Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-101 - ResolutionRESOLUTION NO.2025-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW DRC2019- 00742, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBTPM20173, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRC2022-00009, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DRC2022-00266, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DRC2019-00854 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALLING 982,096 SQUARE FEET ON A CERTAIN 45.96 ACRE PROPERTY BOUNDED BY VINEYARD AVENUE TO THE EAST, 9TH STREET TO THE NORTH, BAKER AVENUE TO THE WEST, AND BNSFIMETROLINK RAILROAD TO THE SOUTH. APNS: 0207-271-25, - 27, -39, -40, -89, -93, - 94, -96, AND -97 A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, CP Logistics Vineyard LLC, filed an application for the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00742, Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173, Conditional Use Permit DRC2022- 00009, Development Agreement DRC2022-00266, and Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019- 00854 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject entitlements request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 121" of November 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project and concluded said hearing on that date recommending that the City Council approve the project as proposed by a four -to -one vote. 3. On the 17t' of December 2025, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This City Council 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearing on December 17, 2025, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The 45.96-acre project site is bounded by Vineyard Avenue to the east, 9th Street to the north, Baker Avenue to the west, and the BNSFIMetrolink railroad to the south; and b. The project site includes a historic structure hereafter referred to as the Baker Resolution No. 2025-101 — Page 1 of 8 House, located at 8803 Baker Avenue. The Baker House is currently owned by CP Logistics Vineyard LLC and is not currently in use; and C. The application is for the development of three new industrial warehouse buildings to be located on three new parcels of land: Building 1 will total approximately 611,574 square feet including approximately 4,000 square feet of office space, Building 2 will total approximately 107,541 square feet including approximately 4,000 square feet of office space, and Building 3 will total approximately 262,981 square feet including approximately 5,000 square feet of office space. The project is in compliance with the applicable parking development standards and provides 362 parking stalls and 168 trailer parking stalls; and d. The application includes the subdivision of the project site into four new parcels to accommodate the proposed new buildings and the Baker House: Parcel 1 which will total approximately 28 acres and will be developed with Building 1, Parcel 2 which will total approximately 6 acres and will be developed with Building 2, Parcel 3 which will total approximately 12 acres and be improved with Building 3, and Parcel 4 which totals approximately 1 acre and will include the Baker House; and e. The application includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the following uses to operate at the site: Wholesale and Distribution - Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large, E-commerce Distribution, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light - Large; and f. The project also includes the rehabilitation of the Baker House, in compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Places for future use by the city. Pursuant to the Certificate of Appropriateness, the city will review the rehabilitation and future use in conformance with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance; and g. The project also includes a Development Agreement (DRC2022-00266) which is memorialized upon the approval of related Ordinance 1052 and which is hereby included with this Resolution by reference; and h. The existing Land Use, General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site and adjacent properties are as follows: Land Use General Plan Zoning Neo-Industrial Site Vacant Employment Neo-Industrial (NI) N1 District Neighborhood Center, Neo- Industrial Industrial Employment (IE), Neo- Employment (NI), Industrial (NI), Parks (P), North Industrial, Suburban Neighborhood General 3-Limited Residential, Neighborhood Low, (NG3-L), Flood Control/Utility Open Space Industrial Corridor (FCIUC), Medium Employment (IE), Residential (M) General Open Space and Facilities OS Resolution No. 2025-101 -- Page 2 of 8 Neo-Industrial Employment (NI); BNSF Railway, Low Density Neo-Industrial (Ni); Neighborhood South Industrial, Residential (within Commercial (CN) (within Ontario), Residential, Ontario), Low Density Residential (LDRS) Neighborhood Neighborhood (within Ontario) Commercial Commercial within Ontario West Residential Traditional Neighborhood District Low Medium Residential LM ( ) East Industrial and ) Open Space (OS and Neo-Industrial Flood Control/Utility Corridor (FCIUC), Cucamonga Creek NI Neo-Industrial (NI) )Employment 3. The City Council hereby approves Design Review DRC2019-00742 as a part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section 17.20.040 in support of the recommendation: a. The proposed development is in accord with the General Plan. The project site's General Plan Land Use Designation is Neo Industrial Employment. This land use designation supports industrial uses and the proposed industrial buildings have been designed such that they will have minimal impact upon neighboring residential and commercial uses. Uses of similar scale are also present nearby; and b. The proposed project is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Neo- Industrial (NI) zone, which promotes light industrial uses with low environmental impacts, and allows for the operation of Wholesale and Distribution - Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large, E-commerce Distribution, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light - Large uses with an approved Conditional Use Permit. Further, civic uses are permitted by right relative to any future City use of the Baker House building; and c. The proposed project complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code for the zone in which it is located. The project was deemed complete on June 16th, 2021, prior to the adoption of the most current zoning and development standards. At the time it was deemed complete, the project site was located within the General Industrial (G1) Zone. As such, the development standards that applied to the General Industrial (GI) zone on June 16, 2021, apply. The project complies with all applicable development standards for the General Industrial Zone as of June 16, 2021; and d. The proposed project, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review determines that the majority of impacts created by the project will be mitigated to less than significant levels, with the exception of related noise impacts which will exceed thresholds even with mitigations. The project also results in a significant and unavoidable impact related to land use planning and recommended proximity of industrial uses to residential neighborhoods. The Planning Commission recognizes that these impacts require the City Council to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, balancing these impacts against the project's economic development, job creation and infrastructure improvements benefits that align with the City's long-term goals. Resolution No. 2025-101 — Page 3 of 8 4. The City Council hereby approves Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM20173 as part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to the Development Code Section 16.20.060 in support of the recommendation: a. The proposed subdivision is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposal is to subdivide a vacant property of approximately 45.96 acres into 4 numbered parcels for the purpose of industrial development and preservation and future use of the Baker House. The project site's General Plan Land Use Designation is Neo Industrial Employment. This land use designation supports industrial uses with a reduced or minimal impact upon adjacent residential uses. Community/Civic uses are also permitted by right in this zone. The proposed industrial buildings have been designed such that they will have minimal impact upon neighboring residential and commercial uses. Uses of similar scale are also present nearby; and b. The proposed subdivision complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code for the zone in which it is located. The project was deemed complete on June 161n 2021, prior to the adoption of the most current zoning and development standards. At the time it was deemed complete, the project site was located within the General Industrial (GI) Zone. As such, the development standards that applied to the General Industrial (GI) zone on June 16, 2021, apply. The General Industrial zoning district required lots of a minimum area of half an acre, and a minimum width of 100 feet. The lots proposed by the tentative parcel map are all in excess of 1 acre in area and 100 feet in width. The project complies with all applicable development standards for the General Industrial district; and C. The proposed subdivision, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project -specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less -than -significant. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. The City Council hereby approves Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009 as part of the application and makes the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 17.20.060 in support of the recommendation: a. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan. The project site's General Plan Land Use Designation is Neo-Industrial Employment (NI), which permits the proposed industrial use. b. The proposed use is in accord with the objective of the Development Code and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. The project site is located within the Neo- Industrial (NI) zone, which promotes light industrial uses with low environmental impacts, and allows for the operation of Wholesale and Distribution - Medium, Distribution/Fulfillment Center, Large, E-commerce Distribution, Storage Warehouse, and Manufacturing Light - Large uses with an approved Conditional Use Permit; and c. The site is physically suitable for the type, density, and intensity of the use being proposed, including access, utilities, and absence of physical constraints that would make conduct of the proposed use undesirable. The project site is well suited to the proposed industrial uses as it is located along multiple street frontages, thereby providing multiple points of ingress/egress and emergency services access; and Resolution No. 2025-101 — Page 4 of 8 d. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use would be compatible with the existing and other permitted uses in the vicinity including transportation and service facilities. The proposed use is of a similar type, size, and intensity as existing industrial uses in the vicinity; and e. The proposed use will not constitute a nuisance or be injurious to detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. The related environmental review outlines potential environmental impacts related to the project and identifies project -specific mitigation measures that reduce these impacts to less -than -significant. Where there exist significant and unavoidable impacts, specifically relative to noise and land use planning relative to the proximity of industrial uses near residential neighborhoods, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared for the City Council's consideration in order to weigh these impacts with the anticipated benefits of the project; and f. The proposed use will not pose an undue burden on city services, including police, fire, streets, and other public utilities. The applicant shall provide traffic improvements to ensure that surrounding public streets and intersections maintain sufficient levels of service during construction and operation of the proposed buildings. 6. The City Council hereby approves Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854, and makes the following findings pursuant to Development Code Section 17.18.040 in support of the recommendation: a. The proposed rehabilitation will not result in a substantial adverse change to the historic resource within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Due to vandalism and deterioration of existing materials, replacement of mortar, roofing, doors, and windows may be necessary in order to rehabilitate the historic structure. All required replacement of existing materials shall be done with materials that closely match the original materials in appearance, texture, and color, ensuring the preservation of the structure's historic character. Upon implementation of these measures to preserve the structure, the future community/civic use of this structure will not result in substantial adverse change to the historic resource; and b. The project is consistent with the purposes of the Historic Preservation Commission, and more specifically Development Code Sections 17.18.030 (Maintenance of Historic Resources) and 17.18.040 (Certificate of Appropriateness). The project aligns with the intent of these regulations by maintaining the architectural integrity of the historic structure. The proposed rehabilitation, including the replacement materials, will preserve the visual character of the structure as an example of "Folk Architecture". This rehabilitation will increase the longevity of the structure and allow for its use as a public resource; and C. The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties by complying with the applicable Standards for Rehabilitation. Standard 2 states, "the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided." The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the existing historical structure through the removal of graffiti and the replacement of deteriorated or missing structural elements with materials that are substantially the same as the original materials. Standard 6 states, "deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features Resolution No. 2025-101 — Page 5 of 8 shall be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence." The brick -and -mortar construction of the historic structure is a distinctive feature of the folk architecture style. In order to maintain this distinctive feature, it is necessary to evaluate and replace the mortar where required to ensure the longevity of the historic resource. 7. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the application: a. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2019110456), has been prepared for this project. The EIR was circulated for public review starting on March 15, 2022, and concluding on May 2, 2022. In response to this review, public concerns were raised regarding the content and adequacy of the analysis prepared for the original EIR. The primary public concern involved the inclusion of emissions credits from structures which had previously existed on the site, but that were not occupied. Further, those structures were demolished between February and April 2022. Because the project site is now vacant and undeveloped, except for the Baker House, the decision was made to update technical studies for air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, and transportation based on the current site conditions. Accordingly, the DEIR was then recirculated and distributed for a new 45-day public review period on June 201h, 2024, with the comment period concluding on August 51h, 2024, after which the City prepared a Final EIR (FEIR); and b. The FEIR has been completed, and has analyzed the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project; and C. The FEIR contains the information required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, including without limitation, the Draft EIR and all revisions and additions thereto, comments on the Draft EIR received from various agencies, organizations, companies, individuals or other interested parties, and the City's responses to the comments received on the Draft EIR, and findings as required by CEQA statue; and d. The EIR concludes that upon implementation of the project and all recommended mitigation measures, certain impacts would result in significant and unavoidable impacts. These include impacts to Land Use Planning (Appendix G, Section XI), and Noise (Appendix G, Section XIII). Specifically, the project proposes new large industrial development to be located approximately 50 feet from the nearest existing residential development, which conflicts with General Plan Land Use policy LC-7.4, which discourages large industrial projects to be located within 1,000 feet of existing and planned residential development. Further, regarding impacts to noise, as the developer anticipates the proposed buildings to operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, anticipated noise generated from the use would be 60.2 decibels (dBA) as measured at nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), as measured from the residences located along the north side of 91h Street. Further, noise thresholds will also be exceeded in Ontario, specifically as measured from the residences located on the southside of 811 Street. Whereas the City of Ontario establishes nighttime thresholds of 49 dBA (10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), which is the current measured ambient noise level, operations from the project will result in approximately 58 dBA at this location along the southside of 8'h Street. As such, the operational characteristics of the proposed project will exceed the noise thresholds for both the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario; and e. As part of project approval, the City Council has considered a CEQA Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations which acknowledges these unavoidable impacts, but which also acknowledges project benefits. The CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations is included with this Resolution as "Exhibit A" and is hereby adopted upon approval of the project Resolution No. 2025-101 — Page 6 of 8 8. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 above, this Council hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth in the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The effectiveness of the tentative map, design review, conditional use permit and certificate of appropriateness are contingent upon the developer's execution of the development agreement. 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. Resolution No. 2025-101 — Page 7 of 8 111 Jill ill! III L. b'enn-is Michae, Mayor AS101 40*9 kd'King /SeXy, city CJ-V 1, Kim Sevy, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duty passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a Regular Meeting of said Council held on the 1711 day of December, 2025. AYES: Hutchison, Kennedy, Michael, Scott, Stickler NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None i$MT101111- =0 I J J F I J J � J i I J I I J J 11 i i J i I J J JJ J I J J a. 0 jom 4VO&O Sevy, CVlerk Exhibit A DMF' 9th and Vineyard Development Project CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1. CEQA Findings A. Project Description Summary The project site is located at the 45.97-acre vacant site southwest of the intersection of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (City). The project site is bound by 9th Street to the north, Barer Avenue to the west, Vineyard Avenue to the east, and adjacent to 8th Street to the south. The majority of the project site is covered with low-lying vegetation consisting of grasses and weeds. The site is in an urban area, has been previously graded and developed but is currently vacant, with the exception of an existing cell tower located approximately 300 linear feet west of Vineyard Avenue along the project's southern property line, which would remain and not be removed. The project site also contains an abandoned home on the west side of the site at 8803 Baker Avenue (hereafter referred to as the Baiter House). These findings have been prepared for the approval of project which involves the development of three warehouse buildings comprising 13,000 square feet (sf) of office space and 969,096 sf of warehouse space (totaling 982,096 sf) on the project site. Associated site improvements include landscaping, five driveways, 362 parking stalls, and 168trailer parking stalls. The proposed project also involves the retention and rehabilitation of the Baker House. Accordingly, this Final EIR will he presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for potential certification as the environmental document under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed project. All persons who commented on the Recirculated Draft EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final EIR prior to the public hearings, and all agencies that commented on the. Recirculated Draft EIR will be provided with a copy of the Final EIR at least 10 days before EIR circulation, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1.5088(b). This project description summary is only intended to provide an overview of the project and should not be interpreted to set the scope of the project approvals, which are controlled by the project's entitlement resolution. 81h and Vineyard Developmerit Project CEQA Findings and Statemant of Overriding Conslderatlons t. CEQAFindings B. Project Objectives Asset forth in Section 2.8 of the Recirculated Draft EIR (p. 2-20) the objectives and purpose of the project are as follows: 1. The objectives of the proposed project are: Expand economic development, facilitate job creation, and increase the tax base for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by establishing new industrial development adjacent to established and planned industrial areas. 2. Attract employment -generating businesses to the City of•Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, thereby improving the job -housing balance in the City. 3. Develop.three speculative light industrial buildings in Rancho Cucamonga that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards and be economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. 4. Attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of essential goods to consumers and businesses in Rancho Cucamonga and beyond the -City boundary. 5. Develop a project that has architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing and planned buildings in the vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses. 6. Develop light industrial buildings in proximity to the State highway system to avoid or shorten truck -trip lengths on other roadways. 7. Maintain the historical resources of the City by renovating The Baker House building on -site for use by the City as a community center. S. Reduce existing blight and the opportunity for criminal activity and provide for adequate infill development on vacant and underutilized sites with uses and design features that contribute community, economic, and sustainable benefits. 9. Develop a property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities. C. Environmental Impact Report Background The City of Rancho Cucamonga distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the'EIR for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on November 18, 2019. The scoping meeting, held on December 12, 2019, was aimed at providing information about the proposed project to members of public agencies, interested stakeholders, and residents/community members. The meeting was held at Rancho Cucamonga City Hall at 10500 Civic.Center Drive. The City received a letter from one agency in response to the NOP during the public review period. The NOP and NOP responses received are presented in Appendix A of the original Draft EIR (referred to as the `original 2022 Draft EIR"). Following the conclusion of the NOP period and scoping meeting, the original 2022 Draft EIR, was circulated to the public for 45 days starting from March 15, 2022, to May 2, 2022. The current EIR constituted a recirculation of the original 2022 Draft EIR due to public concerns regarding the content.and adequacy of the analysis prepared for the original 2022 Draft EIR. The main public concern was the inclusion of emission credits from structures on the project site that were not occupied. Those structures were demolished in February and April 2022. Because the project site is now vacant and undeveloped, except for the Baker House, this EIR includes updated technical studies for air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, noise, and 9th and Vineyard Development Project 2 CECA-iendings and Slalement of Oyerdding Considerations I. CEGARridings transportation based on the current site conditions. In addition, the proposed truck access on BakerAvenue, via two proposed driveways, has been removed from the project design to prevent project -related trucks from impacting Baker Avenue. Under this revised circulation plan, vehicular access to the project site would be reduced from five to three proposed driveways, which has resulted in a revised traffic impact analysis. Based on these changes, the project required a recirculation of the original 2022 Draft EIR. After the applicant submitted their application, but before it was deemed complete, the City Council enacted a moratorium on November4, 2020. The moratorium was put in place to prohibit certain industrial uses while the City updated its code standards in response to rising interest and significant demand for the development of new industrial uses and the redevelopment of legacy uses throughout the city. Following the expiration of the moratorium on June 30, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 982 on July 7, 2021, which established new development standards for industrial projects throughout the city in response to this demand in industrial development. Notably, the proposed project is deemed exempt from Ordinance 982 asthe subject development application had been deemed complete on June 23, 2021, which is prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982. Pursuant to Development Code Section 17.02.020F.1, "all land use permit applications that are active and that have been determined by the planning director to be complete before the effective date of this title, or any amendments thereto, will be processed according to regulations in effect when the application was deemed complete." Thus, as the subject application was deemed complete prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982, the potential project impacts have been analyzed against standards in effect prior to the adoption of Ordinance 982. D. Procedural Compliance with CEQA The City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as Lead Agency under CEQA, recirculated the Draft EIR on June 20, 2024 and a Final EIR an (TBD)in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. As allowed for in CECZA Guidelines §15084(d)(2), the City retained a consultantto assist with the preparation of the environmental °documents. The City has directed, reviewed, and edited as necessary all material prepared by the consultant, and such material reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. In addition, an extensive public involvement and agency notification effort was conducted to solicit input on the scope and content of the EIR and to solicit comments on the original 2022 Draft EIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR. Key milestones associated with the preparation of the EIR are summarized below: • The NOP of the EIR was published for a 30-day agency and public review period starting on November 18, 2019. The scoping meeting, held on December 12, 2019. • The original 2022 Draft EIR was published on March 15, 2022 and circulated for a 45-day comment period, which ended on May 2, 2022. • The Recirculated Draft EIR was published on June 20, 2024 and circulated for a 45-day comment period, which ended on August 5, 2024. • The Recirculated Draft EIR was made available for general public review at the following locations: Sth and Vineyard Development Project 3 CEQA Findings and Statement of Dverdding Cansiderations I. CEQA Findings — City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730; — Archibald Library, 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730; — Paul A. Blaine Public Library, 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91739; On the City's website: (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/ezgw6i02x!pw2atbx5iv8/APDSOU27n3HT6sFJUNe3fK c/DEIR%209th%20and%20Vineyard%20Development%20Project%20and%20EIR'?dl=0&r Ikey=is2wz9w5mgwjiersbt50d6cle&subfolder—nav—tracking=l) • The Recirculated Draft EIR and Notice of Completion were transmitted the State Clearinghouse and the Notice of Availability was sent to all property owners within 1,500 feet of the project site and to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who previously had requested such a notice in writing or had attended public meetings about the project and provided their contact information. • The Final EIR was released on (TBD), 2025 and includes: — Section 1, Introduction, consisting of a summary of the contents of the Final EIR and the environmental review process; — Section 2, Responses to Comments on the Recirculated Draft FIR, providing copies of all correspondence and comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR, each identified with the -agencies' or author's name and an alphanumeric reference number to their comment ,correspondence, along with written responses to the comments; — Section 3, Errata, consisting of a summary of revisions to the information contained in the Recirculated Draft EIR based on the comments received; and — Section 4, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, containing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed project which identifies mitigation measures or the project, the enforcing agency, the actions required by the responsible agency, the implementation period for each measure, and the monitoring period for each measure. — The Recirculated Draft EIR in its entirety including technical appendices. • The City Council Public Hearing notice was published on (TBD), 2025. This notice was also sent to all individuals and agencies that commented on the Recirculated Draft EIR. • Notices for the Planning Commission public hearing were posted, published and sent in compliance with applicable laws on October 28 and October 29, 2025, as outlined in the City Council's resolution recitals. D. Environmental Impacts and Findings Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081 and CEOA Guidelines §1.5091., no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each significant impact: 914 and vineyard Development Project 4 CEQA Findings and Statement of Dvomning Considerations r. c EQt 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. The City has made one or more of these specific written findings regarding each significant impact associated with the project. Those findings are presented below, along with substantial evidence in support of the findings. Concurrent with the adoption of these findings, the City adopts the MMRP for the project. The EIR included a detailed analysis to determine whether the proposed project and alternatives would result in significant environmental impacts. The OR discloses the environmental impacts expected to result from construction and operation of the project and the alternatives, and where appropriate, identifies feasible mitigation measures that would, if implemented, avoid or minimize significant impacts. The mitigation measures identified in the EIR are measures proposed by the lead agencies, responsible or trustee agencies or other persons, that were not proposed as part of the project or alternatives, but that reasonably could be expected to avoid or minimize potential significant adverse impacts if required as conditions of approval (CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)(A)). 1. Findings of Environmental Impacts Not Requiring Mitigation The City finds that the following environmental impacts will result in less than significant impacts without mitigation based on the analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for the environmental considerations included in Sections 4.1 through 4.19 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, and further discussed in Section 2 of the Final EIR, Response to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR. An explanation of the rationale for each finding is provided as follows. Aesthetics Scenic Vistas Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.1-4) Rationale: Scenic vistas can be impacted by development through the construction of a structure that blocks the view of a vista or by impacting the vista itself, for example, through development of a scenic hillside. Scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site include those inclusive of views of the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains, located northeast and northwest of the project site, respectively. Scenic vistas of the San Bernadino and San Gabriel Mountains are found in the northern portion of the city. The project site and the surrounding area are in the southwestern portion of the city and are not within a scenic vista. 91h and Vineyard oevelopment Project b CEOA Findings and Statement of overriding Consldarations I. CEOA Findings Views of these vistas are identified in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR to be most prominent along Archibald, Etiwanda, and Haven Avenues (Rancho Cucamonga 2021b). The project site does not intersect these roadways and the nearest viewpoint along Archibald Avenue is located one mile east of the project site. The project site and surrounding area have been previously developed and include residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Scenic vistas can be impacted by development through the construction of a structure which blocks the view of a vista or by impacting the vista itself. Any visual impacts from the construction phase of the project would be temporary in nature and shall cease upon completion of construction. The proposed buildings would have a maximum building height of 51 feet which is below the City's 70-foot height limit (assuming required setbacks) under the pre-982 Ordinance of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code (RCMC) (Rancho Cucamonga 2017). Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not obstruct any views of the San Bernardino or San Gabriel Mountains due to its distance from the scenic vistas. Potential impacts related to scenic vistas would be less than significant. Scenic Resources Threshold: Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Appendix B, Pages 4.1-4 and 4.1-5) Rationale: There are no highways considered eligible or officially designated as State scenic highways within Rancho Cucamonga or the surrounding area. No eligible or officially designated are present within or near the project site. The nearest official state -designated highway is SR 2 which is located approximately 30 miles northwest of the project site. The nearest highway eligible for state scenic highway designation is SR-142, located approximately 10 miles southwest of the project site. Although the project site is not in the vicinity of a scenic highway, the following analysis discusses the potential impacts to aesthetic resources on the project site. The Baker House located on the project site has been determined to be eligible for local designation as a City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Landmark and listing in the California Register. As part of the project, the historic building would be retained and rehabilitated for reuse as a community facility, and the trees surrounding the Baker House would not be removed, The final conceptual design of the historic building would be approved by the City via the Certificate of Appropriateness (CofA) discretionary approval. 9thand Vlneyard©evelopmaniPmjem 6 0WAFIndingsand Statement afQverfdingConsiderakns i. CEQA Findings All existing vegetation on the project site would be removed prior to any grading or excavating activities, potentially impacting scenic resources in the project area. However, the removed vegetation would be replaced by ornamental landscaping, the landscape plan subject to City review and approval. Replacement trees proposed would adhere to Section 17.56.080 of the RCMC. Adherence to the applicable City codes and standard conditions would reduce the potential impacts on scenic resources from the removal of trees. No other scenic resources such as trees or rock outcroppings are known to exist on the project site. Therefore, impacts related to substantial damage of scenic resources would be less than significant. Visual Character Threshold: Would the project, in non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Finding, Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.1-5 and 4.1-6) Rationale: The project site had been previously developed in an urbanized area with industrial buildings but is now vacant and is located within the Neo-Industrial Employment District land use designation and Neo-Industrial (NI) zoning designation. The project would be subject to all applicable local regulations including the City's zoning code, municipal code, General Plan, and the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use. Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The project would comply with the Neo-Industrial zone's development standards in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete on June 23, 2021 as outlined in RCMC Section 17.36.040 governing scenic quality including building height and setbacks. The maximum allowed building height under the pre-982 Ordinance of the RCMC is 70 feet (assuming required setbacks) (Rancho Cucamonga 2017). Building 1 would be 51 feet high, Building 2 would be 45 feet high, and Building 3 would be 47 feet high; thus, the project complies with the maximum allowable building height. The landscape cover requirement under the pre-982 Ordinance is 10 percent. The landscape coverage for Building 1 is 10.6 percent, Building 2 is 10.8 percent, and Building 3 is 15,7 percent; thus, the project complies with the landscape coverage requirement in effect at the time the project was deemed complete. The LA/Ontario ALUCP provides maximum building heights within its influence area. The maximum allowable building height for the project site is between 100 to 150 feet. Section 17.36.040 of the RCMC states that in areas where the LA/Ontario ALUCP allows for building heights greater than 70 feet, building limits shall be limited to a maximum height of 75 feet, unless a Conditional Use Permit 9thand VinoyardDevolopmenlProjecl 7 CEQARridingsand Statern taioverddingConslderalons 1. CEQA Findings (CUP) is granted. As mentioned above, the project's maximum height is 51 feet, thus the project would not exceed the height limit or require a CUP for height. The historically significant structure on the project site, the Baker House, would be rehabilitated and donated for future use as a City facility as.part of the project. The rehabilitation includes a parking area and landscaping and hardscape improvements. The final conceptual design of the historical rehabilitation would be reviewed and approved by the City via the CofA discretionary approval, per the RCMC. This approval requires that the project comply with all applicable standards regarding the rehabilitation of the Baker House; therefore, no conflict would occur. The project includes the Design Review of the site development, architectural design, and landscape design which would ensure the project would not conflict with local zoning standards and regulations related to aesthetics or light and glare. Therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and potential impacts would be less than significant. Light and Glare Threshold: Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.1-7) Rationale: The proposed development would consist of industrial buildings that would be utilized for uses that would be similar to the previous industrial development on the site and are not anticipated to substantially increase lighting and glare conditions for the project site. Construction of the project would be limited to daytime hours, unless otherwise approved by the City, and nighttime security lighting would be shielded from existing residential properties. The project includes interior and exterior lighting for all of the proposed buildings and around the parking lot to increase nighttime visibility and safety. The project would not be a significant source of glare in the surrounding area as it would include some new reflective improvements including windows and building front treatments but would also utilize a variety of non -reflective building materials. Per the City's development code, all outdoor lighting would be recessed and/or constructed with full downward shielding to reduce light and glare impacts on surrounding properties and public rights -of -way. Additionally, all freestanding outdoor lighting would not exceed a 25-foot height.To ensure visibility and safety while also minimizing lighting and glare impacts, minimum illumination levels of each applicable lighting category would also be applied to the project lighting. RCMC Sections 17.58.050 and 17.122.030 dictate lighting standards and 9th and Vineyard Development Projecl 8 OEQA Findings end Statement & Ovemding ConslderaJons I. CEQA Findinps guidelines for the project site. With compliance with City standards, impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Farmland Conversion Threshold; Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Finding;, No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.2-4) Rationale: The project site is categorized as Urban and Built -Up Land by the FMMP (Department of Conservation [DOC] 2022). Urban and Built -Up Land is often occupied by structures and used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administration, recreational, utility, and other development uses. This land type is not conducive to agricultural production or activities. Therefore, no impacts related to conversion of farmland defined by the FMMP would occur. Williamson Act Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning foragricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 'Finding: No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Appendix B, Page 4.2-4) Rationale: The project site is located in the Neo-Industrial zoning designation and Neo- industrial Employment District General Plan land use designation, which is not conducive to agricultural uses. Also, as mentioned above, the project site iswithin land designated as Urban and Built -Up Land by the FMMP, which is not conducive to agricultural uses (DOC 2022). The project site does not include agricultural uses and is not under a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impacts related to Williamson Act contracts would occur. Forestland Zoning Threshold: Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? Finding: No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.2-5) Rationale: The city does not contain areas with land use designations for either forest land or timberland. The project site is in the Neo-Industrial zoning designation and Neo-industrial Employment District General Plan land use designation, which is not conducive to forest land or timberland uses. Additionally, the project site is 9th and Vineyard Development Project 9 CEQA Findings and Stalementof Overriding Considorabans I. GEQA Findings classified' as Urban and Built -Up Land which is developed and urbanized (DOC 2022). Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned timberland production; the project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impacts toforest land or timberland would occur. Loss of Forestland Threshold: Would the project result in the loss -of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Finding- No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.2-5) Rationale: The city does not contain areas with land use designations for either forest land or timberland. The project site is in the Neo-Industrial zoning designation and Neo-Industrial Employment District General Plan land use designation, which is not conducive.to forest land or timberland uses. Additionally, the project site is classified as Urban and Built -Up Land which is developed and urbanized (DOC 2022). Therefore, the project Would not conflict with existing zoning for or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned -timberland production; the project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impacts to -forest land or timberland would occur. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland Threshold: Would the project involve other,changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Finding: No Impact (Recirculated Draft-EIR, Page 4.2-5) Rationale: The city does not contain areas with land use designations for agriculture, forest land, or timberland. The project.site is in the'Neo-Industrial zoning designation, and Neo-Industrial Employment District General Plan land use designation, which is not conducive to agricultural production and is nofforest land. The project site is classified as Urban Built -Up land which is not Unique Farmland, Prime Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. (DOC 2022). Therefore, no impacts related to the.conversion of farmland or forest land would occur. Air Qualify Air Quality Management Plan Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Finding: ding: less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.3-17 and 4.3-19) 9th and Vineyard Development Project 10 CEQA Findings and Staiemenl of Oveniding Considerations I. CEQA Rationale: The proposed project would involve the construction and operation of three industrial buildings, The proposed project would not directly increase .the City's population since it does not involve the construction of housing. However, the proposed project could potentially increase the number of new employees in Rancho Cucamonga. The project is estimated to add approximately 823 new employees based on the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Employment Density Report estimates for warehouse and office uses (see Section 4.14, Population and Housing, of ,the Recirculated Draft EIR). According to the SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Demographic and Growth Forecast Appendix, the addition of approximately 823 new residents (employees moving to the City for employment) would constitute approximately 3.3 percent of the City's total projected population growth through year 2045. Therefore, potential indirect population growth generated by the project would be within the respective SCAG growth forecast. The employment growth forecasts in SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS for the City of Rancho Cucamonga estimate that the total number of jobs would increase from 88,300 in 2016 to 105,100 in 2045, for an increase of 16,800 jobs (SCAG 2020). The project would include approximately 823 employment opportunities from the warehouses and office buildings. The proposed project would be within the SCAG's projected 2045 employment increase of 16,800 jobs from 2016, and the project would not cause the City of Rancho Cucamonga to exceed official regional employment projections. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City's 2022 AirQuality Management Plan (AQMP) and impacts would be less than significant. As discussed in the Pollutant Emissions Threshold below, the project would not result in exceedances of the Southern California Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) regional thresholds for criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the project would not increase the frequency or severity of an air quality standards violation or cause new air quality standards violations. impacts would be less than significant. Pollutant Emissions Threshold. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal orstate ambient air quality standard? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.3-18 through 4.3-20) Rationale: Construction associated with the proposed project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants. The criteria air pollutants of primary concern within the project area include ozone (03) precursor pollutants (i.e., volatile 9thand Vineyard oeveiopmentprolect i CEQAFindings andStatemeniofOvenidingConsiderations I. CEQA Findings organic compounds,[VOC] and nitrogen oxides [NO.I) and particulate matter with 10 microns in diameter or less (PM1u) and particulate matter with 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5)• Construction generated emissions are short-term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur, but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD)'s threshold of significance. Construction results in the temporary generation of emissions resulting from site preparation and grading, drying of architectural coatings, road paving, motor vehicle exhaust associated with construction equipment and worker trips, and the movement of construction equipment, especially .on unpaved surfaces. Emissions of airborne particulate matter are largely dependent on the amount of ground disturbance associated with site preparation activities as well as weather conditions and the appropriate application of water. All diesel fueled construction equipment would utilize Tier 4 engines. As shown in Table 4.3-6 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, construction -related. emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. Impacts would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed project would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment), energy sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating), off -road sources (i.e., forklifts and yard hoppers), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the project site). As shown in Table 4.3-7 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment, and impacts would be less than significant. In addition, the project would be required to comply with SCAQMD's 2305 Indirect Source Rule for warehouses greater than or equal to 100,000 square feet of indoor floor space which is anticipated to further reduce operational emissions. Rule 2305 establishes the Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) Program, which is aimed at reducing emissions either directly from the site or elsewhere in the region. The WAIRE-Program implements a points system for warehouse operators based on weighted annual truck trips .and warehouse size in order to determine the extent of compliance obligations. Such obligations are met by completing actions off the WAIRE Menu, by implementing an approved Custom WAIRE Plan, or by paying a mitigation fee every year. While there is anticipated to be a reduction in emission from what is presented in the analysis, it is possible that reductions are achieved entirely -9th and Vineyard Cevelepment Project i 2 CEQA Findings and Statement or overdding Conslderalions [. CEDA through mitigation fees or other indirect means. Therefore, the reductions cannot be quantified because the exact measures to be implemented are unknown at this time. Sensitive Receptors Threshold: Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Findin : Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.3-21 — 4.3-23) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR. See Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, §15091(a)(1)) Rationale: Carbon Monoxide Hotspots, The Trip Generation Memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers (2024) estimated the project would add 1,680 vehicle trips per day. Of these trips, there would be 343 truck trips and 1,337 passenger car trips. Because the project is a warehouse development, project trips were converted into passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips. The project would add 2,201 PCE vehicle trips per day. Of these trips, there would be 864 PCE truck trips and 1,337 passenger car trips. According to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Traffic Volume Summary (Rancho Cucamonga 2015), the traffic volumes in 2013 nearthe project site had an existing traffic volume of 23,500 vehicles per day. A study conducted by SCAQMD observed an intersection at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue to have an average daily vehicle trip of 100,000. The concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) at this intersection was 4,6 parts per million (ppm), which is well below the State and federal standards. In comparison, monitoring of CO in 2020 recorded a max concentration of 1.7 ppm for 1-hour CO and 1.2 ppm for 8-hour CO in Central San Bernardino Valley, Therefore, the estimated 25,180 vehicle trips per day or 25,701 PCE vehicle trips per day on the corner of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue would not contribute to exceedance of the State and federal CO standards and impact would be less than significant. Localized Significance Thresholds. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include single-family residences located north, east, and south of the project site, ranging from 50 to 300 feet from the project site boundary. The project would not include the siting of new sensitive receptors. Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from localized criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TAC)s. SCAQMD has developed localized significance thresholds (LST)s to estimate exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. Table 4.3-8 and Table 4.3-9 of the Recirculated Draft EIR show the estimates of the on -site construction and operational emissions considering the size of the project, the location, and the receptor distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The project -specific L5T threshold in Sensitive Receptor Area (SRA) 32, with allowable emissions for a five -acre project site with a receptor distance of 9th and Vineyard Devolopmenl Project 13 CEOA Findings and Statemont of Overddmg Considerallons i. C EQA 82 feet. As shown therein, localized construction and operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LST thresholds for criteria pollutants. Therefore, project construction and operation would not result in a local air quality impact, and potential impacts would be less than significant. Toxic Air Contaminants. Project construction would result in temporary increases in local TAC emissions as a result of diesel particulate matter (DPM) generated by heavy-duty construction equipment, and project operation would result in long- term increases in TAC emissions as a result of truck trips to and from the project site. Therefore, a combined Construction and Operational health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted for this analysis. The proposed project is considered a land use that could generate substantial TAC emissions from trucks, trailers, shipping containers, and other equipment with diesel engines during the operation period. To evaluate the potential impacts of TACs emitted during both construction and operation of the warehouses, two stand-alone spreadsheets were used to quantify combined risk from construction and operation. Construction emissions sources were located on the project site corresponding to grading, paving, and site preparation areas and building construction areas. Operational sources were located on the project site corresponding to the location of truck routes as well as the loading docks and truck parking to estimate concentrations from idling. Sensitive receptors identified for modeling were placed at the location of nearby residential and school land uses within 1,000 feet of the project site. Specific modeling details are included in the Construction and Operational HRA (see Appendix B-2 of the Recirculated Draft FAIR). As shown in the HRA, the maximum exposed individual receptor would be exposed to a 30-year excess cancer risk of approximately 1.01 in one million, which does not exceed SCAQMD's recommended cancer risk criteria of ten excess cases of cancer in one million individuals. In addition, chronic health risk is approximately 0.0034, which does not exceed SCAQMD's hazard index threshold of one (SCAQMD 2019). Therefore, the long-term operation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant. Other Adverse Emissions Threshold: Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EiR, Page 4.3-23) Rationale: The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project would 9th and vineyard Dovalopment project 14 CEQA Findings and Statement of Dverritrng considerations f. CEQA Findings not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. During construction -related activities, some odors (not substantial pollutant concentrations) that would be detected are those typical of construction vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust from grading and construction equipment). These odors are a temporary short-term impact that is typical of construction projects and would disperse rapidly. The project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources and construction odors are temporary and short-term. Therefore, the project would not create objectionable odors. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.3-24) Rationale: The geographic scope for analyzing cumulative air quality impacts is the SCAB. The South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is designated a nonattainment area for the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), the PMlo CAAQS, the 24-hour PM2.s NAAQS, and annual PM2.s NAAQS and CAAQS. The SCAB is in attainment of all other NAAQS and CAAQS. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts related to particulate matter and ozone are potentially significant. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and California Clean Air Acts. If a project's mass regional emissions do not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, then the project's criteria pollutant emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would contribute emissions of particulate matter and ozone precursors VOC and NOx to the area during construction and operation. As described under Impact AQ-2, project emissions during construction and operation would not exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts related to particulate matter and ozone would not be cumulatively considerable. As identified under Impacts AQ-3 and AQ-4, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact related to carbon monoxide hotspots,TACs, orodors. Discussion of these impacts considers the cumulative nature of the pollutants in the region; for example, the cancer risk and non -cancer risk thresholds have been set pursuant to existing cancer risks in the area and exceeding those thresholds would be considered a cumulative impact. Because the proposed project would not exceed those thresholds, it would not expose sensitive receptors to a cumulatively considerable amount of substantial pollutant concentrations from carbon monoxide hotspots or TACs or emit a cumulatively considerable quantity 9thand Vineyard DavaldpmantProject 15 CEQA Findings and Statement ofOvenldingConsiderations I. CEQA Findings of other emissions, such as those leading to odors. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative air quality impacts related to these pollutants would not be cumulatively considerable. Biological Resources Riparian Habitat Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or'by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Findin : No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.4-14) Rationale: According to the field survey conducted by Rincon in June 2023, no sensitive natural communities were observed. Additionally, the project site is not located within a federally designated Critical Habitat. The potential limits of Cucamonga Creeks jurisdiction are located approximately 45 feet from the project site boundary. Cucamonga Creek would likely qualify as a California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)Jurisdictional streambed and the extent of the top of bank likely falls under CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). However, the project would avoid any impact to Cucamonga Creek. No other potentially jurisdictional aquatic features are located within the project site; therefore, potentially jurisdictional waters are not anticipated to be impacted by the project. In addition, the Ordinary High Water Mark (©HWM) channel of the stream would likely be considered a non - wetland water of the United States and State under the regulation of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act '(CWA) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) pursuant to the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and/or Section 401 of the CWA, respectively. In summary, implementation of the project would not impact riparian habitat, wetlands, or any sensitive natural community. No impact would occur. Wetlands Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means Finding: No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.4-14) Rationale: According to the field survey conducted by Rincon in June 2023, no sensitive natural communities were observed. Additionally, the project site is not located within a federally designated Critical Habitat. The potential limits of Cucamonga Creeks jurisdiction are located approximately 45 feet .from the project site boundary. Cucamonga Creek would likely qualify as a CDFW-jurisdictional 9th and Vineyard Development Project 16 CEQA Findings and Statement of overriding Considerations I. CEQA Nndings streambed and the extent of the top of bank likely fails under CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC. However, the project would avoid any impact to Cucamonga Creek. No other potentially jurisdictional aquatic features are located within the project site; therefore, potentially jurisdictional waters are not anticipated to be impacted by.the project. In addition, the ©HWM channel of the stream would likely be considered a non -wetland water of the United States and State under the regulation of the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and the Santa Ana RWQCB pursuant to the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and/or Section 401 of the CWA, respectively. In summary, implementation of the project would not impact riparian habitat, wetlands, or any sensitive natural community. No impact would occur. Wildlife Movement Threshold: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Finding: Less than significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.4-15) Rationale: The project site likely does not support local or regional terrestrial wildlife movement. The various emergent ornamental trees scattered throughout the project site may support small-scale local avian movement or regional avian migration. However, large scale tree removals are not anticipated as a part of the project, and landscape/ornamental vegetation is anticipated to be planted surrounding the industrial buildings, parking spaces, and driveways as a part of the project. The portion of Cucamonga Creek bordering the project site is completely channelized, does not support a riparian corridor, and likely experiences high velocity flows during rain events due to its channelized nature and, therefore, is not likely to support wildlife movement. Additionally, the project site is currently fenced, and development of the project would not introduce new barriers to movement of resident or migratory wildlife species. Given the urbanized setting within Rancho Cucamonga, the project would also not likely result in the introduction of any new anthropogenic factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or domestic animals), which could hinder the normal activities of wildlife. Therefore, potential impacts on wildlife movement are less than significant. Local Policies and Ordinances Threshold: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: No impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.4-15 and 4.4-16) Rationale: According to RCMC Section 17.80, heritage trees shall be protected from indiscriminate cutting or removal and compliance with 'Section 17.16.080, 9lh and Vineyard Development Project 17 CEQA Flndings and Statement of Oveniing Considerations I. CEOA including an approved Tree Removal Permit, is required to remove heritage trees. Several larger mature trees are located surrounding the historic building in the western portion of the project site. It is possible that at least one, or all, of these trees would be considered a heritage tree according to RCMC Section 17.80, above. Additionally, heritage trees may be located within the 100-foot project site buffer. However, the project site is mainly characterized as disturbed (approximately37.75 acres), which refersto land wherethe native vegetation has been significantly altered by agriculture, construction, or other anthropogenic activities; and urban/developed (approximately 25.78 acres), which consists of areas that have been developed or otherwise physically altered to the extent that no longer support most vegetation. The remaining approximately 1.94 acres are characterized as wild oats and annual brome grassland, which is dominated by non-native, often invasive, annual grasses. Based on the existing vegetation communities within the project site, the proposed project would not significantly impact any other biological resource and no trees would be removed under the proposed project. Therefore, no impact to protected trees would occur. Habitat Conservation Plans Threshold: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Fines No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.4-16) Rationale: According to the project's Biological Resources Assessment (Appendix C of the Recirculated Draft EIR), the project site is not located within any habitat conservation plan (Rincon 2023a). In addition, according to Figure RC-1, Conservation Areas, of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan, the project site is not located within a conservation area (Rancho Cucamonga 2021a). Therefore, implementation of the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. No impact would -occur. Cultural Resources Human Remains Threshold: Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.5-16 and 4.5-17) Rationale: No human remains are known to be present within or near the project site. However, the discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur 9lh and Mneyatd ❑avolo,smeni Projacl 18 CERA Findings and Statement or Overriding Considerallans I. CEQA Findings until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant. (MLD). The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. If the MLD does not make recommendations within 48 hours, the City shall reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance. With adherence to existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant. Energy Energy Consumption Threshold: Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Finding: Less Than Significant.(Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.6-9 — 4.6-11) Rationale: Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment would be rated Tier 4 or higher. In addition, construction contractors Would be required to comply with the provisions that prohibit diesel -fueled commercial motorvehicles and off -road diesel vehicles from idling for -more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Therefore, project construction would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts related to would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed project would contribute to regional energy demand by consuming electricity, natural gas, and gasoline and diesel fuels. Project operation would require approximately 255,550 gallons of gasoline and 210,450 gallons of diesel for transportation fuels, 4,860 megawatt -hours (MWh) of electricity, and 18,779,893 thousand metric British thermal units (kBtu) of natural gas per year. Vehicle trips associated with passenger vehicles and heavy- duty trucks would represent the greatest operational use of energy associated with the proposed project. The proposed,project would be required to comply with all standards set in the latest iteration of the California Buildings Code (CBC) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24), which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources by the built environment during operation. California's California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Bthand VinoyardDevalopmantProject 19 CEQAFindingsAnd StatementatCvenidingConsidenstians I. CEQA standards (CCRTitle 24, Part 11) require.implementation of energy -efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects. In addition, the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (CCR Title 24, Part 6) require -newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the California Energy Commission (CEC). Pursuant to CALGreen, all plumbing fixtures used forthe proposed project would be high -efficiency fixtures, which would minimize the potential for the inefficient or wasteful consumption of energy related to water and wastewater. The proposed project would also be designed and constructed to meet minimum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEER) certification, which would include the use of solar panels and energy conservation/efficiency features, and would be served by Southern California Edison (SCE), which is requiredto increase its share of renewable energy procurement pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 100 requirements. As a result, the proposed project would maximize the use of renewable energy. Therefore, project operation would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant. Energy Efficiency Plans Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.6-11-4.6-13) Rationale: The proposed project would be required to comply with all building design standards set in CBC Title 24. The CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11) requires implementation of energy efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects, and•the Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) require newly constructed buildingsto meet energy performance standards set by the CEC. In addition, the proposed project would also be designed and constructed to meet minimum LEER certification, which would include the.use of solar panels and energy conservation/efficiency features. LE;ED- certified buildings enable projects to achieve zero net energy consumption by requiring integrative designs that help reduce overall energy consumption and efficiently monitor energy consumption levels. As such, the proposed project's buildings would be subject to the latest energy efficiency standards pursuant to the CALGreen Code (Title 24, Part 11) and Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6). Therefore, the proposed project would incorporate energy conservation features as well as energy efficient lighting and heating and cooling systems, which would be consistent with Plan RC 2040 Goals RC-6.3 (Reduce Energy), RC-6.11 (Climate -Appropriate Building Types), and RC-7.7 (Sustainable Design) (City of Rancho Cucamonga 2021). In addition, the proposed project would provide 18 bicycle parking spaces, consistent with Goal RC-6.8 of Plan RC 2040. 9th and Vineyard Davelopmenl?roject 20 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overfldng Consideralcm I. CEQA Findings SB 100 mandates 100 percent clean electricity procurement for California utility providers by 2045. The proposed project would include rooftop solar and would be sized to meet LEER certification requirements, which would help supply a portion of the project's electricity usage with renewable energy and maximize the use of on -site renewable energy. In addition, the proposed project's use of nonrenewable energy resources would be reduced over time because the electricity generated by renewable resources provided by SCE continues to increase to comply with State requirements through SB 100, which requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 60 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045. Because the proposed project would be powered by the existing State electricity grid, it would be powered by renewable energy as mandated by SB 100. Therefore, the proposed project would include the development of renewable energy resources and provision of EV parking, which would be consistent with Coals RC-6.2 (Renewable Energy) and RC-7.2 (New EV Charging) of Plan RC 2040. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated draft EIR, Page 4.6-13) Rationale: The geographic scope of the cumulative energy analysis is the SCE service area and San Bernardino County. All cumulative projects would be required to comply with CBC Title 24 minimum 2022 Building Energy Efficiency standards (Title 24, Part 6) and CALGreen Code requirements (Title 24, Part 11). Future cumulative projects would be designed in accordance with- these minimum State energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. These standards include minimum energy efficiency requirements related to building envelope, mechanical systems (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air conditioning and water heating systems), and indoor and outdoor lighting. The incorporation of CBC Title 24 standards into the design of the cumulative projects, including the proposed project, would result in reduced wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy. Furthermore, as discussed under Impact E-2, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable State and local plans for energy efficiency and renewable energy. These plans are intended to address cumulative impacts related to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative energy impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Geology and Soils Fault Rupture Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake @th and Vhoyard €)avelopment Project 21 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overrk ing Considerations [. cr: A Findings Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.7-9) Rationale: The entire southern California region, including the project area, is considered seismically active. Fault rupture can occur along pre-existing, known active fault traces, however, fault rupture also can splay from known active faults or rupture along unidentified fault traces, The closest active fault is the Red Hill Fault, located 0.5-mile north of the project site, and the Cucamonga Fault at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains is 4.7 miles north of the site. Based on review of Figure 5-2, Rancho Cucamonga Special Study Fault Zones, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the project site is not located in a fault hazard area. This is consistent with the conclusions of the project's geotechnical investigation, which identifies thatthere are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the project site and the project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Rancho Cucamonga has adopted the CBC by reference pursuant to RCMC Section 15.04.010 of the CBC contains specific requirements for structural design, including seismic loads. The CBC requires that structures be designed and constructed to resist seismic hazards, including through foundation design and the completion of soil investigations prior to construction. Rancho Cucamonga would ensurethat the project would be designed and constructed consistent with the current CBC, thereby ensuring that appropriate investigations and design measures have been employed to effectively minimize or avoid potential hazards associated with redevelopment and/or new building construction. Proper engineering, including adherence to the CBC, and compliance with Rancho Cucamonga General Plan goals and policies, would minimize the risk to life and property associated with potential seismic activity in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. Seismic Ground Shaking Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.7-9) Rationale: The project site could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on nearby faults. Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can result in primary and secondary effects. Primary effects would be ground rupture or surface faulting. Common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking, and ground lurching. Based on review of Figure 5-2, Rancho Cucamonga Special Study Fault Zones, of the 9tnand YnayardQovolopmantProject 22 CEQAFindings and StatomentorAvoredingCnnsldeMUons L CEQA Findings Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the project site is not located in a fault hazard area. This is consistent with the conclusions of the project's geotechnical investigation, which identifies that there are no known active or potentially active faults on or trending toward the project site and the project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the Santa Ana Basin region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site. However, project structures would be required to be designed in compliance with current CBC requirements intended to ensure buildings can withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking (SCG 2021). Rancho Cucamonga has adopted the CSC by reference pursuant to RCMC Section 15.04.010 of the CBC contains specific requirements for structural design, including seismic loads. The CBC requires that structures be designed and constructed to resist seismic hazards, including through foundation design and the completion of soil investigations prior to construction. Rancho Cucamonga would ensure that the project would be designed and constructed consistent with the current CBC, thereby ensuring that appropriate investigations and design measures have been employed to effectively minimize or avoid potential hazards associated with redevelopment and/or new building construction. Proper engineering, including adherence to the CBC, and compliance with Rancho Cucamonga General Plan goals and policies, would minimize the risk to life and property associated with potential seismic activity in the area. Impacts would be less than significant. liquefaction Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Findine: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.7-10) Rationale: Secondary seismic hazards addressed in the project's geotechnical investigation and relevant to this threshold include liquefaction. Liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the pore -water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors that influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and plasticity characteristics, relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. Based on the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard Overlays map and Figure S- 2, Potential Liquefaction and Earthquake -Induced Landslides, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, the project site is not located in an area of liquefaction susceptibility (Rancho Cucamonga, 2021a). In addition, according to the project's geology report (Appendix F-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR), the boring conducted BthAnd vnoyardDayelopmentProject 23 CEQAFindings and 5tatementofOven1dingConsidera[ions !. CEQA Findings at the project site revealed a lack of groundwater within 25 feet of the surface. Further research revealed that the historic high groundwater levels were approximately 326 feet below ground level. liquefaction risks are normally associated with saturated, loose, poorly graded sands within 50 feet below ground level (SCG 2019). The alluvial sands identified at the project site consist of medium dense to very dense well -graded with fine to coarse gravel and occasional cobbles. This soil would not meet all parameters for hazardous soil composition that could lend itself to liquefaction risks. The project site's soil composition, lack of moisture, and lower historic groundwater levels would minimize seismic related ground failure and liquefaction risks. Therefore, liquefaction is not considered to be a design concern for this project. Impacts would be less than significant. Landslides Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Finding* No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.7-10 and 4.7-11) Rationale: The project site has a gentle slope of approximately one percent running generally from the northwestern area of the site to the southeastern portion of the site (SCG 2019). No extreme elevation differences exist in or around the project site that would potentially lead to landslide effects. According to the San Bernardino County Geologic Hazard map, the project site and the immediate area are not within a zone of generalized landslide susceptibility (SCG 2019). The project area, which is also outside of the hazard zone for rockfallldebris-flow, contains relatively flat topography, further minimizing landslide susceptibility. Furthermore, Figure S-2, Potential Liquefaction and Earthquake -Induced Landslides, of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, shows the project site is not within an earthquake -induced landslide hazard zone. Accordingly, the project would not be exposed to landslide risks, and implementation of the project would not pose a substantial direct or indirect landslide risk to surrounding properties. No impact would occur. Soil Erosion Threshold: Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.7-11) Rationale: The construction of the project would involve excavation activities that would affect surface and near -surface soils. Over -excavation of the project would be implemented to remove any artificial fill soils, which extend from approximately one to eight feet below the existing grade. In addition to the excavation and removal of the fill material, the development of the project would require grading preparation, excavation, trenching, and paving activities that could result in soil 8th and Vineyard Developmenl Project 24 CEQA Findings and Stetemom of Oventding CorssidCMVO s 1. CEQA erosion if exposed to periods of high wind or storm -related events. Dust control measures such as watering would be utilized to control the potential for erosion to occur. Construction contractors would also be required to implement a dust control plan in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 to reduce dust generated by wind, vehicles, heavy equipment, aggregate crushing, bulk material, demolition, etc. (refer to Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Recirculated Draft EIR). Additionally, construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the following regulations related to surface water quality during construction and operation of a project: the Clean Water Act; the State Water Resources Control Board and associated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements; and Chapter 19.20, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, of the RCMC. Specifically, to control erosion during construction of the project, the project would be required to implement erosion -control best management practices (BMPs) outlined in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and in compliance with the NPDES (refer to additional discussion provided in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated Draft EIR). Once the project is operational, the potential for soil erosion via wind and water would be minimized through the introduction of development, including roads, buildings, paved areas, and landscaping in accordance with the City regulations. In conclusion, with implementation of a dust control plan and SWPPP, impacts related to substantial soil erosion would be less than significant. Expansive Soils Threshold: Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property"? Finding: _ Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.7-14) Rationale: Expansive soils are soils that expand and contract depending on their moisture level. This change can occur seasonally as a result of water levels and precipitation throughout the year. These soils normally occur within the first five feet below the surface. Expansive.soils can lead to structural damage as their compositions and volume changes dramatically. The near -surface soils encountered during the field study for the project's geotechnical investigation consisted of silty sands and well -graded sands, which are classified as low to non -expansive (SCG 2019). Therefore, potential impacts from expansive soils on the site would be less than significant. Septic Tanks Threshold: Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Finding; No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.7-I4) 9th and Vineyard Uavelopment Prafect 25 CEQA Findings and Statement of Ovegking Consldembons I. C50A Findings Rationale: Consistent with the existing development at the project site, the project would connect to the City -owned municipal wastewater conveyance system; therefore, septictanks oran alternative wastewater disposal system would not be permitted or utilized. Accordingly, implementation of the project would result in no impact related to the use of or performance of septic tanks and/or alternative wastewater systems. Hazards and Hazardous Materials , Hazardous Materials Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated [haft EwIR, Page 4.9-20) Rationale: Construction of the project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials on -site and off -site, which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner that would pose a significant hazard to the public. Disposal of any hazardous materials associated with the construction and restoration of any on - site structures would be subject to applicable federal, State, and local requirements for the disposal of such materials. The proposed buildings would be expected to use limited hazardous materials and substances which would include cleaners, paints, solvents, fertilizers, and pesticides for site landscaping. The project would not create a significant impact through the transport, use, or. disposal of hazardous materials since the facilities are required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and regional regulations which are intended to avoid impacts to the public and environment. These regulations ensure that hazardous materials/waste users, generators and transporters provide operational safety a nd measures to reduce threats to public health and safety. Project operations would involve typical hazardous materials/chemicals associated with warehousing uses such cleaners, paints, solvents, fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Any routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during project operations must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Furthermore, hazardous materials/chemicals such as cleaners, paints, solvents and fertilizers in low quantities do not pose a significant threat related to the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Therefore, impacts from hazards to the public during operations would be less than significant. 9t6 and VM<syard Covelopment Project 26 CEOA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations i. CEQA Findings Public Airports Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Finding- Less than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.9-23 and 4.9-24) Rationale: The Ontario International Airport is located approximately 2.1 miles south of the project site, which is just outside the two-mile requirement but is still within the Airport Influence Area established by the Ontario Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (per Maps 2-4 and 2-5) and specifically within the Airspace Protection Zone and the Overflight Notification Zone. The project site is within the following policy boundaries in the Airspace Protection Zone: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Height Notification Surface, and Airspace Obstruction Surfaces. The northern portion of the project site is within the FAA Obstruction Surfaces Area, which, per Subpart B of FAR Part 77, requires that the FAA be notified of any proposed construction or alteration having a height greater than an imaginary surface extending 100 feet outward and 1 foot upward (slope of 100 to 1) for a distance of 20,000 feet from nearest point of any runway. The southern portion of the project site is within FAA Height Notification Area, which, per Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Subpart C, establishes standards for determining obstructions to air navigation, Building heights for the project would range from 45 to 51 feet. Based on the FAR Part 77 criteria, these heights are not anticipated to encroach into FAR Part 77 airspace and are below the City's 70-foot height limit (assuming required setbacks) under the pre-982 Ordinance of the RCMC. However, prior to issuance of a building permit or 45 days to commencement of construction, the applicant must notify the FAA Regional office using Form 74604, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. The project would comply with all applicable federal, State and local requirements, including the FAR Part 77 requirements. With approval of the project from the applicable agencies, impacts associated with an airport or airport land use plan would be less than significant. Emergency Plans Threshold: Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Finding: Less than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.9-23 and 4.9-24) Rationale: The project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation, plan. The ReadyRC disaster preparedness manual was adopted bythe Fire Districtto provide a process for emergency management and response with the City. The manual identifies evacuation routes, emergency oth and Vineyard Development Prolard 27 CEOA rindfnga and Statement of Overriding Consideration I. CECIA Findings facilities, and shelter information. No revisions to the adopted ReadyRC disaster preparedness manual would be required as a result of the project. Further, the City maintains an Emergency Operations Plan which is updated by the City's Emergency Management Program. The project would not modify or impede existing emergency routes. Primary access to all major roads would be maintained during construction and operation of the project. The City's Development Impact Fee Program also makes certain required facilities for new development are adequately funded and costs are distributed to the various types of development in the form of development impact fees paid by project applicants. Compliance with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and participation in the City's Impact Fee Program, would reduce the potential impacts associated with interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan to less than significant. Wildland Fires Threshold: Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? Finding: Less than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.9-24 and 4.9-25) Rationale: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is categorized as a Local Responsibility Area by CAL FIRE. The project site is not mapped as a very -high Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ). The project site is surrounded by developed land and approximately 5.5 miles from the very high FHSZ. Although the project site is not located in a very high FHSZ, the City, in conjunction with the Fire District, reviews all building plans for compliance with the California Building Code, State and local statutes, ordinances, and regulations relating to the prevention of fire, the storage of hazardous materials, and the protection of life and property against fire, explosion, and exposure to hazardous materials. Adherence to regulations already in place through the development application and review process at the City would reduce the potential impacts associated with fire hazards to a level of less -than -significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Groundwater Supplies Threshold: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.10-19) Rationale: The project would not involve direct or indirect withdrawals of groundwater and as previously discussed, excavations at the site would not encounter underlying groundwater resources. The Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD) would 91h and Vineyard DmTopmeni Project 28 CECLA Findings and Slaterrimofoverdding Considerations i, ceQA supply the project with potable water. CVWD receives approximately 48 percent of its water from groundwater wells in the Chino Basin and the Cucamonga Basin, with the remainder coming from imported water supplies and local canyon and tunnel water (CVWD 2021). As further discussed in Section 4.18, utilities and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, there would be an overall increase in water demand generated at the project site with implementation of the project, compared to site's existing conditions, The increase in water demand for the site would be approximately 53 AFY. A site -specific Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the project (Appendix 1-2 of the Recirculated Draft EIR), which shows that CVWD has available water supplies to meet the water demands of the project for the next 20 years through 2040, including demands during normal, single dry and multiple dry years (Valued Engineering 2023). With approval of the WSA in November 2023, available water supplies would be adequate to serve the project. Therefore, the project would not deplete groundwater supplies. Recharge basins for the Chino Basin are not located in the vicinity of the project site; however, the project's four proposed infiltration chambers would allow for percolation. Building 1 would have an infiltration chamber north and south of the building; Building 2 would have an infiltration chamber south of the building; and Building 3 would have an infiltration chamber east of the building. This practice has high pollutant removal efficiency and can also help recharge groundwater. In addition, the change in impervious area associated with the project (an increase of approximately 35.2 acres), is relatively small compared to the overall basin area, and would not impact groundwater recharge. Therefore, implementation of the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Flooding Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or riverorthrough the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.10-21 and 4.10-22) Rationale: Development of the project would alter existing ground contours of the project site and would increase the impervious surface area on the site, all of which would result in changes to the existing drainage patterns interior to the site. To collect surface flows, the project would include a complex drainage system which includes below -ground infiltration facilities. The project would include the development of new buildings and hardscapes that would increase the amount of surface on the site compared to existing conditions. These proposed 9th and Vineyard DevaiopmontProlect 29 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Cansidetations f. CEOA Findings improvements would cause changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface water runoff. There are two parcels (APNs 0207-271-47 and -48) that are adjacent to the northeast portion of the project site, which are owned by San Bernardino County Flood Control District (SBCFCD). The proposed project does not include improvements that would encroach on these parcels and therefore would avoid any impacts to these parcels. If any changes were to occur that would involve encroachment onto these parcels, the applicant would be required to obtain a permit from the SBCFCQ prior to project construction. Cucamonga Creek runs near the northeastern border of the project site. However, the creek is concrete lined at this location in an effort by the USACF to control and confine the creek as a part of their flood control project. A floodwall was previously erected along the portion of the Cucamonga Creek that borders the project. Further, the project site is located mostly on land that is designated as having a minimal flood hazard; however, certain portions of the project site are within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). The eastern portion of the project site is within a region classified as having a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding. The southern border of the project site is within Zone A of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which denotes areas that have a one percent annual chance of flooding but do not have base flood elevations. The project site is relatively flat, gently sloping downward from the northwestern area to the southeastern area at an approximately one percent gradient. Floodwaters would also follow this gradient. In addition, the project applicant is required to obtain a floodplain development permit prior to initiating any project -related construction. This permit is mandated for development within an SFHA to ensure compliance with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), applicable building codes, and local floodplain ordinances. The project also would utilize an approximately 66 to 78-inch-wide storm drain improvement line along the southern boundary of the site with a new outfall structure to connect the storm drain system to the concrete -lined Cucamonga Creek. This new storm drain improvement line has been designed to receive all of the anticipated stormwater discharge from the project and historical stormwater from the adjacent properties northwest of the project. Implementation of the approximately 66 to 78-inch-wide storm drain improvement line would minimize impacts associated with surface runoff and flooding on or off -site from project -related construction and operation activities. Impacts would be less than significant. 9th and Vineyard Development Project 3o CECAFindings and Matemenl a[Overridinp Conslderattons 1. CEQP. Findings Stormwater Drainage Systems Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding. Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.10-22) Rationale: Development of the project would alter existing ground contours of the project site and would increase the impervious surface area on the site, all of which would result in changes to the existing drainage patterns interior to the site. Two existing storm drains exist within the project site. One drain initiates and terminates in the eastern portion of the project site while the other follows the southern boundary of the project site along the northern portion of the BNSF railway. An under -road culvert was also observed east of Vineyard Avenue, which was intended to direct flows eastward to storm drain directly east of Cucamonga Creek. No drainage patterns were observed there as well. The project applicant also proposes to install an approximately 66 to 78-inch-wide storm drain improvement line along the southern boundary of the project site with a new outfall structure to connect the storm drain system to the concrete - lined Cucamonga Creek. This would increase the efficiency of the drainage infrastructure in that area and provide an updated conveyance system. No further updates are proposed for Cucamonga Creek. With the lack of existing drainage infrastructure in use within the project site and the proposed development of a new stormwater facility, impacts associated with runoff would be less than significant. The project would be required to comply with an Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to ensure that project -related construction activities and operational activities do not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. Flood Flows Threshold; Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration ofthe course of a stream or river orthrough the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.10-23) Rationale: Development of the project would alter existing ground contours of the project site and would increase the impervious surface area on the site, all of which would result in changes to the existing surface flood flows interior to the site. To 6th and Vineyard Development Project 31 CEQA Findings and Statement of Ovamdmg Considerations i. CEQA collect surface flood flows, the project would include a complex drainage system which includes below -ground infiltration facilities. As discussed under Impact HYD-3b, the majority of the project site is located in a zone noted as having minimal flood risk by FEMA. The eastern end of the site is within a zone noted as having a 0.2 annual chance of flooding. The southern border of the project site is within Zone A of the FEMA FIRM which denotes areas that have a one percent annual chance of flooding but do not have base flood elevations. The existing slope of the site trends southeast with a one percent gradient, which would be largely maintained. Cucamonga Creek is located on the northeastern border of the project site, however, the water from the creek flows away from the project site to the southeast. The project involves implementation of an approximately 66 to 78-inch-wide storm drain improvement line along the southern boundary of the project site with a new outfa II structure to connect the storm drain system to the concrete -lined Cucamonga Creek. Furthermore, there are no plans to alter the creek or its bordering floodwalls. Therefore, impacts associated with impedance or redirection of flood flows would be less than significant. Flood Hazard Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? Finding: Less than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.10-23 and 4.10-24) Rationale: The nearest body of water to the project is Cucamonga Creek which runs along its northeastern border. No oceans, lakes, ponds, or partially closed standing bodies of water are found near the project site. Therefore, the project is not within a zone with risk of seiche or tsunami. The project is in a zone noted as having minimal flood risk by FEMA. The eastern end of the site is within a zone noted as having a 0.2 annual chance of flooding. The,southern border of the project site is within Zone A of the FEMA FIRM, which denotes areas that have a one percent annual chance of flooding but do not have base flood elevations. The existing slope of the site trends southeast with a one percent gradient. These flood zones pose minimal flood risk with a minute chance of floods occurring. In the unlikely event a release of pollutants occurred as the result of a flooding, the WQMP and SWPPP created for the project would limit pollution rates from stormwater conveyance. The project's construction contractor(s) would be required to comply with a SWPPP, and the project's owner or operator would be required to comply with the preliminary WQMP (Appendix 1-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR) to ensure that project -related construction activities and operational activities do not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Bib and VoeyardoevelopmnntRojett 32 CECLAFbIding5arWStatomentofOvoMftgconsldemlons I, CEQA Findings As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, Phase I and II environmental site assessment (ESA)s were conducted for the project, which identified historical use of lead -based paints and asbestos at the site. however, further investigation determined there were no soil impairments associated with the past and present uses of the project site. The project would be required to comply with applicable federal, State, and regional regulations regarding asbestos and lead -based paint removal prior to construction. While project operations would involve typical hazardous materials/chemicals associated with warehousing uses such cleaners, paints, solvents, and fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping, any routine transport, use, and disposal of these materials must adhere to federal, State, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. For additional information about the potential risk of release of hazardous materials into the environment and associated mitigation measures, refer to Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, As discussed above, the project site is in a low flood risk of the area. With the application of stormwater plans in the SWPPP and WQMP, compliance with applicable federal, State, and regional regulations regarding asbestos and lead - based paint removal, as well as the transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances, potential impacts from the release of pollutants due to project inundation would be less than significant. Water Quality and Groundwater Flans Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.10-24 and 4.10-25) Rationale: The project site is within the Santa Ana River Basin; therefore, project -related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB's Santa Ana Basin Plan. The Santa Ana Basin Plan describes actions by the RWQCB and others that are necessary to achieve and maintain the water quality standards. The RWQCB regulates waste discharges to minimize and control their effects on the quality of the region's groundwater and surface water. Permits are issued under several programs and authorities. The terms and conditions of these discharge permits are enforced through a variety of technical, administrative, and legal means. The RWQCB ensures compliance with the Santa Basin Plan through its issuance of NPDES Permits, issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR), and Water Quality Certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA. With adherence to State and local water quality regulations (Construction General Permit, the RCMC, preparation and implementation of a SWPPP during Bth and Vineyard Development Project 33 CMA Findings and Statement of overriding Canslderatlons I. CCQA Findings construction, preparation and implementation of a WQMP for operation), the potential for the project to generate pollutants and impact water quality during construction and operation would be less than significant. The project would not degrade water quality, cause the receiving waters to exceed the water quality objectives, or impair the beneficial use of receiving waters. As such, the project would not result in water quality impacts that would conflict with the Santa Ana Basin Plan. The 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires local public agencies and groundwater sustainable agency (GSA)s in "high-" and "medium" -priority basins to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plan (GSP)s or alternatives to GSPs. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) currently categorizes the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins, which supply groundwater to the CVWD, as "very low" priority (CVWD 2021). Therefore, the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins are not subject to the requirements of the SGMA. Furthermore, Section 1.0720.8(a) of the SGMA exempts adjudicated basins from the SGMA's requirement to prepare a G513; the Chino and Cucamonga Groundwater Basins have been adjudicated. Therefore, preparation of GSPs is not required and the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.10-25 — 4.10-27) Rationale: Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality could occur as new development, redevelopment, and existing uses are ongoing within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Pursuant to the requirements of the SWRCB and the Santa Ana RWQCB, all construction projects within the Santa Ana River Watershed that disturb one or more acres of land area are required to obtain coverage for construction activities under the State's General Construction NPDES Permit. To obtain coverage, an effective site -specific SWPPP is required to be developed and implemented. Compliance with these mandatory regulatory requirements would ensure that development projects within the Santa Ana River watershed, including the project and cumulative projects, would have a less -than -significant cumulative water quality impact during construction. Construction of the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable water quality effects during construction. The project and all cumulative developments in the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to.comply with applicable regulations that enforce the Basin Plan, which establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters of the region. The project and all cumulative developments would also be required to prepare and implement site -specific WQMPs to ensure that runoff does not substantially contribute to water quality violations. Compliance with these 91h and Vineyard Development Fmiect 34 CEQA Findings and Statement of OvarF ding Considerations 1, CEQA Findings mandatory regulatory requirements would ensure that development projects within the Santa Ana River watershed, including the project and cumulative projects, would have a less -than -significant cumulative water quality impact during operations. A portion of the City's water comes from groundwater resources from the Chino Basin and the Cucamonga Basin. These adjudicated basins continued to be managed and compliance with the pertinent adjudication orders prevents overdraft conditions, water quality problems, and other impacts on groundwater resources in the watershed. The project in conjunction with cumulative development would not result in significant impacts to groundwater supplies or groundwater quality and therefore would not result in a cumulative impact. Accordingly, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with groundwater. Construction afthe project and other development projects within the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations and applicable, regionaI and local master drainage,plans to mitigate flood hazards both on- and off -site. Compliance with federal, State, and local regulations and applicable drainage plans would require development sites to be protected from flooding during peak storm events (i.e., 100-year storm) and would not allow development projects to expose downstream properties to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. Because the project and all other developments throughout the Santa Ana River Basin would need to comply with federal, state, and local regulations to ensure that stormwater discharges do not substantially exceed existing volumes or exceed the volume of available conveyance infrastructure, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with flooding. The project, combined with cumulative projects, would not result in a risk for release of pollutants from flooding, seiche, a tsunami, or inundation from dam failure and would therefore not result in a cumulative impact. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact associated with inundation. Lanai Use and Planning Established Communities Threshold: Would the project physically divide an established community? Finding No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.11-6 and 4.11-7) Rationale: The project would have a significant environmental impact if it were sufficiently large orotherwise configured in such awayasto create a physical barrieror other physical division within an established community. For example, the construction 91hand Vineyard Development Pmjeci 3r3 ME AFindingsand StatementofOverd6ingConsideratons 1. CEQA Findings of a highway through an existing community would constrain travel from one side of the community to another, as well as the cohesiveness of that community. The proposed project involves developingthree warehouse buildings,with 13,000 sf of office space and 982,096 sf of warehouse space (totaling 982,096 sf). Existing structures on -site would be demolished, with the exception of the Baker House. No new roads or infrastructure would be introduced within the project area. Access to the project would be through five unsignalized driveways on 9th Street, Vineyard Avenue, and Baker Avenue. Street improvements would be made, including sidewalk, landscaping, curb and gutter, utility undergrounding, streetlights, fire hydrants, pavement rehabilitation, utility connections, and signage. Off -site intersections would also be improved to ensure smooth circulation around the project site. The planned improvements at the, aforementioned off -site 'intersections would consist of modification of existing curb returns and American Disability Act (ADA) ramps, relocation/modification of existing traffic signal facilities, additional curb and gutter, additional sidewalk, asphalt pavement or resurfacing, and street restriping. The project would not physically divide an established community as it is within the City limits and adjacent to properties with similar designations. The project does not disrupt adjacent residential areas or impede community movement. While there would be development and improvements to the project site, implementation of the project would not physically divide the community. Therefore, no impact under this threshold would occur. Cumulative Impacts Finding Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.11-31) Rationale: Cumulative development would incrementally modify land use patterns and the general setting of the area. There are 10 planned and pending projects in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario within a one -mile radius of the project site. These developments include residential, and mixed -use projects. Similar to the project, land use regulations and policy consistency impacts associated with other cumulative projects would be addressed on a case -by -case basis in order to determine their consistency with applicable plans and policies. Like the proposed project, these cumulative projects would be infill development compatible with the surrounding uses and would generally be consistent with the setting and land use patterns of the project site vicinity. The cumulative projects would be required to comply with relevant land use policies and regulations through City review, and as applicable, CEOA review. Therefore, cumulative land use impacts would be less than significant. Moreover, because the proposed project's impacts related to land use compatibility and consistency with local plans, goals, and policies would be less than significant (as discussed above), the 91h and Mneyasd Development Project 36 CEQA Findings and Statement of Ovaniding ConsideraWas L CEQAFindhgs proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the less than significant cumulative land use impacts. Mineraf Resources Regional and Statewide Mineral Resources Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? FindinjR No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.12-3) Rationale: The project site is not within or near an aggregate resource sector designated by the State Mining and Geology Board and analyzed in the City's General Plan EIR (Rancho Cucamonga 2021b; CGS 2007a). The nearest aggregate resource sector, Sector C-6, is located approximately 3.2 miles north of the project site. Due to the distance from each of the nearest aggregate resource sectors, the project would have no impact on the designated aggregate resource sectors. The project site is within an area designated as MRZ-2 which is expected to contain significant Portland Cement Concrete resources (CGS 2007b). However, the project site is previously disturbed and the surrounding area is urbanized with commercial, industrial uses. No mining activities exist on the site or in the surrounding area. One mineral resource recovery site is located within Rancho Cucamonga, a mine owned by Hanson Aggregates LLC, which permanently closed in 2012. The mine is located west of the Day Creek Channel and north of Banyan Street, approximately five miles northeast of the project site. No other mineral recovery sites exist within city limits or the surrounding area (DOC 2023), Due to the developed nature of the project site and surrounding area, the project is unlikely to impact significant mineral'resources. The project would consist of the construction of three industrial buildings, rehabilitation of the historic structure, and associated landscaping, no mining activities are proposed. Therefore, potential impacts to a known mineral resource are less than significant. Locally -Important Mineral Resource Threshold: Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Finding: No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.12-3) Rationale: The project site is within an area designated as MRZ-2 which is expected to contain significant Portland Cement Concrete resources (CGS 2007b). However, the project site is previously disturbed and the surrounding area is urbanized with commercial, industrial uses. No mining activities exist on the site or in -the surrounding area. One mineral resource recovery site is located within Rancho Cucamonga, a mine owned by Hanson Aggregates LLC, which permanently closed Bthand Vineyard 0eveiopmentPrajea 37 CEQAFindings and StatementafoveMdkngConsideratIons I. CEQA in 2012. The mine is located west of the Day Creek Channel and north of Banyan Street, approximately five miles northeast of the project site. No other mineral recovery sites exist within city limits or the surrounding area (DOC 2023). Due to the developed nature of the project site and surrounding area, the project is unlikely to impact significant mineral resources. The project would consist of the construction of three industrial buildings, rehabilitation of the historic structure, and associated landscaping, no mining activities are proposed. Therefore, potential impacts to a known mineral resource are less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.12-3) Rationale: The project would have no impact on mineral resources. The project site is located within a MRZ-2 designated area. However, the project site and surrounding area is urbanized and not used for mining practices. Mineral resources would not be significantly impacted by the implementation of the project. Cumulative development projects would have the potential to impact mineral resources. Potential impacts of cumulative projects would be site -specific and would require case -by -case evaluation at the project level. Each cumulative project would require discretionary approval and evaluation under CEQA, which would analyze potential mineral resources impacts. Thus, cumulative development would not result in significant cumulative impacts to mineral resources. Therefore, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on mineral resources and no mitigation is required. Noise Airport Noise Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Findine: No Impact (Recirculated Draft E1R, Page 4.13-25) Rationale: There are no airports in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The nearest airport to the City of Rancho Cucamonga is the Ontario international Airport, which is located approximately 2.3 miles south. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is located outside of the airport's noise contours, identified in the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ONT ALUCP 2011). Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels. There would be no impact. . 91h and Vineyard 0avelopmont Project 38 CEQA FINIngs and Statement of ovOtcreg COMlaeral = I. CEQA Population and Housing Population Growth Threshold: Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.14-4) Rationale: The proposed project would involve construction of three new industrial warehouse buildings and the restoration of a historically significant building, which would not result in long-term population growth since the buildings would not include any permanent residences. However, the proposed project could potentially increase the number of new employees in Rancho Cucamonga. According to the SCAG Employment Density Report, warehouses typically have an average of one employee for every 1,195 square feet of floor space, while low- rise offices average one employee for every 1,014 square feet of floor space. Based on these figures, the project's warehousing floor space would accommodate approximately 810 employees, and the office floor space would accommodate approximately 13 employees. Therefore, the project as a whole would create the potential for approximately 823 employees. Although project employees would likely be drawn from the existing labor pool in the region and may not relocate to the City, this analysis conservatively assumes that 823 employees would relocate to the city and become new residents. The project site is currently vacant and surrounded by urbanized development. To the north properties are designated for Neighborhood Center, Suburban Neighborhood - Low, and Industrial Employment uses. Residential neighborhoods are located directly west, northwest, and north of the project. Given the developed nature of this area, the project's development would have a minimal impact on direct substantial population growth. The residential areas have already been zoned and developed for residential use, any population growth there would not be unplanned. The population is forecasted to increase by approximately 27,755 persons by 2045. The projected 823-person growth in employment is within the city's population projections. Therefore, less than significant impacts to population growth would occur with implementation of the project. Displacement of Housing Threshold: Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Finding_ No Impact (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.14-5) Rationale: The project would be constructed on a site that has been previously disturbed and is currently vacant with the exception of the unoccupied historical building. 