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule.
(7) For interests in real property acquired by the former redevelopment agency prior to February 1, 2012, a status update on compliance with Section 33334.16. For interests in real property acquired on or after February 1, 2012, a status update on the project.

Response:

Section 33334.16 of the Health and Safety Code generally requires that for each interest in real property acquired by a redevelopment agency with Low to Moderate Income Housing Fund monies, a redevelopment agency must begin the development or rehabilitation of the property within five years from the date of acquisition. In the case of the former City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency, all properties acquired by the former Redevelopment Agency have been (or are in process of being) rehabilitated or sold for new housing development. The narrative below provides an update on the status of the units and/or property owned by the former City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency upon redevelopment agency dissolution in February 2012.

The former City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency was the owner of 98 units of affordable housing. The housing units were purchased and rehabilitated by the former Redevelopment Agency with Low-and Moderate-Income Housing Funds. The 98 units contain 55 year deed restrictions for affordability; approximately 80 percent of the units are deed restricted for very low income families; and over 300 people currently reside in these units.

On April 4, 2011, the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors and the Montclair Housing Corporation Board of Directors approved the sale of 98 housing units to the Montclair Housing Corporation with the approval of Redevelopment Agency Special Counsel. The properties were sold by the Redevelopment Agency to the Montclair Housing Corporation for approximately $12 million with the provision that all loan payments would be forgiven as long as the properties remained affordable housing subject to 55-year affordability covenants. The Montclair Housing Corporation was established in June 1994 to maintain and manage certain rental properties that the former Redevelopment Agency purchased and rehabilitated for the purpose of providing affordable housing with Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Funds to meet Health and Safety Code Inclusionary requirements. The City Council acts as the Board of Directors for the Montclair Housing Corporation.

While auditing the former City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency, the State Controller never questioned the validity of the asset transfer to the Montclair Housing Corporation. However, upon issuance of its draft Report in November 2012, the Controller's Office indicated that the housing units transferred to the Montclair Corporation should be returned to the Successor Agency. Successor Agency staff responded to the State Controller's conclusion indicating that the 98 units were existing units of affordable housing containing over 300 tenants. In addition, all the units contain 55 year affordability covenants. The State Controller's staff verbally communicated to Successor Agency staff saying that the units could be retained by the Montclair Housing Corporation upon adoption of a Resolution affirming such action by the Oversight Board. The Oversight Board approved Resolution No. 13-02 approving the transfer of the housing units to the Montclair Housing Corporation on January 23, 2013. The Final Report issued by the State Controller's Office dated March 6, 2013 indicated the Oversight Board had authorized the property transfer and no further action was necessary.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 178 of 266 4 After receipt and review of Resolution No. 13-02 by the Department of Finance (DOF) a letter was received from DOF on May 15, 2013 disallowing the transfer of the 98 housing units to the Montclair Housing Corporation. The action by DOF indicated no "Meet and Confer" on this action was authorized. The letter from DOF did remand the action back to the Oversight Board for consideration. Successor Agency staff verbally communicated with DOF where it was indicated that the housing assets in question should be placed on the Long Range Property Management Plan. It should be noted that DOF did not question the placement of these 98 housing units as assets on the Housing Asset Transfer list submitted by the Successor Agency and Oversight Board in July 2012. As directed by DOF, staff included the housing units in the first draft of the Long Range Property Management Plan.

After conference with legal counsel, Successor Agency staff submitted Resolution No. 13-10 to the Oversight Board for consideration. This resolution directed the Successor Agency to transfer the 98 units of rental housing to the Montclair Housing Authority (Successor Housing Agency) as housing assets. On September 11, 2013, the Oversight Board adopted Resolution No. 13-10 directing the Successor Agency to transfer the 98 low--and moderate-income housing units to the Montclair Housing Authority. On September 18, 2013, DOF Analyst Hanzhao Meng pulled Resolution No. 13-10 for review.

The Successor Agency to the City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency was finally allowed to delete the 98 units of low-to moderate-income housing (Housing Assets) in the Long- Range Property Management Plan that were held by the Montclair Housing Corporation. Per direction from DOF, pursuant to DOF Determination on OB Resolution No. 13-10 dated December 13, 2013, the transfer of the 98 units to the Montclair Housing Authority was approved.

Of the 98 units, the only unit requiring rehabilitation at the time of dissolution was the property at 5444 Palo Verde Street purchased prior to dissolution in 2011. Since its acquisition, this property has undergone extensive rehabilitation to clear trees and overgrown vegetation and to correct a variety of building code violations. The remaining items to be performed on the unit included replacement of broken windows and painting the exterior of the house. The house is currently rented to an income qualifying family.

The Montclair Housing Corporation continues to rent these 98 units along with the newly purchased property to income qualifying families. The majority of units are deed restricted for rental to very low-income families.

The other property owned by the former Redevelopment Agency upon dissolution was located at 4113 Kingsley Street. The .47–acre property was acquired by the former Redevelopment Agency on January 20, 2009. The purchase price for the property was $330,000. The property was acquired with Low to Moderate Income Housing Funds. At the time the property was acquired, staff held preliminary discussions with National CORE to determine its interest in considering the site for special needs housing. Development of a Special Needs Housing project was of interest to National CORE. National CORE developed similar projects in the past and has partnered with nonprofit social service providers regarding tenancy and social service needs. The proposed location for the National CORE Special Needs project lies directly east of Vista Del Cielo on the southwest corner of Kingsley Street and Pradera Avenue. This site also serves as an entry corner for the Montclair Meadows Foundation Area and the San Antonio Vista Apartments. On September 8, 2009, the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors approved an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement between the City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency and National CORE regarding the 4113 Kingsley Street site. Through the Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement, the Redevelopment Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund provided National CORE with a predevelopment loan of approximately $252,000. These funds were used to develop building plans for the property and to gain City entitlements. The project was entitled by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2011.

An Option Agreement regarding purchase of 4113 Kingsley Street was approved by the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors and National CORE on October 19, 2009. The Option Agreement provided National CORE with the ability to apply for United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 811 funding to finance the development of affordable housing for developmentally disabled persons. The Option Agreement also committed that the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors would consider providing National CORE with a residual receipts loan of at least $1.6 million. National CORE received a commitment for funding from the Section 811 program in 2010. However, National CORE still found itself in need of additional funding for the project and sought to apply for the California 9 Percent Low– Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Therefore, on December 30, 2010, the Option Agreement with National CORE was extended until December 30, 2012.

National CORE was successful at receiving 9 Percent LIHTC and with the HUD Section 811 funding, National CORE was ready to finance the 18-unit Special Needs Housing Project for persons with developmental disabilities for several months. National CORE wrote a letter to the Successor Agency MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 179 of 266 5 seeking to exercise the option for acquisition of the property. In addition, without an open escrow for the site, National CORE would be in danger of losing its commitment for HUD financing.

A public hearing to consider the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with National CORE regarding the Special Needs Housing Project at 4113 Kingsley Street was set to be considered by the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors and City Council on July 5, 2011. Unfortunately, Governor Brown signed the redevelopment dissolution legislation, AB 1X 26, on June 27, 2011. Therefore, the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors and City Council were not able to approve the DDA with National CORE and the 4113 Kingsley Street property returned to its state as an unimproved asset of the redevelopment agency.

With the official dissolution of redevelopment agencies on February 1, 2012, the City of Montclair formed the Montclair Housing Authority to assume responsibility for former redevelopment agency housing assets. The City became the successor agency for former redevelopment agency's nonhousing assets. Successor Agency Special Counsel opined that housing assets should be transferred to the housing successor agency by matter of law so a grant deed was not recorded to commemorate the transfer.

With the adoption of AB 1484 on June 27, 2012, the housing assets of each former redevelopment agency were to be listed on a Housing Asset Transfer form and submitted to the Department of Finance (DOF) for approval. The submittal of the Housing Asset Transfer form to DOF had to be completed by August 1, 2012.

The Housing Asset Transfer form for the former City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency included the property located at 4113 Kingsley Street. The Housing Asset Transfer form listed this property as a site to be used for an affordable Special Needs Housing project having a valid Option to Purchase Agreement by National CORE. In addition, the Oversight Board approved the Housing Asset Transfer form on July 25, 2012 and adopted Resolution No. 12-11 approving the transfer of housing assets to the Montclair Housing Authority.

On August 25, 2012, the DOF made the determination that the 4113 Kingsley Street property was not a housing asset. Successor Agency staff submitted a Request to "Meet and Confer" regarding this matter on September 13, 2012. The "Meet and Confer" with DOF was conducted on November 21, 2012.

Representatives from National CORE and the Successor Agency staff presented the background regarding the property and discussed the lawsuit that would ensue if DOF maintained its position that 4113 Kingsley Street was not a housing asset. Finally, on December 21, 2012 DOF issued a letter reversing the determination that 4113 Kingsley Street was a nonhousing asset.

The Successor Agency Board of Directors approved the transfer of the 4113 Kingsley Street property to the Montclair Housing Authority with a grant deed on January 22, 2013. The Montclair Housing Authority also approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement to National CORE on January 22, 2013 so that National CORE's grant of HUD 811 financing could be preserved. The Montclair Housing Authority approved a Disposition and Development Agreement with National CORE on February 2, 2013, more fully detailing the terms of the purchase agreement between the Montclair Housing Authority and National CORE. The Montclair Housing Authority was not able to provide the $1.6 million in assistance previously committed by the Redevelopment Agency. National CORE took possession of the property in early 2013. The 18-unit project was completed and occupied by spring of 2014. National CORE named the Montclair Special Needs Housing Project "San Emi." Subsequent to financing the San Emi Special Needs Housing Project, HUD discontinued the HUD 811 program. San Emi may be the last HUD project constructed with this funding source.

Adults residing in the San Emi Special Needs Housing project need to have the capacity and ability for independent living. However, these residents have the need for special services. Therefore, the Special Needs Housing project is operated slightly differently than the other National CORE Housing Projects (the San Marino Senior Apartments, the San Antonio Vista Apartment Project, or the Vista Del Cielo Apartment Project). The difference in operation is reflected in social service delivery. While all the other National CORE projects have community, recreational, or educational programs, the San Emi Special Needs Housing project has a social service provider that monitors and follows up on the needs of the resident population.

The nonprofit social service provider for the San Emi Project is United Cerebral Palsy of Los Angeles.

United Cerebral Palsy of Los Angeles is experienced in operating special needs housing for the developmentally disabled. This organization currently services 11 independent living apartments and 25 community based homes to help address affordable and accessible housing in Los Angeles, Orange, and Santa Barbara counties. The Montclair Special Needs Housing project is the first project served by United Cerebral Palsy of Los Angeles in San Bernardino County.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 180 of 266 6 (8) A description of any outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413 that remained to transfer to the housing successor on February 1, 2012, of the housing successor’s progress in meeting those obligations, and of the housing successor’s plans to meet unmet obligations. In addition, the housing successor shall include in the report posted on its Internet Web site the implementation plans of the former redevelopment agency.

Response:

The only obligations which remained to be transferred to the housing successor as of February 1, 2012 pursuant to Section 33413 were those units and property detailed in Question 7 above. As stated, all units and property have been transferred and land at 4113 Kingsley Street has been developed for affordable housing. All units transferred or developed are used to satisfy Section 33413 requirements.

As of February 1, 2012 all of the Redevelopment Agency's 33413 objectives were satisfied and an excess of 56 affordable units were produced.

With the completion of the San Emi Special Needs Housing Project in 2014, the Housing Successor Entity (Housing Authority) currently has 73 units of deed restricted affordable housing in excess of current Section 33413 production requirements.

Implementation Plans shall be posted on the Internet Web site. (9) The information required by subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a).

Response:

The Housing Authority interprets this requirement as follows:
(B) If the housing successor fails to comply with the extremely low income requirement in any five-year report, then the housing successor shall ensure that at least 50 percent of these remaining funds expended in each fiscal year following the latest fiscal year following the report are expended for the development of rental housing affordable to, and occupied by, households earning 30 percent or less of the area median income until the housing successor demonstrates compliance with the extremely low income requirement in an annual report described in subdivision (f).

Section 34176.1 of the Health and Safety Code became effective January 1, 2014. The Successor Housing Authority, at June 30, 2024, has $3,183,037.57 in cash. This source of income is non-reoccurring. The only additional source of funding for the Montclair Housing Authority is made available through the repayment of residual receipts loans. Residual receipts loans were made to National CORE and Augusta Homes. The residual receipts loans made to August Homes were paid in full in FY 2021-22. Residual receipts income is only derived when income exceeds expenses from maintenance, operations, and payment to creditors in a first position. However, residual receipts loans do not constitute a steady income stream and in the past several years, the recipients of the residual receipts loans have made only minimal payments on the loans because operating expenses usually have just met or exceeded revenue. Therefore, as indicated in Question 8 above, future project revenue to advance new affordable housing projects will not be forthcoming.

