HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/09/25 - Agenda PacketCITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Barker __ Vice Chairman McNiel __
Commissioner Bethel Commissioner Macias Commissioner Tolstoy
II. ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 11, 1996
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their
opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address
the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5
minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after speaking.
A. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(EIR) FOR INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A
public hearing on a draft Final EIR for a request to add Big Box retail
as a Conditionally Permitted Use on approximately 33 acres, plus a
request by the City for consideration of an additional contiguous 40
acres, for a total consideration of approximately 73 acres within the
Industrial Park designation (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, generally located north of Fourth Street, east of Milliken Avenue,
and west of the 1-15 Freeway - APN: 229-263-18 through 21,
229-263-48 through 53, and 229-341-13.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to add Big Box retail as a
Conditionally Permitted Use on approximately 33 acres, plus a request
by the City for consideration of an additional contiguous 40 acres, for
a total consideration of approximately 73 acres within the Industrial
Park designation (Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
generally located north of Fourth Street, east of Milliken Avenue, and
west ofthe I-15 Freeway -APN: 229-263-18 through21, 229-263-48
through 53, and 229-341-13.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. hems to be
discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VI. COMMISSION BUSINESS
C. COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY DISCUSSION - ('No report)
VII, ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted tldministrative Regulations that set an l l :OO p. m.
adjournment time. lf items go beyond that time. they shah be heard only with the consent
of the Commission.
1. Gail Sanchez. Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
or my designee, hereby certia~ that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was
posted on September 19, 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per Government
Code Section 54964. 2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF RF, PORT
DATE: September 25, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A public hearing on a draft Final EIR for a request
to add Big Box retail as a Conditionally Permitted Use on approximately 33 acres,
plus a request by the City for consideration of an additional contiguous 40 acres, for
a total consideration of approximately 73 acres within the Industrial Park designation
(Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, generally located north of Fourth
Street, east of Milliken Avenue, and west of the 1-15 Freeway- APN: 229-263-18
through 21,229-263-48 through 53; and 229-341-13.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to add Big
Box retail as a Conditionally Permitted Use on approximately 33 acres, plus a
request by the City for consideration of an additional contiguous 40 acres, for a total
consideration of approximately 73 acres within the Industrial Park designation
(Subarea 12) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, generally located north of Fourth
Street, east of Milliken Avenue, and west of the 1-15 Freeway - APN: 229-263-18
through 21,229-263-48 through 53, and 229-341-13.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested: The applicant requested that a warehouse style retail "Big Box" use be
permitted on parcels located between Buffalo and Pittsburgh Avenues on the north side of
Fourth Street opposite the Ontario Mills regional retail center.
The Planning Commission requested that all parcels fronting Fourth Street between the I-15
Freeway and Milliken Avenue be similarly studied. Therefore, in addition to the 33-acre
property owned by the applicant (Mission Land) located between Buffalo and Pittsburgh
Avenues, the application includes 28 acres owned by Oltmans Investment located between
the I-15 Freeway and Buffalo Avenue and 12 acres owned by Bixby Ranch located between
Milliken and Pittsburgh Avenues (Exhibit "A"). At buildout, approximately 845,330 square
feet of retail space could be developed on the 73-acre site.
The Planning Commission also requested that the "Big Box" retail uses be considered
through a text amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
ITEMS A & B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ISPA 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
September 25, 1996
Page 2
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Developed, office and industrial buildings and vacant. Industdal Area Specific Plan
Subarea 12 (Mission Land and Bixby Master Plans), Industrial Park, and vacant,
Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 11, General Industrial
South - Developed, Regional Commercial, City of Ontario
East - 1-15 Freeway and vacant, Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 14, General
Industrial
West - Vacant, Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18. General Dynamics Specific Plan
C. General Plan Designations:
Project Site: Industrial Park
North Industrial Park and General Industrial
South o City of Ontario, Regional Commercial
East General Industrial
West Industrial Park
D. Site Characteristics: The site encompasses 73 acres which are vacant with gently sloping
sandy soils. Most of the site is covered with abandoned old growth vineyards. The entire
site is disced for weeds annually. In general, street improvements and utilities are in place.
In the vicinity of the 1-15 Freeway on/off ramps, Charles Smith Avenue now has access off
Fourth Street, but in the future will be converted to a cul-de-sac with primary access from
Buffalo Avenue and/or Sixth Street.
BACKGROUND:
Master Plans: A Master Plan for Industrial Park development was previously approved for Mission
Land's property in Subarea 12, including the 33 acres incorporated into the subject proposal. A
Master Plan for Industrial Park development was also previously approved for the Bixby Ranch
Company's property, including the 12 acres incorporated into the subject proposal. There are no
approvals for the 28 acres of Oltmans Investment's property incorporated into the subject proposal.
Market Study: A Commercial Land Use study was commissioned by the City in 1995. The
Agajanian Commercial Land Use and Market Study recommended that a retail presence be
developed along Fourth Street as follows:
Promote the development of community and regional retail uses along the Fourth Street
corridor in order to interGept the commercial traffic generated by the Ontario Mills project.
Arrange to have more competitive sites availabre that can benefit from Fourth Street (at
the 1-15 Freeway) on/off ramp traffic.
In workshop discussions on the Market Study, members of the City Council and the Planning
Commission were supportive of an increased retail presence in the City along Fourth Street in
response to the retail development on the south side of Fourth Street in the City of Ontario.
Surroundinq Land Use: To the north of the Bixby Ranch and Mission Land portions of the subject
site, there are developed Industrial Park users and improved vacant sites suitable for Industrial
Park uses. Industrial Park uses include office, warehouse, and manufacturing. The Oltmans
Investment site adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway is vacant and undeveloped.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
tSPA 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
September 25, 1996
Page 3
On the south side of Fourth Street, the Ontario Mills regional retail center is under construction with
the grand opening scheduled for November 1996.
On the north side of Fourth Street to the west of Milliken Avenue, the Empire Lakes Golf Course
is completed and operating. The golf course is the first phase of development for General
Dynamics properties which are zoned for Mixed Use in the General Dynamics Specific Plan for
Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 18. Mixed Use development includes retail and office, as
well as industrial development.
ANALYSIS:
Compatibility with the Industrial Area Specific Plan Industrial Park Desiqnation: The proposal would
add Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising to the uses permitted under the Industrial Park
designation in Subarea 12 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Light Wholesale, Storage &
Distribution is currently a permitted use in the Industrial Area. This proposal would allow retail as
a primary use for Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising under certain conditions. Examples of
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising businesses in the City include Walmart, Price Club, Circuit
City, and Best Buy.
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising would only be allowed within a Master Planned
development approved under a Conditional Use Permit. The warehouse character of the
development would be emphasized in order to be compatible with the physical development of
warehouse and other industrial park users within Subarea 12. Finally, Warehouse-Style
Merchandising is consistent with other retail uses already permitted within the Industrial Park
designation.
Compatibility with the General Plan: The General Plan designation for the site is Industrial Park.
For the same reasons that Warehouse-Style Merchandising is consistent with the Industrial Park
designation in the Industrial Area Specific Plan, it is also consistent with the Industrial Park
designation of the General Plan.
Foothill Corridor and Fourth Street Comparison: Foothill Boulevard has been identified as the
primary retail corridor in the City. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan emphasizes activity centers
which invite extensive pedestrian activity onsite and offsite. In contrast, development of warehouse
style retail uses on the north side of Fourth Street between Milliken Avenue and the 1-15 Freeway
is expected to be characterized by a stronger automobile orientation.
Fourth Street has been changed from an industrial area street by the action of the City of Ontario
through the development of the Ontario Mills regional retail center. Consequently, property on the
north side of Four{h Street is transitional between regional retail on the south of Fourth Street and
industrial in Rancho Cucamonga north of the subject site. Retail development along Fourth Street
in Rancho Cucamonga is expected to take advantage of retail activity generated by the Ontario
Mills project.
The change from Industrial to Mixed Use on the General Dynamics property located east of Haven
Avenue and west of Milliken Avenue on the north side of Fourth Street reflects the new transitional
character of Fourth Street. The Mixed Use designation permits retail development in a context of
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ISPA 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
September 25, 1996
Page 4
maximum flexibility for future development. Extending retail opportunities east to the 1-15 Freeway
for properly directly opposite the Ontario Mills project will continue the trend of responding to the
changing character of Fourth Street.
The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and
specifically, the Industrial Area Park Category which reads:
INDUSTRIAL PARK CATEGORY ...This area is reserved for firms seeking attractive
and pleasant working environment and a location which has prestige value. High
quality architecture is required and site planning must emphasize a pedestrian
oriented, campus-like setting with the greatest amount of landscaping. The
development of prefab, all metal for sheathing of building is considered
inappropriate for this category. The Industrial Park category is typically located
adjacent to special boulevards (major thoroughfares) to enhance major gateways
into the community and create a high quality image...
Master Plan Requirement: Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising would require development
within a Master Planned Center with the Center subject to a Conditional Use Permit. General
Commercial Uses permitted or conditionally permitted, under the General Commercial designation
in the Development Code would be permitted or conditionally permitted provided they offered
warehouse-style merchandising. General Commercial Uses within the General Commercial District
of the Development Code, Section 17.10.030 would be incorporated into the Industrial Area
Specific Plan by reference (Exhibit "D").
All uses permitted or conditionally permitted, in the Industrial Park designation of Subarea 12, will
continue to be permitted on the subject site. In the event of a conflict between the Permitted or
Conditionally Permitted Use, the Industrial Park requirement would apply. Each Master Plan would
indicate how Warehouse-Style Retail businesses would be integrated with permitted or conditionally
permitted Industrial Park uses.
The following commercial uses are currently permitted in Subarea 12 of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan: Automotive Rental, Business Maintenance, Business Supply, Business Support,
Communication Services, Financial/Insurance/Real Estate Services, Hotel/Motel, Medical/Health
Care Services, Personal Services, Recreation Facilities, and Restaurants. The following
commercial uses are conditionally permitted: Automotive Sales and Leasing, Automotive Service
Station, Convenience Sales and Services, Entertainment, Fast Food Sales, Food and Beverage
Sales, and Restaurant with Bar or Entertainment.
No application for a Master Plan for a Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center has been
submitted at this time. However, the applicant, Mission Land, has prepared a conceptual site plan
and is in the process of preparing a Master Plan for their 33 acres (Exhibit "E"). It is anticipated
that a Master Plan of Development would be processed for each of the three property owners:
Mission Land, Oltmans Investment, and Bixby Ranch.
Desiqn: The Master Plan for the Center would establish design parameters for Warehouse-Style
Retail Merchandise "Big Box" retail users. The Master Plan would promote design compatibility
with surrounding industrial development in Rancho Cucamonga. Further, the Master Plan would
present a unique design vocabulary.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ISPA 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
September 25, 1996
Page 5
Industrial Area Specific Plan Text Chanqes for Subarea 12 (Exhibits "A~I" and "A-2" attached to
the proposed resolution): The analysis above is incorporated into a proposed text addition to
Subarea 12 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, under Conditional Uses, add "Warehouse-Style
Retail Merchandise Center (see Special Considerations under this Subarea)" and after the last
paragraph under the heading "Special Considerations" add the following:
As an extension of retail sales now permitted as an ancillary use within a warehouse
development, retail sales shall be permitted as a primary use for Warehouse-Style
Retail Merchandise businesses within a Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandise
Center. Said Centers shall be located within approximately 73 acres of land on the
north side of Fourth Street between Milliken Avenue and the 1-15 Freeway. A
Master Plan approved through the Conditional Use Permit process shall be required
for each Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center. In addition to all uses
permitted or conditionally permitted in Subarea 12. retail uses shall be permitted or
conditionally permitted, consistent with the General Commercial Uses within the
General Commercial District of the Development Code, Section 17.10.030. and
which are incorporated into the Industrial Area Specific Plan by reference. In the
event of a conflict between whether a use is permitted or conditionally permitted, the
Industrial Park requirement applies. However, added retail uses must offer
Warehouse-Style Merchandising as defined and incorporated into each Center's
Master Plan. Further, a distinctive Warehouse Style-Retail Merchandising design
vocabulary shall be developed for Fourth Street between Milliken Avenue and the
1-15 Freeway and incorporated into each Center's Master Plan. Compatibility with
adjacent existing and intended Industrial Park and General Industrial Development
shall be demonstrated through site planning, building design, and landscaping and
incorporated into the Master Plan for each Center.
Industrial Area Specific Plan Text Addition to Pad 111 (Exhibits "A-3" and "A-4" attached to the
proposed resolution): To the Development Standards and Guidelines Chapter: Table Ill-l,
Summary of Land Use Type by Subarea, add under Commercial, "Warehouse-Style Retail
Merchandising .... and place a note at the bottom to state .... Refer to Subarea 12 Special
Considerations for additional restrictions." Also amend Table 111-2 - Land Use Type Definitions,
under D. Commercial Use Types: after "Specialty Buildinq Supplies and Home Improvements" to
add:
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandisinq Business: Within an approved Warehouse-
Style Retail Merchandising Center, this category adds to the retail uses already
permitted for the Subarea in which the Center is situated. Retail uses shall be
added which are consistent with General Commercial Uses within the General
Commercial District of the Development Code (Section 17.10.030) and which are
incorporated herein by reference. In the event of a conflict between whether a use
is permitted or conditionally permitted, the Subarea requirement applies. Light
Wholesale, Storage and Distribution is a~ready a permitted use. The intent is to
emphasize and expand retail use in conjunction with warehouse use in Subarea 12
which is transitional between industrial and retail commercial land use areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ISPA 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
September 25, 1996
Page 6
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and
circulated for comment consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
forwarded to the Commission under separate cover.
A draft Final Environmental Impact Report consists of the aforementioned draft Environmental
Impact Report plus a separately bound addendum package which consists of: "Draft Response
to Comments," "Mitigation Monitoring Plan." and the "Statement of Overriding Considerations."
The aforementioned sections, in draft form. are attached unbound as Exhibits "F," "G," and "H."