91h and Vneyard Uaveiopm rit Project 39 CEQA Findings and StAtomont or ovardding Cansiderations I. CEQA Findings The project site does not contain any residential structures under existing conditions; therefore, no people live at the project site. Accordingly, implementation of the project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. Cumulative Impacts Finding: less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.14-5) Rationale: For purposes of cumulative population and housing impact analysis, cumulative impacts are considered for cumulative development according to the related projects; see Table 3-1, Cumulative Projects List, in Section 3, Environmental Setting. As concluded above, project implementation would have a less than significant impact on the city's population and housing resources. The project includes development of three industrial warehouse buildings. Cumulative projects for the city include a mix of residential and mixed -use. The project together with other developments within the city would serve an existing demand for employment and housing while also meeting the cumulative demand for employment and housing that would result from the city's projected future population. These increases for population, housing, and employment would be within SCAG's total projected growth forecasts for 2045. In addition, implementation of the project would be consistent with the City's vision of the project site because the existing General Plan land use designation for the project site is Neo-Industrial Employment. Implementation of the project would not result in a cumulatively significant population or housing impact and the land use would not significantly induce growth in areas where growth was not previously anticipated. Public Services Fire Protection Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Finding:. less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.15-7 and 4.15-8) Rationale: The project would be located within the existing service area of the Fire District, approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the nearest fire station — Fire District Station #172. The project site has been previously developed but is currently vacant, except for an abandoned home on the west side of the site at 8803 BakerAvenue. Prior to construction commencement, project plans would be subject to review 91h and Vineyord Development Project 40 CEQA Findings and 5latemonl of Overriding ConsldemUens 1. CEQA by local building officials, including the Fire District and the City's Building and Safety Division, for compliance with the CBC and California Fire Code (CFC), Additionally, as discussed under Section 4.19, Wildfire, of the Recirculated Draft OR, the project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone and therefore would not be subject to severe wildfire hazard and would not create an incremental increased demand for fire protection services or provision of new fire protection facilities during construction or operation of the project (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2023). Compared to current site conditions, development of the project and introduction of new structures would result in an incremental increase in demand for fire protection services. However, the three proposed warehouse structures and rehabilitation of the on -site historic structure at 8803 Baker Avenue would comply with the applicable CBC and CFC requirements and include all required emergency exits, fire suppression devices (e.g., automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems), fire hydrants, and use of fire-resistant building materials that suspend the spread of fire. The project applicant would also be required to pay all applicable developer impact fees upon approval of DRC2022-00266, which would assist in funding fire protection services and facilities. Thus, the project is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase of demand for fire protection services. Because implementation of the project would comply with applicable CBC and CFC requirements and include the payment of appropriate developer impact fees, the project would not result in the provision or need of new or expanded fire protection services and facilities to maintain acceptable performance standards. Impacts would be less than significant. Police Protection Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4,15-8 and 4.15-9) Rationale: The project site is within the existing service area of the San Bernadino County Sheriffs Department (SBSD), which currently has one patrol station located in Rancho Cucamonga approximately 2.1 miles east of the project site. Impacts on police protection services are based on the SSSD's ability to adequately serve the existing and future population, including the project's additional demand for police protection services. The project site has been previously developed but is currently vacant, except for an abandoned home on the west side of the site at 88D3 Baker Avenue. Therefore, compared to current site conditions, the introduction of new warehouse structures would result in an incremental 90 and Vineyard Development project 41 CEQA Findings and biatement of Overriding Considerations ]. CEQA increase in demand for police protection services. However, the project does not propose any residential development and would not directly result in additional residents that would depend more heavily on police protection services when compared to an industrial development. Furthermore, priorto construction commencement, the project plans would be subject to review by applicable local officials, including the City's Building and Safety Division, to ensure adequate signing, lighting, and other crime safety preventative measures. The project would also comply with Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Policy LC-1.7, which further promotes the integration of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles, such as providing clear lines of sight, lighting, and wayfinding signs to ensure that new development is visible from public areas and easyto navigate. The construction and operation of the project would include the strategic use of nighttime security lighting, avoidance of landscaping and fencing that limit lines of sight, clear lines of sight into facility parking areas, and clearly identifiable points of entry. The project applicant would also be required to pay all applicable developer impact fees as identified in Title 3, Revenue and Finance, of the RCMC. Therefore, as the project would comply with applicable local regulations and integrate CPTED principles, the project would not result in the provision or need of new or expanded police protection services and facilities to maintain acceptable performance standards. Impacts would be less than significant. Schools Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.15-9) Rationale: The project site is located within the Cucamonga School District (CSD) and Chaffey Joint High School District (GHSD). Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would not significantly impact existing school facilities, student enrollment, or school capacity such that there would be a need for the provision of new or expanded school facilities. Furthermore, as the project proposes three warehouses and no residential development, it would not generate student -age children, increase enrollment, or otherwise affect capacity at the serving school districts. No schools would be physically altered or impacted by implementation of the project. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay applicable developer fees at the time of issuance of building permits per Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 and SB 50, which would contribute to local school 9tiland VineyardDevelepmentProject 42 CEQAFindhpand Statement 0OverddingCorvideralions I. CEQA Findings funding. The project would not result in the provision or need of new or expanded school facilities to maintain acceptable performance standards. Impacts would be less than significant. Parks Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, orthe need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.15-9 and 4.15-10) Rationale: The City currently operates and maintains 25 neighborhood parks, four community parks, four special use facilities, and various regional and community trails. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would not significantly affect existing parks and recreation facilities such that there would be a need for the provision of new facilities. Furthermore, the project does not propose any residential development and is not anticipated to increase the existing population using the city's parks and recreation facilities. The project also includes the rehabilitation of the historic structure at 8803 Baker Avenue, which would be donated to the City as a community facility benefiting the surrounding residential neighborhood and increasing the opportunity for local programs and community space. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay applicable developerfees identified in Title 3, Revenue and Finance, of the RCMC. Wherefore, the project would not require the provision of new or expanded parks and recreation facilities or increase their use such that substantial and accelerated physical deterioration would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. Other public Facilities Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for other new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.15-10) Rationale: Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would not significantly affect existing public facilities or libraries such that there would be a need for the provision of new facilities. Furthermore, the project does not propose any residential development and is not anticipated to increase the existing population. The project also includes the rehabilitation and donation of the historic structure at 8803 Baker Avenue as a community facility that would 9thand Vineyard Development Project 43 CEQAFindings and StalementofOvaMdingConsiderations I. CEQA Findings increase the opportunity for local programs, Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay applicable developer fees identified in Title 3, Revenue and Finance, of the RCMC. Therefore, the project would not require the provision of new or expanded public facilities, including libraries, to maintain acceptable performance standards. impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, pages 4.15-20 and 4.15-11) Rationale: As discussed in this section, the project would not result in the provision or need of new or expanded public services and facilities to maintain acceptable performance standards, the construction of which could result in significant impacts. Project plans would be reviewed by local officials, such as the Fire District and the City's Building and Safety Division, for compliance with the CBC, CFC, and local regulations: The project applicant would also be required to pay the applicable developer impact fees, which would be allocated for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks and recreation, and other public facilities. 1; t New development in the one -mile radius of the project site, includingthe projects listed in Table 3-1 in Section 3, Environmental Setting, may also contribute to an increase in service population and use of public services, and cumulatively, there may be a need for new or improved facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other applicable goals. However, similar to the project, other cumulative projects would be subject to review by local officials for compliance with applicable regulations, For example, project plans would be reviewed by City officials and the Fire District to confirm that project design includes the minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes. Project applicants for these projects would also be subject to payment of applicable developer impact fees which would reduce the project's impact on public services. Therefore, cumulative impacts to public services and recreation would be less than significant. Recreation Increased Use Threshold: Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Findin : Tess Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.15-9 and 4.15-10) Rationale: The City currently operates and maintains 25 neighborhood parks, four community parks, four special use facilities, and various regional and community Blhand Vineyard Development Project 44 CEQAFindings and Statement alOvertldingConsiderations I. CEQA Findings trails. Construction activities would be temporary in nature and would not significantly affect existing parks and recreation facilities such that there would be a need for the provision of new facilities. Furthermore, the project does not propose any residential development and is not anticipated to increase the existing population using the city's parks and recreation facilities. The project also includes the rehabilitation of the historic structure at 8803 Baker Avenue, which would be donated to the City as a community facility benefiting the surrounding residential neighborhood and increasing the opportunity for local programs and community space. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay applicable developerfees identified in Title 3, Revenue and Finance, of the RCMC. Therefore, the project would not require the provision of new or expanded parks and recreation facilities or increase their use such that substantial and accelerated physical deterioration would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. Construction and Expansion Threshold: Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Finding Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.15-9 and 4.15-10) Rationale: Construction activities associated with the project would be temporary in nature and would not significantly affect existing parks and recreation facilities such that there wou Id be a need forthe provision of new facilities. Furthermore, the project does not propose any residential development and is not anticipated to increase the existing population using the city's parks and recreation facilities. The project also includes the rehabilitation of the historic structure at 8803 Baker Avenue, which would be donated to the City as a community facility benefiting the surrounding residential neighborhood and increasing the opportunity for local programs and community space. Additionally, the project applicant would be required to pay applicable developer fees identified in Title 3, Revenue and Finance, of the RCMC. Therefore, the project would not require the provision of new or expanded parks and recreation facilities or increase their use such that substantial and accelerated physical deterioration would occur. Impacts would be less than significant. Transportation Programs, Plans, Ordinances, or Policies Threshold: Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft ElR, Pages 4.16-14 — 4.16-24) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid Bth and Vinayard Davelopment Project 45 CEQA Findings and Slatemenl of overriding ConsideialIons 1. CEOA Findings or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR. See Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, §15091(a)(1)) Rationale: The projectwould implement a temporary trff1c control plan during construction activities pursuant to Caltrans' construction practice requirement, which would include provisions for maintaining circulation during construction. The majority of the project site is undeveloped with the exception of a historically significant I� house located on the west side of the project site. Construction of the project t would provide newly paved drive aisles that extend throughout Building 1, _ Building 2, and Building 3, which would improve circulation throughout the project site. Construction of the project would require the south curb along 9th Street to be reconstructed near the intersection with Vineyard Avenue and the exclusive eastbound left -turn lane would be removed. The eastbound approach on 9th Street at Vineyard Avenue would Consist of a single shared lane for all movements. The intersection modification was modeled for the Opening Year (2030 with Project and Future Year [20401 with Project scenarios). The project would comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 which requires that general plans (which includes the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan) accommodate a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways in a manner that is suitable to applicable rural, suburban, or urban contexts. In addition, the project would comply with ADA standards for accessible designs by designing the proposed walkways to be readily available to individuals with disabilities. This would also apply to crosswalks located between buildings, walking routes, and curb ramps. The potential impact to pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities was evaluated based on whether the proposed project would physically disrupt an existing facility or interfere with the implementation of a planned facility. In addition, the proposed project was evaluatedto determine if it would create potential conflicts with applicable policies, plans, or programs supporting bicycle use, pedestrian travel, or transit such that the conflict could reduce bicycle or transit trips or increase conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists, or other modes. A review of the Project Description did not identify any disruption to existing pedestrian, bicycle, or transit facilities. The project is consistent with the adopted plans regarding bicycle, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure and is not expected to decrease the performance or safety of these facilities. Therefore, the project would have a less -than -significant impact on active and public transportation. The overarching goal of the SCAG 2020-2045 Rip/SCS is to support local jurisdictions and partnerships in creating sustainable communities that meet the unique vision and needs of each locality. The project design includes energy- 91h and Vneyara Clavalopment Prejoct 46 MIA Findlrgs and StaWmont &Ovardding Conslderatlons I. CEQA Findings efficient features achieving a LEER Certified designation and would provide 13 electric vehicle charging stations, aligning with the broader objective of leveraging technology for sustainability. Furthermore, the project supports the implementation of sustainability policies by adhering to local zoning regulations and incorporating specific design requirements. This includes landscaping, lighting, and screening provisions to ensure compatibility with the surrounding environment, minimize visual impacts, and promote responsible development practices. Lastly, the project has the potential to contribute to a green region by implementing sustainable design principles. By incorporating green infrastructure features, permeable surfaces, and drip irrigation for native landscaping, the project can enhance water efficiency and stormwater management at the project site. Therefore, the proposed project's location, purpose, and adherence to sustainable design principles demonstrate its consistency with the goals and implementation strategies outlined in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The project's circulation elements would be consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan chapters pertaining to the land use, safety, and mobility (circulation) system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The project would also be consistent with the analyses conducted for the Mobility & Access Chapter of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan in terms of LOS. Refer to the transportation study in Appendix K-2 of the Recirculated Draft EIR for more information regarding LOS. The results of the LOS analysis indicate that one study location operates below the City's acceptable LOS standard under Future Year (2040) Plus Project conditions. The intersection of Baker Avenue and 8th Street (intersection 6) is unsignalized and was assumed to be widened from two to four lanes (consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS) under Future Year (2040) conditions. The intersection operates at LOS E in both the AM and PM peak hours. This intersection satisfies the peak hour traffic signal warrant under Future Year (2040) Plus Project conditions; therefore, it is recommended that the intersection is signalized, which would result in the intersection operating at LOS B in the AM and PM peak hours. Due to the project's contribution to the increase in delays at these intersections, a new signal would be required for the Baker Avenue & 8th Street intersection (Intersection 6), and signal timing optimization for the two intersections (Intersection 1 and Intersection 3) along Vineyard Avenue. Upon implementation of these improvements, the average delay at all three intersections would be LOS D or better, which would comply with the City's policy and TIA Guidelines. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Vehicle Miles Traveled Threshold: Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §15064.3, subdivision (b)? 91h and Vineyard Development Project 47 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overnding Considera'Jorts 1. CEQA Findings Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.7-24-4.16-27) Rationale: Construction of the project is a temporary activity not associated with a specific land use. Although there would be vehicle trips and VMT associated with construction workers, demolition and transport of materials and equipment, these activities do not fall squarely into the primary goals of SB 743, to reduce reliance on individual automobiles and promote multi -modal transportation networks through effective land use planning. In addition, construction activities are captured in the analysis of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions and within other sections of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Project effect on VMT was estimated using the boundary method for the Base Year and Future Year with and without project scenarios for three specific geographies (citywide, five -mile radius from the project, and 14-mile radius from the project). Project -generated VMT estimates were prepared using the Production/Attraction (PA) method for the Base Year and Future Year Plus Project scenarios. The addition of the project does not result in VMT per service population increasing or decreasing in the city or within a five -mile and 10-mile radius around the project site. Therefore, the project -generated VMT per service population does not exceed the City's baseline VMT per service population during Base Year or Cumulative Year conditions; as such, the project -level VMT impacts level are less than significant. As for City -level impacts, Base Year and Cumulative Year VMT per service population do not increase in the City or within a five -mile and 10-mile radius around the project site under Plus Project Conditions; therefore, City -level impacts are also less than significant. Hazardous Design/incompatible Uses Threshold: Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.16-26--4.16.27) Rationale: Construction impacts associated with the project would temporarily restrict vehicular traffic or cause temporary hazards. Construction operations would be required to implement appropriate and feasible measures to facilitate the passage of people and vehicles through/around any required road or lane closures or implement detours if needed. Site -specific activities, such as temporary construction activities, are approved on a project -by -project basis by the City -and are required to ensure adequate traffic flow. At the time of approval of any site -specific development plans required for the construction of infrastructure, the project would be required to comply with the City requirements including obtaining a lane closure permit, encroachment permit, 91h and Vineyard povelopmenl Project 48 CSQA Findings and Statement of bvardding Conslderallens 1. CEQA FMIngs and/or other measures that would maintain traffic flow and access through standard conditions of approval that would be placed on project buildout.. Furthermore, the traffic control measures as required by the City would be implemented as necessary to maintain adequate circulation. Overall, on -site construction activities would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. In consideration of project design features, potential construction -related transportation hazards would be less than significant. The post project condition would generally maintain the existing roadway network, with the exception of improvements to the intersection of Vineyard Avenue and 9th Street. All proposed modifications would be compliant with the City of Rancho Cucamonga relevant regulatory agency development standards, requirements, and regulations as stated above in Threshold 4.16-1. Roadway improvements in and around the project site would be designed and constructed to meet all City requirements for street widths, corner radii, and intersection control as well as incorporate design standards tailored specifically to project access requirements that would result in the safe and efficient flow of traffic within and throughout the project site. Adhering to the City's regulatory requirements for general street alignments, circulation/mobility would ensure that the project would not include any sharp curves for the public and project uses, or create dangerous intersections, or design hazards. Additionally, modifications to the other intersections are necessary to improve traffic congestion, truck movement, and existing road conditions around the project site. Overall, construction and operation activities would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Emergency Access Threshold: Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding:, Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft 61R, Pages 4.16-27 and 4.16-28) Rationale: The project would not result in any significant emergency access impacts during construction. In case of an emergency, the construction manager would have assigned staff to flag emergency response vehicles and direct them to the emergency location. Unimpeded access would be maintained throughout the project site and work vehicles and equipment would be prohibited from parking or being placed in a manner that would impede emergency response vehicle access. Site conditions, during and after the workday, would be either maintained or left in a condition that adheres to Division of Occupational Safety and Health Bthand Vineyard Development Project 49 CEDAFhdingsand Statement ofOverriding Canederatiens I. CEQA Findings (OSHA) safety standards to prevent any hazardous condition that would affect construction staff and emergency responders. Access roads to the site would be constructed throughout the project site for construction staff/inspectors, construction equipment and materials delivery/removal, and emergency response vehicles. The proposed driveways on 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue would be kept dr maintained in such conditions to allow for safe passage of emergency response vehicles. In summary, the project's adherence to applicable City laws and regulations, and provision of many access points, would not result in inadequate emergency access during project -related construction activities. The off -site improvements would potentially cause traffic delays during construction outside of the project area. As discussed in Section 4.16.1b, Vineyard Avenue is designated as a major truck route. Additionally, there would be some potential delays for emergency vehicles during construction due to traffic. Therefore, the applicant would implement necessary traffic control measures to alleviate congestion in conformance with the City's construction permit, lane closure permit, and encroachment permit requirements. The project design includes three access points that would allow emergency vehicles to enter the site at different locations. Vehicle circulation on the project site would provide adequate width and turn radius for emergency vehicles, and project site plans would be reviewed and approved by City staff and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District prior to construction. Therefore, the project's potential impacts related to emergency access are less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.16-29 and 4.16-29) Rationale: As summarized in Section 3, Environmental Setting, of the Recirculated Draft FIR, there are 10 planned and pending projects in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario within a one -mile radius of the project site. As identified in the analysis presented under Threshold a, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Cumulative development projects would be reviewed for consistency with adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies, including but not limited to the SLAG RTP/SCS, the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, and the RCMC, as applicable. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Even if cumulative development projects are in conflict, the project would not contribute to a cumulative impact and thus would not be cumulatively considerable because the project does not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing Oth 01 Vineyard Developmeni Project 50 CEQA Findings and Stalemoni ofGverddng CenelderaVons I. CEQA Findings the circulation system, as identified through the analysis presented in this section. As discussed under Threshold b, the project -generated VMT per service population does not exceed the City's baseline VMT per service population during Cumulative Year conditions; therefore, project -level impacts are less than significant. As for City -level impacts, Cumulative Year VMT per service population does not increase in the City or within a five -mile and 10-mile radius around the project site under Plus Project Conditions; therefore, city -level impacts are less than significant on a cumulative basis. As further discussed in Section 4.14 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the projected employment generation resulting from the project is within the total number of jobs projected by the current SCAG RTP/SCS and is consistent with the underlying employment assumptions upon which the current RTP/SCS was based. As such, the projects contribution to cumulative impacts for VMT is less than significant. The project would have less -than -significant impacts related to hazards from design or incompatible uses during construction and operation, and with respect to emergency access, with adherence to applicable regulations. None of the cumulative projects listed on Table 3-1, Cumulative Projects List, and shown on Figure 3-1, Cumulative Projects, are at a location that would otherwise result in potentially cumulative impacts related to hazards from design or incompatible uses. Additionally, each cumulative project would be required to comply with applicable regulations related to the use of designated truck routes for construction and operation, and emergency access which are in place to ensure impacts are less than significant. Thus, the project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts for these issues, when considered with the cumulative projects that are planned, proposed, or under construction in the vicinity of the project site. Utilities and Service Systems New or Expanded Facilities Threshold: Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.18-11 and 4.18-12) Rationale: Water. The project includes new connections to existing water utility infrastructure in the project area and water plans would be designed, and laterals constructed, to meet the requirements of CVWD and the RCMC. The proposed water main, laterals, fire water lines, and hydrants would be installed during project construction and within the disturbance area of the project; therefore, the construction of these infrastructure improvements would not substantially 9fhand Vineyard ©eveloomentProject 51 CEOAFindinsand Statement otoverridingConsiderations -I. CEQAFindings increase the project's disturbance area, associated emissions, or otherwise cause significant environmental effects beyond those identified throughout this document. As described in Impact UTiL-2, the project would be served by existing and planned CVWD supplies, which are not anticipated to,require major CVWD treatment or distribution facility improvements. In addition, CVWD provided a will serve letter, dated February 19, 2019, (Appendix M) for the proposed project, stating CVWD would have adequate supply of water available to meet minimum fire flow requirements as established by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. Therefore, impacts with respect to new or expanded water facilities would be less than, significant. Wastewater Treatment. As with water supply facilities, the project's connections to existing wastewater utility infrastructure in the project area and sewer plans would be designed, and laterals constructed, to meet the requirements of CVWD and the RCMC. CVWD provided a will serve letter, dated February 13, 2019, anticipating the existing sewer system and sewage treatment plant capacity would be adequate for the proposed project. CVWD collects wastewater but does not treat or dispose of wastewater. Wastewaterwould be collected by CVWD's local collection system and treated by two IEUA regional wastewater treatment plants, RP-1 and RP-4. RP-1 has a wastewater treatment capacity of 44 MGD whereas RP-4 has a wastewater treatment capacity of 14 MGD (CVWD 2021). Both wastewater treatment facilities' capacities are considered more than adequate to treat all increases in wastewater generation for build out of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Therefore, the increase in wastewater generated by the project would be minimal and adequately served by the existing wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts related to wastewater treatment would be less than significant. Storm Water Drainage. Cucamonga Creek exists in the northeastern portion of the project site. Two ditches were observed on the project site, neither of the ditches directly convey flow into Cucamonga Creek per field observation and aerial photograph review. Project construction would be required to comply with any applicable development regulations, including the NPDES permit, SWPPP, and WQMP. The project would utilize the storm drain lateral that would drain to the 66 to 78- inch storm drain improvement, which is being processed separately pursuant to CEQA and NEPA. The project applicant has received environmental clearance under NEPA from the ACOE for the 66 to 78-inch storm drain improvement, and a CEQA exemption is currently underway for approval by the City. Construction of the storm drain improvement will occur prior to implementation of the proposed project. The storm drain improvements would increase the efficiency of the drainage infrastructure in that area and provide an updated conveyance system. As with water and wastewater facilities, the storm drain infrastructure 41h and vinoyord Development Project 52 CEQA Findings and Statement of Oyordd ng Consldaralions I. CFQA Findings would be constructed within the disturbance area of the project and would not result insubstantial additional environmental impacts. Impacts to stormwater are further discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, Therefore, with compliance with all applicable regulations and statutes, impacts related to stormwater would be less than significant. Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications. The project would tie into the existing SCE lines to enable extension of services to the site, as described in SCE's will serve letter, dated March 9, 2019 (refer to Appendix M of the Recirculated Draft EIR). Although some new utility infrastructure would be required for the project, extension of services is not anticipated to require the construction of any new off -site power facilities to serve the project. At most, it is anticipated that SCE would provide more electricity to the project site compared to the existing electrical service. SoCalGas would provide natural gas service to the project site, as described in SoCalGas' will serve letter, dated February 15, 2019 (refer to Appendix M of the Recirculated Draft EIR). Similarto electrical service, natural gas lines exist in the project site and surrounding area. As discussed in Section 4.6, Energy, the project would increase electricity and natural gas demand on the project site. However, such increased demand would account for a minimal fraction of SCE's and SoCalGas'total demand in the region. The nominal increase in energy demand is not anticipated to require additional electricity substations or natural gas storage/transmission facilities beyond those currently serving the project area. It is not anticipated that new or expanded gas supply facilities would be required to service the site. A cell tower exists on the project site and, would remain. Furthermore, the applicant has received "will serve" letters from Frontier and Charter communications, SoCalGas Company, and SCE. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Water Supplies Threshold: Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.18-12 — 4.18-1S) Rationale: Construction of the project is assumed to begin in January 2025 and finish in November 2025. Water would be required for temporary construction activities on the project site, including dust suppression, grading and grubbing, compaction, construction equipment wheel washing, and concrete mixing and casting. Water consumption by construction workers and cleaning of portable toilets on the project site may also account for a small portion of overall construction water demand. 9thand Vineyard DevWopmenlProject 53 CEDAFindings and StatementofovenidngConsldera6ans I. CEQA Findings Watering for dust suppression would demand the most water during construction. Pursuant to the requirements of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 as described in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, all disturbed unpaved roads and disturbed areas within the project site would be watered approximately three times per day to reduce fugitive dust generation from construction activities. Construction water demand would be temporary and, therefore, would not result in a long-term strain on water supplies. Given the temporary and minimal nature of construction water demand as compared to operational water consumption, as well as the fact that CVWD would be able to restrict or require conservation measures for water intensive construction activities, impacts related to construction water consumption would be less than significant. Operational water use would consist of indoor and outdoor water use. Water demands for the project were estimated by multiplying the planned acreage of the developed site (45.97 acres of industrial warehouse development) by an industrial water use rate of 1,000 gallons per day per acre. The estimated water demand for the project is approximately 51 AFY. According to the supply and demand information summarized in the Recirculated Draft EIR, the project's water demand would be accounted for in each year and drought scenario. The project would not have a significant impact on CVWD's water projected supply. Therefore, impacts related to water supplies would be less than significant Wastewater Treatment Capacity Threshold: Would' the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.18-15 and 4.18-16) Rationale: The CVWD collects wastewater but does not treat or dispose of wastewater. Wastewater would be collected by CVWD's local collection system and treated by two IEUA regional wastewater treatment plants (RP), RP-1 and RP-4. RP-1 has a wastewater treatment capacity of 44 million gallons per day (MGD) whereas RP- 4 has a wastewater treatment capacity of 14 MGD (CVWD 2021). Both wastewater treatment facilities' capacities are considered more than adequate to treat all increases in wastewater generation for build out of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Therefore, the increase in wastewater generated by the project would be minimal and adequately served by the existing wastewater treatment facilities. impacts would be less than significant. 