To comply with requirements to provide housing for extremely low income, staff typically will recommend that the Housing Authority Board of Directors transfer most of the cash balance in the Housing Authority fund to the Housing Corporation to secure deed restrictions for extremely low income persons for one-or two-units for this income category. However, due to the nature of the restrictions on the Augusta Homes residual receipt loan repayment the funds must remain in the Housing Authority.

The San Emi Special Needs Housing Project was completed in the 2013-14 fiscal year, 17 units of affordable deed restricted housing were created. Eight of the 17 units (47 percent) are provided to persons or families earning 30 percent or less of the area median income. Presuming the provisions of Section 34176.1 (a)(3)(A) begin on January 1, 2014, the Montclair Housing Authority complies with this Section. (10) The percentage of units of deed-restricted rental housing restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the previous 10 years in relation to the aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing assisted individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the same time period.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 181 of 266 7 Response:

The following affordable deed restricted rental housing units have been assisted by the City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency or Montclair Housing Authority within the last 10 years:

San Antonio Vista Family Apartments-74 units
San Marino Senior Apartments-84 units
Vista del Cielo Family Apartments-49 units
Montclair Housing Corporation-2 units
San Emi Special Needs Apartments-17 units
The City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency or the Montclair Housing Authority assisted 228 affordable deed restricted rental housing projects in the last 10 years. Eighty four of the 228 rental units or approximately 38 percent of the units were, therefore, deed restricted for use by qualifying senior renters. The percentage of restricted senior units falls below 50 percent of the deed restricted units. (11) The amount of any excess surplus, the amount of time that the successor agency has had excess surplus, and the housing successor’s plan for eliminating the excess surplus.

Response:

When the City of Montclair Redevelopment Agency was eliminated there was no excess surplus. Because all available amounts, since that point in time, have been distributed to the taxing entities through the Low and Moderate Housing Due Diligence Review and subsequent payment by the Successor Agency, there presently exists no carryover of excess surplus. Because the Montclair Housing Authority (Successor Housing Entity) receives no property taxes, excess surplus provisions do not apply.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 182 of 266

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2024
SECTION: CONSENT - AGREEMENTS
ITEM NO.: 1
FILE I.D.: FRD220
DEPT.: ECONOMIC DEV.

PREPARER: M. FUENTES
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 24–90 WITH SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TO PROVIDE FUNDING FROM THE COUNTY’S DISTRICT–SPECIFIC PRIORITIES PROGRAM FOR THE CITY’S ACQUISITION OF AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE FIRE

APPARATUS, SUBJECT TO ANY REVISIONS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY

ATTORNEY
CONSIDER AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER EDWARD C. STARR TO SIGN AGREEMENT NO. 24–90 AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: The City Council is requested to consider approval of Agreement No. 24–90 with San Bernardino County to provide funding from the County’s District–Specific Priorities Program for the acquisition of an emergency vehicle fire apparatus.

A copy of proposed Agreement No. 24–90 with San Bernardino County is attached for City Council’s review and consideration.

BACKGROUND: The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors aims to collaborate with community partners to identify and support programs and initiatives that align with the County's mission, providing services that enhance health, safety, economic well– being, education, recreation, and overall quality of life for its citizens, either directly or through contractual agreements.

On September 21, 2021, the Board approved the Board of Supervisors Discretionary Fund: District–Specific Priorities Program (Priorities Program) and allocated $4 million to each of the five supervisorial districts. Since 2021, the Board has allocated a total of $21 million to each of the five supervisorial districts as part of the Priorities Program.

Over the past several years, City staff has met with staff from Fourth District Supervisor Curt Hagman’s office related to Montclair projects that could be funded as part of the Board’s Priorities Program. Recently, discussion has centered on the City’s need to acquire an emergency vehicle fire apparatus in order to better serve the high density multi–family developments being developed and constructed within the City of Montclair’s transit oriented district in North Montclair.

In meetings with County and Supervisor staff, it was determined that funding for an emergency vehicle fire apparatus aligns with the Board’s Priorities Program. Therefore, San Bernardino County has agreed to provide the City of Montclair with $1,200,000 for this acquisition.

City staff received preliminary quotes related to acquisition of an emergency vehicle fire apparatus, specifically a custom KME Tractor Drawn Aerial Apparatus. The total estimated cost as of June 2024 is shown in the table on the following page.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 183 of 266 Product / Service Cost Sales Tax Total
Custom KME Tractor Drawn Aerial Apparatus $ 2,094,661.00 $ 188,519.49 $ 2,283,180.49 Hose Compliment 21,080.40 1,897.24 22,977.64
Nozzle Compliment 11,779.80 1,060.18 12,839.98
Communications IPAD 1,500.00 135.00 1,635.00
Motorola Solutions Radio Purchase 8,082.33 727.41 8,809.74 Radio Installation 2,000.00
Graphics Cost 1,500.00
GRAND TOTAL $ 2,332,942.85
The above quotes may not end up being the final cost of acquisition, and are merely estimated or quoted amounts. In addition, City staff is currently working on developing additional funding sources for acquisition of the KME Tractor Drawn Aerial Apparatus including applying for state and federal grants.

FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of proposed Agreement No. 24–90 with San Bernardino County would result in the City of Montclair receiving $1,200,000 for costs associated with acquisition of an emergency vehicle fire apparatus.

It should be noted that the remaining costs associated with acquisition of an emergency vehicle fire apparatus would come from other funding sources including state and federal grants as well as City provided funds.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve Agreement No. 24–90 with San Bernardino County to provide funding from the County’s District–Specific Priorities Program for the City’s acquisition of an emergency vehicle fire apparatus, subject to any revisions deemed necessary by the City Attorney; and

2. Authorize City Manager Edward C. Starr to sign Agreement No. 24–90 and related documents.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 184 of 266 Agreement No. 24–90
Standard Contract Page 1 of 17

THE INFORMATION IN THIS BOX IS NOT A PART OF THE CONTRACT AND IS FOR COUNTY USE ONLY Board of Supervisors
Department Contract Representative Stephanie Maldonado
Telephone Number 909-387-4378
Contractor City of Montclair
Contractor Representative Edward Starr
Telephone Number 909-625-9405
Contract Term 8/20/24-12/31/27
Original Contract Amount Not-to-Exceed $1,200,000
Amendment Amount
Total Contract Amount Not-to-Exceed $1,200,000
Cost Center 1024001000
IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, it is the policy of the Board of Supervisors (Board) to work with community partners through services provided by San Bernardino County (County) and contractual agreements to identify programs, projects, and initiatives, that support the mission of the County, and to provide services to citizens that promote health, safety, economic well-being, education, recreation, and other public services that enhance quality of life, and meet the needs of the County’s citizens; and
WHEREAS, under Government Code sections 26224 and 26227 the Board may contract with certain entities to provide certain services to County residents; and,
WHEREAS, on September 21, 2021 (Item No. 18), the Board approved the Board of Supervisors Discretionary Fund – District Specific Priorities Program (Priorities Program) and allocated $4 million to each of the five supervisorial districts; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021 (Item No. 33), the Board approved an additional allocation of $7 million to each of the five supervisorial districts under the Priorities Program; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2024 (Item No.61), the Board approved an additional allocation of $6 million to each of the five supervisorial districts under the Priorities Program; and Contract Number
SAP Number
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 185 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 2 of 17
WHEREAS, on June 11, 2024 (Item No. 110), the Board approved an additional allocation of $3 million to each of the five supervisorial districts under the Priorities Program; and WHEREAS, County desires to provide funding to the City of Montclair (Contractor or City) for the purchase of a custom KME Tractor Drawn Aerial (TDA) apparatus, including necessary accessories, hoses, nozzles, communications devices, lights, sirens, and identifying decals to provide the City of Montclair Fire Department with an aerial ladder truck capable of responding locally within the City and regionally throughout the County; and
WHEREAS, TDAs are known for their maneuverability with the shortest wheelbase and overall length available in the industry; and
WHEREAS, the County would like Contractor through its Fire Department to provide these services; and WHEREAS, the County finds Contractor qualified to purchase a custom KME TDA apparatus; and WHEREAS, providing funding to Contractor serves the public purpose of providing for the health and public safety needs of County residents; and
WHEREAS, the County residents of Montclair and the surrounding communities of the Fourth District will be served by the purchase of a custom KME TDA apparatus; and WHEREAS, the County desires that such services be provided by Contractor and Contractor agrees to perform these services as set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, the County and Contractor mutually agree to the following terms and conditions:

A. PURPOSE OF CONTRACT
This Contract is made for the purpose of providing funding to support Contractor in purchasing a custom KME Tractor Drawn Aerial (TDA) apparatus to meet the health and public safety needs of the residents of Montclair and surrounding communities.

B. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
B.1 Funding arising out of this Contract will be used for a Scope of Services (Services) to assist Contractor with purchasing a custom KME TDA apparatus, including necessary accessories, hoses, nozzles, communications devices, lights, sirens, and identifying decal to provide the City of Montclair Fire Department with an aerial ladder truck capable of responding locally within the City and regionally throughout the County.

B.2 Contractor shall allow the County, its officers, agents and employees the privilege and right to onsite inspection of the custom KME TDA apparatus for the duration of this Contract. Contractor will ensure that its employees or agents furnish any information that in the judgment of the County, may be relevant to a question of compliance with contractual conditions, or the effectiveness, legality, and achievements of the program.

B.3 Contractor shall provide the County all documentation regarding the scope of services covered by this Contract that the County requests from Contractor within 10 days of County’s request unless a different time is agreed to by the County.

B.4 Contractor shall provide the County with documentation supporting completion of the project within 60 days of project completion.

B.5 Contractor acknowledges and agrees that it will make a matching contribution of at least 25% of the cost of the Services that Contractor will provide under this Contract. Contractor’s matching contribution will be a minimum of $300,000.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 186 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 3 of 17
C. GENERAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS
C.1 Recitals
The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

C.2 Contract Amendments
Contractor agrees any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of the provisions of the Contract, shall be valid only when reduced to writing, executed and attached to the original Contract and approved by the person(s) authorized to do so on behalf of Contractor and County.

C.3 Contract Assignability
Without the prior written consent of the County, the Contract is not assignable by Contractor either in whole or in part. Any attempt by Contractor to assign any performance of the terms of this Contract shall be null and void and shall constitute a material breach of this Contract.

C.4 Contract Exclusivity
This is not an exclusive Contract. The County reserves the right to enter into a contract with other contractors for the same or similar services. The County does not guarantee or represent that the Contractor will be permitted to perform any minimum amount of work, or receive compensation other than on a per order basis, under the terms of this Contract.

C.5 Attorney’s Fees and Costs
If any legal action is instituted to enforce any party’s rights hereunder, each party shall bear its own costs and attorney fees, regardless of who is the prevailing party. This paragraph shall not apply to those costs and attorney fees directly arising from a third-party legal action against a party hereto and payable under Indemnification and Insurance Requirements.

C.6 Background Checks for Contractor Personnel
Contractor shall ensure that its personnel (a) are authorized to work in the jurisdiction in which they are assigned to perform Services; (b) do not use legal or illegal substances in any manner which will impact their ability to provide Services to the County; and (c) are not otherwise disqualified from performing the Services under applicable law. If requested by the County and not in violation of applicable law, Contractor shall conduct a background check, at Contractor’s sole expense, on all its personnel providing Services. If requested by the County, Contractor shall provide the results of the background check of each individual to the County. Such background check shall be in the form generally used by Contractor in its initial hiring of employees or contracting for contractors or, as applicable, during the employment-screening process but must, at a minimum, have been performed within the preceding 12-month period. Contractor personnel who do not meet the County’s hiring criteria, in County’s sole discretion, shall not be assigned to work on County property or Services, and County shall have the right, at its sole option, to refuse access to any Contractor personnel to any County facility.

C.7 Change of Address
Contractor shall notify the County in writing, of any change in mailing address within ten (10) business days of the change.

C.8 Choice of Law
This Contract shall be governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of California.

C.9 Compliance with County Policy
In performing the Services and while at any County facilities, Contractor personnel (including subcontractors) shall (a) conduct themselves in a businesslike manner; (b) comply with the policies, procedures, and rules of the County regarding health and safety, and personal, professional and ethical conduct; (c) comply with the finance, accounting, banking, Internet, security, and/or other applicable standards, policies, practices, processes, procedures, and controls of the County; and (d) abide by all laws applicable to the County facilities and the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 187 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 4 of 17
provision of the Services, and all amendments and modifications to each of the documents listed in subsections (b), (c), and (d) (collectively, “County Policies”). County Policies, and additions or modifications thereto, may be communicated orally or in writing to Contractor or Contractor personnel or may be made available to Contractor or Contractor personnel by conspicuous posting at a County facility, electronic posting, or other means generally used by County to disseminate such information to its employees or contractors. Contractor shall be responsible for the promulgation and distribution of County Policies to Contractor personnel to the extent necessary and appropriate.