Consistent with CEQA, the Planning Commission may comment and make recommendations on
the draft Final EIR, but the City Council is the certifying agency.
Comments and Draft Response to Comments: Four letters of comment were received on the draft
Environmental Impact. They were from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG), and the Endangered Habitats League (EHL). The Comment Letters and
the Response to Comments are attached (Exhibit "F").
The OPR letter was a routine acknowledgment. The SCAG letter generally supported the
development as contributing to a favorable regional jobs/housing balance. SCAG also raised
several issues which have been clarified and/or addressed by the EIR consultant, including a
provision for contact with Omnitrans at the time of development to coordinate service on Fourth
Street.
The USFWS and EHL letters focused primarily on the Delhi-Sands soils area which have been
identified as a potential habitat for the Delhi-Sands Flower Loving Fly, a federally listed endangered
species. As discussed in the Notice of Preparation of the draft EIR, an on-site survey was
conducted by a biologist. The biologist noted that most of the area is covered by abandoned grape
vines and the entire site is disced annually for weed abatement, therefore, it is unlikely to provide
habitat for the Delhi-Sands Flower Loving Fly. Further, no Dehli-Sands Flower Loving Fly habitat
areas have been identified in Rancho Cucamonga. Surveys have been conducted on the General
Dynamics site, the Milliken Avenue extension site. the Metrolink site, and the Chino Basin Municipal
Water District Treatment Plant site, as well as on the surplus Edison Corridor section extending
from the 1-15 Freeway at Foothill Boulevard to Jurupa Avenue.
Neither the USFWS or EHL commented on the Notice of Preparation. Following receipt of the
letters on the draft EIR, the EIR consultant contacted the USFWS. The USFWS is reviewing the
matter further. This issue must be resolved prior to certification of the EIR by the City Council. The
USFVVS plans to visit the site. If additional field surveys or protocols are needed they can be added
as mitigation measures. Several outcomes are possible, including:
·The USFWS will confirm the finding of the EIR consultant's biologist that the site
is not suitable habitat.
· The USFWS will confirm that most of the site is not suitable habitat, but require
additional surveys, prior to issuance of any grading permits on a portion of the
site. The soonest an adult fly flight period survey could be conducted would be
August 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ISPA 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
September 25, 1996
Page 7
., The USFWS will require a flight survey for the entire site, prior to issuance of any
grading permits.
Mitigation Monitorinq Plan: The project will have traffic and air quality impacts which must be
mitigated. Accordingly, a Mitigation Monitoring Plan has been prepared and is attached
(Exhibit "G"). Traffic mitigation measures include traffic phasing at Milliken Avenue and Fourth
Street and lane striping on Milliken Avenue south of Foothill Boulevard. Several Air Quality
Mitigation Measures address actions recommended during construction, others will be integrated
into project design, and others will be incorporated into project utilization insolaf as they are
feasible and appropriate at the time of implementation.
Also, noise impacts have been identified which must be mitigated. Designs for noise-generating
uses will reduce noise to a level of non-significance.
Facts for Findinqs and Statement of Overridinq Considerations: Environmental impacts as
mitigated and impacts which cannot be feasibly mitigated to a level of less than significant are
discussed in the Facts for Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached
(Exhibit "H").
There are traffic and air quality impacts which remain significant after all feasible mitigation. The
project will contribute to congestion on the I-15 Freeway and the impact cannot be mitigated to a
level less than significant. Further, vehicle exhaust will result in exceeding the levels for Nox, CO,
and ROC and these impacts cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. However, when
weighed against the potential benefit of the project, these impacts are slight.
The benefits identified are as follows:
· Strengthen the economic base of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
· Provide employment opportunities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
· Provide the opportunity for "Big Box" retail commercial uses to be located in
visible proximity to the Ontario Mills project, a regional retail center.
· Contribute to the regional jobs/housing balance.
Accordingly, a Statement of Overriding Consideration has been prepared for traffic and air quality
impacts.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following actions:
· Minute action recommending Certification of the Environmental Impact Report
for Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 95-05, subject to resolution of USFWS
concerns and including the "Findings of Fact in Support of Findings for Significant
Environmental Effects of the Project and Statement of Overriding
Considerations."
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ISPA 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
September 25, 1996
Page 8
· Adopt the Resolution Recommending Approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 95-05.
City Planner
BB:MB/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Plan
Exhibit "B" - Industrial Area Specific Plan Map
Exhibit "C" - General Plan Map
Exhibit "D" - General Commercial Uses; Development Code
Exhibit "E" - Conceputal Site Plan
Exhibit "F" - Draft Response to Comments
Exhibit "G" - Draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Exhibit "H" - Draft Statement of Overriding Considerations
Resolution Recommending Approval of ISPA 95-05
FOOTHILL BLVD/
A.T. & S.F. R:.R.
&EME"P--Az PLAw
INDUSTRIAL PARK
GENERAL IND
HEAVY IND
MIXED USE
OPEN SPACE
r~ancho Cucamonga Development Code Sectior~l : 10.~003
~,~
Use OP [ NC GC
9. ' cility (police, fire, ambulan ~ ~
9 ' cility~ ~
_ and parame __
B. General Commercial Uses
1. Antique shops. p p
2. Animal Care Facility (animal hospital,
veterinarian, commercial kennel, grooming).
a. Excluding exterior kennel. pens, or runs. C P P
b. Including exterior kennel. pens. or runs. C
3. Appare. I stores. p p
4. Art, music, and photographic studios and
supply stores. P P P
5. Appliance stores and repair. p p
6. Arcades (see special requirements per Section
17.10.030 F.). C C
7. Athletic and Health Club, gyms. and weight
reducing clinics. P P P
8. Automotive sales and services (including
motorcycles, boats, trailers, and campers).
a. Sales. C I C
b. Rentals. C
c. Repairs (major engine work, muffler
shops. painting. body work, and C
upholstery).
d. Coin-op washing. C C C
e. Automatic washing. C C C
f. Service or gasoline dispensing stations
(including minor repair such as tune-ups, C C P
brakes, batteries. tires, mufflers).
P = Pen'pitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit required
3/95
w 7- ;'
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section. 0
Use OP NC I GC
g. ,Parts and supplies. P P
h. Tire sales and service (no outdoor p
storage).
9. Bakeries (retail only). P P
10. '~Barber and beauty shops. P P P
11. Bicycle shops. P P
12. Blueprint and photocopy services. P P P
13. Book, gift and stationary stores (other than p p p
adult related material).
14. Candy stores and confectionaries. P P
15. Catering establishments. P
16. Cleaning and pressing establishments. P P P
17. Carpenter shop or cabinet shop. P
18. Cocktail lounge (bar, lounge. Iavern) including
related entertainment.
a. Operated independent of a restaurant. C C
b. Accessory to a restaurant. C C C
19. Commercial recreation facilities.
a. Indoor uses such as bowling. theaters, C C P
billiards. etc.
b. Outdoor uses such as golf. tennis, C C C
basketball, baseball. trampolines, etc.
20. Dairy product stores. P p
21. Delicatessens. p p
22. Department stores. P
23. Drive-in businesses, including theaters. (other C C
than fast food restaurants).
24. Drug stores and pharmacies. P P p
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit required
25. Equipment rental yards. C
26. Electronic goods (i.e. ~'s, stereos. radios,
VCR's) sales and se~ice. P P
27. Fast-food restaurants. C C P
28. Feed~ack stores. p p
29. Florist shops. p p p
30. Food stores and supermarkets. p p
31. Furniture stores, repair and upholster. p p
32. General retail stores. p p
33. Hardware stores. p p
~. Home improvement centers.
a. Material stored and sold within enclosed
buildings. P P
b. Outdoor storage of material such as
lumber and building materials. C
35. Hotels and Motels. C P
36. Ice Machines (outdoor). p p
37. Janitorial seNices and supplies. J p p
38. Jewel~ stores. p p
39. Laund~ self-se~ice. p p
40. Liquor stores. C C
41. Kiosks for key shops. film drops, etc, in parking
lots, P P
42. Locksmith shop. p p
43. Massage establishments. C
44. Mini-storage ~or public use (no outdoor
storage). C
45. Mo~uaries and cemeteries. C ~ C C
P = Petitted Use
C = Conditional Use Petit required
Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Secti6n~.030
Use OP NC GC
46. Music, dance, and martial arts studio. P p
47. Newspaper and magazine stores. P p p
48. Nurseries and garden supply stores; provided,
in the NC district, all equipment, suppries and
material are kept within an enclosed area, and P p
provided that fertilizer is stored in packaged
form only.
49. Office and business machine stores. P P p
50. Office supply stores. p p
51. Parking facilities (commercial) where fees are
charged. P P
52. Pet shop. p p
53. Political or philanthropic headquarters. P p p
54. Plumbing shop and supplies. P
55. Photocopy. p p p
56. Printing shops. ~ p
57. Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard. C
58. Restaurants (other than fast food).
a. VV~th enteaainment and/or cocktail lounge
and bar. C C C
b. Incidental serving of beer and wine but
without a cocktail lounge. bar, P p p
entertainment. or dancing.
59. Shoe stores, sales and repair. p p
60. Second-hand stores and pawn shops. P
61. Shopping Center subject to provisions in
Section 17.10.030-F.4. C C
62. Spiritualist readings or astrology forecasting. ~ P
63. Sporting g'oods stores. J p p
64. Stamp and coin shops. I P P
Permitted Use
Conditional Use Permit required
', ..... 3t96
,
,R. anct~o Cucamonga Development Code Section\
Use OP [ NC GC
65. Swimming pool supplies. p p
66. Tailor. p p
67. Taxidermists. p
68. Toy stores. p p
69, Travel agencies, p p p
70. Transportation facilities (train and bus, taxi
depots). C C C
71. Truck and trailer rental, sales and service. C
72. Variety stores. p p
C, Public and semi-public uses
1, Day Care Facilities. C C C
2. Convalescent facilities. p p
3, Hospitals, C C
4. Private and public clubs and lodges. including
YMCA. YVVCA, and similar youth group uses. C C C
5. Educational institutions, parochial, private
(including colleges and universities). C C C
6. Libraries &museums, public or private. P p p
7. Parks and recreation facilities, public or private. C C C
8. Public utility installations. C C C
9. Vocational or business trade schools. C C C
10. Churches. convents, monasteries, and other
religious institutions. C C C
P P
~nc~den ~ ,,~ ~
.me site.
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit required
17.10-7 3/95
MISSION PARK DRIVE
MISSION VISTA DRIVE >
· ~ " '~ ,'' ,.T Summary-Sile
, lv~ E T R O P L E X ,~ o,,, .....
DRAFT
RESPONSES TO CO~fiMENTS
ON
DRAEF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
WAREHOUSE-STYLE RETAIL MERCItANDISING CENT/eLR
State Clearingho~ts~ No. 96041054
Submitted m:
City of Rancho Cucarnonga (Lead Agency)
Planning Depar~nent
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamon~a, California 91730
Contact: M~id Brain, AICP, Associam Planner
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman A~sociates
17310 Red Hill Avenue, St~te 250
Irvine, California 92614
(714) 250-5555
Contact: ZVdchael E. Houlihan, AICP
Senior Project Ma:nager
September 1996
Warehouse-Stile Retail Merchandisin.¢ Center Drq? EIR Response to Comarents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section eagll
1 IN'II¢ODUCHON baND EXECI. fI'IVE SUMMARY ................... 1-I
1.1 Introduction .......................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Purpose of the EIR ................................ 1-I
1.1.2 Scope of the EIR ................................. 1-3
1.1.3 EIR Focus and Effects Found Not To Be Significant .......... 14
1.1.4 Project Sponsors and Contact Persons .................... 1-5
1.2 Executive Summary of the EIR ............................. 14
1.2.1 Proposed Project ................................. 14
1.2.2 Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures ............. 1-7
1.2.3 Alternatives ..................................... 1-7
1.2.4 Areas of Controversy/Issues To Be Resolved ............... 1-7
2 LIST OF CO~BIENTORS .................................... 2-1
3 RESPONSE TO CO~BIENTS ................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction .......................................... 3-1
3.2 Comment Letters and Responses ............................ 3-1
3.2.1 Federal Agencies ................................. 3-2
3.2.2 State Agencies ................................... 3-3
3.2.3 Regional Agencies ................................ 3-4
3.2.4 Private Organizations .............................. 34
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandisin$ Center Dratt EIR Response to Commemx
SECflON 1
IN~ODUC-rlON AND EXtCU'i'iVE Sq.~iARY OF 'I]tE EIR
1,1 ~
In accordance with Section 15088 of the Slate of California Environmeum.i Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as the lead agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Draft
Environmenial Impact Report (DEIR) (State Clearinghog No. 96041054) for the Warehonse-style
Merchandising Relail Center project and has prepared writ'ten responses to the commeuts received. The
responses to comments in conjunction with the DEIR constitute the final EIR.
This Response to Comments document ~ been formaid into three sections. Section I is an Introduction
and Executive Suaunary fixat was presented in the DEIR. Section 2 provides a list of the agencies,
organizations, and/or individuals that commented on the DEIR. Seedon 3 includes a copy of all of the
let~rs received and responses to comments. Section 3 also provides responses to comments on significant
environmental points describing the disposition of the issues, 'explaining the EIR analysis, supporting EIR
conclusions, or providing information or corrections, as appropriate. For ease of reading, this section is
formatled with responses to each leuer immediately following the leuer.
1,1,i PURPOSE OF 'I'ELE EIR
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is the lead agency under the CEQA. and is responsible for preparing the
Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center focused E[R (State Clearin~ouse No. 96041054). The EIR
was prepared in conformance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21(XX) et seq.) and
the California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Tide 14, Section 15000 et seq.).