91h and Vineyard Revetopment Project 54 CEQA Findings and StatemenF of OveMding Cansiderations I. CEQA Findings Solid Waste Generation Threshold: Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.18-16) Rationale: Solid waste generated by the project's construction and operation would be collected by Burrtec in compliance with any applicable regulations. Solid waste produced in Rancho Cucamonga is primarily disposed at Mid -Valley Landfill which is currently operating at approximately 60 percent of permitted capacity (CalRecycle 2023). The project is estimated to generate approximately 923 cy of municipal solid waste per week. In compliance with State requirement, recycling would occur during the construction and operation phases of the project. Waste generation may vary greatly depending upon individual tenants. Any tenant involved in the production or generation of food products would be required to participate in a food waste recycling program -per AB 1826. Furthermore, the project tenants would pay standard collection and processing fees established by the City's franchise agreement with Burrtec. With payment of fees to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, adherence to applicable policies and regulations, and implementation of the project design feature listed above, impacts related to solid waste generation would be less than significant. Solid Waste Management and Regulations Threshold: Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Finding, Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.19-16 and 4.19-17) Rationale: The project would comply with applicable local, State, and federal management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The handling of all debris and waste generated during construction of the project would be subject to CALGreen requirements and AB 939 requirements for salvaging, recycling, and reuse of materials from construction activity on the project site. For operational waste, AB 939 requires all cities and counties to divert a minimum of 50 percent of all solid waste from landfills. Additional solid waste policies and regulations for customers and collectors are provided in the RCMC. The RCMC also establishes the City's authorization to conduct inspections and investigations of solid waste and recycling collection containers, facilities, and related vehicles. The project would furthermore comply with the City's various recycling programs outlined in the General Plan. With compliance with 91h and Vtleyard Davelapment Project 55 CEOA Flndings and Statement of Ovenlding Consldemdons t. CEQA Findings the applicable local, State, and federal regulations and policies, the impacts related to solid waste would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.18-17 and 4.18-18) Rationale: The cumulative development includes 10 residential, mixed -use, and industrial land use projects within the one -mile radius of the project site. Although there are potential impacts associated with off -site utility construction, these impacts are temporary in nature and typical of municipal utility construction. Additionally, these impacts are generally localized and would be staggered rather than occur simultaneously to avoid significant cumulative impacts from the construction of multiple projects. The following analysis evaluates potential impacts related to utilities and service systems under a cumulative development scenario from operation of multiple projects. As discussed, the project would not cause a cumulatively considerable impact on utilities and service systems. Water. Cumulative development in the CVWD service area would continue to increase demands on water supplies. However, this anticipated increase in demand is based on planned and pending future development included in the 2020 CVWD UWMP, and therefore, a portion of the cumulative water demand associated with these projects are already accounted for in CVWD's demand projections. Furthermore, future projects would be required to obtain service commitments from CVWD prior to construction. As such, cumulative impacts related to water would be less than significant. Wastewater Treatment. Planned, pending, and reasonably foreseeable development would continue to increase demands on the existing wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities in these treatment plant's service areas. However, RP-1 and RP-4 wastewater treatment facilities' capacities are considered more than adequate to treat all increases in wastewater generation for, build out of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan. Furthermore, future projects would be required to obtain commitments from CVWD to provide wastewater treatment services prior to construction, which would be dependent on remaining treatment capacity at the RP-1 and RP-4 plants. Cumulative impacts associated with wastewater services would be less than significant. Storm Water Drainage_Cumulative impacts to stormwater/drainage facilities are discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrologyand WaterQuality. Individual projects would be subject to the stormwater capture and treatment requirements of the applicable MS4 Permit, reducing potential impacts to stormwater drainage facilities. Therefore, cumulative impacts to stormwater/drainage facilities would be less than significant. nth and Vineyard Cavalopment ProjerA CEQA Findings and statement of Cvenldlq Considerations I. CEQA Solid Waste. Cumulative development served solely by the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill waste -shed would result in increased solid waste generation. However, the Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill has a daily permitted capacity of 7,500 tons/day, a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cy and is operating at approximately 60 percent of permitted capacity (CalRecycle 2023). In addition, all development would comply with applicable solid waste regulations and General Plan policies that would maintain or improve upon solid waste diversion rates. Other cities in the region are also subject to solid waste diversion requirements and implementation of waste diversion programs and policies to meet State - mandated solid waste diversion rates. Given the nominal fraction of annual throughput accounted for by the project and local, regional, and statewide efforts to improve solid waste diversion rates, cumulative impacts to solid waste facilities would be less than significant. Electricity. Natural Gas, and Telecommunications. Cumulative impacts with respect to electric power and natural gas facilities are discussed in Section 4.6, Energy, of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Cumulative development projects would be subject to applicable local, regional, State, and federal policies regarding energy efficiency, in turn reducing the need for new or expanded electrical and natural gas facilities. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative telecommunications impacts would be limited to the geographic scope of the City of Rancho Cucamonga because local providers are responsible for providing adequate telecommunication infrastructure to all land uses within Rancho Cucamonga, including the project site. As discussed under Impact UTIL-1, the project applicant has received "will serve" letters from Frontier and Charter communications, .as well as SoCalGas and SCE. Project infrastructure improvements would occur within the disturbance area of the project and would not result in significant impacts. Cumulative development would increase demand for telecommunications infrastructure in Rancho Cucamonga. However, cumulative projects would each be required to provide adequate telecommunications infrastructure upgrades on a project -by -project basis in compliance with Title 7, Telecommunications Regulations, of the RCMC, and would be subject to the appropriate level of project -specific environmental review. As with the project, such upgrades would typically be expected to occur within the development footprints of other cumulative projects. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to telecommunications infrastructure would be less than significant. Wildfire Emergency Response/Evacuation Pllans Threshold: If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 91h and Vineyard Development Project 57 CECA Findings and Stalementaf Overriding Considerallons i. CEQA Findings Finding: Less Than significant (Recirculated Draft 61R, Pages4.19-10 and 4.19-11) Rationale: According to CAL FIRE's FHSZ Viewer, the project site and its adjacent area are not located within any type of identified FHSZ (CAL FIRE 2023). The nearest VHFHSZ in an SRA is approximately 4.7 miles north of the project site, whereas the nearest VHFHSZ in a LRA is located approximately three miles northwest of the project site. CAL FIRE currently identifies the project site as a non-VHFHSZ site in an LRA. Moreover, the project would be serviced by the Fire District, who is responsible for providing diverse emergency management and response programs. The nearest fire station that would respond to emergency calls at the project site would be Fire District Station #172, which is located approximately 1.3 miles northeast from the project site. The project site would have multiple points of ingress/egress — one driveway on 9th Street and two driveways on Vineyard Avenue. The project would not alter or impact any emergency access roads or evacuation routes as identified in the LHMP. The project site is in a fully developed area with improved streets and emergency routes. Furthermore, the project applicant would be required to construct minimal off -site improvements or pay development fees towards future improvements, as described in Section 4.16, Transportotion, that would further improve emergency access to the site and adjacent properties. As described.in.the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR's transportation section, the City has adopted standards related to emergency accessibility. Additionally, the fire department reviews all development applications to ensure that adequate emergency accessibility is provided based on local and State guidance. Compliance with the requirements for emergency lane width, vertical clearance, and distance would ensure that adequate emergency access is available for all new development and redevelopment projects. As previously noted, the project site is within an existing developed area of the city where roadways already exist, therefore no new roadways are required. Construction and operation of the project is not expected to create risks of wildfire since the site is in an urbanized area of the city and is not adjacent to wildland area. The construction and removal of brush and trees as well as grasses would limit the potential for wildlife spreading by removal of source materials. Due to multiple points of ingress/egress, quick response times, building designs compliant with State, regional, and local codes, and the project's location outside of any type of FHSZ, the project would not interfere with Fire District's emergency response and evacuation plans. Impacts would be less than significant. Pollutant Concentrations Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very Nigh fire hazard severity zones, would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire orthe uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? 9thand Vineyard Covelopme.,llProjert 58 CEQAFindngSOndStatemaMof0venidngConsidoradons I. M A Fink,, dins: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4,19-11 Rationale: The project site and its adjacent area are not located within any type of identified FHSZ. The site has a generally flat to gentle, one percent slope and is not located in areas with steep slopes that could accelerate the spread of wildfire, and the site would be cleared of the trees on -site that could experience a crown fire. A new landscape plan would be reviewed by the City and the Fire District, and landscaping would be installed and regularly maintained. The project site could experience high winds from the east, that could create a greater wildfire risk for the structures on site. However, the project site is predominantly surrounded by existing development including industrial, commercial, and residential uses that would slow wind speeds and reduce the potential for uncontrolled spread of a wildfire during a high wind event. Furthermore, the proposed warehouse structures would be predominantly concrete, which is not typically susceptible to fire. Specifically, the warehouses would be built consistentwith the CBC requiring new buildings to use ignition -resistant construction methods and materials as well as having a fire suppression system, which includes built-in sprinklers, to reduce the risk and spread of a fire. Due to the presence of surrounding development; presence of area roadways; lack of steep slopes; compliance with State, regional, and local codes for building construction and design; and the project's location outside of any type of FHSZ, it is not likely that the project site or future occupants would be affected by the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire and associated pollutant concentrations during construction or operation. Therefore, impacts associated with exacerbated wildfire risks and related pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. Infrastructure Risks Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Finding: Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page4.19-12) Rationale: The project site and its adjacent area are not located within any type of identified FHSZ and the project site is not located near the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The project would comply with State, regional, and local codes for building construction and design and, due to the development urban environment surrounding the site, would not require installation heavy infrastructure to accommodate the project, such as roads. The project does not include any fuel breaks and does not require a fuel break. In addition, emergency water sources are not required beyond the water supply needed to comply with applicable 91h and Vineyard Devel pmenl ProjecL 59 CEQAFndings and Stalement of Overriding Considerations I. CEQA Flndings building codes. Therefore, impacts associated with exacerbated wildfire risks from implementation of project components would be less than significant. Runoff Risks Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.19-12 and 4.19-13) Rationale: The project site and its adjacent area are not located within any type of identified FHSZ and the project site is not located near the WUI. Furthermore, the site has a generally flat to gentle, one percent slope and is not located in areas with steep slopes that would be subject to landslides due to post -fire slope instability. Development of the project would alter existing ground contours of the project site and would increase the impervious surface area on the site, all of which would result in changes to the existing drainage patterns interior to the site. Based on a review of FEMA map panels, the majority of the project site is not located in a documented flood plain or floodway. The eastern portion of the project site is within Zone X, which indicates a 0.2 percent annual chance of flood hazard. The southern border of the project site and Cucamonga Creek, which borders the northeast corner of the project site, are located within Zone A, which denotes areas that have a one percent annual chance of flooding but do not have base flood elevations. In addition, Figure S-5 of the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan Safety chapter shows that the eastern portion of the project site is in a Moderate Flood Hazard Area (500-year flood plain) but that it is protected by a levee (the concrete walls of the flood channel). The project would utilize the 66 to 78-inch storm drain improvement along the southern boundary with a new outfall structure to connect the storm drain system to the concrete -lined Cucamonga Creek. The storm drain improvement would run in the ground to receive stormwater discharge from the project and historical stormwater discharge from the adjacent properties northwest of the project site, which would minimize the potential for off -site runoff and downstream flooding. Therefore, impacts associated with significant risks from wildfires due to runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Finding: less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.19-13 and 4.19-14) Rationale: Cumulative impacts related to wildfire risks could occur as new development, redevelopment, and existing uses are ongoing within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, particularly within or adjacent to FHSZs. As discussed in this section, glh and Vineyard 6evolopment Project 60 C_QA F ridings and Statement of Ovenidhq Cmsidoratims [. CEQA Findings the project is not located within or near any type of FHSZ. The nearest VHFHSZ in an SRA is approximately 4.7 miles north of the project site, whereas the nearest VHFHSZ in a• LRA is located approximately three miles northwest of the project site. CAL FIRE currently identifies the project site as a non-VHFHSZ site in an LRA (CAL FIRE 2023). Moreover, the project would not interfere with the Fire District's emergency response and evacuation plans or otherwise exacerbate risks from wildland fires due to the project site's urban location, gentle topography, and compliance with State, regional, and local regulations for building construction and design components. As with the proposed project, development occurring within the City of Rancho Cucamonga would be subject to review by the City and Fire District for compliance with the minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression features (e.g., fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes) identified by State, regional, and local codes. Due to the project's location outside of any FHSZ and required compliance of all development in the city with State, regional, and local regulations, the project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to wildfire risks would be less than significant. 2. Findings on Potential Significant Environmental Impacts That Can Be Reduced to a Less -than -Significant Level with Mitigation The City has analyzed each of the following potential impacts and, after due consideration of substantial evidence contained in the EIR and the administrative record and based upon its independent judgment, finds that each potential significant impact has been reduced to a level of less than significant through project design or mitigation measures adopted as part of the project and implemented through the MMRP. These findings are based on the analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts for the environmental considerations included in Sections 4.1 through 4.19 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, and further discussed in Section 2 of the Final EIR, Response to Comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR. An explanation of the rationale for each finding is presented in the following discussion. Additional details on the timing and implementation of the mitigation measures are included in the MMRP. Biological Resources Sensitive Species Threshold: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.4-13 and 4.4-14) Rationale: The vegetation present on the project site could provide nesting habitat for Cooper's Hawk and nesting birds, whose eggs, nests, and nestlings are protected 9lhand Vineyard nevalopmontProject 61 CEOAFindings end Statement olOverdoing Consideradons I. CEQ4 Findings by federal and State law. The project could directly (e.g., vegetation removal) and indirectly (e.g., construction noise and motion) affect nesting of these species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level by conducting construction, demolition, and other project -related activities, including vegetation removal and ground disturbance, outside of the bird breeding season (February 1 through August 31); conducting a nesting bird pre -construction survey if construction, demolition, or project -related activities occur during bird breeding season; creating an avoidance buffer if nests are found on the project site, and submitting a survey report to the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. Cumulative Impacts Finding: less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft FIR, Pages 44-16 and 4.4-17) Rationale: The project, in conjunction with other planned and pending projects in the project site vicinity, would cumulatively increase the potential to impact biological resources. In the event that biological resources are encountered, each individual projectwould be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements and mitigate any potential impacts to resources on the individual project site. The following factors are considered with respect to analyzing cumulative impacts to biological resources: ■ The cumulative contribution of other approved and proposed projects to fragmentation of open space in the project vicinity ■ The loss of sensitive habitats and species ■ The contribution of the project to urban expansion into natural areas • Isolation of open space in the vicinity by proposed/future projects Potential impacts of the project would be reduced to a less -than -significant level due to implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 that would address potential impacts to migratory and nesting birds, in addition to Cooper's hawk. Compliance with CEQA requirements by individual projects, including the implementation of recommendations provided in project -specific biological resources studies, on all new development would ensure that impacts are addressed and mitigated to the extent feasible. In the event that biological resources are encountered, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements to determine and mitigate any potential impacts to the extent feasible. Such recommendations may include nesting bird surveys, preconstruction surveys, avoidance measures and/or other measures determined to be necessary based on the situation. In 'addition, all projects 9thand Vineyard Development Project 62 CEQAFinringsand Statement e[OvarddingCensiderations I. CEQA located within a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan would be required to adhere to that plan. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant. Cultural Resources Historical Resources Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.5-13 — 4.5-15) Rationale: There is one historical resource located on the project site, pursuant to CEQA, the Baker House. The construction of three warehouses within the project site would not result in. the material impairment of the Balser House resulting from alterations to its setting. The proposed warehouse buildings appear sufficiently set back from the Baker House such that they would not significantly alter its current setting. Additionally, as a historical resource that is significant for its architecture, the setting of the Baker House is not essential to the resource's ability to convey its significance. Rather the building conveys its significance via its character -defining features, none of which would be altered by the construction of the warehouses. Additionally, the proposed warehouses would be, differentiated from the Baker House by featuring contemporary designs and materials. As recommended in the SOI Standards, the contemporary design and materials of the proposed warehouse buildings would prevent the project from creating a false sense of historical development. The project plans include conceptual designs for the rehabilitation of the Baker House. The rehabilitation plans for the Baker House are included as part of the entitlement application for the proposed project through the request for a CofA and the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement includes the rehabilitation plans for conversion of the Baker House into a City -owned community center for the benefit of the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the CofA requires that the final conceptual design be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission and final approval is provided by the Planning Director. The Conceptual Design Package includes three proposed concepts (Concept 1, Concept 2, and Concept 3) for the rehabilitation of the Baker House into a community center. Each concept consists of a proposed interior layout including the following elements: a kitchen, office, great room, restroom, and accessible restroom. Each concept also includes a proposed site plan for the area immediately surrounding the Baker House that integrates the following elements not historically or currently present within the project site: playground, community garden, outdoor event space, and parking. 9Eh And Vineyard beveloprnent Project 63 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations i. CEQA Findings Generally, a project that is found to comply with the SOl Standards is considered to be mitigated below a level of significance in accordance with CEQA. The S0l Standards for Rehabilitation, which is most applicable to the :proposed project, allow for the alteration of a historical resource to make possible a compatible use while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values (Grimmer 2017). None of the concepts propose the alteration of the character -defining features of the residence's exterior or its site, for example its massing or concrete rubble walls. Ratner, implementation of the concepts would primarily result in the incorporation of several new elements, for example, incorporation of a playground and community garden into the area surrounding the residence to support its new use as a community center. As its character -defining features would not be altered, this portion of the project appears in compliance with the S0l Standards as presented in all three concepts and none would result in the material impairment of the exterior of the Baker House. Despite conceptual compliance with the 501 Standards, the current concepts are still in their preliminary stages and will be further refined. Accordingly, they do not provide detailed treatment methods for those character -defining features that would be affected or dictate replacement materials orfinishes that may need repair or replacement. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUE.-2, and CUL-3 would ensure that the project remains -in compliance with the SO] Standards as it progresses through design and construction phases, require the development of a Mothballing Plan, and the preparation of an on -site interpretive display with a history of the Baker House. Implementation of the mitigation measures would ensure any potential direct or indirect impacts to the historical resource on the project stie would remain less than significant. Therefore, potential impacts related to historical resources -would be reduced to,a less than significant level. Archaeological Resources Threshold: -Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation, Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.5-15 and 4.5-16) Rationale: No archaeological resources were identified within the project site based on the records search results with a one -mile radius, the assessment of historical imagery, and the pedestrian survey. Background research indicates the project site has been heavily disturbed due to the construction of seven buildings, a cell tower, other associated structures, and landscaping, which are all no longer extant except the Baker House. 9thand Virwyard0avalcpmaniProj0cl 64 CEOAFindirgsand StateffmMor0varrtdingConsideratlons f. CEQA Findings Given the negative results of the records search for prehistoric and historic archaeological resources and the level of previous disturbance, the project site is considered to have low archaeological sensitivity. However, it is possible that unanticipated archaeological deposits could be encountered and damaged during the ground -disturbing activities associated with construction (such as grading and excavation for utilities), especially if those activities occur in less - disturbed buried sediments. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-4 would avoid significant direct impacts to archaeological resources to the maximum extent feasible through the evaluation of archaeological resources in the event of an unanticipated discovery. Therefore, potential impacts related to archaeological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Cumulative Impacts Findine: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.3-25 — 4.3-26) Rationale: The proposed project, in conjunction with other nearby past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects in the region could adversely impact cultural resources. Cumulative development in the region would continue to disturb areas with the potential to contain historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains. For other developments that would have significant impacts on cultural resources, similar conditions and mitigation measures described herein would be imposed on those other developments consistent with the requirements of CECLA, along with requirements to comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing said resources. The proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative projects in the vicinity of the project site, has the potential to result in significant cumulative impacts to historical resources, unknown archaeological resources, and human remains. However, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL 3, NOI-3, and CUL-4 to reduce or minimize the potential impacts to historical resources and unknown archaeological resources. These mitigation measures ensure that the Baker House would be rehabilitated in compliance with the 501 Standards and identify the steps to be taken if unanticipated cultural resources are encountered. Similarly, cumulative projects are reviewed separately by the appropriate jurisdiction and undergo environmental review when it is determined that the potential for significant impacts exists. In the event that future cumulative projects would result in impacts to cultural resources, impacts to such resources would be addressed on a case -by -case basis, and would likely be subject to mitigation measures similar to those imposed for the proposed project. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. After implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, CUL-3, NOI-3, and CUL-4, the proposed project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. 9lhandVineyard DevelopmantPro;act 65 CEQAFndingsand Stamm atOvenidingCansdemftns i, CEQA Findings The proposed project and cumulative projects would involve ground disturbing activities which could encounter human remains. If human remains are found, the proposed project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, as described in Impact CUL-3, above. With adherence to existing regulations relating to human remains, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the proposed project's impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Geology and Sails Unstable Soils Threshold: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Finding. Less Than Significant (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.7-12 and 4.7-13) Rationale: Lateral spreading is a liquefaction -related phenomenon; as there is no risk of liquefaction, there would be no risk of lateral spreading. Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground, usually associated with the extraction of oil, gas, or ground water from below the ground surface, or the organic decomposition of peat deposits, with a resultant loss in volume. Based on the results of the laboratory testing conducted during preparation of the project's geotechniical investigation, over excavation and recompaction of the loose to dense near -surface soils, extending to depths of approximately three to six feet, is estimated to result in an average shrinkage of five to 12 percent. Minor ground subsidence is expected to occur in the soils below the zone of removal, due to settlement and machinery working. The subsidence is estimated to be approximately 0.1 feet. The native soils that would remain in place below the recommended depth of over excavation would not be subject to significant stress increases from the foundations-ofthenew structures. Therefore, following completion of the recommended remedial grading, post - construction settlements are expected to be within tolerable limits, Grading of the project site would be performed in accordance with the City's building and grading standards and recommendations outlined in the project's geotechnical investigation (Appendix F-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR) and included in Mitigation Measure GEO-1. The project site was found to contain artificial fills at depths of up to eight feet belowthe ground level and native alluvial soils at least 25 feet belowground level. Appendix F-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR shows each boring and trenching locations on the project site. The artificial fill soils were observed at all but three locations during the site study, which were found to possess various levels of strength and density under testing. However, some of the artificial fill materials were found to be prone to hydrocollapse once exposed to water. It was 9th and Vineyard t7evelopmanl Project 66 CEQA Rndings and Statomen! of Over!iding Consldelyd1005 I, CEQA Findings concluded that the artificial fill materials would not be suitable to support the proposed structures. The native alluvial soils were also found to possess varied strength and density levels. Remedial grading has been recommended as described in Mitigation Measure GEO-1, to replace the near -surface native alluvial soils with compacted structural fill soils. The native soils that would be left in place after the remedial grading would not be subject to significantly increased stress levels from the foundations of the proposed structures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would avoid significant direct impacts to unstable soils to the maximum extent feasible through implementation of the recommendations- included in the geotechnical report prepared for the project. Therefore, potential impacts related to unstable soils would be reduced to a less than significant level. Paleontological Resources Threshold: Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.7-14 and 4.7-15) Rationale: Paleontological resources are nonrenewable and are vulnerable to impacts from development related activities. Fossils provide important information for our understanding of past environments, the history of life, past species diversity, how species respond to climate change, and many other lines of scientific inquiry. Impacts to fossils and fossil localities, and loss of fossils from looting or other destructive activity at fossil sites results in the direct loss of scientific data and directly impacts the ability to conduct scientific research on evolutionary patterns and geological processes. Construction and grading activities associated with any development that will impact previously undisturbed, paleontologically sensitive geologic deposits have the potential for the destruction of significant paleontological resources. According to the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan EIR, research performed atthe Natural hlistoryMuseum of Los Angeles County indicates that the bulk of Rancho Cucamonga consists of surficial sedimentary or metamorphic rocks that are unlikely to contain. significant vertebrate fossils; however, there may be sedimentary deposits at a greater depth. The presence of sedimentary units known to contain fossil materials indicates that there is a potential for encountering unidentified paleontological resources during project construction. Although no significant paleontological resources are expected to occur, the project applicant would utilize the services of a project paleontologist in the case of any inadvertent discoveries. 9lhand Vineyard Development Froject 67 CEQAFindhgsand statement orovomdingConsidoratians I. CEQA Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level through the evaluation of paleontological resources in the event of an unanticipated discovery. Therefore, potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be reduced to a less than significant level. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.7-15 and 4.7-16) Rationale: Geology and soils impacts are generally site -specific and there is typically little, if any, cumulative relationship between the development of a project and development within a larger cumulative area (e.g., City-wide development). However, development of the project and future development in Rancho Cucamonga may expose more persons to seismic hazards. Compliance of individual projects with the recommendations of the applicable geotechnical investigation would prevent hazards associated with unstable soils, landslide potential, lateral spreading, liquefaction, soil collapse, expansive soil, soil erosion, and other geologic issues. The project, in conjunction with cumulative development, including projects implementing the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan, could lead to accelerated degradation of previously unknown paleontological resources. However, each development proposal received by the City undergoes environmental review and would be subject to the same resource protection requirements as the project as outlined in the Rancho Cucamonga General Plan and Rancho- Cucamonga General Plan EIR, If there is a potential for significant impacts on paleontological resources, an investigation would be required to determine the nature and extent of the resources and to identify appropriate mitigation measures, including requirements such as those identified in this section (refer to Mitigation Measure GEO-2). The project Includes measures to identify, recover, and/or record any paleontological resource that may occur within the project limits resulting in less - than -significant impacts. Based on the foregoing, the project's contribution to cumulative geology and soils impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Generation Threshold: Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.8-15 -- 4.8-17) 9thand VineywdDevelopment Project 6$ CEQAFfndingsand Statement olQvenidngComidera-ions I. CE3AA Findinos Rationale: Construction facilitated by the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from the operation of construction equipment on -site, as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site, and heavy trucks to transport building, concrete, and asphalt materials. Construction associated with the project. would generate 1,114 MT of COZe. Amortized over a 30-year period, construction associated with the project would generate 37 MT Of COze per year. Operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions associated with area sources (e.g., landscape maintenance), energy and water usage, vehicle trips, wastewater and solid waste generation, and off -road equipment operated at the project site (e.g., forklifts, yard hoppers). When combined with amortized construction emissions, the project would result in 7,209 MT of COze per year. Therefore, the project would not exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold of 10,000 MT of COZe per year for industrial projects. The determination of whether project -generated GHG emissions would have a significant impact on the environment is based on whether the applicable SCAQMD screening threshold is exceeded, in addition to consistency with the CAP Measures Consistency Checklist. The project would be inconsistent with the Consistency Checklist Strategies 1.2,1.4, and 1.6. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce potential GHG impacts to a less than significant level through the implementation of all applicable CAP measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the project is consistent with all criteria set forth in the CAP Measures Consistency Checklist. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Emission Reduction Plans Threshold: Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Findin : Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. (Recirculated Draft EIR, Appendix B, Pages 4.8-17 — 4.8-23) Rationale: The proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan's emission reduction zones goals through project design, which includes achieving LEER certification and complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards. In addition, the proposed project would allocate 13 EV charging stations and 60 EV ready parking spaces, and would be served by Southern California Edison, which is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SS 100 targets. The project is an Hill development that would not convert natural lands and would contribute to the job and housing balance. In addition, the project site would implement 18 bicycle parking spaces to promote alternative modes of transportation. The project would not obstruct or interfere with efforts to increase ZEVs or State efforts to 9lh and Vineyard Development Project 69 CEQA Findings and Statement of Oveniding Considerahns !. CEQA Findings improve system efficiency. The project would also benefit from implementation of the State programs for ZEVs and goods movement efficiencies that reduce future GHG emissions from trucks. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the State's long-term climate goals of carbon neutrality by 2045. The proposed project would also be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-204S RTP/SCS. The proposed project would conflict with Rancho Cucamonga's CAP due to the proposed project design features, such as the use of diesel fueled machinery and vehicles during construction and operation of the proposed project and an insufficient number of EV Installed parking spaces. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would reduce potential GHG impacts to a less than significant level through the implementation of all applicable CAP measures. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would ensure that the project is consistent with all criteria set forth in the CAP Measures Consistency Checklist. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Cumulative impacts Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.8-24 and 4.8-24) Rationale: GHG emissions and climate change are, by definition, cumulative impacts. The geographic scope for considering cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions is the state of California. GHG emissions impacts are assessed in a cumulative context since no single project can cause a discernible change to the climate. Therefore, cumulative significance is based on the same thresholds as the proposed project. For this project, the most directly applicable adopted regulatory plans to reduce GHG emissions are the 2022 Scoping Plan, 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, Plan RC 2040, and City's CAP. As discussed in Impact GHG-1, project GHG emissions would be approximately 7,209 MT of COZe per year. In addition, as discussed in Impact GHG-2, the proposed projectwould be consistent with the statewide and regional plans by including a photovoltaic system and energy conservation measures consistent with the latest Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Part 6) and Green Building Standards (Part 11). Furthermore, the proposed project would be an infill development that would not covert natural lands and would contribute to the job and housing balance. The project site would implement 18 bicycle parking spaces, which would promote alternative modes of transportation for residential uses within half a mile of the project site. These project design features, in addition to the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, would ensure consistency with the City's CAP, which is the most applicable local plan for GHG impacts. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Sthand VlnoyardDevelopment Praject 70 CECAFindings and StatementafOvenldfngCansldotaftns 1. CEQA Findings State, regional, and local plans. Thus, based on the CEQA Guidelines for determining the significance of GHG emissions, while cumulative impacts are significant, the proposed project's contribution would not be considerable. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Accident or Upset Threshold: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Finding: less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.9-21— 4.9-23) Rationale: Construction of the project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials onsite and offsite, which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a mannerthat would pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure project construction would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Phase I ESA indicated there were two historical recognized environmental concerns (HRECs) (as defined by ASTM Practice E 1S27-13) and five potential hazardous observed environmental findings (DEFs) identified in association with the Project site that required additional' investigation. Therefore, a Phase II Investigation was conducted, which concluded pollutant concentrations found in soil associated with the HRECs and OEFS were below applicable screening levels with the exception of one sample (Boring 13-8) located outside of the Merchant Landscape building. Boring B-8 contained a concentration -of naphthalene that marginally exceeded the industrial DTSC screening level. As a result, further sampling was conducted around Boring B-8, which determined. that soil impacts are highly localized and do not extend beyond the visible staining -at Boring B-8. To minimize potential impacts associated -with the accidental release of hazardous materials (known or unknown) into the environment, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be implemented. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require preparation and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plan if the project has a threshold quantity of a regulated substance greater than as specified by the applicable health and safety code. Mitigation Measure HA7-2 would require that soil in the immediately vicinity of Boring B-8 shall be removed from the project site, as defined in the Soil Management Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. 9th and Vineyard Vevoiopment project 71 CEOA Findings and Statement of Overrtding Considerations I. CEQA Findings Hazard Near Schools Threshold: Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.9-21 — 4.9-23 ) Rationale: Schools within one -quarter mile of the project site include: Children's Montessori School Preschool and Daycare Center, located approximately 140 feet northwest of the project site, on the northwest corner of Baker Avenue and Bowen Street; Chabad of the Inland Empire, located approximately 200 feet north of the project site, near the northeast corner of Baker Avenue and Bowen Street; San Antonio Christian School, located approximately 375 south of the project site on 8th Street; Los Amigos Elementary School is located approximately 410 feet northwest of the project site, on the northwest corner of 91h Street and Baker Avenue. Construction of the project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials onsite and offsite, which include fuels, paints, mechanical fluids, and solvents, but would not be present in such a quantity or used in such a manner that would pose a significant hazard to nearby schools. The routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials must adhere to federal, state, and local regulations for transport, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances, Compliance with the regulatory framework would ensure project construction would not create a significant hazard to nearby schools. The proposed uses under the project description do not include industrial uses that could generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities that would have an impact to surrounding schools. The types of hazardous materials that would be routinely handled would be limited to cleaners, paints, solvents, fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Additionally, the project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5.1 To minimize potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials (known or unknown) into the environment within 0.25-mile of a school, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be implemented. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require preparation and implementation of -a- Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plan if the project has a threshold quantity of a regulated substance greater than as specified by the applicable health and safety code. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require that soil in the immediately vicinity of Boring B-8 shall be removed from the project site, as 1 California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSCs Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List -Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: https:/Idtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-Cortese-list/. Accessed: October 28, 2019. Sth and Vineyard Development Project 72 CEOA Fhftngs and Statement of overr ding Considerations 1. CEQA Findings defined in the Soil Management Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Hazardous Material Sites Threshold: Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 63) Rationale: The Phase 1 ESA indicated there were two historical recognized environmental concerns (HRECs) (as defined by ASTM Practice E 1527-13) and five potential hazardous observed environmental findings (OEFs) identified in association with the Project site that required additional investigation. Therefore, a Phase II Investigation was conducted, which concluded pollutant concentrations found in soil associated with the HRECs and OEFs were below applicable screening levels with the exception of one sample (Boring B-8) located outside of the Merchant Landscape building. Boring B-8 contained a concentration of naphthalene that marginally exceeded the industrial DTSC screening level. As a result, further sampling was conducted around Boring B-8, which determined that soil impacts are highly localized and do not extend beyond the visible staining at Boring B-8. The proposed uses under the project description do not include industrial uses that could generate hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste in significant quantities that would have an impact to surrounding schools. The types of hazardous materials that would be routinely handled would be limited to cleaners, paints, solvents, fertilizers and pesticides for site landscaping. Additionally, the project site is not included on the hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5.2 To minimize potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials (Known or unknown) into the environment within 0.25-mile of a school, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would be implemented. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would require preparation and implementation of a Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plan if the project has a threshold quantity of a regulated substance greater than as specified by the applicable health and safety code. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require that soil in the immediately vicinity of Boring B-8 shall be removed from the project site, as defined in the Soil Management Plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, impacts associated with the accidental release of Californla, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, OTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List- SAe Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: https://dtsc.ca,govldtscs•cortese-list/. Accessed: October 28, 2019, 9thand VineysrdDavax3pr entProject 73 CEOAFindings and StatementafovemdogConsidwati= t. CEQA Frndtrlgs hazardous materials during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.9-25) Rationale: Planned and pending projects in Rancho Cucamonga and Ontario include both residential and mixed -use projects. As discussed above, all.project impacts from hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant in consideration of compliance with existing laws, ordinances, regulations and standards, and implementation of EIR mitigation measures. Section 4.1% Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Recirculated Draft EIR discusses potential hazards related to dam failure and flooding. Impacts from wildfire are discussed in more detail in Section 4.19, Wildfire, of the Recirculated Draft EIR. Potential impacts of the project would be reduced to a less -than -significant level due to implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 that would safeguard construction workers and future operational employees from hazardous materials through the implementation of a Hazardous Materials Risk Management Plan, as well as the safe removal of contaminated soils though the Soil Remediatioh Plan, and compliance with FAA standards through FAA noticing. Impacts associated with hazardous materials are often site -specific and localized. The Recirculated Draft EIR evaluates environmental hazards in connection with the project site and surrounding area. Regarding the off -site environmental hazards, the database search documents the findings of various governmental database searches regarding properties with known or suspected releases of hazardous materials within a search radius of up to one mile from the site and serves as the basis for defining the cumulative impacts study area. Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would result from projects that combine to increase exposure to hazards and hazardous materials. The potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited since the impacts from hazardous materials use on site are site specific, Although some of the cumulative projects and other future projects associated with buildout of the surrounding communities also have potential impacts associated with hazardous materials, the environmental concerns associated with hazardous materials are typically site specific. It is expected that future development within the area would comply with all federal, State, and local statutes and regulations applicable to hazardous materials. As such, the project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to or from hazards or hazardous materials. In the event that hazardous materials are encountered or handled, each individual project would be required to comply with the applicable regulatory requirements to determine and mitigate any potential impacts. Such 91h and Vineyard Devalopment Project 74 CECtA Findings and Statement of Overriding Oonsidarations I. CEQA Findings recommendations may include soil management plans, soil sampling, and/or other measures determined to be necessary based on the situation. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to hazardous materials would be less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Water Quality Standards Threshold: Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation incorporated (Recirculated Draft OR, Pages 4.10-15 — 4.10-18) Rationale: Construction activities associated with the development of the project would have the potential to generate sediment/silt, debris, organic waste, chemicals, paints, and other solvents. The project's receiving water bodies (Cucamonga Creek Reach 1, Mill Creek Prado Area, Chino Creak Reach 1A, Santa Ana River Reach 3, and Prado Dam) are impaired by various pollutants. Pollutants of concern from construction -sites could impact these downstream water bodies and have the potential to contribute to the existing impairments. Without appropriate stormwater management, construction -site runoff would. enter adjacent storm drain lines and would contribute to pollutants in the stormwater. The project would be required to complywith the requirements and water quality standards outlined in the Construction General Permit. This permit requires the discharger to perform a risk assessment for the proposed development and to prepare and implement an SWPPP, which must include erosion control and sediment control BMPs, wind and water tracking controls, hazardous material management practices, and other site -management BMPs that meet or exceed measures required by the determined risk level of the Construction General Permit. A Construction -Site Monitoring Program that identifies monitoring and sampling requirements implemented by a qualified SWPPP practitioner during construction is also a requirement of the SWPPP, for applicable projects, including the proposed project. The project would also be required to implement Mitigation Measure HYD-1, which requires the project applicant to prepare and implement an erosion control plan. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, the project would not be anticipated to violate water quality standards during construction; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site consists of approximately 13.8 percent impervious surfaces associated with the existing historic residential building. The project would include redevelopment of the site with three warehouse buildings, and impervious surfaces would be increased to approximately 73.7 percent (Thienes 2019). The project would include impervious surfaces associated with buildings, 9thand Vineyard CevetopmsntNOJO& 75 CEQAFindingsand Statement of0verridingConsideraiions I. CKLA Findings parking areas, trash collection areas, and loading docks, and include outdoor activities associated with operations that may lead to release of pollutants (e.g., metals, oil and grease, trash and debris and pathogens [bacteria/viruses]) into stormwater. In addition, maintenance of landscaped areas may potentially contribute to nutrients, noxious aquatic plans, sediment/toxic suspended solids/pH, trash and debris, pesticides/herbicides, organic compounds (including solvents), and oxygen demanding compounds that may enter stormwater. These pollutants may lead to the degradation of stormwater quality in downstream water bodies. As such, the project would be required to complywith the applicable MS4 Permit, which specifies requirements for managing runoff water quality from new development and significant redevelopment projects. The project qualifies as a "Priority Project" therefore, a project -specific WQMP is required. A preliminary WQMP has been prepared for the project and is included in Appendix 14 of the Recirculated Draft EIR. The WQMP would be finalized based on the final design before approval of future grading permits. As described in the preliminary WQMP (Appendix 1-1 of the Recirculated Draft EIR), prior to project stormwater being discharged off -site into an existing public storm drain system, roof and surface stormwater runoff would be conveyed to on -site infiltration chambers for water quality treatment and no further site design source control BMPs are required (Thienes 2019). Development of the project would also have to comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's stormwater and Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Section 19.20 of the RCMC), which outlines regulations for allowable discharges into the storm,drainage system. This ordinance was developed in accordance with the NPDES Permit for San Bernardino County. Adherence to regulations addressing water quality during construction and operation of the project and implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 would prevent violations of water quality standards and the degradation of stormwater quality. Impacts would be less than significant. Erosion or Siltation Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a mannerwhich would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4.10-20) Rationale: The project would alter existing ground contours of the project site and install impervious surfaces, which result in changes to the site's existing internal Sth and Vineyard Development Project 76 CEDA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations I. CECA Findings drainage patterns. Although the project would alter the project site's internal drainage patterns, such changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Nonetheless, the project would be required to implement an SWPPP, WQMP, and erosion control plan to minimize potential water quality impacts due to erosion and siltation. The erosion control plan is described in Mitigation Measure HYD-1. Implementation of the project would also result in an increase in impervious surfaces at the site. The post -development total suspended soils concentrations are anticipated to be lower than existing conditions due to the reduction in exposed soils, and installation of BMPs, which would reduce suspended sediment in runoff. Furthermore, the project is required to comply with any applicable federal, State, regional, or local regulations in orderto reduce impacts in the form of siltation or erosion, and drainage patterns to the Santa Ana River Watershed would be maintained. in summary, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site, and impacts would be less than significant. Noise Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Noise Threshold: Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ; Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.13-23 — 4.13-25) Rationale: The project would generate additional truck trips on the surrounding roadway network. Caltrans has studied the effects of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that "heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest ear thborn vibrations of normal traffic." Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic -generated vibrations are along freeways and State routes. Their study finds that "vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (five meters from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 0.08 in/sec, with the worst combinations of heavy trucks and poor roadway conditions (while such trucks were moving at freeway speeds). This level coincides with the maximum recommended safe level for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings)" (Caltrans 2020). A vibration level of 0.08 in/sec corresponds to a readily perceptible human response (Caltrans 2020). Considering that 75 VdB corresponds to that same approximate distinctly perceptible response (FTA 2018), project operational vibration would not exceed the City's significance threshold of 85 VdB. Construction activities known to generate excessive groundborne vibration, such as pile driving, would not be used to construct the project. The greatest anticipated source of vibration during general project construction activities 9lhand VmoyardoevelopmentPrDjLct '77 CEOAFhdingsand 5tatemenlofOverddingConslderalons I, CEQA Findings would be from a vibratory roller, which could be used approximately 15 feet from the property line during construction to the nearest residential building to the north; within 25 feet of the Baker House to the west; and within 50 feet of the industrial buildings adjacent to the site. During grading activities, a large bulldozer would,generate a vibration level of approximately 0.352 in/sec PPV at the single family residence 10 feet to the north, which would exceed the threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV. During paving activities, a vibratory roller would generate,a vibration level of approximately 0.210 in/sec PPV at Baker House. Therefore, construction. vibration impacts would be potentially significant. �I implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce potential li construction noise impacts to a less than significant level through the implementation of a Construction Vibration Control Plan. Cumulative Impacts Finding: less Than Significant with -Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.13-25 and 4.3-26) Rationale: Cumulative noise assessment considers development of the project in combination with ambient growth and development projects within the vicinity of the project site. As discussed in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting, there are several cumulative project sites in the city. Noise from construction of development projects is typically localized and has the potential to affect noise - sensitive uses within approximately 500 feet from the construction site. Thus, noise from construction activities for two projects within 1,000 feet of each other can contribute to a cumulative noise impact for receptors located midway between the two construction sites. Of the cumulative projects, the 8th Street and Vineyard Avenue industrial project is the only project located within 1,000 feet, If construction of the project were to overlap with the 8th and Vineyard project, construction noise could combine to create a significant cumulative construction noise impact. Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would be required and would reduce project construction noise by more than 10 dBA below the City's significance threshold of 65 dBA Leq• When a noise source is 10 dBA less than another source, its contribution to the overall noise level is negligible (Harris 1991). Therefore, the cumulative construction noise impact would be less than significant with mitigation. Cumulative development in the project area could increase stationary source noise levels in the project vicinity. The 8th Street and Vineyard industrial cumulative project would have operational stationary source noise levels of 40 dBA Legat the nearest residential use to the south in Rancho Cucamonga (Urban Crossroads 2018), and the proposed project would have operational noise levels up 48 dBA Leg at the same residence to the south. The combined operational noise levels of the proposed project and the 8th and Vineyard project would be 49 dBA Leq. A difference of 1 dBA is not noticeable in outdoor environments. Therefore, Gth and Vn0yurd Development Project 78 CEQAFindings and Statement of0verrsdingConslderations h CEQA Findings cumulative operational stationary source noise impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative development in the project area would increase noise levels along local roadways as a result of additional vehicle trips. The cumulative traffic noise increase would exceed the threshold of 1.5 dBA CNEL along Vineyard Avenue, between the 1-10 westbound ramps and 1-10 eastbound ramps and along 8th Street, between Baker Avenue and Vineyard Avenue, for existing noise environments greaterthan 65 dBA CNEL. Cumulative traffic noise increases along all other roadway study segments would be below the most stringent threshold of a 1.5 dBA CNEL. The project would contribute less than a 0.1 dBA CNEL increase to cumulative traffic noise; therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to traffic noise impacts. Although there could be other cumulative projects simultaneously under construction near the proposed project, the potential for construction groundborne vibration impacts is within relatively close distances (e.g., within approximately 25 feet fora vibratory roller). Since no two construction cumulative projects would both be within 25 feet of a given sensitive structure, cumulative groundborne vibration impacts would be less than significant. Tribal Cultural Resources Tribal Cultural Resources Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Suction 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k)? Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1? Finding: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.17-8 — 4.17-10) Rationale: Although no tribal cultural resources have been identified within the project area, as a result of AB 52 and SB 18 consultation, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians requested mitigation measures for addressing unexpected discoveries of cultural resources and human remains. In addition, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation requested mitigation measures for addressing unexpected discoveries of cultural resources and human remains, and also requested measures that state the project applicant would retain a Tribal monitor approved by the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians— Kizh Nation Tribal Government to monitor all ground disturbing 9lhand VinoyardDevelopment Project 79 CSQAFindings and Statement efOvenldingConsiderations 1. CEQA Findings activities. Mitigation measures have been created to include both consulting Tribes recommendations as best as possible, while also keeping with the mitigation standards and the regulatory framework under which the project falls. Implementation of the project could result in -disturbance or destruction of unknown buried tribal cultural resources that were not located during previous study and site evaluation. Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-4 include measures that would ensure the protection of any unknown or inadvertently discovered tribal cultural resources. All such finds would be required to be treated in accordance with all CEQA requirements and all other applicable laws and regulations. With implementation of these measures, impacts in this regard would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Finding: Less Than. Significant with Mitigation Incorporated (Recirculated Draft EIR, Page 4,17-1p) Rationale: For purposes of cumulative impact analysis to tribal cultural resources, the geographic context for cumulative analysis is regional and considers both direct and indirect impacts over a wide area. However, the discussion is focused on the project's potential for resulting in site -specific impacts that could contribute to a cumulative loss. Accordingly, impacts are site -specific and not generally subject to cumulative impacts unless multiple projects impact a common resource, or an affected resource extends off -site. With this consideration, the cumulative analysis for tribal cultural resources considers whether the project, in combination with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, could cumulatively affect any common tribal cultural resource. The cumulative development projects shown in Section 3, Environmental Setting, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, have the potential to encounter/adversely affect tribal cultural resources. Potential tribal cultural resource impacts associated with other development projects would be site -specific and would undergo individual environmental and design review pursuant to CEQA in orderto evaluate potential impacts. The proposed project as well as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the City and San Bernardino County were or would be required to comply with all applicable City, County, State, and federal regulations concerning preservation, salvage, or handling of cultural resources, including compliance with required mitigation. This also includes project -specific consultation with the appropriate tribal representatives to discuss mitigation measures that would.be included to mitigate impacts to tribal cultural resources. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-4 would reduce project -specific impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. 91h and Vineyard Development Protect B€i CEQA. Findings and Statement of Ovorriding Considerations 1. CEQA Findings The proposed project and cumulative projects would involve ground disturbing activities which could encounter human remains. If human remains are found, the proposed project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. With adherence to existing regulations relating to human remains, cumulative impacts would be less than significant and the proposed project's impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. 3. Findings on Significant Environmental impacts That Cannot Be Avoided or Reduced to a Less than Significant Level with Mitigation Based on the environmental analysis in the EIR, the City has determined that the project will have significant land use and planning and noise impacts and that these impacts cannot be avoided or reduced despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. These findings are based on the evaluation of impacts in the detailed issue area analyses and associated cumulative impacts evaluations in the Recirculated Draft EIR. For the significant and unavoidable impact identified in the following discussion, the City has made a finding(s) pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081. As discussed under CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1) and (a)(5) "If the Lead Agency determines that a mitigation measure cannot be legally imposed, the measure need not be proposed or analyzed." No comments have proposed specific improvements or operational changes that would mitigate these significant and unavoidable impacts. (see San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.AppAth 1, 17.). Land Use and Planning Conflicts With Plans Threshold: Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Fin. ding: Significant and Unavoidable. (Recirculated Draft EIR, Pages 4.11-7 — 4.11-31) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Recirculated Draft EIR. See Section 3, Errata, of the Final EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, §15091.(a)(1)) Rationale: The current land use and zoning designations for the project site include Neo- industrial Employment District under the City's General Plan Land Use Map and Neo-Industrial (NI) under the City's RCMC (Rancho Cucamonga, 2021a). In addition, the western portion of the project site is within the Neighborhood Activity Node in Figure LC-1, Vision Diagram, of the City's General Plan. Although a portion of the project site is within a Neighborhood Activity Node, the project site is located within a Neo-Industrial Employment District and Industrial Employment District place type under Figure LC-3, Land Plan, of the City's General Plan, which is consistent with the proposed project. Furthermore, the proposed 9th and Vineyard pevelopment Project 81 CEQA Findings and Statement of Ovemd rig Considerations 1. CEQA project is consistent with the existing land use designation and zone for industrial uses. No,General Plan or zoning amendments are proposed. The City of Rancho Cucamonga's General Plan discourages industrial development within 1,000 feet -of residence. The nearest sensitive receptors are the residences located approximately 50 feet to the north and 80 feet to the west of the project site boundary. Also, San Antonio Christian School within in the City of Ontario is located approximately 130 feet to the south of the project site on 8th Street. Therefore, the project would be inconsistent with General Plan Policy LC-7.4, which is a significant and unavoidable land use impact. The project would comply with,all applicable development standards identified in the RCMC forthe NI zoning district. The project would not result in a change or conflict with zoning policy that would potentially have significant impacts. Therefore, the impacts associated with zoning policies would be less than significant. The proposed project's location, purpose, and adherence to sustainable design principles demonstrate its consistency with the goals and implementation strategies outlined in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The development of light -industrial warehouses near existing commercial and residential areas !' aligns with the vision of sustainable communities, supporting local economic growth. Therefore, the proposed project would be consistent with the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, and SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and would have a less than significant impact related to consistency with those local land use plans, policies, and regulations. However, as discussed above, the proposed project is inconsistent with Genera! Plan Policy LC-7.4, resulting in a significant and unavoidable land use impact. Noise Excess Generation of -Noise Threshold: Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinityofthe project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Finding: Significant and Unavoidable (Recirculated [haft EIR, Page 4.6-15) Rationale: Project construction activities are anticipated to occur over the course of 11 months, from the beginning of January 2025 through the end of November 2025. Construction noise would be generated during the site preparation, grading, building construction, paving and architectural coating phases of construction. As shown in Table 4.13-10 of the Recirculated Draft EIR, construction noise levels would be up to 68 dBA Leq at nearby residences during the grading phase. Therefore, construction noise levels could exceed the 65 dBA Leq threshold for residential receptors. The 65 dBA Leq threshold for schools would not be exceeded. Additionally, RCMC prohibits construction activities between the hours 9lhand Vineyard DevelopmenlProjecl 82 CEOAFindings and Statement ofOvenidingconslderafians I. CEQA Findings of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and Saturdays, and any time on Sunday or national holidays. If uncontrolled, project construction noise would be significant. implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 includes construction noise reduction measures that would reduce construction related on -site and off - site impacts to less than significant. The maximum increase in off -site traffic noise from the project would be 0.2 dBA CNEL along 9th Street, between Baker Avenue and Vineyard Avenue, and along Baker Avenue between 9th Street and 8th Street. This would not exceed the most stringent threshold of 1.5 dBA CNEL. Therefore, operational off -site traffic noise increases from the proposed project would be less than significant. The proposed project would have operational noise associated with truck loading bay operations, such as truck movements and loading/unloading. The loading docks would be shielded by the proposed eight -foot -high screening walls, Assuming 24-hour operation, operational noise levels would be up to 60.2 dBA Leq at the first row of multi -family residences across 9th Street as measured from the proposed project driveway in the City of Rancho Cucamonga where operational stationary noises will occur (i.e. on -site truck and automobile movements). Operational noise levels would be up to 44.7 dBA L,q at the first row of single-family residences across Baker Avenue. Therefore, project operational noise levels could exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga nighttime noise threshold of 60 dBA at residences in Rancho Cucamonga across 9th Street. It is not feasible to shield all on -site noise resulting from truck movements as a sound wall cannot be placed across the proposed driveway location on 9th Street. Project operational noise levels at all other receptors would be less than the City of Rancho Cucamonga threshold of 60 dBA. To the south, noise associated with the operations of the project were measured at 58 dBA at the first row of houses on the south side of 8th Street. The City of Ontario has established criteria which limits noise thresholds to not more than 45 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Further, the City of Ontario also permits noise thresholds to increase if the ambient noise measurement exceeds that of the stated noise threshold. At the first row of houses on the south side of 8th Street, ambient noise has been measured to be 49 dBA. Thus, the 58 dBA from operational noise associated with the proposed project will exceed the applicable noise thresholds for the City of Ontario as well. Three mitigation measures were considered to reduce operation noise that would be generated by the proposed project: project driveway access restriction, hours restriction, and 12-foot sound barrier walls. Since none of these mitigation measures would be feasible, the operational noise increase from the proposed project would exceed the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the City of Ontario's threshold, which would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to permanent on -site noise. Mand Vineyard pevelapmentPralect 83 CEQA Findings and StatementOoverridingOcnsideretians I. CEQA Findings F. Findings on Growth -Inducing Impacts The City finds that the growth -inducing potential of the project would be less than significant since it would not result in growth that exceeds those assumptions included in projections made by regional planning authorities, it would not induce economic expansion to the extent that physical environment effects would result, and it would not remove an obstacle to growth. Population_ Growth: As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, of the Recirculated I Draft EIR, the proposed project would not directly generate population growth because it does ' not include residential uses. However, the proposed industrial development may indirectly increase the population if all new employees relocated to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. According to the following subsection, Economic Growth, the proposed project would generate approximately 823 new employees. Although project employees would likely be drawn from the existing labor pool in the region and may not relocate to the City, this analysis conservatively assumes that 823 employees would relocate to the City and become new residents. As determined by the California Department of Finance (DOF) and SLAG, the current population of Rancho Cucamonga is 173,545 and the population growth forecast is 201,300 in 2045 (DOF 2023; SCAG, 2020a). Therefore, a population growth of 27,755 could be accommodated within the City's growth projections. Moreover, as discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, all project -related air quality and GHG impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels. Additionally, the project involves redevelopment within a fully urbanized area that lacks significant scenic resources, native biological habitats, known cultural resource remains, surface water, or other environmental resources. Therefore, any population growth associated with the project would not result in significant long-term physical environmental effects. Economic Growth: The proposed project would generate temporary employment opportunities during construction. Because construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, construction of the project would not be growth -inducing from a temporary employment standpoint. However, the proposed project would also add 823 long- term employment opportunities associated with the operation of three industrial