County shall have the right to require Contractor’s employees, agents, representatives and subcontractors to exhibit identification credentials issued by County in order to exercise any right of access under this Contract.

C.10 Confidentiality
Contractor shall protect from unauthorized use or disclosure names and other identifying information concerning persons receiving Services pursuant to this Contract, except for statistical information not identifying any participant. Contractor shall not use or disclose any identifying information for any other purpose other than carrying out the Contractor's obligations under this Contract, except as may be otherwise required by law. This provision will remain in force even after the termination of the Contract.

C.11 Primary Point of Contact
Contractor will designate an individual to serve as the primary point of contact for the Contract.

Contractor or designee must respond to County inquiries within two (2) business days. Contractor shall not change the primary contact without written acknowledgement to the County. Contractor will also designate a back-up point of contact in the event the primary contact is not available.

C.12 County Representative
The Fourth District Supervisor or his/her designee shall represent the County in all matters pertaining to the services to be rendered under this Contract, including termination and assignment of this Contract, and shall be the final authority in all matters pertaining to the Services/Scope of Work by Contractor. Except as provided under Section D of this Contract, if this Contract was initially approved by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors, then the Board of Supervisors must approve all amendments to this Contract.

C.13 Damage to County Property
Contractor shall repair, or cause to be repaired, at its own cost, all damages to County vehicles, facilities, buildings or grounds caused by the willful or negligent acts of Contractor or its employees or agents. Such repairs shall be made immediately after Contractor becomes aware of such damage, but in no event later than thirty (30) days after the occurrence.

If the Contractor fails to make timely repairs, the County may make any necessary repairs. The Contractor, as determined by the County, shall repay all costs incurred by the County for such repairs, by cash payment upon demand, or County may deduct such costs from any amounts due to the Contractor from the County, as determined at the County’s sole discretion.

C.14 Debarment and Suspension
Contractor certifies that neither it nor its principals or subcontractors is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency. (See the following United States General Services Administration’s System for Award Management website https://www.sam.gov).

Contractor further certifies that if it or any of its subcontractors are business entities that must be registered with the California Secretary of State, they are registered and in good standing with the Secretary of State.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 188 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 5 of 17
C.15 Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace
In recognition of individual rights to work in a safe, healthful and productive work place, as a material condition of this Contract, the Contractor agrees that the Contractor and the Contractor’s employees, while performing service for the County, on County property, or while using County equipment:

C.15.1 Shall not be in any way impaired because of being under the influence of alcohol or an illegal or controlled substance.

C.15.2 Shall not possess an open container of alcohol or consume alcohol or possess or be under the influence of an illegal or controlled substance.

C.15.3 Shall not sell, offer, or provide alcohol or an illegal or controlled substance to another person, except where Contractor or Contractor’s employee who, as part of the performance of normal job duties and responsibilities, prescribes or administers medically prescribed drugs.

The Contractor shall inform all employees that are performing service for the County on County property, or using County equipment, of the County’s objective of a safe, healthful and productive work place and the prohibition of drug or alcohol use or impairment from same while performing such service for the County.

The County may terminate for default or breach of this Contract and any other Contract the Contractor has with the County, if the Contractor or Contractor’s employees are determined by the County not to be in compliance with above.

C.16 Duration of Terms
This Contract, and all of its terms and conditions, shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the respective parties, provided no such assignment is in violation of the provisions of this Contract.

C.17 Employment Discrimination
During the term of the Contract, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, or military and veteran status.

Contractor shall comply with Executive Orders 11246, 11375, 11625, 12138, 12432, 12250, 13672, Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and other applicable Federal, State and County laws and regulations and policies relating to equal employment and contracting opportunities, including laws and regulations hereafter enacted.

C.18 Environmental Requirements
In accordance with County Policy 11-08, the County prefers to acquire and use products with higher levels of post-consumer recycled content. Environmentally preferable goods and materials must perform satisfactorily and be available at a reasonable price. The County requires Contractor to use recycled paper for any printed or photocopied material created as a result of this Contract. Contractor is also required to use both sides of paper sheets for reports submitted to the County whenever practicable.

To assist the county in meeting the reporting requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), Contractor must be able to annually report the County’s environmentally preferable purchases. Contractor must also be able to report on environmentally preferable goods and materials used in the provision of their service to the County, utilizing a County approved form.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 189 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 6 of 17
C.19 Improper Influence
Contractor shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that no County officer or employee, whose position in the County enables him/her to influence any award of the Contract or any competing offer, shall have any direct or indirect financial interest resulting from the award of the Contract or shall have any relationship to the Contractor or officer or employee of the Contractor.

C.20 Improper Consideration
Contractor shall not offer (either directly or through an intermediary) any improper consideration such as, but not limited to cash, discounts, service, the provision of travel or entertainment, or any items of value to any officer, employee or agent of the County in an attempt to secure favorable treatment regarding this Contract.

The County, by written notice, may immediately terminate this Contract if it determines that any improper consideration as described in the preceding paragraph was offered to any officer, employee or agent of the County with respect to the proposal and award process. This prohibition shall apply to any amendment, extension or evaluation process once a contract has been awarded.

Contractor shall immediately report any attempt by a County officer, employee or agent to solicit (either directly or through an intermediary) improper consideration from Contractor. The report shall be made to the supervisor or manager charged with supervision of the employee or the County Administrative Office. In the event of a termination under this provision, the County is entitled to pursue any available legal remedies.

C.21 Informal Dispute Resolution
In the event the County determines that service is unsatisfactory, or in the event of any other dispute, claim, question or disagreement arising from or relating to this Contract or breach thereof, the parties hereto shall use their best efforts to settle the dispute, claim, question or disagreement.

To this effect, they shall consult and negotiate with each other in good faith and, recognizing their mutual interests, attempt to reach a just and equitable solution satisfactory to both parties.

C.22 Legality and Severability
The parties’ actions under the Contract shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations, court orders and governmental agency orders. The provisions of this Contract are specifically made severable. If a provision of the Contract is terminated or held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall remain in full effect.

C.23 Licenses, Permits and/or Certifications
Contractor shall ensure that it has all necessary licenses, permits and/or certifications required by the laws of Federal, State, County, and municipal laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. The Contractor shall maintain these licenses, permits and/or certifications in effect for the duration of this Contract. Contractor will notify County immediately of loss or suspension of any such licenses, permits and/or certifications. Failure to maintain a required license, permit and/or certification may result in immediate termination of this Contract.

C.24 Material Misstatement/Misrepresentation
If during the course of the administration of this Contract, the County determines that Contractor has made a material misstatement or misrepresentation or that materially inaccurate information has been provided to the County, this Contract may be immediately terminated. If this Contract is terminated according to this provision, the County is entitled to pursue any available legal remedies.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 190 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 7 of 17
C.25 Mutual Covenants
The parties to this Contract mutually covenant to perform all of their obligations hereunder, to exercise all discretion and rights granted hereunder, and to give all consents in a reasonable manner consistent with the standards of “good faith” and “fair dealing”.

C.26 Nondisclosure
Contractor shall hold as confidential and use reasonable care to prevent unauthorized access by, storage, disclosure, publication, dissemination to and/or use by third parties of, confidential information that is either: (1) provided by the County to Contractor or an agent of Contractor or otherwise made available to Contractor or Contractor’s agent in connection with this Contract; or, (2) acquired, obtained, or learned by Contractor or an agent of Contractor in the performance of this Contract. For purposes of this provision, confidential information means any data, files, software, information or materials in oral, electronic, tangible or intangible form and however stored, compiled or memorialize and includes, but is not limited to, technology infrastructure, architecture, financial data, trade secrets, equipment specifications, user lists, passwords, research data, and technology data.

C.27 Notice of Delays
Except as otherwise provided herein, when either party has knowledge that any actual or potential situation is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of this Contract, that party shall, within twenty-four (24) hours, give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to the other party.

C.28 Ownership of Documents
All documents, data, products, graphics, computer programs and reports prepared by Contractor pursuant to the Contract shall be considered property of the County upon payment for services (and products, if applicable). All such items shall be delivered to County at the completion of work under the Contract, subject to the requirements of Section IV–Term of the Contract. Unless otherwise directed by County, Contractor may retain copies of such items.

C.29 RESERVED.

C.30 Air, Water Pollution Control, Safety and Health
Contractor shall comply with all air pollution control, water pollution, safety and health ordinances and statutes, which apply to the work performed pursuant to this Contract.

C.31 Records
Contractor shall maintain all records and books pertaining to the delivery of services under this Contract and demonstrate accountability for Contract performance. All records shall be complete and current and comply with all Contract requirements. Failure to maintain acceptable records shall be considered grounds for withholding of payments for invoices submitted and/or termination of the Contract.

All records relating to the Contractor’s personnel, consultants, subcontractors, Services/Scope of Work and expenses pertaining to this Contract shall be kept in a generally acceptable accounting format. Records should include primary source documents. Fiscal records shall be kept in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and must account for all funds, tangible assets, revenue and expenditures. Fiscal records must comply with the appropriate Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars, which state the administrative requirements, cost principles and other standards for accountancy.

C.32 Relationship of the Parties
Nothing contained in this Contract shall be construed as creating a joint venture, partnership, or employment arrangement between the Parties hereto, nor shall either Party have the right, power or authority to create an obligation or duty, expressed or implied, on behalf of the other Party hereto.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 191 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 8 of 17
C.33 Release of Information
No news releases, advertisements, public announcements or photographs arising out of the Contract or Contractor’s relationship with County may be made or used without prior written approval of the County.

C.34 Representation of the County
In the performance of this Contract, Contractor, its agents and employees, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the San Bernardino County.

C.35 Strict Performance
Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Contract by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party’s right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Contract thereafter.

C.36 Subcontracting
Contractor shall obtain County’s written consent, which County may withhold in its sole discretion, before entering into Contracts with or otherwise engaging any subcontractors who may supply any part of the Services to County. At County’s request, Contractor shall provide information regarding the subcontractor’s qualifications and a listing of a subcontractor’s key personnel including, if requested by the County, resumes of proposed subcontractor personnel. Contractor shall remain directly responsible to County for its subcontractors and shall indemnify County for the actions or omissions of its subcontractors under the terms and conditions specified in Section G. All approved subcontractors shall be subject to the provisions of this Contract applicable to Contractor Personnel.

For any subcontractor, Contractor shall:

C.36.1 Be responsible for subcontractor compliance with the Contract and the subcontract terms and conditions; and
C.36.2 Ensure that the subcontractor follows County’s reporting formats and procedures as specified by County.

C.36.3 Include in the subcontractor’s subcontract substantially similar terms as are provided in Sections B. Contractor Responsibilities and C. General Contract Requirements.

Upon expiration or termination of this Contract for any reason, County will have the right to enter into direct Contracts with any of the Subcontractors. Contractor agrees that its arrangements with Subcontractors will not prohibit or restrict such Subcontractors from entering into direct Contracts with County.

C.37 Subpoena
In the event that a subpoena or other legal process commenced by a third party in any way concerning the Goods or Services provided under this Contract is served upon Contractor or County, such party agrees to notify the other party in the most expeditious fashion possible following receipt of such subpoena or other legal process. Contractor and County further agree to cooperate with the other party in any lawful effort by such other party to contest the legal validity of such subpoena or other legal process commenced by a third party as may be reasonably required and at the expense of the party to whom the legal process is directed, except as otherwise provided herein in connection with defense obligations by Contractor for County.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 192 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 9 of 17
C.38 Termination for Convenience
The County and the Contractor each reserve the right to terminate the Contract, for any reason, with a thirty (30) day written notice of termination. Such termination may include all or part of the services described herein. Upon such termination, payment will be made to the Contractor for services rendered and expenses reasonably incurred prior to the effective date of termination.

Upon receipt of termination notice Contractor shall promptly discontinue services unless the notice directs otherwise. Contractor shall deliver promptly to County and transfer title (if necessary) all completed work, and work in progress, including drafts, documents, plans, forms, data, products, graphics, computer programs and reports.

County may immediately terminate this Contract upon the termination, suspension, discontinuation or substantial reduction in County funding for the Contract activity or if for any reason the timely completion of the scope of work described in Section A or B under this Contract is rendered improbable, infeasible or impossible.

Upon Contract termination, Contractor shall immediately transfer to County all County Funds on hand at the time of expiration and any accounts receivable attributable to the use of County Funds.

C.39 Time of the Essence
Time is of the essence in performance of this Contract and of each of its provisions.