The project site is within the Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP) within the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. An EIR for the IASP was prepared and certified in 1981. The land uses identified
for the project site under the IASP were incorporated into the City's General Plan. In 1989, the City of
Rancho Cu~m'nonga certified a Master Envirommental Assessment (NiEA) and General Plan EIR which
anticipated buildout of the City (including the project site) in accordance with the City's General Plan. The
relewant environmental information from the IASP EIR and MEA/General Plan EIR was incorporated by
reference into the EIR and is to be considered as part of the information upon which this evaluation of the
project is based.
The DEIR was prepared t~ evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation
of the proposed project. It is intended to ser-;e as an informadoral document for public agency decision
makers and the general public regarding the objectives and components of the proposed project, and any
WJB;0OIS0013.RTC
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center Dra~ EIR Response to Corruneng
potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that may be associated with the platmine,
consreaction, and operation of the project, as well as u3 identify appropriate feasible mitigation me,qsures
and alternatives that may be adopted lo reduce or eliminate these impacts.
The environmental effects of the proposed project are analyze~l in the EIR to the degree of specificit3,
appropriate to the current proposed project, in accordance with Section 15146 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. The EIR is intended u~ provide the primary environmental documentation for three properties
located on the project site: Mission Land Company, invesunent Olunans, and Bixby Ranch Company
properdes. All three properlies include the same proposed amendment to the IASP; however, the thxee
properties are addressed in the EIR commensurate with the level and mount of land planning information.
The Mission Land Company property currenfiy has a specific development proposal while the Invesunent
Olunans and Bixby Ranch do not. Even uhough the three properties are at different levels of planning, the
EIR analysis is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for the following series of actions
for all three properdes: [ASP amendment, subdivision/parcel maps, master plans, conditional use permits,
building permits, and grading permits. Where sit~ plans have not been available for the Inveswnent
Olin'hans and Bixby Ranch Company properties, the City has identified intended uses and maximum square
footages lt~at the City feels is appropriate for the properdes in order to maintain compatibility of uses and
intensifies wi~fin the project area. Section 3.2 of the DEIR provides a derailed discussion of these actions.
The EIR will be used to determine whether subsequent environmental documentation will be required.
It is acknowledgeti by the City of Rancho Cucamonga that when specific development proposals for the
Investment OItmans and Bixby Ranch properties are submitted to the City for review and consideration,
these proposals v,'ould be required to prepare a more detailed traffic impact analysis in accordance with the
Count>.' of San Bernardino Congestion Management Program (CNff').
As the lead agency, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has the principal respormibili.ry for processing and
approving the project. Other public agencies (i .e., responsible and trustee agencies) may use the EIR in
the decision makisug or permit process will consider ,.he inforrrkadon in the EIR along with other information
that may be presented during the CEQA process. Environmental impacts are not always rnitigable to a
level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered significant unavoidable
impacts. In accordance with Section 15093(o) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves
a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., significant unavoidable
impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the final
E'IP, and any other information in the public record for the project. This is termed, per Section 15093 of
the state CEQA Guidelines, a "statement of overriding considerations."
During nhe preparation of the DEXR. agencies, organizations. and persons who the City. believed rn,ay have
an interest in this project were contacted. Information, data, and observations from these contacts was
WJB/00!g0OI3.RTC A dr g e:~ { Introduction and grecutive Sum. man'
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising, Center Dra.~ EIR Response to Comments
included in the DEIR. Agencies or interested persons who did not respond to the request for comments
about the project during the public review period of the Notice of Preparation had an opportunity to
comment during the public review period of the DEIR and subsequent hearings on the project.
1.1.2 SCOPE OF 'ltig EIR
The DEIR addressed the potential environmentld effects of the proposed project. The scope of the EIR
included issues identifietl by the City of Rancho Cucamongs during the preparation of the Initial Study (IS)
and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed project. The IS/NOP, and cogent letlets received
during and after the NOP review period were included in the DEIR. Based on the findings in the IS and
NOP and on no substantial environmental comments received from the public or agencies during the public
review period of the IS/NOP, the environmental issues that were determined to result in potentially
significant impacts and addressed in detail in the EIR are:
· Traffic and Circulation
* Air Quality
In addition to the above environmental issues, the proposed project would result in the loss of grape
vineyards; however, this loss was assumed in the IASP and IASP EIR whjch were approved and certified,
respeclively, in 1981. D~e to the importance of agiculmral operations in the region, the IASP and IASP
EIR considered this loss as significant and unavoidable with the development of the site. The conversion
of farmland to urban uses was also discussed in the City of Rancho Cucamonga Master Environmental
Assessment (MEA) and General Plan EIR prepared in 1989. This discussion identified that the area in
which the project site is located can most easily support development and will eventually remove large
areas of soils that historically supported gape vineyards. However, current market forces such as
expanding urban development and the high cost of imported water have made continued agiculmral
activities in this area marginally profitable or not profitable.
No feasible mitigation measures were identified in the IASP EIR or the General Plan EIR to mitigate the
loss of grape vineyards. Feasible measures are still unavailable to mitigate the removal of gape vineyards
from the project site. Therefore, the impact on agricultural crops is still considered significant and
unavoidable and is fully dLscussed in the IASP EIR and the General Plan EIR which were incorporated by
reference into the EIR, as previously discussed.
1.1.3 EIR FOCUS A.N'D EFFECTS FOU..'N]D NOT TO BE SIGNIk'ICANT
The ISt~OP detetTnined that an EER is required to e,.'alcate the potentially significant environmental effects
of the proposed project. Based on the findings of the IS/NOP. the potentially significant environmental
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center Draj? EIR Response to Comments
effects of the project include traffic and circulation and air quality. In accordance with Section 15 128 of
the State CEQA Guidelines, the IS/NOP and DEIR provided reasons why the following environmental
components were not considered significant.
· Earth * Population
· Water · Housing
· Plant Life · Public Services
· Animal Life · Energy
· Noise · Utilities and Service Systems
· Light and Glare · Human Health
· Land Use · Aesthetics
· Natural Resources · Recreation
· Risk of Upset · Cultural Resources
1.1.4 PROJECT SPONSORS AND CONTACT PERSONS
The City of Rancho Cucamonga is the lead agency in the preparation of the EIR. MBA is the
environmental consultant to the City for the project. The applicants for the proposed project are Mission
Land Company for the Mission Land Company property and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the
investment Oltmans and Bixby Ranch Company properties.
Keycontact persons for the EIR are as follows:
Lead Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga
Community Development Deparmqent
Mild Bran, AiCP
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
(909) 477-2750
Environmental Consultant Michael Brandman Associates
Michael E. Houlihan, AICP
17310 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250
h-vine, California 92614
(714) 250-5555
Applicants Mission Land Company
John Rioharris
3281 East Guas~ Road, Suite 550
Ontario, California 91761
(909) 605-7741
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center Draft EIR Re~tTonse to Comments
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Community Development Department
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
(909) 477-2750
1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EIR
1.2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center would allow the addition of a Big Box retail
use as a conditional use in the Indust~al Park classification for properties with frontage along Fourth Street
in Subarea 12 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Industrial Area Specific Plan (IASP). There are three
properties wig the approximately 73-acre project site. the Mission Land Company, Invesmment Oltrnans,
and Bixby Ranch Company properties. With the addition of a Big Box retail use to the three onsite
properdes, it is anticipated that development of the three properdes would include approxirnately 845,330
square feetof commercial use. Without the addition of a Big Box retail use, the City's General Plan and
zoning designations for the properties would allow approximately 1,232,153 square feet of industrial park
The lfftssion Land Company has submitted a specific commercial development proposal that includes the
potential for Big Box retail uses on approximately 33 acres. The development proposed on the Mission
Land property includes 364,5 t 6 square feet of retail floor area.
The BLxby Ranch Company and Invesnment Olwnans do not have specific development proposals; however,
based on the development intensity permitted for Big Box retail in the IASP, approximately 138,956 square
feet of development could be permitted on the Bixby Ranch Company property and approximately 326,264
square feet of development on the Investment Oilroans property.
Because the Mission Land Company has submitted a specific development proposal, the development of
the Mission Land Company property is identified as Phase I of the proposed project. The Bixby Ranch
Company and Investment Oilmarts have not submitted specific development proposals and schedules ~
submit proposals for these two properdes are unknown to the City. As a result, the development of the
Bixby Ranch Company and Investment Oltrnans properdes are identified as Phase II.
The discretionary. actions that will be required for the proposed project include an IASP amendment,
subdivision/parcel maps, master plans, conditional use permits. bullcling permits, and grading permits.
Warehouse-S.mle Retail Merchandisin,g Center Dmt~ EIR Resoonse to Cornmenu
1.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MIHGATION MEg
Section 5 of the DEIR describes in detail the environmental impacts that would result from the
implemenlation of the proposed project as it related to ~'affic and circulation and air quality. Table 2-1 of
the DIEfiR summarizes impac~ of the proposed project and mitigation measures for these impacts. Impacts
that are noted in the smmmary as "significant" after mitigation will require the adoption of a slatement of
overriding considerations, if the project is approved as proposed (CEQA Section 2 I{381).
1.2.3 ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with Section 15126(d)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the DEIR included a comparative
evaluation of the proposed project with alternatives to the project. Additionally, the alternatives were
discussed in the terms of achieving the project objectives. The EIR included an evaluation of the following
alternatives to the proposed Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center:
· No Project/No Development Alternative
· No Project/Development as Allowed by IASP Alternative
· Alternative Site
The DEIR provided descriptions and analysis of each alternative. The Enviromenmlly Superior
Alternative was determined to be the proposed project and the alternative site because both scenarios would
result in the same environmental impacts. The No ProjectINo Development Alternative and the No
Project/Developmem as .~dlowed by IASP Alternative would result in less environmental impacts; however,
both of these alternatives would not achieve the objectives of the project.
1.2.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The DEIR addressed the two primary issues associated with the proposed project. Based on the City's
review of the project and comments received on the NOP/IS, these two issues are not considered
controversial or unresolved.
Warehottse-S.t).le Retail Merchandisine Center Draft ErR Response to Comments
SECI'ION 2
LIST OF CO~'~IENTORS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
United Suites Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS
STATE AGENCIES
Governors Office of Planning and Research OPR
REGIONAL AGENC~I~S
Southern California Association of Governments SCAG
PRBrATE ORGANIZATIONS
Endangered Habitats l~'~om.te EI-1L
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center DraR EIR Response to Comments
SECTION 3
RESPONSE TO COIVeqlENTS
In accordance with Seelion 15088 of the Slate of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,
the City of Rancho Cucamonga as the lead agency has evaluate~ the comments received on the DEIR (State
Clearinghouse No. 96041054) for the Warehouse-style Merchandising Center project and has prepaxed
written responses to the comments received. This "Response to Comments Document" becomes pan of
the Final EIR for the project in accordance with Sec~on 15132 of the Slate CEQA Guidelines.
The DEIR was approved for public circulation by the City of Ritncho Cucamonga and was diswibuted July
5, 1996. The City used several methods to elicit comments on the DEIR. Copies of the document were
distributed to state. regional. and local agencies, as well as organizations and individuals, for their review
and comment.
Per CEQA Guidelines, a 45-day review period was provided (July 5, 1996, through August 18, 1996).
The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and the Rancho Cucamonga City Council will hold public
hearings on the project after the preparation of the Final EIR.
3.2 COMMENT LETI'ERS AND RESPONSES
The comment leers and responses are provided on the following pages. All corrections, clarifications,
and refinements are herein incorporated by reference into the DEIR text.
RECEiV
United States Department of the InteriorE
HSH ,.-MNT) WII DLIFE SERVICE AUG ! 5 1996
Ecological 5errices
C'~t O ~ C
2730 Lok{r Avenue Vv'=s~
C~l~bad, C,a]ifomia 92008
August 12, 1996
Mr. Miki Bract
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cuca~nga, California 91730
Subject: Draft Environmental I=pact report, Warehouse-style Merchandising
Cen~er, Rancho Cucamonga, California (State Clearinghouse Nu,~ber
96041n54)
Dear Mr. Bract:
This letter conce:rn~ r_he initiai study on r,.he proposed 73-acre commercial
development project in Ehe City of Rancho CUc~nnga, California. The
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is concerned about the impacts of
this project on the e~anngered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (P. haphic~nidas
cot=t/ca:us ab~nmqnalis), several animal and plant species of special concern,
other wildlife resources, and wetlands.' The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is
fully protected under the Endangered Species ACt of 1973, as amended (Ac~).
The comen=s and recomendations in this letter are based on the Draft
E.~vironnencal Impact repcr'. warehouse-style Re!all Moreland!sing Ce==er State
C!eari_-ghouse No. 96S41054 (DEiR) dated july 1996 that was prepared by Michael
Bra.~_Ti~ ASsociates and was received by the Se.--;ice cn July 8, 1556; a:.d other
info_-Tation available to
It is our u:.dersCa_nding' that the proposed project consists of a proposed
warehouse-style retail merch~-.dising center cn a 73-acre parcel in the City of
Ra~c~o Cucamonga, Sa_~ Be~ardino Co 'u-~-ty, CaiiforT. ia. According to the DTiR,
the vegetation a~ the site includes grape vineyards, a.~d native ar.d non-native
plants (page B-3). The DEIR notes thac ~ke soil type on the project site is
Tu~junga loam sand, a soil thac is associated with the endangered Delh/Sa.~.ds
flower-loving fly.
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" of any federaliV listed species. As
defL~ed in =he Act, take means '...co harass, harm, pursue, hu.nc, shoot,
wound, kill, =rap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct." "Harm" has been further defined to include habitat destruction when
it kills or injures a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral
patte_--n..s, such as breeding, foraging or resting. Indirect adverse i~s. aczs,
such as consz.~ccion ~f roads. buildings, or fences, if-at inter.--_'pz or
prohibit =he mc;-emenz pazcerr..s of a !isze= sTecies, such as the Delhi Sa_tds
flower-loving fly, could be considered "'_ake" b'./=he Set'cite. The term.. person
Mr. Miki BraCt 2
is defined as 'an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or
any other private entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, or
instrumentality of the Federal gove,'-m~ent, of any State, municipality, or.
political subdivision of a State, or any other entity subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States.'
Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of
two procedures. If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding,
or carrying out of the project, then initiation of formal consultation between
~hat agency and fhe Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act is required if it
is determined that the proposed project may affect a fedorally listed species.
Such-consultation would result in a biological opinion that addresses the
anticipated effects of the project to the listed species and may authorize a
limited level of incidental take. If a Federal agency is not involved with
the project, and a fedorally listed species may be taken as part of the
project, then an incidental take pemt pursuant to section 1O (a) of the Act
would need to be obtained. The Service my issue such · permit upon
co~letion of a satisfactory conseFation plan for the listed species
~uld be affected by the project.
The DEIR contains only a brief discussion Of the e~ngered Delhi Sands
flower-loving fly and other listed species ~hmt may be adversely impacted by
the proposed project. There is no discussion of impacts and mitigations in
the main body of the DEIR, however, Atta~t B of the DEIR (pages B-3 and B-
4) notes ~t the area contains suitable soils for the Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly as well as areas containing native plant species. Some of these
plant species are often associated with the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly.
The information in the DEIR lacks the specificiCy necessary to adequately
evaluate the i=:pacts of this project on the Dell=i Sands flower-loving fly and
other listed species. The Service recommends ~t the City of Ra_-.cho
Cucamonga or the applica.~z su.--~ey the project size for the enda~-.gered Delhi
Sa.~ds flower-loving fly and its habiza,, following Se_--~ice approved .Drc~cca!s
at the project
Regarding fish and wildlife resources, the final envirc.%~ental
should ·ssess fully the impacts of the propos·l a_-.d its alt~_rnatives on
species populations sund ~heir habitats, wikh e=p.~2sis on wetla.~ds
e_~daagered and t~ea,,ened species, proposed species, candidate species, a_-.d
species of special concern. The final e.nviror.~.ental doc~,~.encs should state
clearly the purposes of, and docu_~.enz the oeeds of -~he propos·l so that the
capabilities of the various alte_~a=ives to meet those purposes and needs ca.~
be readily detel-m!ned. The final envirommental documents should include a
thorough description of all the faci!icies to be constmcted as part of the
proposal. Figuares accurately depic,,ing proposed project features in relation
to natural features in the projec,, area also should be included in the
environmental doc~L~ents
The analysis of projoe,, impacts on the enda_-.gered Delhi Sar. ds flower-loving
fly ,.-ust ~ake into accou.-.t the different bic!ogica! a_nd ecc!ogica!
req-uiremenzs of the sub:err~_~eaht early sza__-es a_-.d adu!-_s 'which are capah!~_ cf
airboze movement. Failure so ade~ja'_ely consider sisher of these life
his'_cry stages could lead so e!iminaticn cra reduz,,icn of a population cf
Mr. Mik/Bratt 3
these animals. In order to insure that all environmental i=pacts are fully
divulged, ~he final environmental documents should adequately assess any
interrela~ed or interdependent projects currently proposed in the San .
Ber~ara~-~ Valley area. In addition, the f~-al environmental documents should
loving fly.
The Service also is concerned about the impacts of =his proposed project on
the bul-rowing owl' {Athene c~.{cularia), loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovlcianus), and rap:ors. We recon~end that adequate surveys for the
burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, rap~ors, and other native birds be conducted
at r. he project si~e. The findings of the surveys and measures that will be
taken no avoid/m/=igate any adverse impacts =o =hose animal species should be
included in the final environmental doclL~,ents.
Potential adverse impacts to taxa that are listed, proposed, candidates, ana
species of special concern, especially the San Diego horned lizard (pblDcosoma
coroEa:um blainvi!lii), legless lizard {Amaiella pulchra), Delhi Sands
metalmark butterfly (Apod.m~'a mormo new subspecies), Delhi Sands jerusalem
cricket (Stenope/matus new species), conve.~er~t apiocerid fly {Apiocera
convergems) , and Pringle's mouardella (Monardella pringlei) , should be
addressed in t_he f~-ml enviroumental documents. The Natural Diversity Data
Base Of ~he Department of Fish and Game should be contacted for a list of '.a~
that likely are inhabitants of the project site. The Service retch=tends Zhac
adequate sul-veys be conducted during the proper flowering or activity perind.
The fi~a{ngs of the surveys and measures that will be taken to avoid/mitigate
any adverse impacts to these species should be included in the final
environmental documents.
In s.~.-r.~.--f, we recom. mend that ~he issues regarding the enda_~gered Delhi Sa/ds
fitwet-loving fly, other !isced, prcpcsed ar.d c~didace, species of special
conce.~, a~d wet!ands be fully resolved prior tc certification of che final
envircomencal documents. Adoption of the project, as proposed in the D-'i.R,
may re~ire authorizati'on from the Service for incidental ~ake of the
endu~_=ered Delhi Sands flower-loving fly '~-.der sections 7 or !0 (a) zo avoid
poce~zial vio!acions of setzion 9 of ~he Act. We appreciate the cpporc'L~iz].'
to review the DE!R for pczenzia! i...-.c._acts on endangered species, wildlife, a_-.d
weC!a_-.ds. Please contact Marl Beth Woo!re or Ch_~is Nags_no of my staff az
letterhead address or at 61S/431-9440 if you have a/~y questions.
!-6-}6-TA-287
cC: CD~FG, Sacramento, CA (Azzn: D. Warenycia)
CFG, Sa.~ Diego, CA (AZ~.: B. Ti.DpeCs}
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center Draft E1R Response to Comments
3.2.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
United State~ Department of Interior. lrtsh and Wildlife Service fiSSFWS')
RESPONSE USFWS-I
Forthcoming
RESPONSE USFWS-2
Forthcoming
RESPONSE US~WS-3
Forthcoming
RESPONSE USI. WS-4
Forthcoming
RESPONSE USFWS-5
Forthcoming
6,~.,~ ~ Au~st 19, 1996
MIKI
CI~ OF ~O ~ONGA
10500 CIVIC C~ER DRI~
~O ~N~, ~ 91729
S~ject: W~HOUSE-S~ ~TAIL ~R~ISING C~ER S~ ~:
96041054
Dear MIKI BR/~TT:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental
document to selected state agencies for review. The review period
is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This
lette~ acknowledges that you have complied with.the State 0eh-\
Please call at (916} 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding
the envir6nmental review process. When contacting the
Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State
Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
Chief, Sta~e Clearinghouse
Warehouse-S~le Retail Merchandisine Center Drab EIR Response to Comments
3.2.2 STATE AGENCIES
GoverIior~ Office of PLanning, alld Research
RESPONSE OPR -1
This comment is noted and is included in ~e public record for review and consideration by the appropriat~
decision makers.
RECEIVED
JUL 2 3 i99
CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 18, 1~
Ci~ of ~o Cu~nga
Co~ Dev~opment D~a~t
~SSOC~I~O~ of 105~ Civic C~t~ Drive
GOVERNMENTS ~o Cu~onga, CA 91~9
A~: ~. M~ Br~, ~CP, ~iate Pl~er
~: Comm~ on the D~ft ~ for lhe ~o~ ~o
Cu~monga War~o~Style R~il M~ndising Cmt~ -
8~8 west S~enth Street SCAG No. I 9~218
D~ ~. Bnu:
~,r-s43s ~ you for ~e op~nity to review ~d ~ent on ~e ~
~vitonmen~ ~pa~ Re~ ~) for ~e Pro~ ~n~o Cu~onga
t C~,~ ~ W~o~Sty~ R~il M~d~ing C~t~. M ~uwide d~gho~e
r~,~ ~ ~s for regio~ly si~i~t pmj~, SCAG ~ citi~, ~und~ ~ offier
agenci~ w review proj~ ~d pl~ for ~ten~ wi~ regio~ pl~.
~e a~ch~ co~en5 ~e m~t ~ ~ministntive ~aen5 to provide
~id~ce for ~idering ~e pro~s~ proj~ wi~in ~e ~ntext of our
,-- ~--- ~ ~ -~ ~ ' m~dat~, ~ not~ herein. If you have ~y qu~tio~ about ~e co~en~,
: ........... p[~e con=act Bill Bovd (213) 23&i9~.
~c__ :~_-~.,~ VIVIANE DOCHE-BOL'LOS
COM~MENTS ON DRAFT EIR FOR THE PROPOSLD
RANCHO CUCAMONGA WAREHOUSE-STYLE RETAIL MERCHANDISING CEN
ProjecI Desertion
The project sit~ is located on approximately 73 acres of land withha the City of Rancho Cucamonga in
the southwestern part of San Beraardino County. The site is bounded on the south by Fourth Strea, on
.... the we~ by M'flliken Avenue, on the east by Interstate 15, and on the north by various indust~ park
uses. The pWposed projea is an amendment to the City's Industrial Area Specific Plan to add Big Box
retail use as a conditjonaJly permitted use in this subaxea. The project com~'mptates the developmera of
845,330 square feet of high impact commercial use on the site. Under existing industrial park
classification, the site could accommodate 1,232,153 square feet of induslxial uses. The projea she is
assumed to be developed in two phases: Phase I (364,516 square feet) afar 1997 and Phase ]1 (two
parcels totalling465,220 square feet) prior to 2015. Traffic analysis was performed in conformance with
the County of San Bernardino Congestion Management ProFaro for Phase I, and will need to be provided
for ~he two Phase II properties once development proposals have been prepared.
I]. IN 1RODUCI tON TO SCAG REVXE~N PROCESS
The document that provides the prhnary reference for SCAG's project review aaivity is the Regional
Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG)L The RCPG chapters fall into three categories: core, anc~Jlary,
and bridge. The Grow',h Management, Regional Mobility (being a suwm~ry of the 1994 Regional
Mobility El-m,'-t), policies in the Air Quality chapter, aJong with the Hazardous Waste Management and
Water Quality chapters constitute the core chapters. These core chapters respoed directly to federal and
state pining requiremeaLS. The core chapters COnstitute the base on which local governrnenLS ensure
consistency of their plans with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth
Management chapters contain both core and ancillary policies, which aze differentiated in the comment
pot-don of this lener.
,~aciII~"y chapters ~re those on the Economy, Housing. Huma~ Resourc5 and Services, Finance, Open
Space z=d Conservation, W'ater Resources, Energy, ~.:d In:egra:ed Solid Waste Management and
of the Air Quaflry chapter. These chapters address imporu~t issues facing the region and may r:tlect
other regionzd plans. Ancillary chapters, however, do not contain actions or policies required of local
govetmment. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region.
Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between the Core
and Anciilary chapters of the RCPG.
Each of the appiicable policies related to the proposed projea are identified by number and reproduced
below in itali~ followed by SCAG s~af'f commen~s regarding the cousistency of the project w~th ',hose
policies.
ILL CONSIb lhNCY s, VITH THE CORE CH. AJ:'YERS OF THE REGIONAL CO~,fl:'REI-IEN'SIVE
PLAN ANI] GUII]E
See EriCnote.
Ms. MLkj Bran
.luly 18, 1996
Page 3
A. The Gmw,.h Mana_,zement Chanter fGMC) includes beth core and ancillary policies rh~t are
particularly applirable to this project. The GMC policies relate to the three RCPG goals: to improve the
regional standard of living. to maintain the regional quality of life, and to provide social, political, and
cultural equity. To achieve these goals, SCAG encourages the developmere of urban foams rh=t e~able
·. individuals to spend less income on housing, minimize public and priv-a~ development costs, and that
en2hle the private sector to be more competitive, thereby s~reng-.hening the regional e~oaomy. Attaining
mobility and clean air goals is also critical in enhancing the quality of life in the region and can be
achieved through the development of ufoan forms that accommo<late a divenity of lifen'yles, fl:at preserve
open space and n:n,ral resources, and that are aestheticaJly pleasing and preserve the char':,~ of
communities. Lasdy, SCAG encourages the development of urban forms that avoid economic and social
polarization and of reaching equity anaong all segmen~ of society. The evaluation of the proposed project
in relation to the following policies is intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and
does not infer regional interference with local land use powers.
i. Core Growth Man~gemerg t~olicies
3.01 Tn~ population, housing. and jobs forecusts. which are adopted by 5CA G's Regional CounciJ and
that reflect local plans and policies. shall be used by 5CA G in all fimses o1r bnplen~ntation and
review.
~7,,~: As SCAG has designated subregions, the project area is situated within
the San Bemardino County subregion. The Draft EIR does not contain information on jobs that
would be provided under the Big Box retail or indusu'ial park assumptions. Therefore, it is not
possible to asc. e.tuin whaher the project is generally consistent with SCAG's growth forecast,;.
The Draft EER states that the tnffic analysis which w-as performed for beth Phase I and IZI of the
project, uffiLu:d grov,",.h projeaions identified by the Southern Ca]ifornia Association of
GovernmeaLs and the adopt~ County C~fP. It is not pc~ssible to determine whereher the
analysis was based on the most recently adopted fore~,~a.sLs (I994) a~'~d modeling data.
2. Anciilary Gro~,~h Managemenz t~olicies
3.04 Encourage localjurisdiclion.v'effor?s to achieve a bal-~nce between the r~'pes of jobs they seek
mlrac': and housing prices.
SCAG sLaff comments. The Drait EIR, lac'ks spe.~ific informa,.ion on the types of jobs1
that might be provided and the availability of affordable housing in the vicinity.
therefor not possible to assess the consistency with this policy.
3.05 Encourage pazterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on
infrastructure construction and make beiter use of existing facilities.
SCA__G staff comment__s. This would avpear to be a.n 'infill' project. The DTaf~ EER is1
silent on ~h~ a',a21avii,t~ of m: : as~c,~rre, ~tnou n mdusu~ pax K uses aajac o
,'VIs. Mild Bran
July 18, 1996
Page 4
3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strazeSy to mainttzin the economic
of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other
economic incentives, which support attainment of subregional goals and policies.
- - mn.. This proposed project represents a good example of the type o~St.~.
economic ~uategy env~sionezl by tiffs regional plan policy.