warehouses. SCAG forecasts that 16,800 jobs will be added in Rancho Cucamonga between 2016 and 2045 (SCAG 2020b). The 823 jobs anticipated by the proposed industrial development would be approximately five percent of job growth between 2020 and 2045 and, therefore, would be within employment forecasts. The proposed project would not be expected to induce substantial economic expansion to the extent that direct physical environmental effects would result. Moreover, the environmental effects associated with any future development in or around Rancho Cucamonga would be addressed as part of the CEQA environmental review for such development projects. Removal of obstacles to Growth: The proposed project is in a fully urbanized area that is well served by existing infrastructure. As discussed in Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, and 9th and Vn®yard Oovolopmenl PioJect 84 CEQA Flnd�ngs and Statamant of OverrUng Considerations 1. CEQA Findings Section 4.16, Transportation, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, existing infrastructure, in Rancho Cucamonga would be adequate to serve the project. Minor improvements to water, sewer, and drainage connection infrastructure could be needed, but would be sized to specifically serve the proposed project. No new roads would be required. Because the project constitutes redevelopment within an urbanized area and does not require the extension of new infrastructure through undeveloped areas, project implementation would not remove an obstacle to growth. F. Findings on Irreversible Environmental Effects The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes. This section addresses non-renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irreversible impacts associated with the proposed project. The proposed project involves development of a primarilyvacant property in Rancho Cucamonga. Construction and operation of the project would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non-renewable energy resources. The project would involve the use of building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable resources, to construct the overall building floor area of 982,096 square feet (sf) (not including the rehabilitated 43,997 sf historically significant building). Consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and are not unique to the proposed project. The proposed project would also irreversibly increase local demand for non-renewable energy resources such as petroleum products. However, increasingly efficient building design would offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands of the project. As discussed in Section 2, Protect Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, the proposed project's design features would meet LEED certification, using less water and energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions when compared to a commercial building that is not built to LEED standards. Water conservation elements would be incorporated into the project design to reduce the building's energy utilization and achieve LEED certification. In addition, the project would be subject to the energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings) and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations). The California Energy Code provides energy conservation standards for all new and renovated non-residential buildings constructed in California, and the Green Building Standards Code requires solar access, natural ventilation, and stormwater capture. Consequently, the project would not use unusual amounts of energy or construction materials and impacts related to consumption of non-renewable and slow renewable resources would be less than significant. Again, consumption of these resources would occur with any development in the region and is not unique to the proposed project. Additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would incrementally increase local traffic and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. However, as discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, and Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, development and operation of the project would not generate air quality or GHG emissions that would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Additionally, Section 4.16, Transportation, of the 9tn and Vineyard Development Project 85 CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations I. GEQA Findings Recirculated Draft EIR, concludes that long-term impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant based on City and regional thresholds. The project would also require a commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. However, as discussed in Section 4.15, Public Services and Recreation, and Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Recirculated Draft EIR, impacts to these service systems would not be significant. G. Findings on Project Alternatives 1. Alternatives Screened Out from Detailed Consideration in the EIR The City finds that the alternatives considered but rejected from further evaluation in Recirculated Draft EIR Section 5.5 are infeasible, would not meet most of the basic project objectives, and/or would not reduce or avoid any of the significant effects of the project, for'the reasons described in Recirculated Draft EIR Section 5.5. An alternative that would place residences within 1,000 feet of existing industrial development located to the north, west and south of the project site was considered. However, this altetrnative would not be consistent with Policy LC-7.4 of the City's General Plan and would not reduce the land use impact to a level of less than significant. Furthermore, this alternative is not considered applicable or feasible, as the applicant does not develop residential development nor does this alternative meet the project objectives. Therefore, the potential impacts under this alternative would remain significant, and it was rejected for further consideration and not discussed further. An Business and Professional Park Alternative was considered, which would involve the development of 26 two-story buildings each approximately 46,205 sf, totaling 1,201,330 sf. This alternative would meet the requirements for FAR and building height allowed under the Neo- Industrial (NI) designation. The maximum FAR for the land use designations is 60 percent. A 60 percent FAR for a total lot size of 2,002,221 sf would allow the total building square footage of up to approximately 1,201,332 sf. Similar to the proposed project, the office' land uses under this alternative would be permitted within the N1 zone. It. is anticipated that an office development would be similar to the business park located at the north end of the site along Lanyard Court. The overall design and configuration of these buildings would not allow for industrial uses; therefore, this alternative would avoid the significant land use impacts associated with the proposed project because industrial uses would not be developed within 1,000 of the existing residences and, given that business parks do not operate during the night, the nighttime traffic noise associated with the proposed project would be eliminated. In addition, the community's concerns regarding truck trips would be avoided under this alternative. However, due to 'the combination of high construction costs, lack of financing for office developments, and potentially 3 RCMC Section 17.32.020 (43). Office, business and professional. This use listing includes offices of administrative businesses providing direct services to consumers (e.g,, insurance companies, utility companies), government agency and service facilities (e.g., post office, civic center), professional offices (e.g., accounting, attorneys, public relations), and offices engaged in the production of intellectual property (e.g., advertising, architecture, computer programming). This use does not include medical offices (see Medical services, general); temporary offices, or offices that are incidental and accessory to another business or sales activity that is the primary use (see Office, accessory). Outdoor storage of materials is prohibited. t)tlt and Vineyard Qevelopmenl Project 86 CEQA Findings and Statement of OveMdiing ConslderKons L CEQA Flndings unfavorable market conditions, the development of a business and professional park is not economically viable and would not meet the project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was rejected from further consideration and not discussed further. An alternative where an alternative location would be used for the proposed project was considered. Based on a review of aerial photography, there are no other available, undeveloped properties of similar size (i.e., 45.96 acres) that are zoned for and adjacent to other properties designated for industrial development and that would reduce or avoid the project's significant and unavoidable impacts related to land use and planning and noise because the city is heavily developed with residential uses. Furthermore, the applicant does not control other undeveloped property of similar size within the city or in the immediate area. Therefore, a potential alternative location is not considered applicable or feasible, This alternative was rejected from further consideration and not discussed further. 2. Alternatives Analyzed in the E1R As required by CEO.A, this EIR examines alternatives to the proposed project. Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative 3 was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. Alternative 1 (No Project/No Build) assumes the proposed three warehouse buildings and associated landscaping and surface lot improvements would not be constructed, and the Baker House would remain vacant with no associated operations. Under existing conditions, the project site is vacant and undeveloped with the exception of an existing cell tower, located approximately 300 linear feet west of Vineyard Avenue along the project's southern property line. The project site also contains the Baker House on the west side of the site. The project site is primarily a dirt lot covered with low-lying vegetation consisting of cheatgrass, short -podded mustard, rattail fescue, slender woolly wild buckwheat, and wild oats and annual brome grassland. A chain link fence surrounds the project along the project site's frontage with Baker Avenue, 9th Street, and Vineyard Avenue. Finding/Rationale: The No Project/No Build Alternative would avoid the project's significant land use and noise impacts and reduce impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral resources, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire; however, Alternative 1 would not fulfill any project objectives, would not realize any of the project's design benefits associated with new development, would not meet current City design standards, and would also have the potential for negative effects associated with urban blight and safety and security issues. Alternative 2 (No Project/Likelyto be Built Under the Current Development Code) would involve the development of one warehouse building on Site 1 of the project site (eastern portion) totaling 1,201,332 sf, which is the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) (60 percent) for the site's existing NI zone. The building would be built to the 75-foot maximum height allowed by the City and the LA/Ontario International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), which would be 24 feet taller than the proposed project's tallest warehouse building. Under this alternative, the Blh and Vneysrd Development Project 87 OEQA Findings and Statement of Oveniding considerations 1. CEQA Findings warehouse building would be three stories and have a building footprint of 400,444 sf, which would reduce the building footprint in comparison with the project by 90,604 sf (18 percent), The central and western portions of the site would be graded and developed with surface parking and landscaping. This alternative would also include frontage improvements (street paving rehab, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, streetlights, fire hydrants, curb and gutter, etc.) along project's 9th Street, Vineyard Avenue, and Baker Avenue frontages. Similar to the proposed project, the Baker House along the western border of the project site would be retained and rehabilitated, and compliance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) would be required. Vehicular access would be provided by one driveway from 9th Street, two driveways from Vineyard Avenue, and one driveway from the south side of Baker Avenue. Because the warehouse building would be developed on the eastern portion of the project site, the driveway from the north side of Baker Avenue would not be needed. Finding/Rationale: Due to the increase in square footage in comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would increase impacts to aesthetics, air quality, energy, geology and soils, GHG emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems, and decrease impacts to cultural resources, paleontological.resources, and tribal cultural resources. This alternative would not eliminate the unavoidable and significant impacts related to land use and planning -and noise. This alternative would meet the majority of the project objectives except for Objective 3 and meet Objective 5 less effectively than the project. Alternative 3 (Single Building) would involve the development of one warehousing building totaling 982,096 sf on Site 1 of the project site (eastern portion). Although the maximum FAR for the site's existing Nl zone would allow the single warehouse building to be up to approximately .1,201,332 sf, the square footage for the single building would be kept consistent with the project for the purpose of air quality, GHG emissions, noise, etc. comparisons. The maximum building height would be 51 feet, and two stories, which would be equal to the project's tallest proposed warehouse building. The central and western portions of the site would be graded and developed with surface parking and landscaping. This alternative would also include frontage improvements (street paving rehab, sidewalk, parkway landscaping, streetlights, fire hydrants; curb and gutter, etc.) along project's 9th Street, Vineyard Avenue, and Baker Avenue frontages. Similar to the proposed project, the Baker House along the western border of the project site would be retained and rehabilitated, and compliance with the Standards would be required. Vehicular access would be provided by one driveway from 9th Street, two driveways from Vineyard Avenue, and one driveway from the south side of Baker Avenue. Because the warehouse building would be developed on the eastern portion of the project site, the driveway from the north side of Baker Avenue would not be needed. Finding/Rationale: Alternative 3 would have equal impacts to all issue areas with the exception of decreased aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, and tribal cultural resources impacts. This alternative would meet all project objectives except for Objective 3, and Objective 5 not as effectively as the project. Refer to Section S, Alternatives, of the Recirculated Draft EIR for the complete analysis. 9lhand Vineyard DevelepraentPro)ecl 88 CEQARidings andStatementofOverridingConsideraVons I. CEQA Findings H. Finding on the Final EIR & Materials Submitted up to the Close of the Hearing The Response to Comments section of the Final EIR includes the comments received on the Recirculated Draft EIR and responses to those comments. The focus of the responses to'comments is on the disposition of environmental issues as raised in the comments, as specified by CEQA Guidelines §15088(b). The City finds that the Final EIR merely clarify and amplify the analysis presented in the document and do not trigger the need to recirculate per CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(b). I. Custodian of Records The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which the project findings are based are located at: • City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Department, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730; • Archibald Library, 7368 Archibald Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730; • Paul A. Biane Public Library, 12505 Cultural Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91739; • On the City's we bsite: (https://www.d ro pbox.com/scl/fo/ezgw6i02xi pw2atbx5iv8/APD50u27n3 HT6sFJUNe3fKc/Draf tEl R%2O9th %20and%20Vi neya rd%2ODevelopme nt%20Project120and%20E[R?d1=0&rl key=is2 wz9w5mgwjiersbt50d6cle&subfoIder_nav tracking=l) The custodian for these documents is the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code §21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines §15091(e). However, this section should not be interpreted to mean that the City has prepared and organized the Record of Proceedings, as contemplated under Pub. Res. Code § 21167.6. gthand WneyardDevelopment Project 89 CEQAFindng3otoveridingCenslderalons II. Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) 11, Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) The Final EIR determines that the project would have a significant and unavoidable impacts associated with land use plan consistency (Impact-LU-2 — Conflicts with.Plans) and operational stationary noise (Impact NQI-1— Excessive Generation of Noise). The City of Rancho Cucamonga finds that the specific economic, social, technological, and region - wide environmental benefits, and other benefits of the project as approved outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and that these adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable.for the reasons outlined below as statements of overriding considerations. Each benefit (and subsection thereof) set forth below independently constitute an overriding consideration warranting -approval of the project. .. Economic Development One of the project objectives is to "Expand economic development, facilitate job creation, and increase the tax base for the City of Rancho Cucamonga by establishing new industrial development adjacent to established and planned industrial areas." The project provides new industrial land uses which would help ensure the long-term economic vitality of the site and the City, through increased sales tax. Based on the assessed value of the land with implementation of the proposed project and standard tax rates, theproposed project would contribute substantial property tax dollars,and sales tax dollars. Another project objective is to "Attract employment -generating businesses to the City of Rancho Cucamonga to reduce the need.for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, thereby improving the job -housing balance in the City." As described throughout the Recirculated Draft Elk, approximately 823 jobs would be created by the proposed project. Jobs created by the proposed project would reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, thereby improving the job -housing balance in Rancho Cucamonga. • Expansion of Established and Planned'industrial Areas Project objectives include "Develop light industrial buildings in proximity to the State highway system to avoid or shorten truck -trip lengths on other roadways" and "Attract businesses that can expedite the delivery of essential goods to consumers and businesses in Rancho Cucamonga and beyond the Citjr boundary,"Regional access to the project site is available via Interstate 10 (1-10) and 1-15, which is approximately 1.5 miles south and four miles east of the project site, respectively. The proximity of 1-10.and 1-15 allow for reduced truck trick lengths during the construction and operation of the proposed project. Regional access to the site also allows for expeditated delivery of goods to and from consumers and businesses within Rancho Cucamonga and the.surrounding area. Thus, reducing the proposed project's impacts related to transportation and increasing the economic viability of the project site. Additionally, one project objectives -is to `Develop a project that has architectural design and operational characteristics that complement other existing and planned buildings in the vicinity and minimize conflicts with other nearby land uses:' The proposed project is 9lhand VmoyardDevelopment Project 90 CEQAFIndingsand Statement ofQvenldingCoMideraVons IL Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) surrounded to the north and east by industrial and business park land uses, with residential land uses to the west and south. The proposed project would thereby complement the surrounding industrial land uses by introducing additional industrial uses. Further, the project site is planned for industrial land uses as it is designated as Neo-Industrial Employment District under the City's General Plan Land Use Map and zoned as Neo- Industrial (NI) under the City's Zoning Code. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the surrounding the land uses and develops the site as planned by the General Plan and Zoning Code. , Rehabilitation of a Vacant Structure and Redevelopment of Vacant Land that Could Attract Criminal Behavior Another project objective strives to "Reduce existing blight and the opportunity for criminal activity and provide for adequate infill development on vacant and underutilized sites with uses and design features that contribute community, economic, and sustainable benefits." The maintenance of the vacant Baker House represents an ongoing cost and upkeep as well as public safety concern. This determination is further supported by ongoing criminal and nuisance issues that have characterized other vacant City buildings in recent history. Rehabilitation of the Baker House and redevelopment of the project site would reduce the opportunity for criminal activity through development of the site and enhanced security measures that are included in the proposed project. Additionally, the redevelopment of the site would allow infili development that would enhance the visual quality of the site, as the project site is primarily undeveloped and the proposed project would involve new industrial buildings that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards. • Addition of Recreational Facilities One of the project objectives is to "Maintain the historical resources of the City by renovating the Baker House building on -site for use by the City as a community center." included in the proposed project is the rehabilitation of the Baker House with three conceptual plans. Each concept includes the rehabilitation of the Baker House for use by the City as a community center. Each concept also includes a proposed site plan for the area immediately surrounding the Baker House that integrates the following elements not historically or currently present within the project site: playground, community garden, outdoor event space, and parking. Thus, the proposed project would introduce new, updated recreational facilities to the City and would rehabilitate the historic building. 9lhand Vineyard DevolopmenlPmjecl 91 CEQAFfndingsand 5ta'.emexof0 onidingCensiderations Conditions of Approval RANCHO C U C A WV"D N GA Community Development Department Mill 1: 111 IN F Ili I ; ?"roject Name, EDIR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Locatiow 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project TypeDesign Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcell Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planninq Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1.. The project shall comply with all mitigations measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report SChi No. 2019110456 and the corresponding Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program. 2, Prior to Final Inspection, decorative paving shall be provided at each vehicle entrance to the site, behind the public right-of-way. These decoratively paved areas shall extend from the front property line to the building setback line and have a width equal to that of the driveway. 3, Pursuant to direction provided by the Design Review Committee on December 17, 2024 relative to truck access to all three buildings, and prior to grading permit issuance, the applicant shall revise plans to reflect modifications to the site plan to accommodate additional on -site truck queuing. Standard Conditions of Approval 4, For commercial and industrial projects, paint roll -up doors and service doors to match main building colors. 5. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections shall be screened from all sides and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent properties and streets as required by the Planning Department. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically more than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet, shall be screened by an architecturally designed enclosure which exhibits a permanent nature with the building design and is detailed consistent with the building. Any roof -mounted mechanical equipment and/or ductwork, that projects vertically less than 18 inches above the roof or roof parapet shall be painted consistent with the color scheme of the building. Details shall be included in building plans. 6The applicant shall sign the Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval provided by the Planning Department. The signed Statement of Agreement and Acceptance of Conditions of Approval shall be returned to the Planning Department prior to the submittal of grading/construction plans for plan check, and/or commencement of the approved activity. www,CityofRC.u,, Printed: 121012025 Project #: Project Name: Location: 17�C'201M0_742 (AM2019-oo�r s, ORC2019-00854, DRUZ 2-ULrZb6, z)ub i f-m201 rJ EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT - Planning Department Standard d Conditions of.Approval 7.. The applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless, the City, and/or any of its officials, ff ocers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials and instrumentalities thereof (collectively "Indemnitees"), from any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, and other actions and proceedings (Whether legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative dispute resolutions procedures (including, but' not limited to, arbitrations, mediations, and other such procedures) (collectively "Actions"), brought against the City, and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to modify, set aside, void, or annul, the action of, or any permit or approval issued by, the City and/or any of its off ,,cials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and ,instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City), for or concerning the project, whether such actions are brought under the 'California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivisions Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 or 1094.5, or any other state, federal, or local statute, law, ordinance, rule, •regulation,, or any decision of a competent jurisdiction. This indemnification provision expressly includes losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to this approval, the Planning Director's actions, the Planning Commission's actions, and/or the City Council's actions, related entitlements, or the �City's. environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to approve, Which approval will not be unreasonably withheld, the legal counsel providing the City's defense, and that the applicant shall reimburse City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily 'incurred by the City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Action brought and City small cooperate with applicant in the defense of the Action. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City's determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City,, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. 8. Approval of Tentative Tract No. 20173 is granted subject to the approval of Design Review DRC2019-00742, Conditional Use Permit DRC2022-00009, Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854, and Development Agreement DRC2022-00266. 9. Copies of the signed Planning Commission Resolution of Approval or Approval Letter, Conditions of Approval, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 10. The applicant shall be required to pay California Department of Fish and Wildlife Notice of Determination & Environmental Impact Report fee in the amount of $4,123.50, All checks are to be made payable to the Clerk of the Board Supervisors and submitted to the Planning Commission Secretary prior to public hearing. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 12/1012025 Page 2 of 22 Project #: Project Name: Location: Project Type: DRC2019-00742 DRC201'9-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Design, Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning_ Department Standard Conditions of Approval 11..Any approval shall expire if Building Permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 2 years from the date of approval or a time extension has been granted, unless otherwise permitted within the approved Development Agreement 12. Any modification or intensification of the approved use, including revisions in the operations of the business including changes to the operating days/hours; change 'in the location on -site or within the building of the uselactivity that is approved by this Conditional Use Permit; improvements including new building construction; and/or other modifications/intensification beyond what is specifically approved by this Conditional Use Permit, shall require the review and approval by the Planning Director prior to submittal of documents for plan check/occupancy, construction, commencement of the activity, and/or issuance of a business license. The. Planning Director may determine that modifications or intensifications of use require the submittal of an application to modify this Conditional Use Permit for review by the City. 13. This project is subject to public art requirement outlined in, Chapter 17.124 of the Development Code. Prior to the issuance of building permits (for grading or construction), the applicant shall inform the Planning Department of their choice to install public art, donate art or select the in -lieu option as outlined .in 17.124.020.D. unless otherwise stated within°the approved Development Agreement, If the project developer chooses to pay the in -lieu fee, the in -lieu• art fee will be invoiced' on the building permit by the City and shall be paid by the applicant prior to building permit issuance. If the project developer chooses to install art, they shall submit, during the plan check process, an application for the art work that will be installed on the project site that contains information applicable to the art work in addition to any, other information as may be required by the City to adequately evaluate the proposed the art work in� accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.124. If the project developer chooses to donate art, applications for art work donated to the City shall be subject to review by the Public Art Committee which shall make a recommendation whether the proposed donation is consistent with Chapter 17.124 and.final acceptance by the City Council. No final approval, such as a final inspection or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, for any development project. (or if a multi -phased project, the final phase of a development project) that is subject to this requirement shall occur unless the public art requirement has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. 14. This tentative tract map or tentative parcel map shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, unless a complete final map is filed with the Engineering Services Department within 3 years from the date of the approval unless, otherwise stated within the approved Development Agreement. 15. Front yard and corner side yard landscaping and irrigation shall be required per ,the Development Code. This requirement shall be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. www.CHyofRC.us Printed; 1211012025 Page 3 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE-•020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF TIME FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 16. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping in the case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to the issuance of Building Permits for the development or prior final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision. For development occurring in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the landscape plans will also be reviewed by Fire Construction Services. 17, The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to Planning Director review and approval and coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Services Department. 18. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer. 19. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. These criteria shall encourage the .natural growth characteristics of the selected tree species. 20. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. 21. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment (I.E. colors and materials consistent with the design theme of the primary structure). If located in public maintenance areas, the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Services Department. 22. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of water efficient landscaping per Development Code Chapter 17.82. 23. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. For residential development, private gated entrances shall provide adequate turn -around space in front of the gate and a separate visitor lane with call box to avoid cars stacking into the public right-of-way. 24. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be striped per City standards, 25. Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dwellings/units/buildings with open spaces/plazas/ recreational uses. 26. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for Planning Director review and approval prior to issuance of Building Permits. 27. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community, Specific Plans and/or Master Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance. www,CityofRC.us Printed; 1211012025 Page 4 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Planning Department Standard Conditions of Approval 28. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, including proper illumination and in conformance with Building and Safety Services Department standards, the Municipal Code and the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department (RCFD) Standards. 29. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include Site Plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the Planning Department, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 30. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) required and/or proposed shall be installed at locations that are not within direct view or line -of -sight of the main entrance. The specific locations of each DDC and FDC shall require the review and approval of the Planning Department and Fire Construction Services/Fire Department. All Double Detector Checks (DDC) and Fire Department Connections (FDC) shall be screened behind a 4-foot high block wall. These walls shall be constructed of similar material used on -site to match the building. 31. Downspouts shall not be visible from the exterior of any elevations of the buildings. All downspouts shall be routed through the interior of the building walls. 32. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. For single-family residential developments, transformers shall be placed in underground vaults. 33. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with Certificate of Appropriateness DRC2019-00854. Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site of the subject Historical Landmark, shall require a modification to the Certificate of Appropriateness subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. 34. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be submitted for Planning Director and Engineering Services Department review and approved prior to the issuance of Building Permits. 35. A detailed on -site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and Police Department (909-477-2800) prior to the issuance of Building Permits. Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. 36. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated ,for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.) or prior to final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 37, Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Www.CifyofRC.us Printed: 12I1012025 Pago 5 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. P[anninggDepartment Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. The street lights shall be owned by the City. Developer shall be responsible to coordinate and pay all costs of street lights and to provide power to City owned street lights. 2. The development shall comply with all the undergrounding requirements of City's Ordinance No. 1045. 3. Fiber: The proposed development is slated to be included in the City's Fiber Optic Master Plan that would provide a City owned Fiber -to -the -Premise (FTTP) infrastructure. The developer shall extend all required infrastructure for high-speed broadband ("Required Infrastructure") onto the Project site. The developer shall extend the required infrastructure to include 14" underground Fiber Optic conduit with 3-inner ducts, as well as a 432 strand fiber optic cable along 9th Street using the most direct route from the existing point -of -connection at/near the intersection of 9th Street and Flower Road to an existing Fiber Optic point -of -connection west of the Deer Creek Channel at/near the existing industrial development on the north side of 9th Street and then into the project site to serve the project as described below. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall be designed to accommodate future expansion by either the City or another developer. An additional 14" fiber optic conduit and a yet to be determined strand fiber optic cable will be required inside the project boundaries to serve the buildings on site (not within the Baker House parcel) to be placed underground within a duct and structure system to be installed joint trench by the Developer per Standard Drawing 135-137 and interconnected into the City's 4" fiber optic conduit along 9th Street. The size, placement and location of the conduit and/or vaults shall run into each of the building's telecommunication room and be shown on the final dry utility onsite substructure plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. The size, placement and location of the conduit and vaults shall be shown on the Street Improvement and/or Public Improvement Plans and subject to the Engineering Services Department's review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or final map approval, whichever comes first. 4. Developer shall construct all traffic improvements and dedicate the necessary right-of-way consistent with the demands outlined in the Projects TIA and as determined necessary by the City Engineer. 5. Development Impact Fees Due Prior to Building Permit Issuance 6. The project Final Map shall meet the Subdivision Map Act, City Development Codes, and Conditions of Approval requirements. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorders Office prior to issuance of Building Permits. Printed:12110/2025 www.Cityo€RC.us Page e 6 of 22 Project #: Project Name: Location: Project Type: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Engineering Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 7. Vineyard Ave. & FoothilI Blvd. Intersection: Optimize the AM peak hour signal timing to improve intersection operations. Vineyard Ave. & Arrow Rte. Intersection: Optimize the AM peak hour signal timing to improve intersection operations. Baker Ave. & 8th St. Intersection: 1. The applicant shall design and construct the traffic signal at the intersection 2. Restripe the southbound approach to have a dedicated left -turn pocket and a shared through -right lane 3. Restripe the eastbound approach to have a dedicated left -turn lane and a shared through -right turn lane 8. Master Plan Storm Drain Line III-3 shall be constructed following City's drainage master plan and approved drainage study. A permanent storm drain easement shall be granted to the City for the public master storm drain line prior acceptance of the improvements. 9. Project shall abide to all the terms under the approved development agreement. Standard Conditions of Approval 10. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off -site property interests necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so, the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Sections 66462 and 66462.5 at such time as the City decides to acquire the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City if the City decides to acquire the off -site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the City, at developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. This condition applies in particular, but not limited to: The master plan storm drain connection between the south east corner of the project and the existing storm -channel to the east. 11. Private drainage easements for cross -lot drainage shall be provided and shall be delineated or noted on the final map. 12. Dedication shall be made of the following rights -of -way on the perimeter streets to the satisfaction of the City Engineer (measured from street centerline): 33 total feet on 9th Street 33 total feet on Baker Street 44 total feet on Vineyard Avenue unvw.CKyofRC.us Printed; 12/10/2025 Page 7 of 22 Project #: Project Name: Location: DikC2019-00742 DR62019-00-766, bA02019-00854, 17RC2022-UU266, BUB i NMZU1 ri EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreemenf, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. _Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 13. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC &Rs or by deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of Building Permits, where no map is involved. 14. Reciprocal parking agreements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all common roads, drives, or parking areas shall be provided by CC & R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to, or concurrent with, the final parcel map. 15. A final drainage study shail be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer. 16. It shall be the developer's responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone "A° designation removed from the project area. The developer shall provide drainage and/or flood protection facilities sufficient to obtain a Zone "X' designation. The devebper's engineer shall prepare all necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA prior to final map approval or issuance of Buiiding Permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first. 17. Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. 18. Prior to the issuance of a ROW permit or a grading permit for work with the San Bernardino County Flood Control right-of-way, a permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its right-of-way. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall finalize all construction and obtain a sign -off from all related work from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. 19. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 20. ** CD Information Required Prior to Sign -Off for Building Permit Prior to the issuance of building permits, if valuation is greater or equal to $100,000, a Diversion Deposit and a related administrative fee shall be paid for the Construction and Demolition Diversion Program. The deposit is fully refundable if at least 65% of all wastes generated during construction and demolition are diverted from landfills, and appropriate documentation is provided to the City. Applicant must identify if they are self -hauling or utilizing Burrtec prior to issuance of a building permit. Proof of diversion must be submitted to the Environmental Engineering Division within 60 days following the completion of the construction and / or demolition project. Contact Marissa Ostos, Environmental Engineering, at (909) 774-4062 for more information. Instructions and forms are available at the City's website, www.cityofrc.us, under City Hall / Engineering ! Environmental Programs 1 Construction & Demolition Diversion Program. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 12l1 DI2Q25 Page 8 of 22 Project #: Project Name: Location: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit; Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 21. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right of way as required:. San Bernardino County Flood Control District Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services Department Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). 22. A signed consent and waiver form to join - and/or form the appropriate Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) 3B' shall be filed with the Engineering Services Department prior to final map. approval or issuance of Building. Permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer. This parcel is required to be annexed into CFD '2022-01 & CFD 2022-02 district (Street Lighting Services) to finance the maintenance and services of streetlights, traffic lights,. and .appurtenant facilities. This condition needs to be completed before the Final Map approval or issuance of Building Permits whichever occurs first. Any annexation cost shall be borne by the developer. To start the annexation process, please contact Kelly Guerra at 909-774-2582 www.CltyofRC.us Punted: 1211012025 Page 9 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni. 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE.- 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT - Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 23. Construct the following perimeter frontage street improvements including, but not limited to: i Street Name: Vineyard Avenue Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Street Name: Baker Street Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Street Name: 9th Street Curb & Gutter A.C. Pvmt Side -walk Drive Appr. Street Lights Street Trees Thei applicant shall design and construct all necessary improvements at the intersection of 9th Street and Vineyard Avenue to , accommodate truck traffic associated with, the project. Improvements may include, but are not limited to, street, widening, traffic signal modifications, updated signage, and restriping. A truck turning analysis may be required to determine the extent of improvements needed. The final scope of work shall be determined during the project's design phase, subject to review and approval, by the City Engineer. Notes: 1. Access to the project site from Baker Avenue for all truck -tractors, semitrailers, and trailers, which exceed' any of the size limitations set forth in Vehicle Code 35400 and 35401 shall be prohibited. 2. Pavement reconstruction or overlays will, be determined during plan check. 24. Project shall abide to Municipal Code Section 16.37.010,. Printed:12/10/2025 www.CRYO RC.us 9 Pa a 10 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Engineering Services Department Standard Conditions of Approval 25.Install street trees per City street tree design guidelines and standards as follows. The completed legend (box below) and construction notes shall appear on the title page of the street improvement plans. Street improvement plans shall include a line item within the construction legend stating: "Street trees shall be installed per the notes and legend on Title Sheet (typically Sheet 1)." Where public landscape plans are required, tree installation in those areas shall be per the public landscape improvement plans. Street Name: Botanical Name: Common'Name: Min. Grow Space: Spacing: Size: Qty.: To be determined during -design Construction Notes for°Street Trees: 1) All street trees are to be planted in accordance with City standard plans. 2) Prior to the commencement -of any planting, an agronomic soils report shall be furnished to the City inspector. Any, unusual toxicities or nutrient deficiencies may require backfill soil amendments, as determined by the City inspector. 3) All street trees are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Engineering Services Department. Street trees are to be planted per public improvement plans only. 26. Intersection line of sight designs shall be submitted for review and approved by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. Lines of sight shall be plotted for all project intersections, including driveways. 27. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, community trails, paseos, landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited' to, curb and gutter,. AC pavement, drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees. 28. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in accordance with the City's street tree program. 29. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary, 30. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance- with the Utility Standards as required. Easements shall be provided as required. 31. Approvals have not been secured from all utilities, San Bernardino County Flood Control District, and other interested agencies involved. Approval of the parcel map will be subject to, any requirements that may be received from them. www.CityofRC.us Printed;12110/2025 Page 11 of 22 Project M DRC2019-00742 DR02019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project.Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, ❑evelopmentAgreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT., En-gineering Services. Department Standard Conditions of Approval r 32. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from the CVWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of permits in the case of all other residential projects. 33. Improvement Plans and Construction: a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by 'the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and` an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval or the issuance of Building Permits, whichever occurs first. b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Department in addition to any other permits required. c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffc signal conduit, and interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Notes: 1) Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to. traffic at all times with adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2) Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be installed to City Standards, except for single-family residential lots. 34. All existing easements lying 'within future rights -of -way shall be quit -claimed or delineated on- .the final map. 35. Easements for public sidewalks placed outside the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City. Fire Prevention f New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Required alarm systems and supervision systems are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 2. Plans for the alarm and/or supervision (monitoring) system are required. to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 3. Plans for the egress lighting are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to ,the Fire District. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 12110l2025 Pagel 2 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Fire Prevention I New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 4. Plans for high plied combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 5. Plans for the private, onsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 6. Plans for the public, offsite fire underground water infrastructure are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Plans are required to be submitted prior to or concurrently with the submittal of the Water District mylars. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 7. Plans for the racks used for high piled combustible storage are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 8. Plans for the automatic fire sprinkler system are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 9. Plans for the temporary access and/or hydrants are required to be submitted separately and issued a separate permit. Submit all plans to the Building & Safety Department for routing to the Fire District. 10. Exterior doors and doors providing access to fire protection and life safety systems and equipment are required to have identification signage in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 11. Emergency responder radio coverage is required for the building(s) included in this project. San Bernardino County Information Services Department (lSD) conducts radio signal strength assessments for the entire county. It is highly recommended that a radio signal strength assessment is completed for this project. Where emergency responder radio coverage is determined to meet the requirements of the California Fire Code, an emergency responder radio system and/or associated equipment will not be required. Please contact Tim Trager with County ISD at 909-388-5563 or ttrager@isd.sbcounty.gov to schedule an assessment and/or obtain any available information about the project site. Where the existing emergency responder radio coverage is found to be below acceptable standards, an emergency responder radio system and associated equipment will be required to be provided in compliance and accordance with the California Fire Code, 12. Fire extinguishers are required in accordance with Section 906 of the California Fire Code. Consult with the Fire Inspector for the correct type, size, and exact installation Iocations. 13. Fire flow information for this project is obtained from the Cucamonga Valley Water District (CVWD). CVWD can be reached at 909-944-6000 or custserv@cvwdwater.com. 14. Fire flow is required to be in accordance with Appendix B of the California Fire Code. The Fire district has adopted the appendix without local amendments except that the minimum fire flow for commercial buildings shall not be less than 1500 gpm. Proof of the availability of the required fire flow must be provided to the Fire District in the form of a letter or written report dated within the past 12 months. www.CityofRC,us Printed: 12l1 tlI2025 Page 13 of 22 Project M DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL. OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Fire Prevention f New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 15. Fire sprinkler are required to be installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 9-3. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 16. Gates installed across a commercial/industrial emergency vehicle access road (fire lane) are required to be in accordance with Standard 5-4. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 17. Notwithstanding the availability of a public utility to provide natural gas for a stationary emergency power generator, natural gas fueled stationary emergency power generators supplied from the public utility shall be provided with an alternate source of fuel or the ability to accept an alternate source of fuel due to historical and foreseeable extended interruptions of the natural gas supply caused by seismic activity. In the event that a emergency generator is required, a fuel -fired generator will be provided. 18. Generator installations are required to comply with the currently adopted editions of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards 30, 37, 110. If battery equipment is included in the generator project, it is required to comply with NFPA 111. The level of compliance must be in accordance with the generator's function as an emergency power system or a standby power system as defined by the California Fire Code. Plan submittals are required to include all specifications of the equipment to be installed along with the electrical plans and load calculations. All equipment must be listed .Testing and acceptance criteria are strictly observed. Installation and acceptance test reports in accordance with applicable NFPA standards are required to be provided to the Fire District. Working clearances and clearances to the building based on the fuel capacity must be observed. AQMD permits are required with the plan' check submittals. Duai fuel generators may be required by AQMD for testing purposes. The generator operation must be monitored remotely by a qualified alarm supervising station. A separate submittal is required for the alarm connection. 19. Identification of exterior perimeter fire access doors is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-5. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 20. High -piled combustible storage is required to be in accordance with Chapter 32 of the Fire Code and Fire District Standard 32-1. Please read and understand this Standard In its entirety to avoid delays in scheduling inspections and obtaining approvals. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 21. A Knox Box key box is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-9. Additional boxes may be required depending on the size of the building, the location of fire protection and life safety system controls, and the operational needs of the Fire District. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. If an installed Knox Box is available to this project or business, keys for the building/suite/unit are required to be provided to the Fire Inspector at the final inspection. 22. A Knox key switch is required to be installed on motorized gates that are installed across or provide access to a fire access road (fire Lane). See Fire District Standard 5-3 for Residential Gates and Fire District Standard 5-4 for Commercial and Industrial Gates, 23. A Knox or Fire District padlock is required to be incorporated into the security system for a manually operated gate that are installed across or provides access to a fire access road (fire lane). www.Ci1yafRC,us Primed: 42I1012025 Page 14 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CON611TIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Fire Prevention I New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 24. Coordinate landscaping with the roof access ladder points and address signage. Landscaping cannot obstruct roof access or clear visibility of address signage from time of installation to maturity of the shrubs and trees. 25. Release of construction permits issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga or the County of San Bernardino will be in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-1. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 26. A fire service site plan is required in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-11. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 27. All of the Fire District Standards applicable are required to be reproduced on the plans. The project is required to meet all of the applicable codes, regulations, and standards in effect and adopted at the time of plan check submittal. Fire District Standards associated with construction and plan submittals can be found on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's website and accessed via https:I/www.dropbox.com/sh/4k4gdxhs4tpl 3c7/AAAdscMKMdW9WIQe725xWyU-a?d€=0 28. The fire access / fire lane and fire water mains cross existing property lines, are located on property not under the control of the applicant or are located on a property that is being or could be subdivided. To ensure continued Fire District use of and access to, and maintenance as needed, of the fire access I fire lane and fire water mains, a reciprocal agreement between property owners and the Fire District is required. The agreement is required to be recorded with the San Bernardino County Recorder. A site plan showing the location of the fire access / fire lane and fire water mains is required to be included with the agreement. The agreement is required to be reviewed and approved by the Fire District prior to recording. Proof of recordation is required to be submitted to the Fire District. A template of this agreement has been included in Fire District Standard 5-10, which has been uploaded to the Documents section. 29, Roof access is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-6. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 30. Street address and unit/suite signage for commercial and industrial buildings are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-8. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 31. Fire apparatus access roads and emergency vehicle access is required to be identified with signs and/or other approved makings in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-1. A copy of the Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. 32, Identification of fire protection systems and components, fire alarm systems and components, and equipment and devices associated with fire and life safety systems is required to be in accordance with Fire District Standards 5-5 and 5-10. The Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section. 33. Public and private fire service water mains, public and private hydrants, water control valves, fire sprinkler risers, fire department connections (FDCs), and other fire protection water related devices and equipment are required to be provided, designed, and installed in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. www.GityofRC.us Printed: 12/1012025 Page 15 of 22 Project M DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBT,PM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location. 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Fire Prevention I New Construction Unit Standard Conditions of Approval 34. Combustible construction materials, including combustible roofing materials, are prohibited from being onsite prior to a water supply system in accordance with Fire District Standard 5-10 being provided in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-1. Copies of the Standards have been uploaded to the Documents section of this project in the Online Permit Center. 35. Temporary fire apparatus access (fire lanes) and temporary fire hydrants, if needed, are required to be in accordance with Fire District Standard 33-2. The Standard has been uploaded to the Documents section. Building and Safety Services Department Please be advised of the following Special Conditions 1. When the Entitlement Review is approved submit complete construction drawings including structural calculations, energy calculations and a soils report to Building and Safety for plan review in accordance with the current edition of the California Building and Fire Codes including all local ordinances and standards which are effective at the time of Plan Check Submittal. The new structures are required to be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers per the CBC and Current RCFPD Ordinance. Disabled access for the site and buildings must be in accordance to the State of California and ADA regulations. Connection to the public sewer is required for all 3 developed parcels. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the precise grading and drainage plan shall follow the format provided in the City of Rancho Cucamonga handout "Information for Grading Plans and Permit". 2. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with current adopted California Building Code and/or the California Residential Code, City Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The Grading and Drainage Plan(s) shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Grading and Drainage Plan. 3. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified Engineer licensed by the State of California to perform such work. Two copies will be provided at grading and drainage plan submittal for review. Plans shall implement design recommendations per said report. 4. The final Grading and Drainage Plan, appropriate certifications and compaction reports shall be completed, submitted, and approved by the Engineering Services Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. A separate Grading and Drainage Plan check submittal is required for all new construction projects and for existing buildings where improvements being proposed will generate 50 cubic yards or more of combined cut and fill. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall be prepared, stamped, and wet signed by a California licensed Civil Engineer prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 12f1012026 Page 16 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC201'9-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830.VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 6. The applicant shall comply with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Dust Control Measures and place a dust control sign. on the project site prior to the issuance of a grading permit, All dust control sign (s) shall be located outside of the -public right of way. 7. If a Rough Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit are submitted .to -lhe- _Engineering -Services Department for review, the --'rough grading plan shall be a separate plan submittal and permit from Precise Grading and Drainage Plan/Permit. 8.. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall obtain writtenpermission from the adjacent property owner(s) to construct wall(s) on property line(s). If adjacent property owner declines for - permission, provide a detail(s) showing the perimeter wall(s) to be constructed offset from the property line. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Grading and Drainage Plan shall show the accessibility path froth the public right of way and the -accessibility parking stalls to the building doors In conformance with the current° adopted California Building Code, All accessibility ramps shall show sufficient detail including gradients, elevations, and dimensions and cofnply with the current adopted California Building Code., 10.1he Grading and Drainage Plan shall implement City Standards for on -site construction. where possible, and shall provide details for all work not covered by City Standard Drawings. 11. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the grading plan shall show that all manufactured slopes shall be a minimum 2-foot offset from the public right of way, permitted line, or the adjacent private property. All slope offsets shall meet the requirements of the current adopted California Building Code. 12. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the grading and drainage plan shall show the maximum parking stall gradient at 5 percent. Accessibility parking stall grades shall be constructed per the, current adopted California. Building Code. 13. The applicant .-shall provide a grading -agreement and' grading bond for all cut and fill combined exceeding 5,000 cubic yards prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading agreement and bond shall be approved by the City Engineer, or -his designee. 14. The final grading and drainage plan shall show existing topography a minimum of 100-feet beyond project boundary. 15. This project shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the current adopted California Building. Code. www.CRyofRC.us Printed; 12110/2025 Page 17 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, 'SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni -9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD.AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appro.priateness,'DevelopmentAgreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 16. Grading Inspections: a) Prior to the start of grading operations the owner and grading contractor shall request a pre -grading meeting. The meeting shall be attended by the project owner/representative, the grading contractor and the Building Inspector to discuss about grading requirements and preventive measures, etc. If a pre -grading meeting is not held within 24 hours from the start of grading operations, the grading permit may be subject to suspension by the Building Inspector; b) The grading contractor shall call. into the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Department at least 1 working day in advance to request the following grading inspections prior to continuing grading operations: i) The bottom of the over -excavation; 1i) Completion of Rough Grading, prior to issuance of the building permit; iii) At the completion of Rough Grading, the grading contractor or owner shall submit to the Permit Technicians (Engineering Services Department Front Counter) an original and a copy of the Pad !I Certifications to be prepared by and properly wet signed and sealed by the Civil Engineer and Soils I Engineer of Record; iv) The rough grading certificates and the compaction reports will be reviewed by the Associate Engineer or a designated person and approved prior to .the issuance of a building permit. 17. All roof drainage flowing, to the public right of way (Vineyard Avenue and Baker Street) must drain under the sidewalk through a parkway culvert approved by the Engineering Department. This shall .be shown on both the grading and drainage plan and Engineering Services Department required plans. 18. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the permitted grading plan (or architectural site plan) set shall show in each, of the typical sections and the plan view show how the separations between the building exterior and exterior ground surface meet the requirements of Sections CBC 1804.3/CRC R401.3, CBC2304.11.2.2/CRC .R317.1(2) and CBC2512.1.2/CRC R703.6.2.1 of the current adopted California Building Code/Residential Code. 19. Prior to approval of the project -specific storm water quality management plan, the applicant shall submit to� the City Engineer, or his designee, a precise grading plan showing the location and elevations of existing topographical features, and showing the location and proposed elevations of proposed structuresand drainage of the site. 20. A drainage study showing a 100-year, AMC 3 design storm event for on -site drainage shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Services Department for review and approval for on -site. storm water drainage prior to issuance of a grading permit. The plan and report shall contain water surface - profile gradient calculations for all storm drain pipes 12-inches and larger in diameter. All reports shall be wet signed and sealed by the Engineer of Record. In addition, the project specific drainage study shall provide inlet calculations showing the proper sizing of the water quality management- plan 'storm water flows into the proposed structural storm water treatment devices. 21. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to acquire any required off -site drainage easements prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 22. Private sewer, water, and storm drain improvements will be designed per the latest adopted California Plumbing Code. Private storm drain improvements shall be shown on the grading and drainage plan. www.CityofRC.us Printed: 12I1012025 Page 18.0€ 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR- Pannatoni 9th &Vineyard Location: 3830 VINEYARD AVE­ 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT: Grading Section Stand ard'Conditions.of Approval 23. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or final sign off by the Building Inspector the engineer of record shall certify the functionality of the storm water quality management plan (WQMP) storm watertreatment devices and best management practices (BMP). 24. Reciprocal access- easements for all parcels and maintenance agreements ensuring joint maintenance of all storm, water quality structural/treatment devices and best management practices (BMP) as provided for in the project's Storm Water Quality Management Plan, shall be provided for by CC &R's or deeds and shall be recorded prior to the approval of the Water Quality Management Plan. Said CC &R's and/or deeds shall be included in the project site specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) document prior to approval of the WQMP document and recording of the Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan. 25. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for non-residential projects the applicant shall show on the electrical plans and the permitted grading plan set the location for a future installation of an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station/parking area per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.3. 26. Prior 'to the issuance of a Grading Permit the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Agreement of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Services Department and recorded with the County Recorder's Office. 27. Prior to issuance -of a Grading Permit the applicant shall obtain a Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID). The WDID number shall also be shown on the WQMP Site and Drainage Plan document. 28. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the applicant shall show on the site plan and .the permitted grading plan set for non-residential projects the designated parking for clean air vehicles per the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code, section 5.106.5.2. 29. The applicant shall, provide a copy of a completed EPA Form 7520-16 (Inventory of Injection Wells) for each underground infiltration device, with the Facility ID Number assigned, to the Engineering Services Department prior to issuance of the Grading Permit and/or approval of the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan. A copy of EPA Form 1520-16 shall be scanned and pasted onto the permitted grading plan set, and a copy of said form shall be included in the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan_ 30. The land owner shall provide an inspection report by a qualified person/company on a biennial basis for the Class V Injection Wells/underground infiltration chambers to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis all best management practices (BMP"s) as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. www.cftyoFRc.us printed: 'f219t1l2U25 Page 19 of.22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DR02019-00756, ;DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.- Gradingg Section Standard Conditions of Approval 31. The land owner shall provide an inspection report on a biennial basis for the structural storm water treatment devices, commonly referred to as BMPs, to the City of Rancho Cucamonga Environmental Program Manager. The land owner shall maintain on a regular basis as described in the Storm Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the subject project. All costs associated with the underground infiltration chamber are the responsibility of the land owner. 32. A final project -specific Storm Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be approved by the City Engineer, or his designee, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga's "Memorandum of Storm Water Quality Management Plan" shall be recorded 'prior to the issuance. of a grading permit or any building permit. 33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and approval of the project specific water quality management plan all private storm water catch basin inlets shall include insert filters to capture those pollutants of concern as. addressed in the in the final project -specific water quality management plan (WQMP). At a minimum catch basin insert filters to capture trash and other floating debris. All catch basin insert filters 11 shall be maintained on a regular basis as described in the "Inspection and Maintenance Responsibility for Post Construction 8MP" section of the final project -specific water quality management plan. 34. Prior to issuance of a grading permit the Final Project -Specific Water Quality Management Plan shall include a completed copy of "Worksheet H. Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Worksheet" located in Appendix D "Section Vll -- Infiltration Rate Evaluation Protocol and Factor of Safety Recommendations, ..." of the San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water Quality Management Plans. The infiltration study shall include the Soil Engineer's recommendations for Appendix D, Table VI1.3: Suitability Assessment Related Considerations for Infiltration Facility Safety (; Factors". 35. Prior to approval of the final project -specific water quality management plan the applicant shall have a soils engineer prepare a project -specific infiltration study for the project for the purposes of storm water quality treatment. The infiltration study and recommendations shall follow the guidelines in the current adopted "San Bernardino County Technical Guidance Document for Water- Quality'Management:Plans" . 36. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Official, or his designee, the civil engineer of record shall, file a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Post Construction Storm Water Treatment Devices As -Built Certificate with ,the City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Services. Qepartment. www.cityofRC.us Printed. 1211012D25 Page 20 of 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20173 Project Name: EDR - Panhatoni 9th & Vineyard Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement,. Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. - Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 37. GROUND WATER PROTECTION: Prior to approval of the. final project specific water quality management plan (WQMP.), the WQ€IIfP document shall meet the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board Order No, R8-2010-0036 (NPDES No. CAS 618036), the San Bernardino County Municipal Separate Storm Sewers Separation (MS4) Permit reads: Section XI.D(Water Quality Management PIan Requirern.ents).8(Groundwater Protection): Treatment Control BMPs utilizing infiltration [exclusive of incidental infiltration and •BMPs not designed to primarily function as infiltration devices (such as grassy swales, detention- .basins, vegetated buffer strips, constructed wetlands, etc.)] must comply with the following minimum requirements to protect groundwater: ` a. Use of structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of ground water•quaiity objectives. b. Source control and pollution prevention control BMPs shall be implemented to protect groundwater quality. The need' for pre-treatment BMPs such as sedimentation or filtration should be evaluated prior to infiltration. c. Adequate pretreatment of - runoff prior to infiltration shall be required in gas stations and large commercial parking lots. (NOTE: The State Water Quality Control Board defines a large commercial parking lot as `100,000 sq. ft. -or more of -commercial development to include parking.•lot (with 100 or more vehicle traffics), OR, by means of 5,000sgft or more of allowable space designated for parking purposes'). d. Unless adequate pre-treatment _ of runoff is provided prior to infiltration structural infiltration treatment BMPs must not be .used 'for areas of industrial or light industrial activity{77), areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or more daily traffic); car washes; fleet storage areas; nurseries; or any other high threat to water quality land uses or activities. e. Class V injection wells or dry wells must not be placed in areas subject to vehicular{78} repair or maintenance activities(79), such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler repair shop) -or any facility that does any vehicular repair work. f. Structural infiltration BMP treatment shall not, be used at sites that are known to have soil and groundwater contamination. g. Structural infiltration treatment BMPs shall be located at least 100 feet horizontally from any water supply wells. h. The vertical distance from the bottom of any infiltration structural treatment BMP to the historic high groundwater mark shall be at least 10 feet, Where the groundwater basins do not support beneficial uses, this vertical distance criteria may be reduced, provided groundwater quality is maintained. L Structural infiltration. treatment BMPs shall not cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Water Code Section 13050. www.cityofRC.us Printed: 12110I2025 Page 21 or 22 Project #: DRC2019-00742 DRC2019-00756, DRC2019-00854, DRC2022-00266, SUBTPM20373 Project Name:, EDR - Pannatoni 9th & Vineyard_ Location: 8830 VINEYARD AVE - 020727193-0000 Project Type: Design Review Certificate of Appropriateness, Development Agreement, Notice of Filing Permit, Tentative Parcel Map ALL OF TIME FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. Grading Section Standard Conditions of Approval 38. NONRESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES — CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS. CODE — Prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shaill comply with Section 5.106.10 (Grading and paving) of the current adopted California Green Building Standards Code: Construction plans shall indicate how site grading or a drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings. Examples of methods to manage surface water include, but are not limited.to, the -following: 1. Swales. 2. Water collection and disposal systems. 3. French drains. 4. Water retention gardens. 5. Other water measures which keep surface water away from buildings and aid, in groundwater recharge. Exception: Additions and alterations not altering the drainage path. www.CityoRC.us Printed: 9211012025 Page 22 oi.22