C.40 Venue
The parties acknowledge and agree that this Contract was entered into and intended to be performed in San Bernardino County, California. The parties agree that the venue of any action or claim brought by any party to this Contract will be the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District. Each party hereby waives any law or rule of the court, which would allow them to request or demand a change of venue. If any action or claim concerning this Contract is brought by any third party and filed in another venue, the parties hereto agree to use their best efforts to obtain a change of venue to the Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District.

C.41 Conflict of Interest
Contractor shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that no conflict of interest exists between its officers, employees, or subcontractors and the County. Contractor shall make a reasonable effort to prevent employees, Contractor, or members of governing bodies from using their positions for purposes that are, or give the appearance of being motivated by a desire for private gain for themselves or others such as those with whom they have family business, or other ties.

Officers, employees, and agents of cities, counties, districts, and other local agencies are subject to applicable conflict of interest codes and state law. In the event the County determines a conflict of interest situation exists, any increase in costs, associated with the conflict of interest situation, may be disallowed by the County and such conflict may constitute grounds for termination of the Contract. This provision shall not be construed to prohibit employment of persons with whom Contractor’s officers, employees, or agents have family, business, or other ties so long as the employment of such persons does not result in increased costs over those associated with the employment of any other equally qualified applicant.

C.42 Former County Administrative Officials
Contractor agrees to provide, or has already provided information on former San Bernardino County administrative officials (as defined below) who are employed by or represent Contractor.

The information provided includes a list of former County administrative officials who terminated County employment within the last five years and who are now officers, principals, partners, associates or members of the business. The information also includes the employment with or representation of Contractor. For purposes of this provision, “County administrative official” is defined as a member of the Board of Supervisors or such officer’s staff, County Executive Officer or member of such officer’s staff, County department or group head, assistant department or group head, or any employee in the Exempt Group, Management Unit or Safety Management Unit.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 193 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 10 of 17
C.43 Disclosure of Criminal and Civil Procedures
The County reserves the right to request the information described herein from the Contractor.

Failure to provide the information may result in a termination of the Contract. The County also reserves the right to obtain the requested information by way of a background check performed by an investigative firm. The Contractor also may be requested to provide information to clarify initial responses. Negative information discovered may result in Contract termination.

Contractor is required to disclose whether the firm, or any of its partners, principals, members, associates or key employees (as that term is defined herein), within the last ten years, has been indicted on or had charges brought against it or them (if still pending) or convicted of any crime or offense arising directly or indirectly from the conduct of the firm’s business, or whether the firm, or any of its partners, principals, members, associates or key employees, has within the last ten years, been indicted on or had charges brought against it or them (if still pending) or convicted of any crime or offense involving financial misconduct or fraud. If the response is affirmative, the Contractor will be asked to describe any such indictments or charges (and the status thereof), convictions and the surrounding circumstances in detail.

In addition, the Contractor is required to disclose whether the firm, or any of its partners, principals, members, associates or key employees, within the last ten years, has been the subject of legal proceedings as defined herein arising directly from the provision of services by the firm or those individuals. “Legal proceedings” means any civil actions filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, or any matters filed by an administrative or regulatory body with jurisdiction over the firm or the individuals. If the response is affirmative, the Contractor will be asked to describe any such legal proceedings (and the status and disposition thereof) and the surrounding circumstances in detail.

For purposes of this provision “key employees” includes any individuals providing direct service to the County. “Key employees” do not include clerical personnel providing service at the firm’s offices or locations.

C.44 Copyright
County shall have a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license to publish, disclose, copy, translate, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, now and hereafter, all reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems, and any other materials or properties developed under this Contract including those covered by copyright, and reserves the right to authorize others to use or reproduce such material. All such materials developed under the terms of this Contract shall acknowledge the San Bernardino County as the funding agency and Contractor as the creator of the publication. No such materials, or properties produced in whole or in part under this Contract shall be subject to private use, copyright or patent right by Contractor in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of County. Copies of all educational and training materials, curricula, audio/visual aids, printer material, and periodicals, assembled pursuant to this Contract must be filed with the County prior to publication.

C.45 Artwork, Proofs and Negatives
All artwork, proofs, and/or negatives in either print or digital format for anything produced under the terms of this Contract are the property of the County. These items must be returned to the County within ten (10) days, upon written notification to the Contractor. In the event of a failure to return the documents, the County is entitled to pursue any available legal remedies. In addition, the Contractor will be barred from all future solicitations, for a period of at least six (6) months.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 194 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 11 of 17
C.46 Iran Contracting Act
IRAN CONTRACTING ACT OF 2010, Public Contract Code sections 2200 et seq. (Applicable for all Contracts of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more). In accordance with Public Contract Code section 2204(a), the Contractor certifies that at the time the Contract is signed, the Contractor signing the Contract is not identified on a list created pursuant to subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code section 2203 as a person (as defined in Public Contract Code section 2202(e)) engaging in investment activities in Iran described in subdivision (a) of Public Contract Code section 2202.5, or as a person described in subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code section 2202.5, as applicable.

Contractors are cautioned that making a false certification may subject the Contractor to civil penalties, termination of existing contract, and ineligibility to bid on a contract for a period of three (3) years in accordance with Public Contract Code section 2205.

C.47 California Consumer Privacy Act
To the extent applicable, if Contractor is a business that collects the personal information of a consumer(s) in performing Services pursuant to this Contract, Contractor must comply with the provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). (Cal. Civil Code §§1798.100, et seq.).

For purposes of this provision, “business,” “consumer,” and “personal information” shall have the same meanings as set forth at Civil Code section 1798.140. Contractor must contact the County immediately upon receipt of any request by a consumer submitted pursuant to the CCPA that requires any action on the part of the County, including but not limited to, providing a list of disclosures or deleting personal information. Contractor must not sell, market or otherwise disclose personal information of a consumer provided by the County unless specifically authorized pursuant to terms of this Contract. Contractor must immediately provide to the County any notice provided by a consumer to Contractor pursuant to Civil Code section 1798.150(b) alleging a violation of the CCPA, that involves personal information received or maintained pursuant to this Contract. Contractor must immediately notify the County if it receives a notice of violation from the California Attorney General pursuant to Civil Code section 1798.155(b).

D. TERM OF CONTRACT
The services to be provided by Contractor shall commence on August 20, 2024, and shall be completed by December 31, 2027, but may be terminated earlier in accordance with provisions of this Contract.

The County Chief Executive Officer, at the direction of the Fourth District Supervisor, may extend the term of the Contract, in writing, to allow Contractor to complete all requirements in the Contract under the following conditions:
a. In aggregate all extensions do not exceed twelve (12) calendar months; b. Are specifically requested by Contractor;
c. Will not change the project goals or scope of services; d. Are in the best interests of County and Contractor in performing the scope of services under this Contract; and
e. Do not alter the amount of compensation under this Contract.

E. RESERVED.

F. FISCAL PROVISIONS
F.1 The maximum amount of payment under this Contract shall not exceed $1,200,000 and shall be subject to availability of other funds to the County. The consideration to be paid to Contractor, as provided herein, shall be in full payment for all Contractor’s services and expenses incurred in the performance hereof, including travel and per diem.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 195 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 12 of 17
F.2 Any costs in excess of the amount available in this section shall be the sole responsibility of Contractor. This condition however, does not preclude County from providing additional funding at its sole discretion. For the purpose of this Contract, County shall disburse compensation and monitor the Contractor’s performance in satisfying the scope of work obligations under the terms of this Contract.

Disbursement of funds to Contractor shall be made in one lump sum. Upon review/approval by County, County shall make payment to Contractor within thirty (30) working days after receipt of Contractor’s invoice or the resolution of any billing dispute. Contractor shall email County the Contractor’s invoice requesting one lump sum payment. The invoice(s) shall reflect the Entity Payable To Name and Address, Invoice Date, Invoice Number, Project Name, Contract Number, County-Issued Purchase Order (if applicable), the text “Final Invoice”, amount due, in a format acceptable to the County for services performed under this Contract. Contractor shall email invoice to County Administrative Office-Finance and Administration (County Finance) and shall include in the Subject Line: BOS – ENTITY NAME – PROJECT NAME – CONTRACT NUMBER – PO # [PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER]” (i.e. BOS-SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY-EDUCATION PROGRAM — 21-NNN – PO 4100NNNNNN).

Contractor shall submit a final expenditure report documented with “audit ready” supportive evidence of each expenditure and proof of payment until all funds have been justified 60 days after project completion. Documentation shall be submitted electronically, and Contractor shall supply hard copies upon request by County. Supportive evidence shall include, but is not limited to, copy of County’s approval email to Contractor, quotes, copy(ies) of purchase order, packing slips, a copy of the invoice submitted by Contractor requesting one lump sum payment from County, invoices paid by the Contractor for this project, proof of payment, etc., to County Finance. Email to County Finance shall include in the Subject Line: BOS – ENTITY NAME – PROJECT NAME – CONTRACT NUMBER – PO # [PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER]”-SUPPORTIVE DOCUMENTS.

F.3 Contractor shall accept all payments from County via electronic funds transfer (EFT) directly deposited into the Contractor’s designated checking or other bank account. Contractor shall promptly comply with directions and accurately complete forms provided by County required to process EFT payments.

F.4 County is exempt from Federal excise taxes and no payment shall be made for any personal property taxes levied on Contractor or on any taxes levied on employee wages. The County shall only pay for any State or local sales or use taxes on the services rendered or equipment and/or parts supplied to the County pursuant to the Contract.

F.5 Costs for services under the terms of this Contract shall be incurred during the contract period except as approved by County. Contractor shall not use current year funds to pay prior or future year obligations.

F.6 Funds made available under this Contract shall not supplant any federal, state or any governmental funds intended for services of the same nature as this Contract. Contractor shall not claim reimbursement or payment from County for, or apply sums received from County with respect to that portion of its obligations that have been paid by another source of revenue.

Contractor agrees that it will not use funds received pursuant to this Contract, either directly or indirectly, as a contribution or compensation for purposes of obtaining funds from another revenue source without prior written approval of the County.

F.7 Contractor shall adhere to the County’s Travel Management Policy (8-02 and 08-02SP1) when travel is pursuant to this Contract and for which reimbursement is sought from the County. In addition, Contractor is encouraged to utilize local transportation services, including but not limited to, the Ontario International Airport.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 196 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 13 of 17
F.8 Contractor understands and agrees that any and all legal fees or costs associated with lawsuits concerning this Contract against the County shall be the Contractor’s sole expense and shall not be charged as a cost under this Contract.

F.9 If the Contractor does not use the County funds provided under this Contract to pay appropriate costs associated with the Scope of Services by the termination date of this Contract, the Contractor shall return the County funds, or any unused portion thereof, to the County in accordance with any directions issued by County staff, within 60 days of written demand for the return of the County funds.

G. INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
G.1 Indemnification
The Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably approved by County) and hold harmless the County and its authorized officers, employees, agents and volunteers from any and all claims, actions, losses, damages and/or liability arising out of this Contract from any cause whatsoever, including the acts, errors or omissions of any person and for any costs or expenses incurred by the County on account of any claim except where such indemnification is prohibited by law. This indemnification provision shall apply regardless of the existence or degree of fault of indemnities. The Contractor indemnification obligation applies to the County’s “active” as well as “passive” negligence but does not apply to the County’s “sole negligence” or “willful misconduct” within the meaning of Civil Code section 2782.

G.2 Additional Insured
All policies, except for Worker’s Compensation, Errors and Omissions and Professional Liability policies shall contain additional endorsements naming the County and its officers, employees, agents and volunteers as additional named insured with respect to liabilities arising out of the performance of services hereunder. The additional insured endorsements shall not limit the scope of coverage for the County to vicarious liability but shall allow coverage for the County to the full extent provided by the policy. Such additional insured coverage shall be at least as broad as Additional Insured (Form B) endorsement form ISO, CG 2010.11 85.

G.3 Waiver of Subrogation Rights
The Contractor shall require the carriers of required coverages to waive all rights of subrogation against the County, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers, contractors and subcontractors.

All general or auto liability insurance coverage provided shall not prohibit the Contractor and Contractor’s employees or agents from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss or claim.

The Contractor hereby waives all rights of subrogation against the County.

G.4 Policies Primary and Non-Contributory
All policies required herein are to be primary and non-contributory with any insurance or selfinsurance programs carried or administered by the County.

G.5 Severability of Interests
The Contractor agrees to ensure that coverage provided to meet these requirements is applicable separately to each insured and there will be no cross liability exclusions that preclude coverage for suits between the Contractor and the County or between the County and any other insured or additional insured under the policy.