3.11 Support provisions and incenffves created by local juns' dictions to attract housing growth
in job rich subregions and job growth in h~using rich subregions.
SCAG staff comments. The Dr-a.f't ~ includes a discussing on 'Promoting Jobs/Housing
Balance and GMP Goals'. It appears that the discussion only addresses jobs/housing in
the context of the 1989 GMP and 1991 AQMI:'. The discussion should be based on 1994
GMC of the RCPG and 1994 AQM~P. The Draft ~ statement that the project would
result in 'the creation of jobs in a jobs-pN:~r subregion and the remo'al of planning
consU-ahts that could, and have, produced barriers to potential job growth' is s~ll valid.
The proposexl project would therefor be consistent with this policy.
3.12 Errcourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs a~med at designing land
uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion,
reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opponttrdties for
residems to walk and bike.
SCAG sz.e.ff comments. The Draft ErR proposes mitigation measures 15 through 23 to
help reduce the number of vebjcle t,~ps ~d vehicle miles u-aveled during consu"~c~on
and ope,~Eionz] phases of the propos~ proj~t. It ~jso s~tes that the precise nature of
the TDM su'~egies may not be defined in more detzdl until the buildout of d~e project
site proceeds and more informaft, on is known on the nature of the employers who wilJ.
be occupying the project site.
3. i3 Encourage local jurisdictions'plans thaz rnt~ximize the use of erisring urbanized creas
accessible .~o transit through it:fit! and redevelopment.
-~CAG sL~f comments. As sta:ed above, tiffs would be s.n 'infill" project. There is a
3.16 Encourage developments in a,M around activity centers, transportation node corridors,
underutilized infrastructure ~s;en~ and areas needing recycling and redevelopment.
SCAG s~..:,.: comments. The p;~posed projec~ tics ve~' ',,-'el1 wkh this region~ poii;y.l~
Ms. Mild Brat
July 18, 1996
Page 5
3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental impact.
3.21 Encourage the ~mplementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of
recorded and u~recorded cultural resources and archaeological xites, and
3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that rerl,,,'e noise in certain locations. measures aimed
at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that ~ould reduce
exposure to sei.rrnic hazards; minimize earthqudce damage and to develop emergency
response and recovery plans,
A ta mmen. The Draft EIR indicates that the 'project will not have a
significant negative impact on a.Lr quality in the long term (5 years or longer) if it would
help implement the regional growth management policy through a reduction in V'M'r or
improve jobs/housing baJance and would 'help reduce VMT/VT ti'Lrough the application
of TDM strategies.' Fur~ermore, the Draft FIR states that the proposed project will not
result in loc~tized CO concentrations in excess of federal and state standards.
B. The Reeional Mobili_ty Cha~ter or Element also has policies pertinent to this p~posed
General Plan. This chapter links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering
economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting
U-ansportation-ffiendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable a~ to
residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial Limitations. Among the
relevant policies of this chapter are the following:
4.0I Promote Transportedion Demard ,'4ar~gerr~em CI'DM) progrca77s along with transit and
n'desha~ffng facilities as a vqeble and desirc, ble ;er~ of the overall mobility progro. rn while
recognizing the particular needs of individtazzl subregions.
4.03 Support the ersension of TDM progretn implerne,~ation to non-cornmtae trips for public
and private sector activities.
4.04 Snpport the coordiv. grion of land use end trcaTs.vortazion decisions with land use avzi
transportation capacity, takT'ng irdo accoum the potential for demand mart~gemem
strategies to mitigate travel demand if provided for as a parr of the entire package.
4.05 Support the use of market incemives as a mechanism to affect and modify behavior
toward the use of alternative modes for both commute and non-comtnute travel.
4.27 Urban form, land use and site-design policies should include requiremenss for safe and
converdera non-motorized trans;ortation, including the development of bicycle
pedestrian-~5'iendly environtner~rs near rrn~i:.
Ms. Mild Bran
July 18, 1996
Pag~ 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As described in the Draft ~:IR, the proposed Rancho Cucamonga Warehouse-Style Retail
Merchandising Center. appears t~ be generally consistent with the pertinent policies and
.... objectives of the Regional Mobility and Growth Management ~ of the Regional
Comprehensive Plan. However, a number of uncertainties with the ~t~ utilized in the Draft
EIR, should be addr,'~J in the Final ELR.
Ms. M~ki Brau
~uly lg, 1996
Page 7
DiDNOTE
SOLrl H"~U~ CA~rrORNIA ASSOCIAIION OF GOVERNM3E;'~
SCAGisa/eggPl~at~Ale$~TesZabllshedg~derCalarom~G~ ...... .zCode~--b'.m6SQ2~tmt. Umk'rf~deralsndstat~hw.
SCAG is de~gr-,~4 u · Counc/l of Govexnme~mu (COG), · Rtgloml Trmmporafitm plmmr~I AFt/(RTPA). and · Met~!mollxan
Phar~ Oq, m~-~u CMPO). SCAG's .,nandatu:l mla and ,~ibillt;es Lnclude the follow/q:
SCAG is deslr,-,i by 0~e federal Iovcrnmc~ u ~h~ P, tglon's Mar~l,.,I;t.,- Pf.a~g Or~'an~=~,oa u~i ma~.,,,4 t~ mei.'?laln ·
u;,,fi-,~g, eoopcmz~vc, and eotrzpmhmsivc tn~?orrazlen plan4~g proccu msu[zlng in · Rggio~al Traz,.si:g~azion Plan u~ ·
P. gg~ Traz-aport$~o~ [rz~r~vcrnc~ program pursua~ ~23 U.S.C. §1 34(g)~), 49 U.5.C. §I 6~7(0-{Z) ct sc~l., 23 C.F.iL
pmla$,'~l~ of l,~c Rcg~ T~on P~ ~) ~ Rcgi~ T~on ~m~ Pm~ ~ u~ ~o~
~AG ~ ~ibk ~ ~ F~ Cl~ ~ A~ for d~l ~/~ of Pmj~, P~ ~ P~ to ~ ~ p~,
~ ~ ~o~ ~ C~c ~ ~92. ~AG ~ ~b~ for n~w~g ~ ~g~ M~ ~
m~ ~e for c~e~y '~ ~io~ p~ [~o~ Env~ ~ Ac~ ~idc~ ~do~ 152~ ~
~5~,).
A 84/
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center Drat? EIR Response to Commtrax
3.2.3 REGIONAL AGENCIES
Southern California Association of Govermnent (SCAG)
RESPONSE SCAG-1
According to die April 9, 1996 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) prepared for the proposed
project, the project is expected to generate primarily low-paying jobs that would be filled by the local
economy; there~:n'e, the project is expected to be consistent with SCAG's growth forecasts for the region
in that the project would primarily provide jobs to those individuals who are currently unemployed residents
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and surrounding areas of San Bernardino County. [t is also expected
that many of the lower skill level jobs will be filled by young people entering the work force. The traffic
analysis, which was prepared in compliance with SANBAG'so n'affic analysis guidelines, used the 1996
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) traffic model which was provided to the project's traffic
consultant via SCAGs inland empire office. This model contains the most up-to-date information related
to growth forecasts for County and the region as a whole. Therefore, the traffic analysis provided in the
EIR is assumed to have utilized the most recently adopted growth forecase; and modeling data known to
RESPONSE SCAG-2
Existing City policies and the activities of the City of Rancho Cucarnong-a Housing Assistance Program
(HAP) provide for the housing needs of the City. More specifically, the HAP through the federal Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) deparlxnent, assists low and medium income families. Althoug. h the
project is expected w generate a certain amount of managerial-type positions, a majority of the positions
would be low-skilled (e.g., retail, etc.) in nature and would be filled by the local economy. Due to these
low-skilled ty~ of jobs created by the proposed Warehouse-style Merchandising Center, the project is not
expected to create a migration of low-skilled employees to the Rancho Cucamonga area.
RESPONSE SCAG-3
As stated in the April 9, 1996 IS/NOP, development of the proposed project will result in an increase
demand for infrastructure-type services and utilities such as police and fire services, schools, electricity,
natural ga_s, telephone, water, sewer, storm drains, and solid waste systems. This demand is not expected
to be significantly different than the demand contemplated with the development of the site with the
currendy designated industrial park uses. Increases in these service and utility system have been
anticipated since the approval of the Lnduslrial Area Specific Plan in 1981. Moreover. although the project
is net expected to refit in an increased demand for new housing, and therefore, an increase in children,
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandisin$ Center Dra. R EIR Response to Comments
the proposed project woutd still be required to contribute development impact fees to the school diswicts
in accordance with their school impac~ fee program to provide for the necessary educational infraslrucmre
within the City.
RESPONSE SCAG4
The comment is noted and is included in the public record for review and consideration by the appropriate
decision makers.
RESPONSE SCAG-5
The comment is noted and is included in the public record for review and consideration by the appropriate
decision makers.
RESPONSE SCAG-6
The comment is noted and is included in the public record for review and consideration by the appropriate
decision makers.
RESPONSE SCAG-7
Local bus service in the project area is operated by the County of San Bernardino. The systein, Omnitrarks,
covem three large geographic areas or alMsions, of which the City of Rancho Cucamonga is located in the
West Valley Division. Ridership in t~e IASP is minimal because lit'tie induswial development has occurred
along potential routes; however, ridership is increasing. There is a potential for employees and visitors
of the Warehouse-style Merchandising Center to udlize existing and/or proposed public transit facilities in
the project area. Therefore, during review of site specific design plans for the proposed project, the City
of Rancho Cucamonga will coordinate with Ortmitrans to determine the need for bus-stops and/or other
public transit facilities that would assist in serving the potential public transit needs of the project.
RESPONSE SCAG-8
The comment is noted and is included in the public record for review and consideration by the appropriate
decision makers.
WJB/00IS0013.RTC 3-' Response to Comments
A, q3
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandis~ng Cemer Dral~ EIR Response to Comtnents
RESPONSE SCAG-9
The cogent is noted and is included in the public record for review and consideration by t~e appropriate
decision makers.
R E C itD
ENDANGERED HABITATS LEAGUE .4UG
Dan Silver o Coordinator " *
8424A Santa Monica Ivd. 1592 T~0r~a
L~ Angdea, CA ~0694210 . ~:'
· ' ":S'.'
Augtat 15, 1996
Plarming DeFt.
City of Rane_ho Cucamonga
AT'rN: Miki Bratt
10500 Civic Cmer Dr.
Rancho Cucam~nga, CA 91730
RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Waz~house~tyle Retail Merdundising Center
(SCH f9(~041054)
Dear Sirs / Madarns:
The Endangered Habitats League is an or~a~niTaflon of Southern California conservation groul:~
and individuals dedimed to ecosystem protection, improved land use planning, and collaborative
conflkt resolution. We pa_,tidpate in e~orB to ~solve potential emvizonmenlal-economic eoniicts,
such as Sta~e of California Na,ural Communities Con.~-vation Planning (NC(~), serviz~ on advisoF/
committees for such programs in L~s Anb, eles, Rive~ide, San Diego, Orange, and San Bema~lino
Courak, s. We appreciate the opportunity to comme~ on the above-et4enmct, d doGtmem.
· 1. Potential i~lpacts to the envi~on~ment zr~ not fully disclost~l.
Although the site contains soils a3sodated with the federally endangered Delhi Sand~
flower-loving fly, adecluate survey,3 for this species have not been undertaken. Similarly adequate
surv.eys are needed for various other sensitive spedes and species of special concern. such as lonerhead
shrike. burrowing owl, San Diego horned lizard, legless Lizard, DeLhi Sands metalmark butterfly, ~'~ %' ' \
DeLb. i Sands ~erusalem cricket. convergent apiocerid fly. and Prin~le's rnonardella.
2. Feasible avoidance and mitigation measth-es have not ben undertaken.
Measuxes such a.s avoidance and mitigation to rt:,duce any direct or indirect impacts to the Delhi
Sands flower loving fly to insi~:r~ficant levels have not been analyzed. SLmilarly, no such measures for
the other species listed above have been formulated. These potential impacts must be considered both ~:~k- ~,
indi'.4dually and cumulativety with other foreseeable projects.
We thus find the DEIR deftdent and ttrge improvemems. Thank you for considerin~ our
cornmems, and please add us to the mailing list for future notiScafions and documents for th~ project.
Sincerely,
Dan Silver,
Coordir,~tor
Warehouse-St~le Retail Merctmndisin~, Center Draft E1R Rest~onse to Comments
3.2.4 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
Endam, ered Habitat Leagu_¢
RESPONSE EFII.-i
See Response USFWS-I, -3, --4, and -5.
RESPONSE EBI,-2
See Response USF'WS-I, -3, 4, and -5.
DRAFT
MITIGATION MONITORlinG PROGRAM
FOR l'ltle;
WAI~:HOUSE--S'rYI~ RET,&I1, ~CItANDISING CENrI~il¢ Ell{
State Clearinghouse Number 96041054
Submitted m:
City of Rancho Cucarnonga
Planning Deparunent
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cuc. axnonga, California 91730
Contact: Mild Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner
Prepared by:
Michel Brandman Associates
17310 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250
lp,'ine, California 92614
(714) 250-5555
Contact: Michael E. I-toulihan, AICP, Senior Project Manager
September 1996
JJlT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................
2.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .................................
2.1 Roles and Responsibilities ...............................
2.2 General Procedures ...................................
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 21081.6 to the Public Resources Code requires a lead or responsible agency that approves or
carries out a project where an environmental impact report has identified ~ignificam environmental effects
to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for adopted or required chanEes to mitigate or avoid
significant environmemal ~T-ects." The City of Rancho Cucamonga is the I~a agency for the Warehouse-
style Retail Merchandising Center EIR. A draft enviromental impact report has been prepared for this
project and addressed potential environmental impacB and, where appropriate, recommended measures
to mitigate thes~ impact. As such, a mitigation reperting or monitoring program is required to ensure that
adopted mitigation measures are implemented.
The ~oject is located at the southern boundar3' of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is within the existing
Industrial Area Specific Plan CLASP). The project site is hounded by Fourth Street to the south, on the west
by hillliken Avenue, on the north by various industrial park uses, and on the east by Interstate 15 0-15).
The proposed project includes the development of high impact commercial uses.
2.0 PROGRA~t MANAGEMENT
The mitigation monil~ing plan (M1MP) for the Warehouse-style Retail Merehandising Center EIR will he
in place through all phases of project approval. Enforcement of the lVlMP will he the responsibility of a
Project Manager (I'M).
2.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBHATLES: PROJECT MANAGER
The PM is assigned by the Cogunity Development Deparwaent Director. The PM assigned to the
proposed project will supervise the MMP through all phases of project approval and is responsible for the
overall management of the MMP. The mitigation measures identified in the MMP fall into two categories:
1. Measures that need to he satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits, and
2. Measures that are implemented with subsequent levels of development through
conditions of approval.
The PM is thoroughly familiar with the project and qualified to determine if an adopted measure is being
properly implemented. The PM oversees the MMP and will determine the need for a measure to he
modified and ensure the use of a mitigation specialist if technical expertise beyond the PM's is required.
If it is found 'd~at an adopted mitigation measure is not being properly implemented, the PM would reqtlire
comefive actions to ensure adequate implementation. The responsibilities of the PM include the following:
1. Appropriate specialists will be retained, as needed. to monitor specific miti~tion
activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the PM.
2. TI~ PM and/or an assignee will approve, by signature and dat~, the completion of each
action i~m that is identified on the Mitigation Monitoring Matrix.
3. Unamicipaaxl circumstances may ax~ requiring the refinemere or addition of mitigation
measures. The PM is responsible for approving any such refu~ments or additions.
4. The PM has the mm~'~rity ~ ~k,~ the work of construction conuzmrs if compfianc,~ with
any aspec~ of the MMP is not occun'ing after wrillen notification has been issued. The
PM also has anthority to hold certifieatP. s of occupancies if colXpllanC, e Widi a mitigation
measure attached bere~o is not occurring. The PM also has authority to hold the
issuance Of a business license until all mitigation measures ar~ implement,'.d.
2.2 GENERAL PROCEDURES
MMP _Pro~Ermn Definitions
The MMP consists of key program elements. The definitions of these elements axe summarized below.
F'des are established to document and retain records of the MMP. The file organiT~on is established by
the PM according to mitigation measures and project phases.
Enviromental Comp~ance Verification
At the completion of construction contracts that axe part of the overall development of the project, a
verification of environmental compliance is executed by the PM. The verification concludes the
construction monitoring process for the contract.
MitLoation Monitorin_. ~Program Procedures
The policies and procedures for the MMP described herein are intended to provide focused, yet flexible
guidelines for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the draft EIR. Table
I ~ each mitigation measure and the implementor, the responsible party for monitoring, and the timing
of implementation for each mitigation measure for the proposed project. Table I also provides the PM a
verification of compliance for each mitigation measure during each applicable phase of the project. Afar
each measure is verified for compliance, no further action is required for the specific phase. The PM shall
initial and date the measure on Table I.
The environmenial effects of the proposed project are analyzed in the EIR ~o the degree of speci~city
appropriate to the current proposed project, in accordanc~ with Section 15146 of the State CEQA
Guidelines. This I:IR was prepanxl nn-I certified to provide the primary environmental documentation for
thr~ properties located on the project s~te: brassion Land Company, Investment Oltmnn% and Bixby Ranch
Company properties. All three properties included the same proposed amendment to the IASP; however,
the three properlies were addressed in ~his EIR commensurate with the level and mount of land plannlnE
information. The Mission I and Company property currently has a specific development proposal while
the InvesUnent OItman~ and Bixby Ranch do not. Even though the three properties are at different levels
of planning, the EIR analysis will serve as the primary environmental document for the following series
of actions for all three properties: IASP amendment, subdivision/parcel maps, matter plan.s, conditional
use permits, building permits, and grading permits. Where site plans have not been available for the
Investment Olumaes and Bixby Ranch Company properties, the City identified intended uses and maximum
square footages that the City feels is appropriate for the ~,,overdes in order to maintain compatibility of uses
and intensities within the project area.
Dis_nasition of Monitorin~ Forms
The MMP file is kept with the City of Rancho Cucamonga during the pre-design, design, construction, and
operational phases of the project. The file will be available from the City upon request at the following
address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga CLead Agency)
Planning Deparmaent
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
TABLE I
MITIGATION MONITORING MATRIX
WAREl-lOUSE-STYLE RETAIL MERCIIANDISING CENTER MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Rcsponsiblo for Verification of Comn[htner
Mitigation Implemcnlor Monitoring' Timing SiJnaturo Dat~
INVI~NTORY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
In the columns to the right are listed personnel/
agencies responsible for implementation for
monitoring, timing, and compliance. Mitigation
measures are listed by topical area.
'l'rafl~c and Circnlatl~r~n
1. Under thcdevelopment ofphases I and ]l in Ihc
year 2015, the following improvemcnls to
inletsections and freeway segments are
rccomlnended as mitigation measures to
achieve LOS E or b~tcr. The proposed project
shall contribute on a fair share, basis to the
construction of circulation improvements
identified as necessary at the time of isstaancc
ofbuildlng pennlts. Fair share allocations and
payment of traffic fees shall be consistent with
the provisions of the Transportation
Dcvelllpmcnl hnpact Fee (Ordinance No. 445).
operate at LOS F conditions in the 2015 certificate, of occupancy
project. This condition is a function of the
particular the high volume of p.m. peak
hour northbound through and right turn
movements. As mitigation for this
inter~ection, modifiealions to the: traffic
signal phasing to allow for a dedicaled
Footnoles are printed on page 9.
WJB/ooIBool].MMp
TABLE 1 (continued)
Responsible for Verification of Compliance
Mitigation Implementor Monitoring Timing SiSnature Dam
ca.stlx~und and westbound left turn lthases is
Milllken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard
b. Miliiken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard is Project Applicant City Engineer Prior to issuance of
furcoast to operate at LOS F conditions in cerd~e. al~ of occupancy
the 2015 condition with and without the
proposed project. This condition is a
function of the critical movement traffic
volumes, in particular the high volume of
p.m. peak hour eastbound through
nlovements and the two eastbound through
lanes. The existing pavement width can
accommodate an additinnal easthound
Ihrough lane with sniping modifications and
signage changes. As mitigation for this
intersection, a third eastbound through lane
Air Ouafit}:
2. The following SCAQMD mitigation measures Prnject Applicant City Planner Prior to approval of
have been incorporated into the proposed development plans
associated with new development. The
nlajt~rity of these measures are oriented toward
i~rqject construction or at least more detailed
levels of planning than is associated with a
specific plan amendtnent. The llzaaihility attd
appropriateness nf each measure Can I~est he
determined at more detailed levels of planning
{i.e., Devehtpment/Design Review) liar ate
proposed project. ~U!~ii~Clli':~;ll,~: follow ng
ttnsurcs s~s'l~oiliin~ct~d for'futuro levels of
I,rujc~t imptemen,itiQD,: b~!, Oidy iu determ ned
Timing and means of implementation of these
Fallential mares are further described below:
Footnotes are printed on page 9.
WJB/00180OI3.MMP 5
TABLE 1 (continued)
Responsible for Verification of Compliance
Mitigation [n~plementor Monitoring' Timin.~ Signature Dat~
a. Use low-emission alternative fuel (i.e., Project Applicant] Director of Prior to issuance of
methanoi, butsne, or propane) as praeti- Grading and Building Community grading and/or
cable in mobile constnmtion equipment Permit Cunditions Development building permits, u
(e.g., tractor, scraper, dozer). applicable
li. Develnp a trip reduction plan to achieve Project Applicant Director of Prior to issuance of
1.5 AVR for construction employees. Community grading permits
Development
c. Comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 Prnject Applicant Director of Prior to issuance of
ctmcerning implementation of dust Community grading permits
suppression techniques to prevent fugitive Development
dust froIn creating a nuisance offsite.
'~ d. Empl~y construction activity munagt:mcnt Project Applicant/ Director of Print to issuance of
~c techniques, such ' as extending rite Grading And 13uildlng Community grading and/or
ctmstructhm period, reducing dic nmnber of Permits Conditions Development building permits, Its
~ pieces of equipment used simultaneously, applicable
increasing the distance between emission
{~h sources, reducing or changing die hours of
construction, and scheduling activity during
'~ oil=peak hours.~
e, Suh]~end grading crperations during first and Project ApplicanlJ Director of Prior TO issuance of
second stage smog alerts. Grading Permit Community grading permits
Conditions Development
f. Suspend all grading operations when wind Project Applicant/ Director of Prior to issuance of
speeds (. instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 Grading and Building ' Community grading and/or
mile, s per hour. Permit Conditions Development ' building permits, ~
applicthlc
g. Maintain consm~ction equipment engines hy Project Applicant/ Director of Prior to issutqce of
keeping diem adequately tuned. Grading and Building Conununity grading and/or
Pem~it Conditi,.m. Development building p.~rmits, u
tl:,plicable
Foolnotes are printed on page 9.
WIB/IXlIaOOI3.MMp 6
TABLE I (continued)
Responsible for ~ '
Mitigation hnplememor Monitoring' Timing Signature Datg
h. Use Iow-sulfur fuel for stationary Project Applicant/ Director of Priorto issuanceof
construction equipment, Grading and Building Community grading and/or
Permit Condltltma Development building permits, as
.applicable
i. Use existing power sources (e.g., power Project Applicant/ Director of Prior to issuance of
p,les) or clean-I~l generah~rs rather than Grading and Building Community grading and/or
temporary power generators. Permit Conditions Development building permits, as
applicable
j. Use low-emission onsite equipment (e.g., Project Applicant Director of Prior to approval of
enctbanol-, propane-, or butass-powered Community development plans
internal combustion engines) instead of Development
diesel or gasoline.
'~ 3. 'ru reduce automobile emissions by reducing
Ihe number of vehicles driven to a work site on
'~ a daily basis and Oarough (xaf~c flow
improvements, the project developer should
~ give consideration to the following measures:
CJ~ a. Develop a transportation demand I'roject Applicant Director of Prior to approval of
CfX management {TDM) program that ctnnplieu Community development plans
with the TDM Ordinance adopted by the Development
City. The TDM program shall include an
itemization of the TDM measures.
developing the TDM program, the project
developer shall give consideration to the
Ibllowing TDM measures, as applicable.
, Provide preferential parking to high-
occupancy vehicles,
·Configure parking to midimize
interference.
*Minimize obstnwtion of through-~affic
lanes.
Footnotes are printed on page 9.
WJll/OOIgOOI3,MMP 7
TABLE 1 (continued)
Responsible for Verification of Complianc~
Mititlation hnplemeolor Monitorinl~ TimittlI Signature Date
·Schedule operations affect on traffic for
off-peak hours.~
·Schedule goods movements for off-peak
hours
b. Require development practices thai Project Applicant Director of Prior to approval of
maximlze energy conservation~ as a Community development plans
prerequisite to permit approval. Development
c. Imprt~ve the thermal integrity of buildings, Project Applicant Building OfficiM Prior to issuance of
and reduce the thermal load with automated celli~cates of
time clocks or occupant sensors. occupancy
d. Introduce window glaring, wall insulation, Project Applicant Building Official Prior to issuance of
and efficient ventilation methods. building permits
e. Introduce energy-efficient heating and Project Applicant Director of Building Riot to issuance of
coofang appfianees, such as water heaters, tad Safety certificates of
cooking equipment, refrigerators, air occupancy
condidoners, furnaces, and boiler units.
f. Use devices that mlnilnize the comhus~on Project Applic.nt Director of Prior to issuance of
of fossil fuels. Community building permits
Development
g. Capture waste heap and re-employ it in Project Applicant Building Official Prior to issuance of
nonresidential buildings. building permits
b. Landscape building and median landscape Project Applicant Director of Prior to issuance of
aseas with nadve drought-resistant species, Community building permits
as appropriate, to reduce water Development
clmsumpdon and to provide passive solar
benslits.
Noise
4. Proposed onsite land uses that have the Project Applicant City Pitsnet Prior to approval of
potential to result in generation of noise levels development pltns
of greater than 75 dBA Ldn on adjacent
Footnotes are printed on page 9.
WJIt/0OIS0OI3.MMp 8
TABLE I (continued) /
Responsible for yert~eafinn of Compliance
Mitigation Irnplementor Monitoring' Timing Signature Date
properties are required to shield Ihe stationary
noise sources so that noise levels on adjacent
propcdles do not exceed 75 dBA Ldn.
Shielding could be provided by the utilization
of sound barrier walls or structures acting as
effective sound barrier.
All active outdoor use areas' associated with Project Applicant City Planner Prior to approval of
tile proposed comlnercia} uses shall be located development plans
in areas cxposed to noise levels of 70 dBA Ldn
or less from vehicular and stationary noise
sources. Any active outdoor uses on the
project silo that are located in areas exposed to
noise levels of greater than 70 dBA Ldn arc
required to be sblclded from the dominant noise
source, by utilizing sound barrier walls or
structures acting as cffccllvc sound harriers. to
in·arc conform·nee with the City's noise
standard.
N/A = Not applicable.
Footholes
A project manager assigned by the Community Development Director will over~e~ monitoring of MI mitigation measures.
Off-~cak Irafile hours - Off-peak Irafile hours refers to the hours in · 24-hour p~rlod with the lowest hourly volumes of measure~l taffic. Conve. r,¢ly, p~Ak traffic hotill
are Ihosc bouts wbich have the highest traffic volumes. Typically, ther~ are two peak poriods in · 24-hour period, ·n ·.m. pe. lk a. nd a p.m. peak. Though peak and off-
peak traffic hours may vary by lot·don orjurisdlction, generally ·.m. peak houa oeeur bawe.~n 6 to 9 Lm. and p.m. ~ houa ar~ from 3 to 6 p.m. Therefor=, off-
peak Irafile hours would generally occur betw~n 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. ·rid be.t.w~n 6 p.m. ·rid 6 a.m.