G.6 Proof of Coverage
The Contractor shall furnish Certificates of Insurance to the County Department administering the Contract evidencing the insurance coverage at the time the Contract is executed, additional endorsements, as required shall be provided prior to the commencement of performance of services hereunder, which certificates shall provide that such insurance shall not be terminated or expire without thirty (30) days written notice to the Department, and Contractor shall maintain such insurance from the time Contractor commences performance of services hereunder until the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 197 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 14 of 17
completion of such services. Within fifteen (15) days of the commencement of this contract, the Contractor shall furnish a copy of the Declaration page for all applicable policies and will provide complete certified copies of the policies and endorsements immediately upon request.

G.7 Acceptability of Insurance Carrier
Unless otherwise approved by Risk Management, insurance shall be written by insurers authorized to do business in the State of California and with a minimum “Best” Insurance Guide rating of “A- VII”.

G.8 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retention
Any and all deductibles or self-insured retentions in excess of $10,000 shall be declared to and approved by Risk Management.

G.9 Failure to Procure Coverage
In the event that any policy of insurance required under this contract does not comply with the requirements, is not procured, or is canceled and not replaced, the County has the right but not the obligation or duty to cancel the contract or obtain insurance if it deems necessary and any premiums paid by the County will be promptly reimbursed by the Contractor or County payments to the Contractor will be reduced to pay for County purchased insurance.

G.10 Insurance Review
Insurance requirements are subject to periodic review by the County. The Director of Risk Management or designee is authorized, but not required, to reduce, waive or suspend any insurance requirements whenever Risk Management determines that any of the required insurance is not available, is unreasonably priced, or is not needed to protect the interests of the County. In addition, if the Department of Risk Management determines that heretofore unreasonably priced or unavailable types of insurance coverage or coverage limits become reasonably priced or available, the Director of Risk Management or designee is authorized, but not required, to change the above insurance requirements to require additional types of insurance coverage or higher coverage limits, provided that any such change is reasonable in light of past claims against the County, inflation, or any other item reasonably related to the County’s risk.

Any change requiring additional types of insurance coverage or higher coverage limits must be made by amendment to this contract. Contractor agrees to execute any such amendment within thirty (30) days of receipt.

Any failure, actual or alleged, on the part of the County to monitor or enforce compliance with any of the insurance and indemnification requirements will not be deemed as a waiver of any rights on the part of the County.

G.11 The Contractor agrees to provide insurance set forth in accordance with the requirements herein.

If the Contractor uses existing coverage to comply with these requirements and that coverage does not meet the specified requirements, the Contractor agrees to amend, supplement or endorse the existing coverage to do so.

Without in anyway affecting the indemnity herein provided and in addition thereto, the Contractor shall secure and maintain throughout the contract term the following types of insurance with limits as shown:

G.11.1 Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability – A program of Workers’ Compensation insurance or a state-approved, self-insurance program in an amount and form to meet all applicable requirements of the Labor Code of the State of California, including Employer’s Liability with $250,000 limits covering all persons including volunteers providing services on behalf of the Contractor and all risks to such persons under this contract.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 198 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 15 of 17
If Contractor has no employees, it may certify or warrant to the County that it does not currently have any employees or individuals who are defined as “employees” under the Labor Code and the requirement for Workers’ Compensation coverage will be waived by the County’s Director of Risk Management.

With respect to Contractors that are non-profit corporations organized under California or Federal law, volunteers for such entities are required to be covered by Workers’ Compensation insurance.

G.11.2 Commercial/General Liability Insurance – The Contractor shall carry General Liability Insurance covering all operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor providing coverage for bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000), per occurrence. The policy coverage shall include:
a. Premises operations and mobile equipment.
b. Products and completed operations.
c. Broad form property damage (including completed operations). d. Explosion, collapse and underground hazards.
e. Personal injury.
f. Contractual liability.
g. $2,000,000 general aggregate limit.

G.11.3 Automobile Liability Insurance – Primary insurance coverage shall be written on ISO Business Auto coverage form for all owned, hired and non-owned automobiles or symbol 1 (any auto). The policy shall have a combined single limit of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury and property damage, per occurrence.

If the Contractor is transporting one or more non-employee passengers in performance of contract services, the automobile liability policy shall have a combined single limit of two million dollars ($2,000,000) for bodily injury and property damage per occurrence.

If the Contractor owns no autos, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable.

G.11.4 Umbrella Liability Insurance – An umbrella (over primary) or excess policy may be used to comply with limits or other primary coverage requirements. When used, the umbrella policy shall apply to bodily injury/property damage, personal injury/advertising injury and shall include a “dropdown” provision providing primary coverage for any liability not covered by the primary policy. The coverage shall also apply to automobile liability.

H. RIGHT TO MONITOR AND AUDIT
H.1 The County, State and Federal government shall have absolute right to review and audit all records, books, papers, documents, corporate minutes, and other pertinent items as requested, and shall have absolute right to monitor the performance of Contractor in the delivery of services provided under this Contract. Contractor shall give full cooperation, in any auditing or monitoring conducted. Contractor shall cooperate with the County in the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of this Contract and comply with any and all reporting requirements established by the County.

H.2 All records pertaining to services delivered and all fiscal, statistical and management books and records shall be available for examination and audit by County representatives for a period of three years after final payment under this Contract or until all pending County, State and Federal audits are completed, whichever is later.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 199 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 16 of 17
I. CORRECTION OF PERFORMANCE DEFICIENCIES
I.1 Failure by Contractor to comply with any of the provisions, covenants, requirements or conditions of this Contract shall be a material breach of this Contract.

I.2 In the event of a non-cured breach, County may, at its sole discretion and in addition to any other remedies available at law, in equity, or otherwise specified in this Contract:
a. Afford Contractor thereafter a time period within which to cure the breach, which period shall be established at the sole discretion of County; and/or b. Discontinue reimbursement to Contractor for and during the period in which Contractor is in breach, which reimbursement shall not be entitled to later recovery; and/or c. Withhold funds pending duration of the breach; and/or d. Offset against any monies billed by Contractor but yet unpaid by County those monies disallowed pursuant to Item “b” of this paragraph; and/or e. Terminate this Contract immediately and be relieved of the payment of any consideration to Contractor. In the event of such termination, the County may proceed with the work in any manner deemed proper by the County. The cost to the County shall be deducted from any sum due to the Contractor under this Contract and the balance, if any, shall be paid by the Contractor upon demand.

J. NOTICES
All written notices provided for in this Contract or which either party desires to give to the other shall be deemed fully given, when made in writing and either served personally, or by facsimile, or deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the other party as follows:

San Bernardino County
CAO – Finance and Administration
385 N. Arrowhead Ave., Fourth Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92415
Attn: BOS Finance Analyst
City of Montclair
5111 Benito Street
P.O. Box 2308
Montclair, CA 91763
Attn: Edward Starr, City Manager
Notice shall be deemed communicated two (2) County working days from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this paragraph.

K. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Contract, including all Exhibits and other attachments, which are attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and other documents incorporated herein, represents the final, complete and exclusive agreement between the parties hereto. Any prior agreement, promises, negotiations or representations relating to the subject matter of this Contract not expressly set forth herein are of no force or effect. This Contract is executed without reliance upon any promise, warranty or representation by any party or any representative of any party other than those expressly contained herein. Each party has carefully read this Contract and signs the same of its own free will.

L. CONTRACT EXECUTION
This Contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which so executed shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Contract.

The parties shall be entitled to sign and transmit an electronic signature of this Contract (whether by facsimile, PDF or other email transmission), which signature shall be binding on the party whose name is contained therein. Each party providing an electronic signature agrees to promptly execute and deliver to the other party an original signed Contract upon request.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 200 of 266 Agreement No. 24-90
Revised 1/10/23 Page 17 of 17
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the San Bernardino County and the Contractor have each caused this Contract to be subscribed by its respective duly authorized officers, on its behalf.

FOR COUNTY USE ONLY
Approved as to Legal Form Reviewed for Contract Compliance Reviewed/Approved by Department Julie Surber, Principal Assistant County
Counsel
Date Date Date

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CITY OF MONTCLAIR
(Print or type name of corporation, company, contractor, etc.) By
Dawn Rowe, Chair, Board of Supervisors (Authorized signature - sign in blue ink) Dated: Name Edward C. Starr
SIGNED AND CERTIFIED THAT A COPY OF THIS (Print or type name of person signing contract)

DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO THE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD Title City Manager
Lynna Monell
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
of the San Bernardino County
(Print or Type)
By Dated:

Deputy
Address
5111 Benito Street
P.O. Box 2308
Montclair, CA 91763
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 201 of 266

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 2, 2024
SECTION: CONSENT - AGREEMENTS
ITEM NO.: 2
FILE I.D.: TRN367
DEPT.: CITY MGR.

PREPARER: E. STARR
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT NO. 24–91 WITH FOOTHILL GOLD LINE

CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY TO REIMBURSE THE AUTHORITY FOR

EXPENDITURES RELATED TO WORK COMPLETED BY JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR A PROPOSED REDUCTION IN PARKING

FOR THE MONTCLAIR TRANSIT CENTER AND A PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

ALIGNMENT WITH THE PLANNED MONTE VISTA AVENUE LIGHT RAIL BRIDGE

CROSSING, SUBJECT TO ANY REVISIONS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY

ATTORNEY
CONSIDER AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER EDWARD C. STARR TO SIGN AGREEMENT NO. 24–91 AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
CONSIDER ALLOCATING UP TO $130,041.09 IN FUNDS FROM THE 2021 ISSUE OF

LEASE REVENUE BONDS FOR REIMBURSEMENTS TO THE AUTHORITY RELATED TO AGREEMENT NO. 24–91
REASON FOR CONSIDERATION: Completing the Gold Line light rail system to Montclair has been a long–term goal of the City Council. The recent award of $798 million by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (L.A. Metro) to the Foothill Gold Line Extension Construction Authority (Authority) to complete the light rail system to Claremont, coupled with an estimated $80 million± from the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) to extend the light rail system to the Montclair Transit Center—designated by AB 1600 as the eastern terminus of the Gold Line light rail system—effectively meets the City Council’s long–term goal.

Concurrent with the effort to bring light rail to the Montclair Transit Center, the City embarked on ambitious plans to develop a Transit–Oriented District (TOD) in North Montclair, with focus on development of mixed–use projects and high–density housing— objectives that include efforts to acquire the Transit Center property from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for future development.

Development of the Transit Center would require consolidation of parking into a multi– story parking structure and construction of a pedestrian bridge to link the west side of Monte Vista Avenue to the Transit Center train platforms and other development features at the Transit Center and within Montclair’s TOD including completed, under construction, and planned housing development throughout the TOD.

In order to reduce and control costs related to construction of a Transit Center–based parking facility, Montclair requested that L.A. Metro conduct a parking analysis to determine future parking requirements for the Transit Center. That analysis recommends a reduction in Transit Center parking requirements from the current 1,605± parking spaces to approximately 1,060± spaces.

Any reduction to parking would require an environmental review of the 2013 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Gold Line project from Pasadena to Montclair, including any required addendum to the 2013 FEIR. To complete the review the MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 202 of 266 Authority, as Lead Agency, would enter into agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., on a time and material basis, not to exceed $130,041.09.

Montclair, as Requesting Agency, would be required to reimburse the Authority pursuant to provisions contained in a reimbursement agreement (attached as Reimbursement Agreement No. 24–91) and the Contract Pricing Proposal for Services from Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.—services performed by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) includes an analysis of environmental impacts for the proposed reduced parking and proposed pedestrian bridge.

City staff and the Construction Authority are of the opinion that the environmental review will not require a Supplement to the 2013 FEIR related to a proposed reduction in parking at the Transit Center, and will likely result in a Categorical Exemption for the proposed pedestrian bridge.

The City Council is asked to consider authorizing City Manager Edward C. Starr to enter into Reimbursement Agreement No. 24–91 between the City and Authority.

BACKGROUND: Montclair City staff are currently in the process of developing a Master Site Development Plan (Plan) for the Montclair Transit Center (Transit Center). The Plan, following consideration and potential adoption by the City Council, would guide future development of the Transit Center property, provided the City is ultimately successful in acquiring the property from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

To achieve development of the Transit Center property, it would be necessary for Montclair to consolidate the sites current 1,605± parking spaces, distributed across multiple surface parking fields north and south of Richton Street, into a multi–story parking structure within a designated area of the Transit Center.

To determine next–generation parking demand for a proposed Transit Center parking structure, City staff requested the Foothill Gold Line Extension Construction Authority (Authority) to conduct a parking demand analysis for the Transit Center—that study is included in the agenda packet as Exhibt 1.

Walker Consultants Parking Analysis. The parking study, conducted under the auspices of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (L.A. Metro) by Walker Consultants (Walker), determined that, currently, 124 on–street and 2,138 off– street parking spaces serve the area in and around the Transit Center, with the bulk of the parking spaces—1,605±—provided on the six surface lots in the existing Transit Center.