Dcvelooment practice that maximize energy conservation - Specific examples of dcvclopmcnt practices that maximize energy conservation may include, but am not limited
Io tile following:
· Use.of central water heating systems
· ,!ncorporatinn of shade Irecs on soulhem and wcslern side of buildings to reduce building heating/cooling needs
~-- Use of double-paned glass windows
Use of light-colored roofing and facade materials to reflect heat
·increased wall and attic insulation beyond Title 24 requirements
Waste heat - W·sto heat refers to the heat energy byproduet that may be given off by various heating/cooling equipment or various mt. nufacturlng proeel·el. Examples of
capulring and re-employing waste heat include:
· Co-generation of energy whereby the wasle lien· from beath}g/cooling · building is ealRured and used to heat water for that or another building.
A,;live outdoor uses ~r~:as - Outdoor active use areas as·oct·led with the proposed eommen:ial uses are areas where people c. ongr~g·~ ·rid pemiin for exteandcd periods of
WJII/OOISOOI3.~IMP 9
DRAFT
FOR SIGNI~'ICANT ENVIRO~AL E~'m~ OF THK
~O~ ~ ~A~ OF O~l~G CON~ONS
~ ~ b~ ~ A~ (CEQA) ~b~c ~s C~ ~on 21~1, ~
G~de~ ~cdon 15~1 pro~de ~t:
"No public agen~ ~11 approve or ~ out a project f~ w~c
~n ~ ~n ~ w~ch idenfi~ o~ or more ~e en~o~nt
~t wo~d ~ ff~ project is approv~ ~ ~ out ~ ~e , ma~e~ o~
or more of ~e foHo~g ~gs:
a. C~ges or ~om ~ve ~n re~ ~, ~, ~e project w~ch
~fi~ or avoid ~e si~t effe~ on
b. ~ose c~ges or ~m~fio~ ~e wi~n ~e ~ j~cfion of ~o~er
public agency ~ ~ve ~n, or ~ ~ sho~d by ~t o~cr agency.
c. S~ci~c e~no~c, ~ci~, or o~er ma~e ~ble ~e
m~es or M~ves idenfifi~ ~ ~ct
~ ~e W~ehol-s~le Re~ Merc~sing ~) idenffi~
~i~t e~ ~t ~y ~ ~ a ~t of ~e ~ ac~r~ wi~ ~e ~ovisio~ of C~A
~ ~A ~&~, ~e Ci~ of~o ~ ~ E ~ of ~e appro~
of ~e W~eho~-s~le Re~l ~roje~ ~ rela~
~e Ci~ project in accor~ce wi~ CEQA and CEQA
G~de~ tenement. ~ EIR was subje ~ review and approval by ~e Ci~ of ~cho Cu~monga
Ci~ Co~cil. At a public hea~ng hek ., ~e E~ w~ ce~ed E adeq~m in
accor~ wi~ CEQA proced~es.
~ adop~ ~s Su~ment ~e Ci~ of hncho Cu~onga Ci~ Co~ci[ approves ~e
Warehouse-s~le Merch~sin ~roject. ~1 ~b~ent IASP men~en~, ~vision p~l
~ps, ~r pl~, ~fio~ Fa~ng ~, ~fi~on implemenu~on,
and re~a~ a~eemen~ ~ reviewed b~ on ~e docmenufion in ~e E~ ~d ~e previo~ly
prep~ I~fial. of Prep~a~on (Ap~I 1~).
FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGST;~ ~
FOR SIGNI~'ICANT ENVIRONIVIENTAL EF!~'ECTS OF
PROJECT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSEDERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091 provide that:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact
report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment
ant would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one
or more of the following findings:
a. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the sig~cant effects on the environment.
b. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.
c. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Because the Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center environmental impact report (EIR) identified
significant effects that may occur as a result of the project, and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA
and CEQA Guidelines, the City of Rancho Cuc. amonga hereby adopts these findings as pan of the approval
of the Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center project and related applications.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared an EIR for ~he project in accordance with CEQA and CEQA
Guidelines requirements. An EIR was subject to review and approval by the City of Rancho Cucamonga
City Council. At a public hearing held on , the EIR was certified as adequate in
accordance with CEQA procedures.
In adopting this Statement of Findings of Fact, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council approves the
Warehouse-style Merchandising Center project. All subsequent IASP amendments, subdivision parcel
maps, master plans, conditionzd use permits, building permits, grading permits, mitigation implementation,
and regulatory agreements will be reviewed based on the documentation in the EIR and the previously
prepared Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (April 1996).
MITIGATED ADVERSE IMPACTS
The potential significant adverse impacts that will be mitigated are listed below. The Rancho Cucamonga
City Council finds that these potential adverse impacts will be mitigated to a level that is considered less
than significant after implementation of recommended mitigation measures.
TRA~'~'IC AND CIRCULATION
Implementation of phase I would generate approximately 16,210 average daily Wips and 1,510 p.m. peak
hour trips. Implementation of phase II would generate approximately 15,546 average daily wips and 1,459
p.m. peak hour trips. The proposed project (Phases I and II) would generate approximately 31,756
average dally ~ps and 2,969 p.m. peak hour Wips. In the interim year 1997, the implementation of Phase
I would not result in the exceedsnee of the level of service at adjacent intersections (i.e., LOS E). The
implementation of the proposed project (Phases I and II) would signj~can~y contribute to a cumulative
exceedante of LOS E in the year 2015 at the following intersections:
· Milliken Avenue/Fourth SWeet
· Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Su_o_nort of Findings
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than sigul~cant by
virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project:
· Under the development of Phases I and II in the year 2015, the following improvements
to intersections are recommended as mitigation measures to achieve LOS E or better.
The proposed project shall contribute on a fair share basis to the construction of
circulation improvements identified as necessary at the time of issuance of building
permits. Fair share allocations and payment of txaffic fees shall be consistent with the
provisions of the Transportation Development Impact Fee (Ordinance No. 445).
Milliken Avenue/Fourth Sweet
a. Milliken Avenue/Fourth SWeet is forecast to operate at LOS F conditions in fiae
year 2015 condition with the proposed project. This condition is a function of the
large volume of norfiabound movements, in particular the high volume of p.m.
peak hour northbound through and right turn movements. To reduce the
cumulative traffic impact at this intersection to a level that is considered less than
significant, modifications to the traffic signal phasing to allow for a dedicated
northbound right mrn phase during the easthound and westhound left turn phases
is recommended.
Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard
b. Milliken Avenue/Foothill Boulevard is forecast to operate at LOS F conditions
in the 2015 condition with and without the proposed project. This condition is a
function of the critical movement traffic volumes, in particular the high volume
of p.m. peak hour easthound through movements and the two easthound through
lanes. The existing pavement width can accommodate an additional easthound
through lane with striping modifications and signage changes. To reduce the
cumulative traffic impact at this intersection to a level that is considered less than
significant, a third easthound through lane is recommended.
NOISE
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has set development standards within its Industrial Area Specific Plan
GASP) area. The project site is located within this IASP area, therefore, the Industrial Performance
Standards (IPS) apply to onsite developments. The project site is designated as Class B.
Noise standards for Class B industrial area indicates that the maximum allowable noise level of any use
shall not exceed 75 dBA Ldn as measured at the lot line of the lot containing the use. Noise caused by
motor vehicles and trains are exempted from this standard. Commercial land uses within the project site
may be exposed to noise levels of greater than 75 dBA Ldn from stationary sources associated with the
proposed commercial uses (i.e., automotive service and repair uses).
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by
virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project:
· Proposed onsite land uses that have the potential to result in generation of noise levels
of greater than 75 dBA Ldn on adjacent properties are required to shield the stationary
noise sources so that noise levels on adjacent properties do not exceed 75 dBA Ldn.
Shielding could be provided by the utilization of sound barrier walls or structures acting
as effective sound barrier.
According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Noise Element, the standard for active outdoor uses is 70
dBA Ldn. The proposed project could include active outdoor activities (i.e., outdoor eating at restaurants).
The proposed project uses may be exposed to noise levels that exceed 70 dBA Ldn and, therefore, could
experience significant noise impacts.
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the
significant effects on the environment.
Facts in Support of Findings
The significant effect has been eliminatod or substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant by
virtue of the following mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project:
· All active outdoor use areas associated with the proposed commercial uses shall be
located in areas exposed to noise levels of 70 dBA Ldn or less from vehicular and
stationary noise sources. Any active outdoor uses on the project site that are located in
areas exposed to noise levels of greater than 70 dBA Ldn are required to be shielded
from the dominant noise source, by using sound barrier walls or structures acting as
effective sound barriers, to insure conformance with the City's noise standard.
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSrE IMPACTS
The potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the implementation of the Warehouse-
style Retail Merchandising Center project are listed below. The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds
that these potential significant adverse impacts would be reduced with the implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures; however, the impacts cannot be reduced to a level less than significant.
The Rancho Cucamonga City Council is adopting a Statement of Overriding Consideration per Section
15093 of the CEQA Guidelines.
TRA}'I~IC AND CIRCULATION
The proposed project (Phases I and I1) would significantly contribute to the cumulative exceedance of LOS
E in the year 2015 at the following fleeway segments.
VFJB/00180013 .FIN 4
· Southbound 1-15 between Jurupa Avenue and 1-10
· Southbound I-15 between SR-60 and Jurupa Avenue
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
To reduce the impacts on these two freeway segments to a level that is considered less than significant,
these two freeway segments would need to be improved from 4 to 5 lanes. The addition of one lane to both
freeway segments are not considered feasible for individual property owners to construct because there are
no implementation mechanisms for an individual property owner to implement an additional lane on a
freeway. Furthermore, the addition of lanes on freeway segments are beyond the local (municipal)
authority to implement.
During conslruclion activities associated with Phase I and Phase II of the proposed project, approximately
871 pounds and 739 pounds of PMI0 per day, respectively, would be generated during grading activities.
Fugitive PMI0 emissions would exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District' s (SCAQMD)
threshold of 150 pounds per day, and would, therefore, be considered significant.
Exhaust emissions from construction equipment and vehicles during construction activities would result in
approximately 138 pounds of NOx per day which would exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 55 pounds per
day for NOx.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
Implementation of the following mitigation measure will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the
impacts would remain significant. Except for the No Project/No Development Alternative, the project
alternatives analyzed in the EIR would not avoid the significant and unavoidable adverse air quality impacts
during construction activities. These alternatives would result in the same air quality impacts during
construction compared to the proposed project. The No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives
of the proposed project.
The following SCAQMD mitigation measures are recommended to be incorporated into the proposed
project. These measures can reduce emissions associated with new development. The majority of these
measures are oriented toward more detailed levels of planning than is associated with the Specific Plan
amendment. The feasibility and appropriateness of each measure can best be determined at more detailed
levels of planning (i.e., Development/Design Review) for the proposed project. As such, the following
measures are recommended for future levels of project implementation, but only as determined to be
feasible and appropriate at that time.
To reduce particulate emissions from paved and unpaved roads, the construction activities, the project
applicant shall:
· Use low-emission alternative fuel (i.e., methanoi, butane, or propane) as practicable in
mobile construction equipment (e.g., tractor, scraper, dozer).
· Develop a trip reduction plan to achieve 1.5 AVR for construction employees.
· Comply with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 concerning implementation of dust
suppression techniques to prevent fugitive dust from creating a nuisance offsite.
· Employ construction activity management techniques, such as extending the construction
period, reduchag the number of pieces of equipment used simultaneously, increasing the
distance between emission sources, reducing or changing the hours of construction, and
scheduling activity during off-peak hours.
· Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts.
· Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed
25 miles per hour.
· Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them adequately tuned.
· Use low-sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment.
· Use existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than
temporary power generators.
· Use low-emission onsite equipment (e.g., methanoi-, propane-, or butane-powered
internal combustion engines) instead of diesel or gasoline.
Implementation of the above measure will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the potential
significant air quality impact. The remaining unavoidable adverse impact is considered to be acceptable
in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A.
Operational emissions (stationary and mobile) in the year 1997, that are associated with Phase I of the
proposed project and in the future (year 2015) that are associated with Phases I and II of the proposed
project, would exceed SCQAMD significance thresholds for CO, NOx, and ROC.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of FindinEs
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the
impacts would remain significant. The implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative and
the No Project/Development as Allowed by IASP Alternative would result in significantly less operational
emissions compared to the proposed project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not
increase operational emissions. The No Project/Development as Allowed by IASP Alternative would
increase operational emissions; however, lifts increase would not be significant in the future year 2015.
Asstuning a similar amount of development in the year 1997 as the proposed project, this alternative would
result in less operational emissions compared to the proposed project; however, these emissions would still
be significant in the interim year 1997. Both of these project alternatives were rejected from further
consideration because they did not meet the objectives of the proposed project. The Alternative Site would
result in the same operational emission impacts compared to the proposed project.
The following SCAQMD mitigation measures are recommended to be incorporated into the proposed
project. These measures can reduce emissions associated with new development. The majority of these
measures are oriented toward project construction or at least more detailed levels of planning than is
associated with the Specific Plan amendment. The feasibility and appropriateness of each measure can best
be determined at more detailed levels of planning (i.e., Development/Design Review) for the proposed
project. As such, the following measures are recommended for future levels of project implementation,
but only as determined to be feasible and appropriate at flint time.
To reduce automobile emissions by reducing the number of vehicles driven to a work site on a daily basis
and through traffic flow improvements, the project applicant shall:
Develop a transportation demand management (TDM) program that complies with the TDM
Ordinance adopted by the City. The TDM program shall include an itemization of the TDM
measures. In developing the TDM program, the project developer shall give consideration to
the following TDM measures, as applicable.
· Provide preferential parking to high-occupancy vehicles.
· Configure parking to minimize traffic interference.
· Minimize obstruction of though-traffic lanes.
· Schedule operations affecting ~affic for off-peak hours.
· Schedule goods movements for off-peak hours.
To reduce stationary emissions of operation-related activities, the project applicant shall:
· Require development practices that makimize energy conservation as a prerequisite to
permit approval.
· Improve the thermal integrity of buildings, and reduce the thermal load with automated
time clocks or occupant sensors.
· In~oduce window glazing, wall insulation, and efficient ventilation methods.
· Introduce energy-efficient heating and cooling appliances, such as water heaters, cooking
equipment, refrigerators, air conditioners, furnaces, and boiler units.
· Use devices that minimize the combustion of fossil fuels.
· Capture waste heat and re-employ it in nonresidential buildings.
· Landscape building and median landscape areas with native drought-resislant species,
as appropriate, to reduce water consumpfon and to provide passive solar benefits.
Implementation of the above measure will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the potential
significant air quality impact. The remaining unavoidable adverse Impact is considered to be acceptable
in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A.
Localized CO emissions (i.e., "hot spots") associated with the proposed project at the Fourth Street/I-15
Southbound ramps intersection would exceed the state and federal 8-hour state and federal CO standard
in the year 1997; however, due to lower emission factors, the project would not exceed any standards in
the year 2015.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the EIR.
Facts in Support of Findin~
Implementation of the fulinwing mitigation measures will serve to lessen project impacts; however, the
impacts would remain significant. The implementation of the No Project/No Development Alternative and
the No ProjecUDevelopment as Allowed by IASP Alternative would result in less localized CO emissions
compared to the proposed project. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not increase
localized CO emissions. The No Project/Development as Allowed by IASP Alternative would result in
less localized CO emissions compared to the proposed project; however, the No Project/Development as
Allowed by IASP Alternative would still restfit in significant and unavoidable localized CO emissions. Both
of these project alternatives were rejected from furlher consideration because they did not meet the
objectives of the proposed project. The Alternative Site would result in the same localized CO emission
impacts compared to the proposed project.
Develop a transportation demand management (TDM) program that complies with the TDM
Ordinance adopted by the City. The TDM program shall include an itemization of the TDM
measures. In developing the TDM program, the project developer shall give consideration to
the following TDM measures. These measures are recommended for future levels of project
implementation, but only as determined to be feasible and appropriate at that time.
· Provide preferential parking to hjgh-occupancy vehicles.
· Configure parking to minimize traffic interference.
· Minimize obstruction of though-traffic lanes.
· Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours.
· Schedule goods movements for off-peak hours.
Implementation of the above measure will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the potential
significant air quality impact. The remaining unavoidable adverse impact is considered to be acceptable
in light of the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided heroin as Attachment A.
The project site currently contains active grape vineyards. The loss of these active grape vineyards was
assumed in the existing IASP and the IASP EIR. Due to the importance of agricultural operations in the
region, the IASP EIR considered this loss as significant and unavoidable with the development of the
project site. Therefore, the impact on agricultural crops from the development of the proposed project is
also considered significant and unavoidable.
Finding
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in 'the EIR.
Fac~s in Support of Findings
No feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the removal of active grape vineyards from the
project site. Except for the No Project Alternative, the alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR could
not avoid the significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural land. The No Project Alternative was
rejected from further consideration because it did not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
Furthermore, the conversion of farmland to urban uses was discussed in the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Master Environmental Assessment & General Plan Environmental Impact Report, January 1989. This
discussion identified that the area in which the project site is located can most easily support development
and will eventually remove large areas of soils that historically supported grape vineyards. However,
current market forces such as expanding urban development and the high cost of imported water, have
made continued agricultural activities in this area marginally profitable or not profitable.
The unavoidable adverse impact on agricultural land is considered to be acceptable in light of the Statement
of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A.
WIB/0OISOOI3.FIN IO~"~ ~
ATYAUItNIENT A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga proposes to approve the Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center
project although unavoidable adverse project impacts to air quality and loss of agricultural land and
unavoidable adverse impacts due to the project's contribution to cnmniative Waffle have been identified in
the EIR. Where these adverse impacts are reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures,
but not to a level considered less than significant, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds that
those impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Warehouse-style Retail Merchandising Center project.
Further, the alternatives that were identified in the EIR would not provide the project benefits, as
summarized below, to the same extent as the proposed project.
Therefore, the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council, having reviewed and considered the information
contained in the EIR and the public record, adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations
which have been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this project.
1. Strengthen the economic base of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
2. Provide commercial employment opportunities within the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
3. Provide the opportunity for "Big Box" retail commercial uses to be located in visible
proximity to the Ontario Mills project, a regional retail center in the City of Ontario.
4. Contribute to a positive jobs/housing balance.
wm/ools0ot3.~'n,t A-1 ~t~ent of Overriding Considerations
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95~05 REQUESTING
TO AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT TO ADD
WAREHOUSE-STYLE RETAIL MERCHANDISING AS A USE FOR 73
ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED NORTH OF FOURTH STREET. EAST OF
MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND WEST OF THE I-`15 FREEWAY IN SUBAREA
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF o APN: 229-263-18
THROUGH 21, 229-263-48 THROUGH 53, AND 229-34'1-13.
A. Recitals.
I. Mission Land and the City of Rancho Cucamonga have filed an application for Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 95-05, a text change as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A." and
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Industrial Area
Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidenc~ presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on September 25, 1996, including written and oral staff reports. together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 73 acres of land, basically a stacked
rectangle configuration, located north of Fourth Street, south of the extension of Mission Park on the
eastern portion and thence south of the extension of Mission Vista Drive on the western portion, east
of Milliken Avenue, and west of the 1-15 Freeway and which is presently vacant. Said property is
currently designated as Industrial Park, Subarea 12 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and
b. The property to the north of the westem portion of the subject site is designated as
Industrial Park. Subarea 12 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and is developed with office and
industrial buildings and vacant, and to the north of the eastern portion of the subject site is
designated General Industrial, Subarea 11 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and is vacant; the
property to the west is designated as Mixed Use, Subarea 18 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
and is vacant; the property to the east is designated General Industrial, Subarea '14 of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan, and includes the 1-15 Freeway and vacant land; and the property to the south
is designated Regional Commercial, City of Ontario. and is .developed.
c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
and with related development; and
d. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element;
and
e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties; and
P3 9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 95-05 - MISSION LAND/CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
September 25, 1996
Page 2
f. This amendment could have a significant impact on the environment; therefore,
an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared together with a Statement of Findings of Fact
in Support of Findings for Significant Environmental Effects of the Project and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations to be considered by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment could have significant impacts on the environment;
however, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared together with mitigation measures
which will reduce most impacts to a level of less than significant. Certain impacts cannot be
mitigated to a level of less than significant; however, the benefits of the project outweigh the slight
impacts identified for the project and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared
for consideration by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 95-05,
with text changes as set forth in the attached "Exhibit "A."
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 25th day of September 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SUBAREA 12
LAND USE DESIGNATION
Industrial Park
PRIMARY FUNCTION
This area will provide for a high quality character to several entryways to the City. This area will also
provide an opportunity for tourist oriented uses such as hotels and motels which relate to the airport
activities. The subarea is located east of Milliken, west of Devore Freeway, south of future alignment
of 5th Street to 4th Street and extends along Milliken to 6th Street.
PERMITTED USES
Custom Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing
Administrative and Office
Professional/Design Services
Research Services
Light Wholesale, Storage and Distribution
Building Maintenance Services
Business Supply Retail & Services
Business Support Services
Communication Services
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate Services
Hotel/Motel
Recreational Facilities
Administrative Civic Services
Flood Control/Utility Corridor
Automotive Rental
Medical/Health Care Services
Personae Services
Restaurants
Adult Entertainment {*)
* Adult Entertainment Zoning Permit required.
CONDITIONAL USES
Automotive Sales and Leasing
Automotive Service Station
Convenience Sales and Services
Entertainment
Fast Food Sales
EXHIBIT "A-I" IV-74
Food and Beverage Sales
Cultural
Public Assembly
Public Safety and Utility Services
Religious Assembly
Convention Centers
Day Care Facilities
Schools
Restaurant with Bar or Entertainment
Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising (See Special Considerations under this
Subarea)
EXHIBIT "A-1" IV-75
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS To preserve and enhance the image of the community, special
consideration shall be given to the quality of site design,
architecture, and landscaping of all properties adjacent to the 1-
15 Freeway. Attractive screening of outdoor work, loading,
storage areas, roof and ground mounted equipment from
significant freeway points of view shall be required.
PROPOSED NEW TEXT As an extension of retail sales now permitted as an ancillary
use within a warehouse development, retail sales shall be
permitted as a primary use for Warehouse-Style Retail
Merchandise businesses within a Warehouse-Style Retail
Merchandise Center. Said Centers shall be located within
approximately 73 acres of land on the north side of Fourth
Street between Milliken Avenue and the 1-15 Freeway. A
Master Plan approved through the Conditional Use Permit
process shall be required for each Warehouse-Style Retail
Merchandising Center. In addition to all uses permitted, or
conditionally permitted in Subarea 12, retail uses shall be
permitted or conditionally permitted, consistent with the
General Commercial Uses within the General Commercial
District of the Development Code, Section 17.10.030, and
which are incorporated into the Industrial Area Specific Plan
by reference. In the event of a conflict between whether a
use is permitted or conditionally permitted, the Industrial
Park requirement applies. However, added retail uses must
offer Warehouse-Style Merchandising as defined and
incorporated into each Center's Master Plan. Further, a
distinctive Warehouse Style-Retail Merchandising design
vocabulary shall be developed for Fourth Street between
Milliken and the 1-15 Freeway and incorporated into each
Center's Master Plan. Compatibility with adjacent existing
and intended Industrial Park and General Industrial
Development shall be demonstrated through site planning,
building design, and landscaping and incorporated into the
Master Plan for each Center.
EXHIBIT "A-2" IV-77
Industrial Area Specific Plan Part
TABLE II1-1 (Continued)
COMMERCIAL ·
Adult Entertainment [ A A A A A A A A A A
Agricultural/Nursery Supplies & Services p p p p p p p p
Animal Care C C ! C C C C C , C
Automotive Fleet Storage C C C C P C C P
Automotive Rental p p p p p p p p p
Automotive/Light Truck Repair - Minor P ~ P p p p p p p p
Automotive/Truck Repair - Major P C P P P P C C C
Automitive Sales and Leasing C C C
Automotive Service Court P P P P C P P P P
Automotive Service Station C C C IC C IC C C C C C C
Building Contractors Office &Yards P P P P P P P P
Building Contractors Storage Yard p p
Building Maintenance Services P P P P P P P P P P I P P ~.~
5uilding &Light Equipment Supplies &Sales P C P I C C P P C P C C P
Business Supply Retail &Services p * p p p p p p p p p p ! p p
Business Support Services P' I P C P P C P P P C i p p p p p p
Communication Services p ' p p p p p p p p p p ! p p p p p
Convenience Sales & Services C" C C P P C C C C C C
Entertainment C C C C C
Extensive Impact Commercial C I C C C
Fast Food Sales C * C I C C C C C C
Financial, Insurance &Real Estate Services P P P P P P P ! C P C I C P P t.,,)
Food &Beverage Sales C * C C C C C C C C C
Funeral & Cremato~' Se~ices C C C
C)
Heavy Equipment Sales &Rentals C C C C C P C C C C P I.-.
Hotel/Motel P P P
Indoor Wholesale/Retail Commercial C C C C C C C
Laundry Sen~ices P i p p p ~ p p p ; p IJj
Medical/Health Care Services P P P P P p p p p p p p
Personal Services C * C P P P P P C P: P P
Petroleum Products Storage ' C I C C C C C
Recreation Facilities C C C C C C C !P C C P PiP
Repair Services P I P C P P P P P P P P C
Restaurants p p p p p p p p
Restaurants with Bar or Entertainment C C C C i C C C C
Specialty Building Supplies &Home [mprovement P P C
Atarehouse-Style Retail Merchandisin.q ** C
NOTES:
IP - Industrial Park P - Permitted Use
He - Haven Avenue Overlay District C - Conditionally Permitted Use
GI - General Industrial m - Non-marked Uses not permitted
MI/HI - Minimum Impact Heavy Industrial A - Adult Entertainment Zoning Permit Required
HI - Heavy Industrial - Refer to Haven Avenue Overlay District for additional restrictions
MU/OS - Mixed Use/Open Space ** - Refer to Subarea 12 Special Considerations for additional restrictions4~
This is an excerpt from the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISP). Please refer to Table 111-2 of the ISP for a complete description of the land use J
definitions. If you need help in deterrninin~ the land use type of a business. please contact the Planning7 Division at (909) 477-2750.
D. Commercial Use Types
Specialty Buildinq Supplies and Home Improvements: Activities
typically include, but are not limited to: retail and wholesale sales
and installation of specialty items, such as paint;
wall/floor/window coverings; doors and windows; building
materials; hardware, plumbing and electrical supplies; bath and
kitchen fixtures and supplies; lighting; swimming pools and
supplies; and garden furnishings, materials and supplies.
Activities shall be conducted in enclosed buildings of 25,000
square feet or less. Uses excluded from this category are
general merchandise stores.
-- PROPOSED NEFF TEXT Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandisinq Business: Within an
approved Warehouse-Style Retail Merchandising Center this
category adds to the retail uses already permitted for the
Subarea in which the Center is situated, Retail uses shall
be added which are consistent with General Commercial
Uses within the General Commercial District of the
Development Code (Section 17.10,030) and which are
incorporated heroin by reference. In the event of a conflict
between whether a use is permitted or conditionally
permitted, the Subarea requirement applies. Light
Wholesale, Storage & Distribution is already a permitted
use. The intent is to emphasize and expand retail use in
conjunction with warehouse use in Subarea 12 which is
transitional between industrial and retail commercial land
use areas.
EXHIBIT "A-4"