At peak times, data from the analysis, identified a 22 percent overall parking utilization rate, with on–street parking at 47 percent capacity, versus a 20 percent utilization for off–street Transit Center parking during peak periods, leaving underutilization of over 1,000 parking spaces.

Utilizing L.A. Metro’s Parking Demand Model, adjusted for post–COVID parking demand patterns seen at other Metro stations the Model, as it is applied to the Transit Center, projects a near–term need for approximately 701± parking spaces to serve L.A. Metro parking demand at the Transit Center. The existing observed Metrolink and Bus rider parking demand is approximately 355± spaces, for a combined projected transit rider demand of approximately 1,060±—this estimate includes projected parking demand for the L.A. Metro A Line (Gold Line) extension to Montclair.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 203 of 266 In the conduct of the Walker analysis, the following components were examined:
 Parking demand at the Transcenter would remain free, as it is today.  A review of the existing parking landscape near the Transit Center, including public and private parking inventory and occupancy, and on–street parking.  An assessment of projected commuter parking demand associated with boardings onto the future Gold Line at the Transit Center. Walker reviewed the projected forecast for year 2035 boardings for full build from Pasadena to Montclair, daily light rail boardings by station (Montclair is projected to have 6,130± daily Gold Line boardings), and actual present boardings for stations from Pasadena to Azusa.
 Comparison with comparable existing stations—Norwalk (the eastern terminus of the C–Line, and APU/Citrus, the current eastern terminus of the Gold Line). As suburban terminus stations, Norwalk and APU/Citrus experience additional drive– in parking demand reflective of parking demand characteristics for the Transit Center.
 L.A. Metro 2018 Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan. That Plan demonstrated that for some riders, parking is essential for accessing transit; however, for others, parking is convenient, but using other modes (walking, biking, transit, drop–off) will suffice in providing station access. The Plan also incorporated first–mile and last–mile programs for station access, recognizing that the nature of accessing stations through technology will likely change, and that access needs to be provided in multiple ways.

Based on the above examination components, the analysis and parking demand model project a near–term need for approximately 701± parking spaces at the Transit Center to serve L.A. Metro transit riders (the Gold Line), plus the existing 355± parking demand for bus and Metrolink San Bernardino Line riders, for a combined projected transit rider demand of approximately 1,060± parking spaces with the Metro Gold Line extension to the Transit Center.

The requirement for reduced parking at the Transit Center would significantly decrease the City’s/developer’s costs related to construction of a future parking structure. For example, based on a $45,000 per space cost estimate, a 1,600–space parking structure would cost approximately $72.5 million to construct. Conversely, an 1,100–space parking structure at $40,000 per space would cost approximately $44 million to construct—the 1,600–space parking structure would require two subterranean levels, adding to the cost of construction. The City’s plan to construct the parking structure would include grants and a public–private–partnership.

The City Council is also reminded that City staff continues to explore potential for construction of a 300–space parking structure on land owned by the City within the Village Partners project, now under construction.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). To support the analysis conducted by Walker for reduced parking at the Transit Center, L.A. Metro and the Authority, at the request of the City, must conduct an environmental review to address Modification 9 of MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 204 of 266 Addendum 4 to the 2013 FEIR for the Gold Line Extension to Montclair, which looked at modifications to the Transit Center’s surface parking lot and reconfiguration of the bus loop to accommodate the location of the light rail platform and rail lines.

In addition to studying the proposed parking reduction as outlined herein, a new environmental review would need to study an expansion of the Monte Vista Avenue Light Rail Bridge to accommodate an approximate 13–foot–wide pedestrian walkway requested by the City. Two small areas of right of way at both ends of the bridge would be provided by the City to the Authority to accommodate the extension of the bridge abutments required for addition of the walkway.

To accommodate the proposed pedestrian bridge, the light rail trackway approach west of Monte Vista Avenue would need to be widened 13 feet. Limits of the widening will be approximately 30 feet beyond the end of the bridge. The continuation of the walkway and transitions beyond both ends of the bridge would be developed by the City. It is assumed that widening the Light Rail Bridge an additional 13 feet does not result in additional impacts on utilities; however, an analysis by Jacobs would need to be conducted along with the environmental review for reduced parking.

Hereafter, the Jacob’s environmental review for both the Walker reduced parking analysis and proposed expansion of the Monte Vista Avenue Light Rail Bridge to accommodate an approximate 13–foot–wide pedestrian walkway are collectively referred to as the “Project.”
To complete the environmental review of the Project, the Authority recommends using the services of Jacobs—the Authority will act as Lead Agency, and pursuant to Reimbursement Agreement No. 24–91, Montclair would reimburse the Authority for tasks performed by Jacobs.

Jacobs would assess the reductions in parking based on the Parking Demand Study discussed herein, and expansion of the Monte Vista Avenue Light Rail Bridge to accommodate an approximate 13–foot–wide pedestrian walkway.

Evaluation impacts and recommendations regarding reductions in parking would be based on the Parking Demand Study prepared by Walker. Jacobs will compare the proposed changes with the analysis conducted in the 2013 FEIR, Modification 9 of Addendum 4 and 3 supplemental EIRs, as applicable.

Jacobs’ scope of services will include the following documentation, analysis and coordination activities, along with key assumptions:

1. Work with the Authority to prepare an updated project description and figures to reflect the proposed changes.

2. Comprehensive review of the 2013 FEIR, 3 Supplemental EIRs and Addendum 4, including impact determinations.

3. Gather technical studies/documentation across each of the applicable technical disciplines and review for inclusion/exclusion in the Addendum from publicly– available databases and reports and information provided by the Authority.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 205 of 266

4. Prepare a Bus Traffic and Circulation and Signal Warrant Analysis to identify potential impacts and any proposed project changes to avoid or minimize potential impacts. At this time, traffic counts are not anticipated to be required for this evaluation.

5. Addendum Preparation:
a. Conduct the necessary review of previously prepared documentation for analysis to qualitatively assess impact determinations and consistency with the 2013 FEIR and mitigation measures as applicable, and document these results in the Addendum. It is assumed that, with the exception of parking at the Transit Center, which is being addressed by the Parking Demand Study, and the Bus Traffic and Circulation and Signal Warrant Analysis, all other resource areas will be able to be addressed qualitatively based on the 2013 FEIR and subsequent environmental analysis.
b. GIS Exhibit Preparation.
c. Draft Addendum – concurrent Authority and City review only, response to comments, and revisions (2 cycles).

6. Final (Draft) – concurrent Authority and City review only; response to comments; and revisions (2 cycles):
a. Board Meeting Support.
b. Administrative Record Support.

7. Project Meetings:
a. Kick–off Meeting (1).
b. Bi–weekly project meetings with the Authority (up to 8 meetings). c. Bi–Weekly meetings with internal team (up to 8 meetings). d. Team Coordination.
e. Schedule preparation and update (2 revisions).

CEQA Assumptions:
 Based on discussion with the Authority, it is anticipated that an addendum to the 2013 FEIR is the appropriate document, and the proposed changes would not result in a substantial change requiring a Supplemental EIR.  Jacobs will develop an updated project description, in concert with the Authority, consistent with the proposed changes.
 All assessments will be conducted via the site visit and desktop review only, based on the prior completed environmental documents.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 206 of 266  Other than the Bus Traffic and Circulation and Signal Warrant Analysis, no other quantitative technical assessments have been included at this time.  Per discussion with the Authority, updated Phase I and Cultural Records Search will not be prepared at this time.
 The Parking Demand Study showed that there will be sufficient parking remaining in the surface lot and no additional parking will be required at the Transit Center to accommodate the light rail platform and no new traffic, air or noise analysis will be required.
 It is assumed that providing 15’4” vs. 15’8” of clearance for the Light Rail Bridge would not result in a substantial change for the light rail extension project to Montclair. Monte Vista Avenue within the project area is defined as an unrestricted roadway.
 Kick–off and Bi–weekly meetings will be conducted via conference call/Teams.  No right of entry permits or railroad safety training will be required.  All reviewing parties (e.g. Authority and City) would complete reviews concurrently to provide input on the analysis and environmental documentation electronically.
 Addendum impacts to floodplains, wetlands, and groundwater resources are assumed to be negligible from the project changes and are, therefore, excluded.  The Authority will provide a detailed breakdown of the existing and Project conditions (pre– and post– Addendum) for relevant water quality and hydrologic characteristics, e.g. Project footprint, total disturbed area, land use, pervious and impervious areas, etc. All engineering data will be provided within a reasonable time upon request, e.g. 10 working days.

Jacobs proposes completing the above tasks on a time and materials basis, not to exceed the proposed cost of $130,041.09, as indicated in Reimbursement Agreement No. 24–

91. Proposed services will allow for the necessary environmental review and processing to secure environmental clearance for the Project without requiring an expensive redrafting of the 2013 FEIR.

Possessing a completed environmental clearance for the Project will equip the City with the capacity to satisfy CEQA requirements on future grant applications, including acquisition by the City of Caltrans–owned property at the Transit Center and grants for a parking structure and bridge construction. The proposed environmental analysis would also likely minimize future environmental review requirements associated with transitions of the proposed pedestrian bridge into the existing impound lot and Transit Center to a Categorical Exemption.

FISCAL IMPACT: To complete the environmental review as outlined above under “BACKGROUND”, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., as subcontractor to the Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (with Authority acting as Lead Agency), MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 207 of 266 proposes completing services on a time and materials basis, not to exceed the proposed cost of $130,041.09, as indicated in Reimbursement Agreement No. 24–91. Montclair, as Requesting Agency, would be required to reimburse the Authority pursuant to Reimbursement Agreement No. 24–91 and provisions contained in the Contract Pricing Proposal for Services—services to include an analysis of environmental impacts for both reduced parking and the pedestrian bridge.

City staff recommends that funding for the environmental review be allocated from the 2021 Issue of Lease Revenue Bonds.

RECOMMENDATION: City Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:

1. Approve Agreement No. 24–91 with Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority for the City to reimburse the Authority for expenditures related to work completed by Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. on the environmental review for a proposed reduction in parking for the Montclair Transit Center and a proposed pedestrian bridge alignment with the planned Monte Vista Avenue Light Rail Bridge crossing, subject to any revisions deemed necessary by the City Attorney;

2. Authorize City Manager Edward C. Starr to sign Agreement No. 24–91 and related documents; and

3. Allocate up to $130,041.09 in funds from the 2021 Issue of Lease Revenue Bonds for reimbursements to the Authority related to Agreement No. 24–91.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 208 of 266 Prepared for Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority
Montclair Metro Station
Parking Analysis
September 12, 2024
Exhibit 1
1 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 209 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024
2 Contents
Summary of Findings 3
Existing Conditions 3
Transit Parking Demand Projections 5
Introduction/Background 7
Limitation of Findings 8
Existing Conditions Observations 8
Montclair Station Parking Demand 13
Montclair Station Boarding Assumption Development 13
Parking Demand Model Adjustments 14
Parking Demand Model Projection – Montclair Station 15
Conclusions 18
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gold Line Foothill Extension Corridor Azusa to Montclair 8 Figure 2: Analysis Area 9
Figure 3: Existing Parking Inventory & Occupancy 10
Figure 4: Parking Occupancy Wednesday, August 21, 2024, 11:00 a.m. 11 Figure 5: Parking Availability at Peak, August 21, 2024, 11:00 a.m. 12 Figure 6: Gold Line Extension Phase 2 Boarding Projections and Actuals 13 Figure 7: Adjusted Montclair Station Boarding Projections for Parking Demand Model (Excluding Metrolink Transfers) 14
Figure 8: Modeled Versus Observed Parking Demand at Comparable Terminus Stations 15 Figure 9: Montclair Station Metro Parking Demand Projection 16 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 210 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

3 Summary of Findings
The Foothill Gold Line Extension project will add a Metro Station for A Line (formerly Gold Line) light rail service adjacent to the existing Montclair Metrolink Station. This Station will be the terminus of the extension project.

The existing Metrolink Station is currently served by six surface parking lots, with 1,605+ parking spaces. The construction of the Metro station will reduce the parking supply by approximately 200 spaces while adding demand associated with park-and-ride patrons of the new Metro facility/Gold Line Extension.

As part of its effort to better manage and provide parking for its ridership, Walker Consultants (“Walker”) was engaged by the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (“FGLCA”) to provide an analysis of the parking needed to support the transit facilities at the Station, and whether the existing parking supply can accommodate this projected need.

This analysis includes the following components:
• A review of the existing parking landscape near Montclair Station, including public and private parking inventory and occupancy and on-street parking.
• An assessment of projected commuter parking demand associated with boardings onto the A Line at Montclair Station.

Existing Conditions
124 on-street and 2,138 off-street parking spaces are in the analysis area around Montclair Station. Most of the spaces (1,605+) are provided in six surface lots around the existing Montclair Metrolink Station. The balance of the spaces within the analysis area are outside a one-quarter mile walking distance and are less viable sources of transit parking but have been included in the analysis for informational purposes.

At peak times on the day of data collection, the area’s parking was utilized 22 percent overall. On-street parking was more highly utilized (47 percent occupancy during peak periods) than off-street parking (approximately 20% occupied during peak periods). There were over one thousand available parking spaces near the planned Station at peak times.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 211 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

4 Figure ES-1: Existing Parking Occupancy – Montclair Metrolink Station Vicinity MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 212 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

5 Transit Parking Demand Projections
Utilizing Metro’s Parking Demand Model, adjusted for post-COVID parking demand patterns seen at other Metro Stations, the following near-term transit rider parking demand is projected at Montclair Station:

Figure ES-2: Montclair Station Metro Parking Demand Projection The Metro parking demand model projects a near-term need for 701+ parking spaces to serve Metro transit rider parking demand at Montclair Station. The existing observed Metrolink and Bus rider parking demand was 355+ spaces, for a combined projected transit rider demand of approximately 1,060 spaces with the Metro A Line extension to Montclair.

There are approximately 1,600 spaces at Montclair Station today. With the removal of 200+ parking spaces for the construction of the Metro Station, there would still be approximately 1,400+ spaces at the Station. The planned parking supply at Montclair Station (1,400 spaces) can accommodate continued Metrolink and bus rider parking demand and projected Metro rider parking demand (1,000 spaces) without replacement of the spaces lost to construction. This analysis concludes that there is no need to construct replacement parking or additional parking within the Station area.

Montclair Station
Terminus
Daily Boardings 2759
Open to 10AM Boardings 1379
Parking Price Free
Unadjusted Model Output 1,169
Model Adjustment Factor 0.6
Adjusted Model Output - Metro Parking Demand 701
Existing Metrolink/Bus Parking Demand 355
Total Transit Parking Demand 1056
Existing Available Spaces in Station Parking Lots 1,605 spaces Estimated Spaces Removed for Metro Station 200 spaces
Available Spaces with Station Construction >1,400 spaces Total Transit Parking Demand 1,056 spaces
Projected Parking Surplus at Station 340 spaces
Station Typology
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 213 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

6 Analysis
01 6
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 214 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

7 Introduction/Background
The Foothill Gold Line Extension project will add a Metro Station for A Line light rail service adjacent to the existing Montclair Metrolink Station. This Station will be the terminus of the extension project. The existing Metrolink Station is currently served by six surface parking lots, with 1,605+ parking spaces. The construction of the Metro station will reduce the parking supply by approximately 200 spaces while adding demand associated with park-and-ride patrons of the new Metro facility/Gold Line Extension.

As part of its effort to better manage and provide parking for its ridership, Walker Consultants (“Walker”) was engaged by the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority (“FGLCA”) to provide an analysis of the parking needed to support the transit facilities at the Station, and whether the existing parking supply can accommodate this projected need.

The analysis considers existing Metrolink parking demand at the Station and parking demand projections for the new Metro facility using Metro’s Parking Demand Model, adjusted for post—COVID conditions, to understand the Station's projected parking needs and whether additional parking is needed to accommodate transit rider parking demand above and beyond the existing to remain parking supply.

As Metro expands its services and increases station locations, the importance of a properly managed parking system to serve Metro riders who must drive to access transit has increased. Traditional plans that add parking spaces as the default response to all parking-related issues must instead consider the benefits and efficiencies of qualitative improvements to parking rather than simple quantitative increases in the number of spaces Metro and the FGLCA must provide.

Metro recommends providing adequate parking for transit riders at Montclair Station. The development of the Supportive Transit Parking Program Master Plan in 2018 demonstrated that for some riders, parking is essential for accessing transit. For others, parking is convenient, but using other modes (walking, biking, transit, drop-off) will suffice in providing access to stations while generating less traffic and being more cost-effective. Given that the average income of Metro parkers far exceeds that of the overall Metro ridership, the parking strategy includes an effort to provide cost-effective access to stations that does not unduly transfer resources from transit to higher-income parkers. Metro continues to implement first-mile and last-mile programs for station access that recognize that the nature of accessing stations through technology will likely change and that access needs to be provided in multiple ways.

This analysis includes the following components:
• A review of the existing parking landscape near Montclair Station, including public and private parking inventory and occupancy and on-street parking.
• An assessment of projected commuter parking demand associated with boardings onto the A Line at Montclair Station.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 215 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

8 Figure 1: Gold Line Foothill Extension Corridor Azusa to Montclair Source: LA Metro
Limitation of Findings
Parking demand projections are ultimately a function of ridership projections. The parking demand model uses what Walker has deemed a realistic number of projected boardings at Montclair Station when the Station opens.

Walker reviewed the projected forecast year 2035 boardings for Phase 2A from “Table 3-15.16 Full Build (Pasadena to Montclair) Alternative Daily LRT Boarding by Station” from Gold Line Phase 2 – Pasadena to Montclair Final EIR (Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Blue Line Construction Authority/Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority, February 2007), projected year 2035 boardings at Phase 2B stations provided by the FGLCA – and actual boarding data for the Phase 2A stations in determining an appropriate boarding projection to utilize in the model.

In the absence of near-term boarding projections being provided by Metro or the FGLCA, Walker has made best efforts to provide a reasonable projection of near-term Metro boardings at Montclair Station for use in the Parking Demand Model.

Existing Conditions Observations
Walker surveyed parking spaces within an approximately one-quarter mile radius of Montclair Station. The fieldwork included inventorying public on-street and public & private off-street parking spaces and conducting four occupancy counts on one weekday. The occupancy counts were conducted to determine whether adequate parking exists near the future Metro Montclair Station to support existing land uses and development.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 216 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

9 Figure 2 shows the analysis area limits for this analysis. There are no residential parking permit districts within the analysis area. On-street parking along the major roads within the study area is prohibited. On-street parking on minor streets is generally unrestricted and has no time limits.

Figure 2: Analysis Area
Walker staff visited the analysis area on Wednesday, August 21, 2024, to confirm the parking inventory and collect parking occupancy counts. Figure 3 summarizes the existing parking inventory and observed occupancy within the study area.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 217 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

10 Figure 3: Existing Parking Inventory & Occupancy
Note: Montclair Station parking consists of the lots designated as A, B, C, E, F, and G in Figure 3.

The analysis area around Montclair Station includes 124 on-street parking spaces and 2,138 off-street parking spaces. Most spaces (1,605+) are provided in six surface lots around the Montclair Metrolink Station. The balance of the spaces within the analysis area are outside a one-quarter-mile walking distance and are less viable sources of transit parking but have been included in the analysis for informational purposes.

The parking lot denoted as “D” in the table and figure is gated, inaccessible, and currently striped for tandem parking. Walker estimates that if the lot is striped for traditional non-tandem parking, it could accommodate approximately 228+ vehicles.

Approximately 20% of the off-street spaces were occupied during the peak period (11:00 a.m.). On-street parking close to multi-family residential south of the station was highly utilized. In contrast, on-street parking on Fremont Avenue was generally empty.

Based on the data collection, the area around the planned Montclair Metro Station currently has adequate parking to serve existing development; parking for the surrounding land uses is not in short supply.

Figures 4 and 5 graphically show the peak observed parking occupancy on the survey day and the number of available spaces by facility at peak.

Off-Street
Designation on Map Inventory Vehicles % Vehicles % Vehicles % Vehicles % A (Existing Station Lot) 177 2 1% 2 1% 2 1% 3 2%
B (Existing Station Lot) 266 1 0% 1 0% 1 0% 2 1%
C (Existing Station Lot) 394 1 0% 0 0% 3 1% 1 0%
D 228 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
E (Existing Station Lot) 414 186 45% 193 47% 168 41% 173 42% F (Existing Station Lot) 12 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
G (Existing Station Lot) 342 148 43% 159 46% 157 46% 157 46% H 42 27 64% 23 55% 17 40% 16 38%
I 114 13 11% 12 11% 17 15% 16 14%
J 149 43 29% 43 29% 39 26% 33 22%
Subtotal Station Parking 1605 338 21% 355 22% 331 21% 336 21% Total Off-Street 2138 421 20% 433 20% 404 19% 401 19%
On-Street Inventory Vehicles % Vehicles % Vehicles % Vehicles % Birch Street 10 8 80% 7 70% 8 80% 10 100%
Magnolia Avenue 19 15 79% 15 79% 13 68% 18 95%
Cypress Street 26 13 50% 25 96% 25 96% 26 100%
Olive Street 18 9 50% 8 44% 10 56% 12 67%
Fremont Avenue 51 3 6% 3 6% 3 6% 2 4%
Total On-Street 124 48 39% 58 47% 59 48% 68 55%
Grand Total 2262 469 21% 491 22% 463 20% 469 21%
9:00 AM 11:00 AM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 218 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

11 Figure 4: Parking Occupancy Wednesday, August 21, 2024, 11:00 a.m.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 219 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

12 Figure 5: Parking Availability at Peak, August 21, 2024, 11:00 a.m.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 220 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

13 Montclair Station Metro Parking Demand
This section utilizes Metro’s Parking Demand Model, developed within Metro’s Supportive Transit Parking Program (STPP) in 2018, and recent ridership and parking demand information from other Stations in the LA Metro system to provide a projection of Metro transit rider parking demand at Montclair Station.

The output from the Parking Demand Model contained in this report is based on the continuation of free parking at Montclair Station.

Montclair Station Boarding Assumption Development
The Parking Demand Model is a “here and now” model intended to project near-term parking needs. The main inputs in the model determining each typology’s parking demand characteristics are current boardings and current parking demand at existing Metro stations and parking facilities. It does not consider potential changes to the transportation network in the future or changes in commute preferences and behavior. When looking at future stations and alignments, the parking demand model provides a projection of parking demand at new stations, assuming current behaviors have generally stayed the same. Therefore, the appropriate boarding projection input for the model should be a reasonable projection of stabilized boardings at future stations after the ‘honeymoon’ opening period, not projected horizon year boardings.

Figure 6 summarizes boarding projections from the 2007 Final EIR for Phase 2A of the Gold Line extension as well as actual Gold Line 2A boarding data from after it opened in 2016 and current 2024 boarding data.

Figure 6: Gold Line Extension Phase 2 Boarding Projections and Actuals Source: Metro, Walker Consultants, 2024.

Key takeaways from Figure 6 include:
• Projected forecast year 2025 boardings for Phase 2A in 2007 were heavily weighted towards peak periods. • The current level of actual boardings at Phase 2A stations is 61% of the projected boardings for the forecast year 2025 in the FEIR.
• Overall boardings at 2A stations are generally unchanged from 2017.

Station Peak Off-Peak Total Peak Off-Peak Total Peak Off-Peak Total Arcadia 1532 320 1852 347 490 837 441 445 886
Monrovia 1336 257 1593 468 547 1015 378 355 733
Duarte 1073 242 1315 238 301 539 348 261 609
Irwindale 1852 314 2166 357 204 561 208 176 384
Azusa 883 235 1118 678 747 1425 488 523 1011
APU/Citrus 617 148 765 470 531 1001 857 856 1713
Total 7293 1516 8809 2558 2820 5378 2720 2616 5336
61% 61%
Actual 2A Boarding Data Actual 2A Average Daily Boardings 2007 FEIR 2017 (Jan-Jun 2024)
% of FEIR Forecast
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 221 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

14 • The current terminus station (APU/Citrus) is experiencing higher ridership than the projected 2024 ridership. This is because riders from future 2B stations must drive to this or another station to take the ALine. • The peak/off-peak split observed at Phase 2A stations is far different than projected in the EIRs. o Off-peak trips are a much higher percentage of total trips than projected in the EIR.

It should be noted that boarding includes all boardings at a station; each rider's roundtrip includes two boardings:
one at the origin station, where they may park and ride, and a second at their destination station to return home.

As noted above, daily trips at 2A stations are 61% of the 2025 ridership projections in the Final EIR. This is skewed by the two Azusa stations, which capture riders from further down the line (Phase 2B cities) driving to Azusa to take the A-Line. Excluding these two stations, the current (2024) ridership is 38% of the projected forecast year 2025 ridership at Phase 2A stations. Also, peak trips only account for 50% of total daily trips, a significant difference from the EIR’s projections.

Figure 7 summarizes Montclair Station's adjusted Phase 2B ridership projection for input into the Parking Demand Model. In the table, an adjustment factor of 45% has been utilized to simulate projected opening-year boardings.

Figure 7: Adjusted Montclair Station Boarding Projections for Parking Demand Model (Excluding Metrolink Transfers)
Parking Demand Model Adjustments
Since the development of the Parking Demand Model, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced a shock to the transit system. While ridership on Metro Rail has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels, parking demand recovery lags even further behind ridership recovery. As a result, parking demand is much lower per rider than when the Parking Demand Model was developed and calibrated.

To help understand how to adjust the model output to reflect existing realities, Walker looked at the two most comparable existing Stations: Norwalk, the eastern terminus of the C Line and APU/Citrus, the current northern terminus of the A Line.

These stations were selected for comparison because they are terminus stations with parking facilities. They are in similarly low-density surroundings to Montclair Station. As suburban terminus stations, they experience additional drive-in parking demand by transit riders who live beyond the end of the Line. As suburban terminus, the Montclair Station could be projected to have parking demand characteristics like these stations.

Figure 8 compares the Parking Demand Model output for these Stations based on current ridership levels to the actual observed parking demand.

Station
Daily Boarding
Projection1
Daily Boarding
Adjustment
Peak/Off-Peak
Split
Adjusted Daily
Boardings for
Model
Adjusted Peak
Boardings
Adjusted OffPeak Boardings
Montclair 6130 45% 50/50 2759 1379 1380
Source: 1 =Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority, 2024, excludes Metrolink transfers MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 222 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

15 Figure 8: Modeled Versus Observed Parking Demand at Comparable Terminus Stations Metro Parking Demand Model Projection –
Montclair Station
The Parking Demand Model estimates the parking demand using projected daily boardings, boardings before 10 a.m., the station's typology, and various parking price points ranging from free to five dollars. Figure 9 shows Montclair Station's parking demand model output, assuming parking is free at Montclair Station, as it is today.

Station: Norwalk
Month Open to 10AM Total
January 2024 1131 2196 469 862 54%
February 2024 1218 2381 496 931 53%
March 2024 1319 2625 517 1015 51%
April 2024 1149 2242 511 877 58%
May 2024 1181 2327 499 905 55%
June 2024 1167 2344 463 902 51%
Station: APU/Citrus
Month Open to 10AM Total
January 2024 827 1677 188 641 29%
February 2024 820 1682 184 639 29%
March 2024 950 1844 198 724 27%
April 2024 863 1718 201 664 30%
May 2024 881 1777 195 682 29%
June 2024 798 1579 189 613 31%
Average Weekday Ridership Highest Parking
Count PDM Output
Observed
as % of
Projected
Average Weekday Ridership Highest Parking
Count PDM Output
Observed
as % of
Projected
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 223 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

16 Figure 9: Montclair Station Metro Parking Demand Projection The Metro parking demand model projects a near-term need for 701+ parking spaces to serve Metro transit rider parking demand at Montclair Station. The existing observed Metrolink and Bus rider parking demand was 355+ spaces, for a combined projected transit rider demand of approximately 1,060 spaces with the Metro A Line extension to Montclair.

There are approximately 1,600 spaces at Montclair Station today. With the removal of 200+ parking spaces for the construction of the Metro Station, there would still be approximately 1,400+ spaces at the Station. The planned parking supply at Montclair Station (1,400 spaces) can accommodate continued Metrolink and bus rider parking demand and projected Metro rider parking demand (1,060 spaces) without replacement of the spaces lost to construction. This analysis concludes that there is no need to construct replacement parking or additional parking within the Station area.

Thus, the existing to-remain spaces at Montclair Station are projected to easily accommodate Metrolink, Bus, and Metro rider parking demand, even before considering additional nearby off-street parking lots that are either empty (the parking lot across Monte Vista Drive from the Station) or underutilized, such as the Pep Boys parking lot at 5150 Arrow Highway.

Montclair Station
Terminus
Daily Boardings 2759
Open to 10AM Boardings 1379
Parking Price Free
Unadjusted Model Output 1,169
Model Adjustment Factor 0.6
Adjusted Model Output - Metro Parking Demand 701
Existing Metrolink/Bus Parking Demand 355
Total Transit Parking Demand 1056
Existing Available Spaces in Station Parking Lots 1,605 spaces Estimated Spaces Removed for Metro Station 200 spaces
Available Spaces with Station Construction >1,400 spaces Total Transit Parking Demand 1,056 spaces
Projected Parking Surplus at Station 340 spaces
Station Typology
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 224 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

17 Conclusions
02 17 MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 225 of 266 Metro Montclair Station Parking Demand Analysis
September 12, 2024

18 Conclusions
The Metro parking demand model projects a near-term need for 701+ parking spaces to serve Metro transit rider parking demand at Montclair Station. The existing observed Metrolink and Bus rider parking demand was 355+ spaces, for a combined projected transit rider demand of approximately 1,060 spaces with the Metro A Line extension to Montclair.

Even with the removal of 200+ parking spaces for the construction of the Metro Station, there would still be over 1,400 spaces in the Montclair Station parking lots.

The existing and planned parking supply at Montclair Station can accommodate continued Metrolink rider parking demand and projected Metro rider parking demand without replacement of the spaces lost to construction. This analysis concludes that there is no need to construct replacement parking or additional parking within the Station area.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 226 of 266 Board Members:

Ed Reece
Chair
Councilmember,
City of Claremont
Appointee, SGVCOG
Mendell Thompson
Vice Chair
Mayor,
City of Glendora
Appointee, City of
South Pasadena
Tim Sandoval
Member
Mayor,
City of Pomona
Appointee, LACMTA
Tim Hepburn
Member
Mayor
City of La Verne
Appointee,
City of Pasadena
Vacant
City of Los Angeles
Appointee
Vacant
Caltrans District 7
Gubernatorial
Appointee
Gene Masuda
Member, Non-Voting
Councilmember,
City of Pasadena
Appointee, City of
Pasadena
Daniel M. Evans
Member, Non-Voting
Appointee, City of
South Pasadena
Alan D. Wapner
Member, Non- Voting
Councilmember,
City of Ontario
Appointee, SBCTA
Executive Officer:

Habib F. Balian
Chief Executive Officer
November 25, 2024 FGL-MONT-076
Edward Starr, MPA
City Manager
City of Montclair
5111 Benito Street
Montclair, California 91763
Subject: Foothill Extension – Preparation of Addendum 5 to Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Dear Mr. Starr:

The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (Authority) has received the attached cost and schedule proposal for the City’s requested betterment to prepare an addendum to the EIR to address the parking configuration at the Montclair station.

Please review and sign below, indicating your concurrence with the proposed price of $130,041 and that the City will fund any increased costs due to unforeseen conditions during the course of the environmental study (should any such situations arise, the Authority will forward a request for additional reimbursement along with such justification as the City requires). Upon completion of this work, the Authority will forward to the City an invoice for full reimbursement of all costs.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (626) 305-7022.

Sincerely,
Christopher T. Burner, P.E.

Chief Project Officer
Attachment
cc: D. Cournoyer, N. Peterson, D. Goods, R. Hiramoto, K. Percell, B. Reagan AGREED BY:
__________________________ ___________
Signature Date
AGREEMENT NO. 24-91
MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 227 of 266 555 S. Flower Street
Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
T +1.213.538.1388
www.jacobs.com
October 25, 2024
Mr. Chris Burner
Project Director
Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority 406 E. Huntington Drive, Suite 202
Monrovia, CA 91016
Subject: Foothill Extension – Task 18: Addendum No. 5 to Final EIR Dear Mr. Burner:

The Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension Construction Authority (Authority) is proposing changes to the Project at the Montclair LRT Station.

Montclair LRT Station: Previously, Addendum 4 to the 2013 FEIR looked at modifications of the surface lot and reconfiguration of the bus loop to accommodate the location of the LRT platform and rail lines. Modifications would eliminate some parking spaces. To address the lost parking, the Authority proposed creation of a new parking lot by paving the grassy area and removal of the former (now vacant) day care center located within the surface lot to maintain approximately 1,600 parking spaces identified in the 2013 FEIR. This change was identified as Modification 9 in Addendum 4. Subsequently, it was determined that modifying the grassy area to a parking lot was no longer required after an evaluation of the required parking spaces identified that only 1,060 parking spaces is required. Supporting determinations is provided in the parking demand study performed by Walker Parking. In addition to the parking reduction, an expansion of the Monte Vista light rail bridge to accommodate an approximate 13-foot-wide pedestrian walkway will also be studied. Two small areas of new right of way at both ends of the bridge will be provided by the City of Montclair (City) to the Authority to accommodate the extension of the bridge abutments required for addition of the walkway. The LRT trackway approach west of Monte Vista Avenue will need to be widened 13 feet. The limits of the widening will be approximately 30 feet beyond the end of the bridge. The continuation of the walkway and transition to the development will be developed by the City and is not within the scope of this analysis. It is assumed that widening the LRT bridge an additional 13 feet does not result in additional impacts on utilities. Please see the attached drawing showing the bridge expansion.

Jacobs will assess the proposed changes of returning the grassy area to the baseline condition and evaluate potential impacts of reduced parking below the 1,600 spaces identified in the 2013 EIR. Evaluation impacts and recommendations regarding reductions in parking would be based on the Parking Demand Study prepared by the Authority. Jacobs will also assess the changes associated with the addition of a 13-footwide pedestrian walkway to the Monte Vista LRT bridge. Jacobs will compare the proposed changes with the analysis conducted in the 2013 FEIR, 4 addendums and 3 supplemental EIRs, as applicable.

The scope of services will include the following documentation, analysis and coordination activities, along with key assumptions:

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 228 of 266 2 1. Work with the Authority to prepare an updated project description and figures to reflect the proposed changes to the project.

2. Comprehensive review of the 2013 FEIR, 3 Supplemental EIRs and 4 Addenda, including impact determinations.

3. Gather technical studies/documentation across each of the applicable technical disciplines and review for inclusion/exclusion in the Addendum from publicly-available databases and reports and information provided by the Authority.

4. Prepare a Bus Traffic and Circulation and Signal Warrant Analysis to identify potential impacts and any proposed project changes to avoid or minimize potential impacts. At this time, traffic counts are not anticipated to be required for this evaluation.

5. Addendum Preparation:
a. Conduct the necessary review of previously prepared documentation for analysis to qualitatively assess impact determinations and consistency with the 2013 FEIR and mitigation measures as applicable, and document these results in the Addendum. It is assumed that, with the exception of parking at the Montclair Station, which is being addressed by the Authority Parking Demand Study, and the Bus Traffic and Circulation and Signal Warrant Analysis, all other resource areas will be able to be addressed qualitatively based on the 2013 FEIR and subsequent environmental analysis.
b. Addendum - GIS Exhibit Preparation
c. Draft Addendum – concurrent Authority and City review only, response to comments, and revisions (2 cycles)

6. Final (Draft) concurrent Authority and City review only, response to comments, and revisions (2 cycles)
a. Board Meeting Support
b. Administrative Record Support

7. Project Meetings
a. Kick-off Meeting (1)
b. Bi-weekly project meetings with the Authority (up to 8 meetings) c. Bi-Weekly meetings with internal team (up to 8 meetings) d. Team Coordination
e. Schedule preparation and update (2 revisions)
Assumptions:
• Based on discussion with the Authority, it is anticipated that an addendum to the 2013 FEIR is the appropriate document, and the proposed project changes would not result in a substantial change requiring a Supplemental EIR.
• Jacobs will develop an updated project description, in concert with the Authority, consistent with the proposed project changes.
• All assessments will be conducted via the site visit and desktop review only based on the prior completed environmental documents.
o Other than the Bus Traffic and Circulation and Signal Warrant Analysis, no other quantitative technical assessments have been included at this time.

MONTCLAIR CITY COUNCIL MEETING – 12/02/2024 Page 229 of 266 3 o Per discussion with the Authority, updated Phase I and Cultural Records Search will not be prepared at this time.
• The Parking Demand Study showed that there will be sufficient parking remaining in the surface lot and no additional parking will be required at the Montclair LRT station and no new traffic, air or noise analysis is required.
• It is assumed that providing 15’4” vs. 15’8” of clearance for the LRT bridge would not result in a substantial change from the project. Monte Vista Avenue within the project area is an unrestricted roadway.
• Kick-off and Bi-weekly meetings will be conducted via conference call/Teams. • No right of entry permits, or railroad safety training will be required. • All reviewing parties (e.g. Authority and City) would complete reviews concurrently to provide input on the analysis and environmental documentation electronically. • Addendum impacts to floodplains, wetlands, and groundwater resources are assumed to be negligible from the project changes and are therefore excluded. • The Authority (engineering team) will provide a detailed breakdown of the existing and project conditions (pre- and post- Addendum) for relevant water quality and hydrologic characteristics, e.g. project footprint, total disturbed area, land use, pervious and impervious areas, etc. All engineering data will be provided within a reasonable time upon request, e.g. 10 working days.